Journal of Cleaner Production 242 (2020) 118288

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Economic rationalism or administrative rationalism? Curbside

collection systems in Sweden and Japan
Wakana Takahashi
Faculty of International Studies, Utsunomiya University, Mine 350, Utsunomiya, 321-8505, Japan

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Sweden and Japan are environmental leaders in their regions; however, Sweden has shown much better
Received 30 September 2018 performance in the development of a circular economy. This paper suggests that different environmental
Received in revised form discourses between the two countries help explain this gap. An actor-discourse analysis was conducted,
28 August 2019
taking the case of curbside collection systems. Results show that in Sweden, producers have physical and
Accepted 4 September 2019
financial responsibility for collection and recycling while municipalities are responsible for planning and
Available online 14 September 2019
providing information. Economic incentives are well considered, and easy waste sorting at home is a
Handling editor: Yutao Wang shared norm, fostering systematic improvement of curbside collection systems and drastically increasing
recycling rates. In Japan, in contrast, producers address recycling, municipalities do collection, and
Keywords: consumers cover sorting. The necessity of promoting consumer awareness of recycling is broadly
Curbside collection systems accepted, but systematic thinking has not been introduced; as a result, primitive curbside collection
Economic rationalism systems remain mainstream in Japan, and it is not easy to sort waste at home. Thus, Sweden has favored
Administrative rationalism economic rationalism while Japan administrative rationalism and, the former has been more effective.
Sweden
© 2019 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Japan

1. Introduction
Sweden and Japan are environmental leaders in their regions
(Europe and Asia, respectively). Sweden was ranked fifth globally in
2018 on high-priority environmental issues, while Japan was 20th,
the highest in Asia (Wendling et al., 2018).
Both Sweden and Japan achieve high performance in household
waste management. In both countries, only about 1% of household
waste goes to landfill (Avfall Sverige, 2017; Ministry of
Environment, 2014).Both countries have mandatory environ-
mental standards for waste incineration and landfill, which have
become more stringent over time to lessen impact on soil, water,
and air (Avfall Sverige, 2017; Ministry of Environment, 2013, 2014;
Takahashi et al., 2010).
However, performance on the circular economy differs sub-
stantially between the two countries. The circular economy concept
was first defined by Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2012: p.7) as “an
industrial system that is restorative or regenerative by intention
and design.” The concept promotes the reduction of environmental
load from economic activities to help achieve a sustainable society.
In a circular economy, as distinguished from a linear economy, the
E-mail address: wakana.uu@gmail.com.
same resources and goods recirculate through the various stages of
economic activity (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2012), to minimize
resource and energy consumption and waste production; this
approach should both increase economic growth and reduce
environmental load by creating value through circulation.
Fig. 1 illustrates circular economy performance in municipal
waste in Sweden and Japan. Implementation of food-waste
collection is expanding across Swedish municipalities (Andersson
and Stage, 2018) but not in Japan (Takahashi, 2011, 2014). As
biogas production from food waste has relatively low environ-
mental impact, in particular from a valorization perspective
(Brunklaus et al., 2018), related policy instruments exist in 16.2% of
Swedish contexts. Some studies suggest that food-waste collection
creates a positive spillover effect on packaging waste sorting (Ek
and Miliute-Plepiene, 2018; Miliute-Plepiene and Plepys, 2015);
and indeed, the packaging recycling rate in Sweden amounts to
34.6% but in Japan remains at 18.7%. Not only general recycling but
also direct recycling rates influence incineration rates, and while
48.5% of waste is incinerated in Sweden, in Japan, 80.3% isda linear
economy situation (Takahashi, 2018a). In addition, all Swedish
incineration facilities practice heat recovery and most practice
electricity cogeneration (Avfall Sverige, 2017). Waste incineration
heat accounted for 12% of heating in the community in 2014
(Werner, 2017). In Japan, in contrast, only 32% of facilities have

