ARTICLE IN PRESS

Waste Management xxx (2005) xxx–xxx

www.elsevier.com/locate/wasman

Redesigning a collection system for ‘‘small’’ consumer electronics

Frans W. Melissen *

Department of Production Systems Design, Faculty of Management and Organization, University of Groningen, P.O. Box 800,
9700 AV Groningen, The Netherlands

Accepted 2 August 2005

Abstract

This paper establishes that the collection system within the recycling scheme for consumer electronics in the Netherlands has not been
entirely successful in convincing consumers to hand in their used appliances by means of dedicated collection routes. Particularly regard-
ing small appliances, consumers are persisting in their habit of discarding their appliances by means of the refuse bag/bin for regular
household waste. Therefore, the current collection system has been unable to direct consumer behavior in the desired direction. Conse-
quently, the layout of the current system is reviewed and redesigned in order to tackle this problem. This design effort applies the Triad
model (behavioral model) in the analysis stage and the Morphological Chart method (design tool) in the synthesis stage, and results in a
concrete proposal for a new system. Finally, the applicability of this design approach beyond the specific circumstances of the case study
presented in this paper is discussed. This case represents only one example of the broader, worldwide challenge to design appropriate
collection systems to direct consumer behavior in desired directions. It is argued that the approach presented in this paper could be a
valuable contribution to research dealing with this challenge.
Ó 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction paper shows in more detail, consumers are persisting in

A Dutch consumer, who wants to switch from shaving
by means of an electric razor to shaving by hand, can face
a dilemma if he wants to hand in his old appliance for envi-
ronmentally sound treatment. If he tries to return it to the
store where he bought it, he will find that the retailer will
only accept the old razor if he buys a new one. Obviously,
for someone that wants to switch to shaving by hand, this
is not an inviting option. The only other environmentally
sound disposal option available often involves driving
(frequently quite a fair distance) to, and paying a fee at,
the local municipal waste yard. Not surprisingly, many
consumers ultimately decide to dispose of their old appli-
ances by means of the refuse bag/bin for regular household
waste.
This example illustrates a major shortcoming of the cur-
rent collection system within the recycling scheme for con-
sumer electronics in the Netherlands. As Section 3 of this
*
Tel.: +31 50 363 3624; fax: +31 50 363 2032.
E-mail address: f.w.melissen@rug.nl.
their habit of discarding small consumer electronics, such
as razors, mixers, electric toothbrushes and clock radios,
by means of the refuse bag/bin for regular household
waste. This type of behavior results in the unwanted disper-
sion of damaging substances within these products, such as
heavy metals, to the environment.
A number of authors (Salhofer and Isaac, 2002; Morris-
sey and Browne, 2003; Metin et al., 2003) have indicated
the importance of accounting for consumer behavior and
participation in setting up recycling schemes. As Williams
and Taylor (2004) put it, ‘‘implementing new schemes to in-
crease recycling rates is only one part of the problem:
engaging the public to participate effectively is of major
concern’’. This paper takes these observations to heart
and presents a case study with respect to the establishment
of an adequate collection system (Garcés et al., 2002) with-
in a recycling scheme. The particular case described in this
paper refers to the recycling scheme mentioned above that
has been established in light of the objective of the Dutch
government to enforce a leak proof disposal structure for
consumer electronics. The purpose of this study is to review

0956-053X/$ - see front matter Ó 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2005.08.005
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
2 F.W. Melissen / Waste Management xxx (2005) xxx–xxx
the current collection system and to redesign this system.
The objective of this design effort is to develop a collection
system for small consumer electronics that minimizes the
chances of environmentally damaging behavior by con-
sumers, such as the behavior described in the example
above.
As is discussed in the final section, the case study pre-
sented in this paper represents only one example of the
broader challenge facing waste managers all over the
world, to design appropriate waste collection systems
(Diaz, 2004). Therefore, the final section of this paper
explicitly focuses on the applicability of the design ap-
proach presented in this paper for other product categories
and countries, and how this approach could contribute to
dealing with this broader challenge.
The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. The
following section provides a brief history and description
of the recycling scheme and enclosed collection system
for consumer electronics in the Netherlands. Section 3
analyses the strengths and weaknesses of the current
scheme and establishes the need for redesigning the collec-
tion system for small appliances. This redesign effort is out-
lined in Section 4. Finally, Section 5 discusses the outcome
of this redesign effort, and the generic applicability of the
applied design approach.
2. The recycling scheme for consumer electronics in the
Netherlands
The amount of waste (in weight) resulting from disposed
consumer electronics is relatively small in comparison to
some other waste categories. In 1998, consumers in the
Netherlands disposed of some 134 million kg of consumer
electronics, whereas the amount of waste resulting from
disposed paper, glass and cardboard was 2800 million kg
(CREM, 1999). However, inadequate handling of dis-
carded consumer electronics can lead to the dispersion of
bromide containing flame-retardants, a wide range of hea-
vy metals, asbestos and PCBs to the environment (Staats-
blad 238, 1998; Ansems and van Gijlswijk, 2002;
Huisman, 2003).
Countering the unwanted dispersion of these damaging
substances requires separate collection and subsequent
environmentally sound treatment of consumer electronics.
Therefore, in 1998, the Dutch government introduced the
Disposal of White and Brown Goods Decree (Staatsblad
238, 1998). The general objective of this Decree was to en-
force a leak proof disposal structure for consumer electron-
ics, which should result in the reuse of as many products
and materials as possible and disposal of the wastes in such
a way that the associated environmental risks are mini-
mized. Some of the key elements of this Decree are (based
on Staatsblad 238 (1998)):
 It is prohibited to incinerate consumer electronics that
have been collected separately in regular (household)
waste incineration facilities.
 When supplying a new product, suppliers shall take
back, free of charge, a similar product that is discarded
after use and that is offered to them.