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118288
0959-6526/© 2019 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
2 W. Takahashi / Journal of Cleaner Production 242 (2020) 118288
Fig. 1. Municipal waste circular-economic performance Source : Made by author based on Avfall Sverige (2017, p. 9)
Source: Made by author, based on Ministry of Environment of Japan (2017, p. 15).
electricity generation capacity as of 2016 (Ministry of Environment,
2018); further, much of this heat is underutilized, for example
diverting a small amount for an adjacent heated swimming pool
while the rest is wasted (Tabata and Tsai, 2015; Takahashi, 2018a).
Thus, Sweden leads Japan in terms of circular economy. This
paper helps show why by focusing on collection. No matter how
effective recycling mechanisms are, a circular economy will not be
achieved unless separate collection is secure. In this paper, we
explore reasons for differences in circular economic performance
between Sweden and Japan, by investigating cases of curbside
collection systems.
1.1. Demographic differences
Let us first consider basic differences in conditions in the two
countries. Sweden is far less densely populated than Japan. Swe-
den's 450,300 km2, approximately 1.3 times larger than Japan,
contain less than 10 million people, while Japan has 127 million.
Stockholm, Sweden's capital and largest city, has 950,000 people,
while Japan has 14 cities that are large or larger, as well as the
Greater Tokyo Area, the world's largest urban area.
Population scale and density are major obstacles to municipal
waste management collection, transportation, and treatment/
disposal in Japan (Tanaka, 1995). In Tokyo, open dump landfills
causing severe environmental destruction and strong NIMBY
movements resulted in the declaration of “Waste War” by the
Tokyo governor in 1971; claiming that “the emerging crisis of the
waste came to threaten the life of the Metropolitan citizens,” the
government embraced incineration (Tokyo Metropolitan
Bovernmnet, Bureau of Public Cleaning, 2000), leading to rapid
increase in incineration rates (Takahashi et al., 2010).
If most waste is burnt, sorting household waste at home is
useless, and recycling rates in megacities in Japan could be far lower
than in other Japanese cities. To test this assumption, I examined
correlations between population scale and recycling rate, using
Japanese Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications and
Ministry of the Environment data, as shown in Fig. 2. The recycling
rate of megacities (more than 1 million population) was indeed
lowest, on average 17.7%; however, the recycling rate of other cities
was around 20%e22%, far lower than in Sweden.
Why is Japanese performance, disregarding megacities, so low?
Kurishima (2002) analyzed correlations between population scale,
collection services, and recycling policies (such as fees for waste
disposal), and found that while megacities often have innovative
waste reduction and recycling policies (e.g., waste fees, separate
sorting), other cities are far behind. As only approximately 23% of
 W. Takahashi / Journal of Cleaner Production 242 (2020) 118288
Fig. 2. Household waste recycling rate by population in Japan
Source: Based on calculations of the data in Statistic Bureau of Japan (2015): Takahashi
(2016).
the Japanese population live in megacities, and 68% in cities with
less than 500,000 people, we need to understand factors affecting
recycling in these cities.
1.2. Determinants of individual recycling behavior
Given that the majority of academic studies related to Japan
have been made in the Japanese languages only, it is worth
reviewing them here. In short, it can be safely said that Japanese
literature on recycling behavior has long emphasized individual
morals and knowledge as decisive factors (Ichikawa, 1997;
Fujinami, 1997; Katsutani, 1992). Matsui and others posited “in-
formation provision” and “consciousness enlightenment” factors
(Matsui et al., 2001). This situation coincides with Japanese peo-
ple's general international reputation as having “social re-
sponsibility, environmental sensitivity and general discipline” “vis-

-vis regulations” (Gaidajis et al., 2010, 198). However, low recy-
a
cling rates and poor sorting behavior also prevail, in particular in
urban areas. For instance, Fujii (2018) accused Japanese citizens of
“immoral” waste sorting behavior posing risks for waste collection
workers, and tried to raise awareness of the situation (Fujii, 2018).
In Japan, the prevalence of separate collection and high recycling
rate in Sweden are often felt to reflect the environmental aware-
ness of Swedish people (Reinius, 2012). Environmental awareness
is in turn felt to be the result of environmental education, and
Swedish environmental education has therefore been researched
and held up as a model in Japan (Asano, 2013; Shimizu, 2001;
Takami, 2009).
Other studies in Japan, however, in particular by environmental
psychologists, have proposed different determinants of recycling
behavior. For example, Hirose (1985) noted that recognition of
environmental risk does not always result in concrete action, and
suggested that recycling behavior is more heavily influenced by
factors such as actions taken by others in the neighborhood.
Yorifuji et al. (2005) argue that for a separate sorting system to
be socially recognized and implemented, it should be easy to
participate in, with an open procedure, easy access, and highly
available information, including on its benefits. In fact, waste
sorting is considered problematic in general in Japan (Onuma et al.,
2002). The “moral enlightenment” approach to waste collection
requires tremendous “time and labor” by “housewifves”
(Takahashi, 2018b, p.51). The approach was also once valued for its
educational effects on children, but the decrease in households
with children, associated with current low birthrate Japanese
3
society, has reduced this benefit. Therefore, the user-friendliness of
collection needs attention (Takahashi, 2018b).
In the English-language literature, although less so in Japan,
whether “human-environment system knowledge” (knowledge
related to environmental problems caused by humans) is related to
pro-environmental behavior has been a topic of interest (Díaz-
Siefer et al., 2015; Hungerford and Volk, 1990). Although note
that knowledge does not necessarily cause behavior change, Kaiser
and Fuhrer (2003) assert that the structure of environmental
knowledge is relevant: different forms of environmental knowl-
edge bring diverse effects on environmental behavior. Díaz-Siefer
et al. (2015) argued that not only human-environment system
knowledge and “environmental action knowledge” (knowledge of
possible courses of action to reduce human impact on the envi-
ronment) “must work together in a convergent manner in order to
foster pro-environmental behavior.” Ouellette and Wood (1998)
showed that past recycling habits reinforce attitudes and inten-
tion and argued that to promote recycling behavior, it is effective to
first promote initial action and develop conditions for easier
habituationdreducing inconvenience by installing recycling facil-
ities, making separation easier, and improving collection timing.
Dahle n and Lagerkvist (2010) emphasized opportunity, that is, good
access to places promoting separate sorting. Rousta et al. (2015)
demonstrated correlations between distance to drop-off point,
proper information, and sorting of recyclable waste. Otto et al.
(2018) named these challenges “behavior costs” and suggested
that structural improvements to reduce them, such as curbside
collection and container deposits, are important determinants of
separate collection. Rousta et al. (2017) suggested that it is crucial to
establish convenient waste collection infrastructure to promote
source separation. Lindhqvist (2000), formulator of the EPR
(extended producer responsibility) principle, provided a holistic
view, suggesting that economic incentives, convenience, informa-
tion, behavioral costs, and motivation are determinants of house-
hold waste sorting and collection.
2. Theoretical framework: environmental discourse
As discussed, the problem of separate collection has conven-
tionally been looked at in terms of individual recycling behavior; in
addition to psychological factors, however, social, living-
environmental, economic, and policy factors influence people's
environmental behavior and the development of a circular
economy.
On this basis, I propose environmental discourse as a theoretical
framework. Dryzek (2005), in introducing this term, asserts the
wide range of debates on environmental matters and the related
areas mentioned above, and the many possible approaches to
dealing with them. For example, for collection of plastic bottles,
there are several options: a deposit system, as seen in many Eu-
ropean countries,; store-based collection free of charge; collection
boxes next to vending machines; curbside collection; collection at
the recycling center; etc. At issue is not only which option to adopt
but also how to implement it, who decides, and who pays. This in
turn depends on what is valued and how the problem is con-
structed by government and other stakeholdersdwhich in practice
often means whether to prioritize “morals” or convenience, or
whether to attach economic incentives. Environmental discourse is
a shared method of understanding and process of constructing
basic concepts about the environment and environmental prob-
lems; interpreting, discussing and analyzing them; and providing
solutions is referred to as environmental discourse (Dryzek, 2005,
p. 11).
My assumption is that dominant environmental discourses, or
shared methods of understanding of environmental issues, differ in
4 W. Takahashi / Journal of Cleaner Production 242 (2020) 118288
Japan and Swedendleading to different constructions of concepts
like separate collection and related problems and different out-
comes even with the same goalda circular economy.
The traditional paradigm of environmental discourse since the
1960s and 1970s when advanced economies developed basic laws
on waste disposal, is one of “administrative rationalism.” It em-
phasizes the role of the expert rather than the citizen or producer/
consumer in social problem-solving; the people are then expected
to passively follow expert pronouncements. This approach views
environmental problems as fundamentally technical in nature;
problems and agendas should be segmented, and the standard
approach is “reactive, tactical, piecemeal and end-of-pipe” (Dryzek,
2005, p. 180). A politically neutral, professionalized bureaucracy is
considered to produce the best public policy decisions, mobilizing