 Local authorities shall provide for a place (municipal
storage facility) within the municipality where suppliers
(retailers) and consumers can hand in consumer
electronics.
 Manufacturers or importers shall take back products
that have been collected by municipalities (or suppli-
ers/retailers) and shall dispose of those products in an
environmentally sound way (established in written
agreements with the Dutch government).
 Manufacturers or importers shall finance the cycle
deficit.
Soon after the Decree came into effect, manufacturers
and importers of consumer electronics in the Netherlands
established a collective disposal structure that was ap-
proved by the Dutch government. With respect to the col-
lection system within this disposal structure, this amounts
to the following situation in practice. Consumers have to
pay a disposal levy whenever they buy a product that
comes under the Disposal of White and Brown Goods De-
cree, with the exception of information technology (IT)
equipment. They can dispose of their used consumer elec-
tronics in two ways:
 When purchasing a similar new product, they can offer
the used product to the retailer or supplier free of
charge. Retailers and suppliers are obliged to accept
these products and subsequently hand them over to
the municipality or the organization that represents
the manufacturers/importers, and that performs their
duties, established in the Decree, on their behalf.
 Consumers can hand over their used products to the
local waste authority. Some municipalities offer curbside
collection of these products, but the vast majority of
municipalities only offer a so-called ‘‘bring-facility’’
(e.g., a municipal waste yard), where consumers can
hand in their used products themselves. Some munici-
palities even charge their townsmen for this service.
The situation described above has been in place since
1998. The Dutch government and the organization repre-
senting manufacturers and importers have applied promo-
tional campaigns, which are discussed in more detail in
Section 4, as a means to persuade consumers to make use
of this dedicated collection system.
3. Strengths and weaknesses of the current recycling scheme
To provide an accurate representation of the main
strengths and weaknesses of the current disposal structure
for consumer electronics in the Netherlands, especially of
the current collection system, it is important to discrimi-
nate between specific categories of consumer electronics.
With respect to the treatment of actually collected prod-
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
F.W. Melissen / Waste Management xxx (2005) xxx–xxx
ucts, the current disposal structure has been functioning
better for big appliances than for small appliances. For in-
stance, for the product categories of cold storage and freez-
ing (e.g., refrigerator), big white goods (e.g., washing
machines), and TVs, the branch organization of manufac-
turers and importers reported recovery percentages of 91.7,
77, and 91.7, respectively, for 2002 (Stichting NVMP,
2003). For the fourth product category that this branch
organization established, other white and brown goods
(OWEB), which is mostly made up of smaller appliances,
a recovery percentage of 64.9 was reported (Stichting
NVMP, 2003).
However, the differences in performance of the current
disposal structure for specific product categories are even
more significant with respect to the collection results. The
collection system seems to be functioning properly for big
appliances, i.e., cold storage and freezing, big white goods
and TVs (Melissen, 2003). According to the latest official
monitoring report (De Straat Milieu-adviseurs, 2002),
sanctioned by the Dutch government, for these product
categories the percentage of products not collected sepa-
rately was below 10% in 2001. In 2002, the latest reliable
figures available, the collected amounts for these product
categories were similar to 2001 (Stichting NVMP, 2003).
However, for the OWEB category the monitoring report
mentioned above indicates that the percentage of products
not collected separately was significantly higher, i.e., 15–
40% (De Straat Milieu-adviseurs, 2002). WhatÕs more, gi-
ven the fact that these figures have been based on ques-
tionnaires, they should certainly be considered to
constitute an ‘‘optimistic’’ estimate of the actual collection
rate, because consumers typically show a tendency to
overestimate the number of products that they have
handed in for separate collection (Klompers et al.,
1997). In fact, a sorting analysis of household waste, car-
ried out in 2003 by Eureco BV (Afval Overleg Orgaan,
2004), seems to confirm that these figures are indeed a
very optimistic estimate of the actual collection rate.
The sorting analysis showed that household waste in the
Netherlands in 2003 contained about 24 million kg of
consumer electronics and roughly half of this total, 12
million kg, originates from small appliances (Afval Over-
leg Orgaan, 2004). Comparing this amount to the total
amount of discarded small consumer electronics, esti-
mated at 20 million kg (VROM, 2004), results in an esti-
mate of the amount of products not collected separately,
for this specific product category, of over 50%.
These results show that the collection system for con-
sumer electronics has been functioning a lot better for rel-
atively big appliances, such as refrigerators and TVs, than
for relatively small appliances, such as shavers, mixers, mo-
bile telephones and electric toothbrushes. Consumers are
supposed to dispose of their used small consumer electron-
ics by handing them over to the municipality or retailers.
However, it is apparent that consumers are persisting in
their habit of discarding small appliances by means of the
refuse bag/bin for regular household waste.
3
Countering the problems described above requires,
alongside possible improvements in the recovery processes,
at least the separate collection of these small appliances to
make sure that they can actually end up in recovery pro-
cesses. Therefore, the layout of the current collection sys-
tem within the disposal structure for consumer electronics
needs to be analyzed and, based on the outcome of this
analysis, redesigned with respect to this specific product
category.
4. Analyzing and redesigning the collection system
This section outlines how the collection system for small
consumer electronics can be redesigned to ensure higher
collection rates for this particular product category. This
redesign effort has been subdivided in three generic stages:
(1) analysis, (2) synthesis, and (3) evaluation (Jones, 1981,
1984). Section 4.1 analyses the layout of the current collec-
tion system and establishes the ‘‘essential aspects that must
be incorporated’’ (Cross, 1994) in a redesigned system by
applying the Triad model (behavioral model). Subse-
quently, Section 4.2 generates specific design alternatives
for this redesigned collection system, applying the Morpho-
logical Chart method as a design tool. Finally, these design
alternatives are evaluated in Section 4.3. Fig. 1 presents a
schematic overview of the applied design approach.
4.1. Analysis
The design effort presented in this paper applies a spe-
cific psychological model as an analysis tool, the so-called
Triad model (Poiesz, 1999). Therefore, Section 4.1.1 first
introduces this model, before Section 4.2.2 describes the
application of this model in the analysis stage.
4.1.1. Determinants of disposal behavior and the Triad model
The purpose of redesigning the current collection system
is to establish a new system that ensures higher collection
rates. Therefore, this new system needs to incorporate
characteristics that decrease the chances of consumers
ANALYSIS
Triad model
essential aspects
SYNTHESIS
Morphological Chart
design alternatives
EVALUATION
final design
Fig. 1. Schematic overview of the applied design approach.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
4 F.W. Melissen / Waste Management xxx (2005) xxx–xxx
persisting in their habit of disposing of their used products
by means of the refuse bag/bin for regular household
waste, and that increase the chances of consumers handing
in their used products at dedicated collection points. Con-
sequently, establishing those characteristics requires
insight into the determinants of disposal behavior of
consumers.
Quite a number of authors have dedicated research ef-
forts to establishing the determinants of disposal behavior,
or recycling (as it is commonly referred to in literature).
One of the most important conclusions that can be derived
from recent literature is that attitudinal/motivational vari-
ables can explain a significant, but only limited, amount of
the variance in actual behavior (Poortinga et al., 2004). In
trying to explain and predict disposal behavior/recycling, it
is important to also include non-motivational variables
(Gatersleben et al., 2002; Guerin et al., 2001; Melissen,
2003). A review of recent literature indicates that four main
classes of determinants, which need to be included in
explaining and predicting disposal behavior/recycling, can
be distinguished. These classes relate to: (1) attitudinal/
motivational aspects; (2) situational context, barriers, and
opportunities; (3) (personal) capabilities and awareness;
and (4) habits and routines (Poortinga et al., 2004; Melis-
sen, 2003; Gatersleben et al., 2002; Nordlund and Garvill,
2002; Stern, 2000). As indicated by Stern (2000), ‘‘the field
now needs synthetic theories or models’’ that cover aspects
from all four classes of determinants and their interaction.
This paper applies such a synthetic model as a tool to as-
sist in analyzing and redesigning the current collection sys-
tem for small consumer electronics. The model that is
applied is the Triad model by Poiesz (1999). The Triad
model incorporates all four classes of determinants men-
tioned above and their interactions. Furthermore, the mul-
tiplicative nature of the model implies that ‘‘in comparison
to other models, it makes high demands on measures that
are aimed at influencing behavior’’ (Poiesz, 1999). There-
fore, applying this model in an effort to redesign a collec-
tion system implies that all ‘‘essential aspects that must
be incorporated’’ (Cross, 1994) actually need to be incorpo-
rated for a specific redesigned system to be deemed appro-
priate. Consequently, applying this model constitutes an
important means to ensure an effective redesign of the cur-
rent collection system. For a more detailed discussion on
the Triad model and the relationships between the included
determinants, see the work by De Heer and Poiesz (1998),
Melissen (2003), Morel et al. (1997), Poiesz (1999) and
Poiesz and Robben (1996).
The Triad model embraces the basic premise that for
any person to engage in behavior X, the same set of three
conditions needs to be satisfied. That person needs to: (1)
be motivated; (2) have the capacity; and (3) have the
opportunity, to engage in behavior X.
Motivation (M) is defined as: To what extent does the
person wish to attain a certain goal, or to what extent is
the person interested in engaging in behavior X. Motiva-
tion refers to existing attitudes as well as the appeal of re-
wards and results that are brought about by engaging in
behavior X. Capacity (C) is defined as: To what extent does
the person have the qualities, skills and instruments at his/
her disposal to engage in behavior X. Capacity refers to
physical, mental (knowledge) and financial capacity, and
tools and aids available to that person. Opportunity (O) is
defined as: To what extent do the circumstances beyond
the control of the person favor or hinder behavior X.
Opportunity refers to physical, material, weather, social
and societal circumstances, and the available time frame.
Explaining and predicting behavior requires estimating
the values for these three Triad factors, M, C and O, (on
a scale from 0.0 to 1.0) by a group of experts. A numerical
indication of the probability of behavior X is then deter-
mined by the T-score, which is determined by multiplying
the scores for the three separate Triad factors. A higher
T-score relates to a higher probability. However, in design-
ing behavioral measures it is important to account for the
fact that the effectiveness of measures is not so much deter-
mined by the effect on the absolute T-score for behavior X,
but by the effect on relative T-scores of both the targeted
behavior (X) and other behavioral alternatives available
to that person. A comparison of the T-scores for all behav-
ioral alternatives constitutes the best indication of which
alternative is the most likely to occur. Another important
note with respect to applying the Triad model relates to
the existence of balancing mechanisms. These balancing
mechanisms refer to the way in which Triad factors can
stimulate and hinder each other in the course of time
(i.e., accounting for habits and routines, the fourth main
class of determinants). For a more detailed discussion on
these and other characteristics of the Triad model, see
Poiesz (1999) and Melissen (2003).
4.1.2. Triad analysis of the current collection system
At this point, it is important to note that a Triad anal-
ysis of the current collection system for small consumer
electronics needs to address two main behavioral alterna-
tives. First of all, the targeted, or desirable, behavior of
handing in used products at dedicated collection points.