scientific and professional expertise to claim authoritativeness.
Methods include environmental impact assessment, expert advi-
sory commissions, and planning. The basic administrative-
rationalist approach to waste management focuses on reducing
the environmental impact of waste and deal with waste after it is
generated rather than specifying changes in the production process
to reduce waste from the source.
Although administrative rationalism has been influential, it has
also faced criticism for inefficiency (Bruijn and Hufen, 1998). This
led to the birth of “economic rationalism,” which harnesses the
market as a tool for changing individual and institutional behavior.
The idea is that well-designed environmental objectives can be
achieved at less cost and with less opposition by market mecha-
nisms than through traditional regulatory approaches (Dryzek,
2005). Policy measures based on economic rationalism include
emissions trading, environmental taxes, and in relation to waste
management, household waste fees, deposit systems, and extended
producer responsibility (EPR), which requires producers to cover
not only production costs but also collecting and recycling costs,
and encourages them to design products that internalize the
environmental costs of final disposal. By doing so, EPR was ex-
pected to reduce waste generation, increase recyclable products at
the production stage, and increase resource efficiency (OECD,
2001). EPR concept was initiated in Sweden and increased world-
wide from the 1990s through the 2000s (Kaffine and O'Reilly, 2013).
The related idea of “ecological modernization” has also been
advanced since the 1990s, under the argument that the capitalist
political economy could be restructured along more environmen-
tally sound lines. Ecological modernization emphasizes “eco-in-
novations” and interplay between societal actors including
governments, business, reform-oriented environmentalists, and
scientists. In 2016, the International Resource Panel released a
report on resource efficiency (International Resource Panel, 2016),
which argues that resource efficiency is essential to the achieve-
ment of the UN's Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and
climate change mitigation goals, and would also promote economic
growth and employment. Sweden is now witnessing the emer-
gence of municipal waste management companies embodying
ecological modernizations; Corvellec et al. (2012) mentioned that
NSR and Sysav, two leading municipal waste management com-
panies in the Skåne region, have been integrating public service,
processing, and marketing to achieve sustainability and maximize
recycling.
3. Method and data collection
3.1. Actor-discourse analysis
Assuming that different environmental discourses between
these two countries help explain this gap on circular economy
performance, how are these environmental discourses revealed in
Swedish and Japanese policy-making and practices? And more
importantly, how do these gaps influence actual policy-making and
implementation of household waste collection at local sites, and
eventually circular-economic performance?
To investigate this question, this paper implemented actor-
discourse analysis for the case of curbside collection system. The
reasons for focusing on curbside collection were: 1) collection is a
pivot of the circular economy (see Fig. 1) and 2) curbside collection
is common in both Sweden and Japan. Actor analysis is a qualitative
research method widely used for explaining differences in envi-
ronmental policies. For example, Schreurs explained differences in
global environmental policies of the US, Germany, and Japan by
analyzing interactions among relevant actors and institutions
(Schreurs, 2002). I have explained different regional approaches to
combating transboundary air pollution between Europe, North
America, and East Asia using a similar method (Takahashi, 2017).
This paper follows those studies.
First, I investigated how curbside collection has been perceived
by decision-making actors and determined the nature of their
environmental discourses. I paid attention to influential national-
level actors: the Environmental Agency and the Waste Council in
Sweden and the Ministry of the Environment and the Ministry of
Economy, Trade and Industry in Japan. At the local level, I excluded
megacities and focused on municipalities with a population of less
than one million and with typical waste policies and facilities, to
ensure comparability. The focus on non megacities of Japan is
crucial, given their relative poor performance as discussed in sec-
tion 1.1.
Second, I analyzed how the above-mentioned discourses and
perceptions are reflected at actual curbside collection systems. I
tried to gain a holistic picture of construction, management, and
implementation of curbside collection systems, and their effects on
residents’ sorting behavior and motivations, including moral and
economic incentives. This was qualitative research utilizing and
integrating field study, semi-structured interviews, ethnography,
and participatory observation. Table 1 shows basic questions for
interviewees at collection points. Starting from these questions, I
encouraged interviewees to share their experiences and opinions
freely, including their impressions, concerns, and difficulties, and
how they rated the convenience of waste collection services,
among others. Interviews lasted approximately one to 2 h per site/
person (see Table 2).
3.2. Data collection
In addition to English- and Japanese-language previous studies
and surveys, legal documents, official reports, and unofficial
documentation, I conducted broad field studies including site visits
to municipal-waste-related offices and facilities and curbside
collection systems, and did interviews with the relevant actors. A
questionnaire survey conducted in January 2013, to which 207
participants from Lund, Malmo €, and Helsingborg responded with
information about their recycling behavior (Takahashi et al., 2013),
and, a survey conducted by a group of master's students at Lund
University were also utilized (Cassel and Ensegård, 2011).
4. Results and discussion
I start by considering decision-making-relevant perceptions of
actors at national and local levels, to verify dominant environ-
mental discourses around curbside collection in both countries and
how those environmental discourses have influenced movement
towards a circular economy.
 W. Takahashi / Journal of Cleaner Production 242 (2020) 118288 5