And secondly, the undesirable behavioral alternative of
disposing of used products by means of the refuse bag/
bin for regular household waste. As indicated in Section
3, the current collection system and promotional cam-
paigns linked with this system have not been able to dis-
courage consumers from persisting in this particular
undesirable behavior. This subsection aims to establish
the reasons behind this tendency of consumers in order
to establish the essential aspects that must be incorporated
in the redesigned system to break off this ‘‘environmentally
damaging habit’’ (Van Meegeren, 1997). The Triad analysis
that establishes these aspects has also been based on a
study of the results of specific dedicated research pro-
jects/pilot projects (Klompers et al., 1997; De Straat Mili-
eu-adviseurs, 1999; RIVM/CBS, 2001) and discussions
with a group of experts, consisting of representatives from
the Dutch government, the consumer electronics industry,
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
F.W. Melissen / Waste Management xxx (2005) xxx–xxx
waste management companies, and scientific experts in the
field of human behavior. The results of this analysis can be
summarized as follows.
First of all, with respect to the opportunity to engage in
the desirable behavioral alternative (Od), it is important to
note that consumers need to invest time, effort, and some-
times even money to engage in this behavior. Transporting
the used product to a municipal waste yard can be quite
time consuming and could require consumers to use a car
and/or sometimes even to pay a fee. The second option
available to consumers was discussed in the example de-
scribed at the start of this paper. It is clear from that exam-
ple that this option can present significant barriers for
consumers to hand in their used products. Even more so,
if one considers the fact that handing over the old product
to a retailer needs to take place at the same time that a new
product is bought. This means that this option is no longer
available to consumers that have already bought a new
product. Unfortunately, a good deal of small consumer
electronics purchases can be characterized as unplanned
and ‘‘spur of the moment.’’ Therefore, all the above leads
to the conclusion that the current collection system, at
the very least, does not favor the desirable behavioral alter-
native, and the value for Od can be estimated as low.
Secondly, with respect to the capacity to engage in the
desirable behavioral alternative (Cd) the promotional cam-
paigns in recent years by the Dutch government and the
organization that represents manufacturers/importers de-
serve mentioning here. The central message of the cam-
paigns has been: ‘‘Without you, there is nothing to
recycle!’’ This type of campaign can be characterized as a
general appeal to consumers to change their behavior with-
out specifying the exact behavior that is desired from them
and without specifying the opportunities and advantages
involved with this behavior. In fact, at this point in time,
a number of consumers are not even aware of the specific
collection routes that are available to them in disposing
of their used small consumer electronics (Melissen, 2003).
Therefore, the value for Cd can be estimated as low.
Finally, with respect to motivation to engage in the desir-
able behavioral alternative (Md) it is important to mention
that general interest of Dutch consumers in environmental
issues and environmental awareness have been lower than
they were before (RIVM/CBS, 2001). This observation im-
plies that the intrinsic motivation of consumers to invest
time, money and effort in environmentally responsible
behavior can be estimated as lower than before. WhatÕs
more, the current collection system incorporates no specific
extrinsic rewards and/or punishments to motivate/discour-
age consumers with respect to desirable/undesirable behav-
ior. In fact, the barriers described above, with respect to
opportunities, seem to suggest that the current system actu-
ally discourages desirable behavior. Finally, the low values
for Od and Cd indicate that the current situation amounts
to a high probability of the materialization of the so-called
‘‘secondary balance effect’’ (Melissen, 2003; Poiesz, 1999), a
balancing mechanism that implies that motivation levels
5
have a tendency to adjust to low values for opportunity
and capacity if alternative courses of action (with higher
values for Od and Cd) prove unavailable. Considering all
the above, the conclusion must be that the value for Md
can be estimated as low.
A similar analysis regarding opportunity, capacity and
motivation to engage in the undesirable behavioral alterna-
tive (Ou, Cu, and Mu) results in a very different outcome.
Disposing of used small consumer electronics by means
of the refuse bag/bin is not only very convenient (high value
for Ou) and known to all consumers (high value for Cu),
this type of behavior results in no immediate negative con-
sequences for the consumers involved. Moreover, it relieves
the consumer of the burden of either having to retain the
obsolete product or to invest time, effort and money to
hand it in at a dedicated collection point. Therefore, it
can be concluded that this behavior would seem rather
attractive to many consumers (high value for Mu).
Summarizing the above amounts to a very clear-cut sit-
uation. Whereas the values for the Triad factors for the
desirable behavioral alternative can all be estimated as
low, the values for the Triad factors for the undesirable
alternative can all be estimated as high. Moreover, in this
particular situation, a further numerical specification of
the values for the six factors involved is superfluous. This
notion can be illustrated by the following example. Con-
sider the situation in which Od, Cd, and Md are all esti-
mated as 0.3 (moderately low), and Ou, Cu and Mu as
0.7 (moderately high). This results in T-scores of 0.027
and 0.343, respectively. Also consider the situation in
which the Triad factors are estimated as 0.1 and 0.9,
respectively (extremely low versus extremely high). Then,
the resulting T-scores are 0.001 and 0.729, respectively.
Even though the absolute T-scores for both situations are
clearly different, the comparison of the scores for both
behavioral alternatives within each situation results in
identical conclusions: the relative T-score for the undesir-
able alternative is significantly higher than the relative T-
score for the desirable alternative, making the undesirable
behavior much more likely to occur.
Based on this Triad analysis of the current collection
system, it is not at all surprising that collection rates are
low and that consumers are persisting in disposing of their
used small consumer electronics by means of the refuse
bag/bin. Consequently, an effective redesign for the collec-
tion system needs to incorporate characteristics that have
such an effect on the Triad factors that they can swing
the advantage in favor of the desirable behavioral alterna-
tive. In order to increase collection rates, the redesigned
collection system needs to result in a higher T-score for this
type of behavior (in the course of time) than the T-score for
the undesirable alternative.
4.2. Synthesis
As pointed out by Poiesz (1999), one of the main causes
for behavioral measures to prove ineffective in practice is
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
6 F.W. Melissen / Waste Management xxx (2005) xxx–xxx
‘‘thinking in terms of goals instead of the behavior that
people have to engage in to achieve that goal.’’ Therefore,
it is important to note that, while the ultimate goal to rede-
sign the current collection system is to enhance the collec-
tion rates for small consumer electronics, this goal can only
be achieved by changing the behavior of consumers. Con-
sequently, the first step of the synthesis stage is to define
the design objective in terms of the behavior change that
needs to be achieved. As indicated before, this can only
be achieved by addressing all behavioral alternatives.
Therefore, for this study, all this boils down to defining
the design objective as follows: encouraging the desirable
behavioral alternative of disposing of used products by
means of dedicated collection routes, and discouraging
the undesirable alternative of disposal by means of the re-
fuse bag/bin.
Establishing these two main functions constitutes the
first step in a so-called Function Analysis (Cross, 1994),
which is followed by establishing all relevant sub-functions
that need to be incorporated in the ultimate design alterna-
tives generated in the synthesis stage. The latter is also the
first stage of the Morphological Chart method (Cross,
1994), a well-known design tool that is applied in this sub-
section to generate all relevant design alternatives for a
redesigned collection system for small consumer electron-
ics. Fig. 2 presents a schematic overview of the various
stages in applying this design tool. The effectuation of these
stages for this particular design effort is the topic of the fol-
lowing three subsections.
4.2.1. Establishing the list of sub-functions
The design objective mentioned above can be translated
into Triad terms as follows: enhancing the T-score for the
desirable behavioral alternative and reducing the T-score
for the undesirable behavioral alternative. The fact that
these T-scores are based on multiplying the three Triad fac-
tors for each alternative implies that effective design alter-
natives need to account for all of these Triad factors
simultaneously in order to prevent the occurrence of
sub-functions sub-solutions
* * * *
* * * *
required
function(s) * * * *
* * * *
* * * *
a b c manufacturers/importers implies that feasibility and
design alternatives
Fig. 2. Schematic overview of the stages of the Morphological Chart
method.
destructive balancing mechanisms. The Triad analysis pre-
sented in the previous section substantiates the importance
of this notion even further, because the values for the Triad
factors for the desirable alternative are currently all esti-
mated as low, and those for the undesirable alternative as
high. Therefore, to enhance the chances of achieving the
design objective, the collection system to be designed needs
to enhance the values for Od, Cd, and Md, and reduce the
values for Ou, Cu, and Mu. In terms of the first stage of the
Morphological Chart method, these six sub-functions con-
stitute the ‘‘essential aspects that must be incorporated’’
(Cross, 1994) in the collection system to be designed: the
list of sub-functions.
4.2.2. Generating possible sub-solutions
The second stage of the Morphological Chart method
involves generating possible sub-solutions, ‘‘the means by
which it might be achieved’’ (Cross, 1994), for each of
the sub-functions. This stage of a design effort can be char-
acterized as a mixture of creativity and reordering existing
elements. The study described in this paper availed itself of
the creativity of the people involved in the design effort, lit-
erature review, an analysis of a number of pilot projects
with respect to collection systems, and group discussions
with stake-holders (among others, representatives of man-
ufacturers/importers and the Dutch government). Due to
the limited space available here, it is impossible to include
a complete description of all sub-solutions that were gener-
ated in this stage of the design effort. However, Table 1
provides some examples of the sub-solutions that were gen-
erated for each of the six sub-functions.
4.2.3. Generating relevant design alternatives
Theoretically, generating all possible design alternatives
involves listing all sub-functions and all possible sub-solu-
tions for each of these sub-functions in one grid. The com-
plete range of design alternatives then consists of the
collection of ‘‘combinations made up by selecting one
sub-solution at a time from each row’’ (Cross, 1994). How-
ever, in the specific design effort described here this would
result in at least 10,500 design alternatives (Melissen, 2003)
to be included in the evaluation stage. Obviously, it would
* prove to be practically impossible to include all theoreti-
cally possible alternatives. Therefore, this stage requires
* some sort of selection process to determine the set of design
* alternatives that are relevant to be included in the evalua-
tion stage.
* A collection system is designed to influence consumer
*
behavior and represents mostly intangible societal provi-
sions. Furthermore, the involvement of society as a whole
(consumers), the Dutch government, municipalities, and
acceptability of possible solutions is not just dependent
upon the opinion of one problem-owner. Therefore, the
selection process needs to simultaneously account for polit-
ical deliberations, economic, ethical, social, societal and le-
gal boundaries, and so on. Obviously, pilot projects that
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

F.W. Melissen / Waste Management xxx (2005) xxx–xxx 7

Table 1
Examples of sub-solutions generated for each of the six sub-functions
Sub-function Examples of possible sub-solutions
Enhance Od Street containers; curb side collection; collection points at schools, community centers, sports centers, retailers, supermarkets;
distribution of carrier bags or mini-containers for storage and transport; more convenient opening hours of waste yards
Enhance Cd Promotional campaigns on TV and radio or by means of posters, leaflets, advertisements, direct mail; (local) informational meetings;
leaflets, folders, instructions handed to consumers at the moment of purchase; education at schools
Enhance Md Regulations; positive feedback; group rewards, e.g., lower taxes; individual rewards, e.g., cash discounts, monetary compensation,
tangible rewards, lottery tickets; deposit money scheme; weight-based charging system for regular household waste
Reduce Ou Direct feedback; monitoring/inspection and returning/fines
Reduce Cu Fines and invoices; direct feedback; educational campaigns
Reduce Mu Group based (additional) taxes, reprimands, fines, invoices; individual reprimands, fines, invoices; weight-based charging system for
regular household waste

have already been carried out in recent years (within that
same set of boundaries) can serve as one of the reference
points for adjudicating the feasibility and acceptability of
specific combinations of sub-solutions. For a detailed
description of those pilot projects, see the work by Melissen
(2003).