Table 1
Scope of the actor-discourse analysis.

1) Major Actors/Policies (decision-making of curbside collection systems)

Sweden Japan

National
level SEPA/A Strategy for Sustainable Waste Management Ministry of Environment/Waste Disposal and Public Cleansing,
Waste Council/guidelines toward effective collection systems Resource Recycling Law
Avfall Sverige, Swedish Waste Management Report Ministry of Environment, Industry, METI, PET Industry Containers
Producers and municipalities: Deposit system for beverage containers and Packaging Recycling Law
Local level Municipal waste companies of City of Malmo €, Lund and Helsingborg/waste management City of Niigata, City of Tokyo
plan, Eco-city project

2)Research Items for field study (implementation of curbside collection systems)

Appearance of curbside collection systems: on-road/exclusive areas, outdoor/indoor, containers, UMS (underground system), collapsible net boxes, etc.

Sorting items: how many kinds, who decides, etc.

Access to discharge places and timing: 24 h, 365 days? A few times a week?

Actors involved in curbside collection systems: who and how?

Responsibility for preparing containers/building the system: local community? Municipalities? Producers? Individual residents?

Responsibility for managing and maintaining/cleaning the system: local community? Citizens? Superintendents? Volunteer or hired?

Finance: fee for collection? Free? (covered by public funds)? Charge for collection bags? How much? Finance for curbside collection systems?

Information, education and communication: who provides what? Emphasis on education and morals? Emphasis on sorting manner or problem-solving? Easy to un-
derstand? Convenient? Economic incentives? Languages? Legal aspects?

Table 2
Overview of field studies.

1) Sweden
€
Malmo Helsingborg Lund €v
Eslo

Population (2015) (1) 322,574 137,909 116,834 32,438

Land area in sq. km (1) 156.60 343.89 427.07 419.02
Population density/sq. km (1) 2,060 401 274 77
(2)
Interviews with waste company/facility personnel Yes (2010.9, 2014.9, 2017.8) Yes (2010.9, 2017.8) Yes (2016.9) Yes (2015.9)
Curbside collection point visits and interviews (3) 7 (2013.8, 2014.9, 2015.8) 5 (2013.8, 2014.9, 2015.8) 5 (2016.9) 4 (2013.9)
Ethnographic information Yes (4)

2) Japan
Niigata Utsunomiya Nasukarasuyama Motegi

Population (2015) (5) 810,157 518,594 27,047 13,188

Land area in sq. km (5) 726.45 416.85 174.35 172.69
Population density/sq. km (5) 1,115 1,244 155 76.4
Interviews with municipal/waste company personnel Yes (2009.8) Yes (2014.11, 2016.11) Yes (2009.3,
2018.2)
Curbside collection point visits and interviews Yes (5) Yes (3) Yes (1) Yes (1)
Participatory observation (6) Yes Yes Yes
Ethnographic information Yes (8) Yes (7)
1
SCB (2015).
2
Major interviews include the following:Aspegren , H. Research and Development Manager, VA Syd, September 2, 2010, Malmo € (in English).Bjorn, L. Head or Research, NSR
Company, September 1, 2010, Helsingborg (in English).Go € ransson, P. (2015). Project Manager/Business Developer, PWS Norbic AB, September 10, 2015. Perstorp.Go €ransson, P.
(2017). Project Manager/Business Developer, PWS Norbic AB, August 25, 2017. Perstrop.Håkansson, D., Managing Director, PWS Norbic AB, August 23, 2017. Perstorp (in
English).Holm, I.-H., Lund Renhållningsverk, September 5, 2016. Lund (witih SwedisheJapanese interpreting).Larsson, B., Head of Research, NSR Company, September 1, 2010.
Helsingborg (witih Swedish-Japanese interpreting).Lundberg, L. Superintendent, Scandinavian Green Roof, Augustenborg's Botanical Roof Garden, September 2, 2010. Malmo €
(in English).Nilsson-Djerf, J. Researcher, Avfall Sverige, September 7, 2010, Malmo €
€ (in English).Ohman, € r strategiska frågor, H€
D., officer, Utredare fo assleholm Miljo€ AB,
September 9, 2016, Ha €ssleholm (in English).Pasic, A., environment communicator, MERAB, September 3, 2015, Eslo €v (witih Swedish-Japanesen translation).Rylander, H.,
former director, Sysav, August 25, 2017, Malmo € (in English).
3
Interviews were made in Swedish with a Japanese interpreter or in English.
4
Living experience in Helsingborg was about a year in total (2012.4e2013.1, 2013.8e9).
5
Statistic Bureau of Japan (2015) 2015 Population Census: Table 1. Population, Population Change (2010e2015), Area, Population Density, Households and Households
Change (2010e2015)dJapan.
6
As a member of the Cleansing Council of Niigata City (2013e2017), a director of the Utsunomiya Environmental Forum (2017e2019), and a member of the Environmental
Council of Nasukarasuyama city (2013e2019).
7
Living experience in Niigata was about 3 years in total (2011.4e2012.3; 2013.1e2015.3).
8
Living experience in Utsunomiya was about 6 years in total (2007.8e2011.3, 2015.4e2017.1).