Other criteria that can be used during this selection pro-
cess relate to more general performance criteria, such as
effectiveness and efficiency, and the combinability of spe-
cific sub-solutions. Obviously, a detailed evaluation, for in-
stance based on the costs involved with a specific
combination, goes beyond the scope of this stage of the de-
sign process. However, a rough estimate of the effects of a
specific combination can be quite helpful in determining
which alternatives do and which do not need to be included
in the evaluation stage.
Considering all of the above, an ‘‘intuitive [. . .] search of
the [Morphological] chart’’ (Cross, 1994) can be used to
determine the most efficacious set of design alternatives
to be included in the next stage of the design process.
For the design effort described in this paper, this search re-
sulted in a final set of three design alternatives for a collec-
tion system. The main characteristics of these design
alternatives are as follows.
Alternative 1 involves situating collection points for
small consumer electronics at supermarkets, analogous to
the already existing collection points for ‘‘deposit money’’
bottles. Special carrier bags are distributed to consumers
to store and transport appliances. Introducing a lottery
based reward system, supported by promotional cam-
paigns that explain and emphasize the rewards and in-
creased convenience of the ‘‘new’’ collection route,
stimulates handing in used appliances. Finally, local taxes
are adjusted, based on the amount of small consumer elec-
tronics that are detected in representative samples of regu-
lar household waste from a specific municipality, and direct
feedback is provided to consumers about the environmen-
tal and financial consequences of their disposal behavior.
Alternative 2 involves introducing a weight-based charg-
ing system for regular household waste. Individual con-
sumers are invoiced based on the weight of their refuse
bags/bins, thereby confronting them with direct negative
consequences as a result of disposing of consumer electron-
ics by means of those bags/bins. Special mini-containers
are distributed to store used appliances. These containers
can either be placed, on collection days, alongside the re-
fuse bags/bins, or connected to the refuse bins (for in-
stance, by means of matching pegs on these containers,
or some other sort of convenient connector). Direct feed-
back, for instance by means of a ‘‘thank you-note’’ or a fit-
ting/symbolic present, and promotional campaigns (similar
to alternative 1) stimulate handing in used appliances.
Alternative 3 represents the current collection system
and the current promotional campaigns applied by the
Dutch government and manufacturers/importers to en-
hance collection rates for small consumer electronics. This
alternative has been included in the set of alternatives to be
evaluated in the following section, in order to further the
interpretation and valuation of the outcome of the evalua-
tion stage with respect to the two ‘‘new’’ designs for a col-
lection system.
4.3. Evaluation
The first, and most important, performance criterion to
be applied in the evaluation stage relates to the effectiveness
to be expected from each design alternative. In order to
establish this prediction of the effectiveness, the sub-solu-
tions included within each alternative, for each of the six
sub-functions, have been evaluated (based on findings in
literature and a number of pilot projects), and the expected
effect on the Triad factors for both behavioral alternatives
have been established. To illustrate the train of thought
that has been applied in establishing these effects, a con-
densed version of the analysis for the factors Cu and Md
is presented below.
With respect to Cu, all three design alternatives try to
activate a ‘‘sense of guilt’’ (reduce the capacity to engage
in the undesirable behavior) by educating consumers about
the environmental consequences. However, alternatives 1
and 2 not only address these consequences in more detail
than alternative 3, they also aim at the financial capacity
of consumers to engage in that behavior. The invoice in
the second alternative is based on the weight of the con-
sumer electronics that are disposed of by means of the re-
fuse bag/bin, as an integral part of the charging system
for regular household waste. The taxes in alternative 1
can be based specifically on (an estimation of) the costs
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
8 F.W. Melissen / Waste Management xxx (2005) xxx–xxx
associated with the handling and/or the environmental
consequences of small consumer electronics as an ‘‘un-
wanted’’ component of household waste. Therefore, the
choice for a tax level that represents higher costs per kg
than the costs per kg for handling regular household waste
seems logical. Consequently, the resulting reduction in the
value for Cu will be the highest for design alternative 1, and
the lowest for design alternative 3.
With respect to Md, in contrast to alternative 3, design
alternatives 1 and 2 not only stimulate desirable behavior
by means of promotional campaigns, but they also provide
financial rewards to consumers as an additional extrinsic
motivator. Alternative 1 incorporates a lottery based re-
ward system, which could prove essential in grasping the
attention of consumers in order to break off their ‘‘environ-
mentally damaging habits’’ (Van Meegeren, 1997). This
characteristic is an important advantage of alternative 1
in comparison to alternative 2, which incorporates ‘‘small’’
fixed presents as a reward. One of the pilot projects (Melis-
sen, 2003) and findings in literature (Porter et al., 1995)
indicate that lottery conditions not only grasp attention,
but are also more effective (more significant effect on Md)
in stimulating recycling behavior. Therefore, the resulting
increase in the value for Md will be the highest for design
alternative 1, and the lowest for design alternative 3.
For each of the four remaining Triad factors involved, a
similar analysis was carried out (Melissen, 2003). The re-
sults of the complete analysis are depicted schematically
in Fig. 3.
In Fig. 3, arrows pointing upward represent an increase
in the value for a specific Triad factor, whereas arrows
pointing downward represent a reduction in the value for
a specific Triad factor. The proportions of the arrows rep-
resent the ordering of the three design alternatives, based
on their effect on the value for each of the six Triad factors
involved. The outcome of this comparative analysis clearly
reveals that design alternative 1 incorporates one of the
Fig. 3. A comparison of the effect of the sub-solutions included in each of the three design alternatives.
most effective set of sub-solutions for each of the six sub-
functions. In contrast, alternative 3 incorporates the least
effective sub-solutions. Therefore, based on the resulting
T-scores, design alternative 1 can be expected to be the
most effective, and alternative 3 the least effective, when
effectuated in practice.
With respect to the costs involved, it is obvious that de-
sign alternatives 1 and 2 involve more operating costs than
alternative 3. Based on the fact that alternative 2 requires
vast investments with respect to specialized collection vehi-
cles and mini-containers, it can be expected that this alter-
native requires higher investments than design alternative 1.
Finally, with respect to practical feasibility, it is clear
that design alternative 3 results in the least difficulties, be-
cause it represents the current situation. A preliminary
analysis of all possible difficulties and obstacles that could
manifest themselves indicates that design alternative 1, at
this point in time, seems to be more practically feasible
than alternative 2. One of the main reasons for this assess-
ment relates to the problems involved with ‘‘convincing’’
all of the individual municipalities in the Netherlands to
initiate a weight-based charging system for regular house-
hold waste. On the other hand, alternative 1 implies an
important role for supermarkets. Supermarkets already
contain a collection point for deposit money bottles, either
by means of a special counter or a so-called ‘‘retourette’’ (a
conveyer belt combined with an automatic voucher gener-
ator). Integrating a collection system for small consumer
electronics into this existing structure certainly seems feasi-
ble. The counter could be used as a combined collection
point for both bottles and consumer electronics and the
retourette usually is equipped with an opening for bottle
crates that is certainly big enough to also be used for small
consumer electronics. The collection system for bottles al-
ready involves handing over vouchers to consumers and,
therefore, extending this service to include handing over
lottery tickets as a reward for handing in used appliances
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
F.W. Melissen / Waste Management xxx (2005) xxx–xxx
should not present a significant problem/barrier. Further-
more, in recent years, supermarkets in the Netherlands
have been getting more and more involved in the sales of
consumer electronics and, therefore, are already involved
in the execution of the ‘‘old for new’’ regulations included
in the current collection system. Consequently, all the
above seems to substantiate the conclusion that effectuat-
ing alternative 1 is unlikely to result in any insurmountable
obstacles.
All the above leads to the conclusion that, even though
this would require limited additional investments, enhanc-
ing the collection rates for small consumer electronics in
the Netherlands can best be achieved by effectuating design
alternative 1.
5. Conclusions and discussion
The analysis presented in this paper has shown that the
current collection system for consumer electronics in the
Netherlands has resulted in low collection rates for small
appliances. In an effort to provide a solution to this prob-
lem, this paper has presented a design effort dedicated to
developing a redesigned collection system that could ensure
higher collection rates.
This paper has also shown that enhancing the collection
rates for small consumer electronics could best be achieved
by effectuating a redesigned collection system with the fol-
lowing main characteristics: local taxes, direct feedback,
collection points at supermarkets (analogous to the existing
collection points for deposit money bottles), special carrier
bags, and a lottery based reward system, supported by pro-
motional campaigns.
Even though the above deals with a solution to a specific
practical problem, it is important to note that the case study
presented in this paper represents only one example of a
broader challenge. One illustration of this broader chal-
lenge is made up by the fact that the EU has recently issued
a Directive on wastes from electrical and electronic equip-
ment (WEEE), which resembles the Dutch Disposal of
White and Brown Goods Decree quite closely. Therefore,
it is very conceivable that other European countries will
face practical problems similar to the one dealt with in this
paper. Simultaneously, many other countries around the
world have already introduced, or are preparing, legislation
comparable to the Directive and Decree mentioned above
with respect to consumer electronics and also with respect
to other product categories. Furthermore, individual com-
panies around the world also face the challenge of setting
up appropriate collection systems for their products; either
based on legal obligations, market demands, or cost/benefit
considerations. Therefore, the challenge of designing effec-
tive waste collection systems by ‘‘engaging the public to par-
ticipate effectively’’ (Williams and Taylor, 2004) pertains to
a number of countries, parties and products beyond the spe-
cific case described in this paper.
The design effort presented in this paper applies an ap-
proach that could be a valuable contribution to research
9
dealing with this challenge. It combines a psychological
model (Triad model) and a design tool (Morphological
Chart method) in an effort to design an appropriate collec-
tion system. The Triad model is included to ensure that the
design effort accounts for all relevant determinants of dis-
posal behavior, and the Morphological Chart method pro-
vides a proven strategy to ensure that all essential aspects
that follow from this analysis are actually included in the
ultimate design. In this particular design effort, this combi-
nation has been applied to redesign the collection system
for small consumer electronics in the Netherlands. How-
ever, the Triad model represents a generic behavioral mod-
el and its applicability is certainly not limited to Dutch
consumers or to the disposal of small consumer electronics.
It could be applied to disposal behavior (or other types of
behavior, for that matter) relating to different products and
substances in other countries as well. Similarly, the Mor-
phological Chart method represents a generic design tool
that could very well be applied to other types of collection
systems (or completely different types of design objects, for
that matter). Based on the study described in this paper,
combining the Triad model and the Morphological Chart
method offers a promising approach to establish all rele-
vant determinants for a particular disposal behavior and
to ensure the inclusion of all of these aspects in a system
that is designed to influence this behavior. The analysis pre-
sented here has not revealed any apparent barriers for gen-
eralization. However, further research is needed to fully
assess all strengths and weaknesses of this approach.
References
Afval Overleg Orgaan, 2004. Samenstelling van het Huishoudelijk
Restafval, Resultaten sorteeranalyses 2003 (Composition of House-
hold Waste, Results of sorting analyses 2003). AOO 2004-04. Afval
Overleg Orgaan, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Ansems, A.M.M., van Gijlswijk, R.N., 2002. Controle/management zware
metalen tijdens de verwerking van afgedankte elektronica producten
(Controlling/management of heavy metals during treatment of dis-
carded electronics). TNO-report R 2002/194. TNO Milieu, Energie en
Procesinnovatie, Apeldoorn, the Netherlands.
CREM, 1999. Resultaten nulmeting WEB 1998 (Results initial measure-
ment White and Brown Goods 1998; report commissioned by
Ministerie van VROM). Consultancy and Research for Environmental
Management, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Cross, N., 1994. Engineering Design Methods: Strategies for Product
Design, second ed. Wiley, Chichester, UK.
De Heer, J., Poiesz, Th.B.C., 1998. Dynamic characteristics of motivation,
ability, and opportunity to process commercial information. Advances
in Consumer Research 25, 532–537.
De Straat Milieu-adviseurs, B.V., 1999. Proefproject inzameling klein wit-
en bruingoed gemeente Delft: Uw oude apparaat voor een nieuwe fiets
(Pilot project collection of small white and brown goods in Delft: Your
old appliance for a new bike; final report). De Straat Milieu-adviseurs
B.V., Delft, the Netherlands.
De Straat Milieu-adviseurs, B.V., 2002. Monitoring Besluit beheer wit- en
bruingoed 2001, Hoofdrapport (Monitoring the white and brown
goods Decree 2001, Main Report; commissioned by Ministerie van
VROM/DGM). De Straat Milieu-adviseurs B.V., Delft, the
Netherlands.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
10 F.W. Melissen / Waste Management xxx (2005) xxx–xxx
Diaz, L.F., 2004. Editorial. Waste Management 24, 423–424.
Garcés, C., Lafuente, A., Pedraja, M., Rivera, P., 2002. Urban waste
recycling behavior: antecedents of participation in a selective collection
program. Environmental Management 30, 378–390.
Gatersleben, B., Steg, L., Vlek, C., 2002. Measurement and determinants
of environmentally significant consumer behavior. Environment and
Behavior 34, 335–362.
Guerin, D., Crete, J., Mercier, J., 2001. A multilevel analysis of the
determinants of recycling behavior in the European countries. Social
Science Research 30, 195–218.
Huisman, J., 2003. The QWERTY/EE Concept. Dissertation, Design for
Sustainability program publication no. 8. Delft University of Tech-
nology, Delft, the Netherlands.
Jones, J.C., 1981. Design Methods. Wiley, Chichester, UK.
Jones, J.C., 1984. Developments in design methodology. In: Cross,
N. (Ed.), A Method of Systematic Design. Wiley, Chichester,
UK.
Klompers, L.F.C.M., Ploos van Amstel, J.J.A., Bakkers, F.T.P.G., 1997.
Nationaal proefproject inzameling en herverwerking wit- en bruingoed
in de Regio Eindhoven, Apparetour: Deelrapport Inzameling en
Logistiek (National pilot project collection and treatment of white and
brown goods in the Region Eindhoven, Apparetour: Subreport
Collection and Logistics). Ploos van Amstel Milieu Consulting B.V.,
Eindhoven, the Netherlands.
Melissen, F., 2003. Designing Collection Rate Enhancing Measures for
ÔSmallÕ Consumer Electronics. Dissertation. Eindhoven University of
Technology, Eindhoven, the Netherlands.
Metin, E., Eröztürk, A., Neyim, C., 2003. Solid waste management
practices and review of recovery and recycling operations in Turkey.
Waste Management 23, 425–432.
Morel, K.P.N., Poiesz, Th.B.C., Wilke, H., 1997. Motivation, capacity,
and opportunity to complain: towards a comprehensive model of
consumer complaint behavior. Advances in Consumer Research 24,
464–469.
Morrissey, A.J., Browne, J., 2003. Waste management models and their
application to sustainable waste management. Waste Management 24,
297–308.
Nordlund, A.M., Garvill, J., 2002. Value structures behind proenviron-
mental behavior. Environment and Behavior 34, 740–756.
Poiesz, T.B.C., 1999. Gedragsmanagement: Waarom mensen zich (niet)
gedragen (Behavior(al) Management: Why people (donÕt) behave).
Inmerc bv, Wormer, the Netherlands.
Poiesz, Th.B.C., Robben, H.S.J., 1996. Advertising effects under different
combinations of motivation, capacity, and opportunity to process
information. Advances in Consumer Research 23, 231–236.
Poortinga, W., Steg, L., Vlek, C., 2004. Values, environmental concern,
and environmental behavior: a study into household energy use.
Environment and Behavior 36, 70–93.
Porter, B.E., Leeming, F.C., Dwyer, W.O., 1995. Solid waste recovery: a
review of behavioral programs to increase recycling. Environment and
Behavior 27, 122–152.
RIVM/CBS, 2001. Dutch Environmental Data Compendium 2001.
Available from: <http://www.rivm.nl/environmentaldata/>.
Salhofer, S., Isaac, N.A., 2002. Importance of public relations in recycling
strategies: principles and case studies. Environmental Management 30,
68–76.
Staatsblad 238, 1998 Besluit verwijdering wit- en bruingoed (Disposal of
white and brown goods Decree). Staatsblad van het Koninkrijk der
Nederlanden 238, 1–28.
Stern, P.C., 2000. Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant
behavior. Journal of Social Issues 56, 407–424.
Stichting NVMP, 2003. Monitoringsverslag over 2002 (Monitoring report
regarding 2002). Available from: <http://www.nvmp.nl/assets/
monitoring.pdf>.
Van Meegeren, P., 1997. Communicatie en maatschappelijke acceptatie
van milieubeleid (Communication and societal acceptance of environ-
mental policies). Dissertation. Landbouwuniversiteit Wageningen,
Wageningen, the Netherlands.
VROM, 2004. Dossier Elektr(on)ische apparatuur, Vraag en antwoord
(Dossier Electronic/Electrical equipment, Question and answer).
Available from: <http://www.vrom.nl/pagina.html?id=7106>.
Williams, I.D., Taylor, C., 2004. Maximising household waste recycling at
civic amenity sites in Lancashire, England. Waste Management 24,
861–874.