4.1. Comparison of actors in policy decision-making
4.1.1. Sweden
The catchphrase used in Sweden is that “it must be easy to sort
waste at home” (Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, 2005,
p.34.). The City of Malmo € claims that “waste collection points are
aesthetically pleasing, signal accessibility and are easy to use” (VA
Syd, 2010) Thus, user-friendliness and systematic thinking are ideas
shared at national and local levels. The Swedish Environmental
Protection Agency (2005) placed this idea as one of five priority
issues to be tackled.
A process of policy evaluation and reviewing of EPR preceded
adoption of this idea. The producer's responsibility in Sweden
covers physical and financial responsibility for both collection and
recycling. Initially, Swedish municipalities did not take re-
sponsibility for EPR waste collection or any other recycling-related
6 W. Takahashi / Journal of Cleaner Production 242 (2020) 118288
responsibility. Producer responsibility organizations (PROs) had
placed recycling stations on vacant land such as parking lots or at
the roadside at supermarkets, throughout the whole country. This
means people can bring recyclables at any time. However, these
recycling stations have been criticized for ruining surrounding
landscapes, and have sometimes been removed. Thus, the SEPA has
demanded that PROs improve environments around recycling
stations (Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, 2005).
In Sweden, the deposit system for beverage containers began in
1984 (Rylander, personal communication, August 25, 2017). Under
this system, collection machines for canned aluminum are installed
in retail stores and supermarkets; consumers receive 0.5 kronor
(about 0.05 US dollars) for each aluminum can. This system is
efficient and applies to refillable and one-way PET bottles. The re-
turn rate for all containers is over 80% (Swedish Environmental
Protection Agency, 2005).
In comparison to containers under the deposit system, however,
the return rate for packaging remained low. In particular, for plastic
packaging it is only 19%, short of the legally mandated target of 30%.
To achieve improvements, the Environmental Agency asserted that
“producers and municipalities should … ensure that collection is
perceived as a system by consumers” and that “the division of re-
sponsibility between producers and municipalities should not be
changed, but cooperation between them should be further devel-
oped, [with] municipal responsibility for information and plan-
ning” (Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, 2005, p.7).
Furthermore, to assure improvement at municipal and local
levels, the SEPA inaugurated the Waste Council to devise guidelines
toward effective collection systems. The Waste Council conducted
various surveys and interviews with municipalities, industry, and
citizens, and published its first guidelines in 2006. These guidelines
recommended ensuring participation of all stakeholders, including
producers, municipalities, and condominium management unions,
and the use of transparent processes for selecting and improving
collection points, taking into account user convenience (Swedish
Environmental Protection Agency, 2006).
Local municipalities share these perspectives; for example, a
waste management plan from 2011 to 2015 in VA Syd, the company
with jurisdiction over waste management in Malmo € , identified the
three top priorities as 1) making it easy to choose sustainable
consumption, 2) achieving environmental benefits, and 3) making
it easy to do the right thing. Landlords are expected to “make it easy
for their residents to sort their waste, both in their homes and in the
waste sorting system in the building” (VA Syd, 2010, p.5). VA Syd
also conducts regular surveys on users’ opinions of collection
points.
Importance is also placed on communication: “information
should be adapted to the target groups. It should be explicit and
conveyed through different media, meeting our users in their own
environment”; “the information should impart knowledge, change
attitudes and behavior and show good examples” (VA Syd, 2010,
p.6). Additionally, consumers/inhabitants are not regarded as actors
culpable for poor sorting or recycling. In this regard, we should
remember that local waste companies in Sweden have been
financially independent of government from the beginning, and are
paid by consumers in return for collection services. Therefore,
consumers/residents are often called “customers.” The more “cus-
tomers” sort at the source, the better waste management by the
company, meaning the companies have incentives to provide easy-
to-understand information and user-friendly, convenient services
(Larsson, personal communication, September 1, 2010; Takahashi,
2014, 2016). Accordingly, VA Syd provides displays on how to put
store waste-sorting boxes under the kitchen sink at their customer
service office and online, in multiple languages.
The Eco-city Augustenborg project implemented by the City of
Malmo € and Malmo € Kommunala Bostadsbolag housing company is
another useful example. The Augustenborg district has old public
housings largely inhabited by immigrants and unemployed people.
This area was transformed into a popular eco-town by engaging
residents in decision-making and implementation. One of the most
remarkable results was that recycling rates increased to 70%. This
was achieved by providing information and improving facilities and
services to make sorting and discharging easy (Lundberg, personal
communication, September 1, 2010).
Lund also embraces user-friendliness and convenience; to
“make it easier for small households,” Lund has developed “a sys-
tem to aid the recycling in the convenience of residents’ own
homes. The system uses two bins that are divided into four com-
partments, where every compartment is for a designated waste
material. This allows for the collection of eight different fractions.
Emptying is done with four-compartment vehicles that empty all
four fractions in the bin in one single cycle. Furthermore, the city of
Lund claims that, by improving curbside collection systems, it
achieves multiple environmental objectives including fewer pol-
lutants in the air, climate change mitigation by using biogas power
made from food waste, and a circular economy through higher
material recycling rate” (Lund Renhållningsverk, 2015, p.2).
4.1.2. Japan
Similar descriptions of user-friendliness to those in Sweden
cannot be found in Japanese documents at national or local gov-
ernment level, due to the countries’ very different approaches to
waste administration.
As mentioned, since the 1970s, when full-scale waste adminis-
tration started in Sweden, its financial management was based on
toll collection, without relying on taxes. Meanwhile, in Japan, all
waste administration expenses have been covered by taxes. It was
based on the underlying idea of a national minimum rooted in
Article 25 of the Constitution (Kurasaka, 2003; Miki, 2001; Ueda,
1977; Wada, 2004): that local and prefectural government should
provide free or at low cost the goods and services necessary for a
minimally healthy and culturally rich life.
Emphasized in Japan has been full-burn incineration. The
postwar period's open-dump method caused severe social prob-
lems, such as stench, vermin, and contagious disease epidemics
(Kobayashi, 2006; Tokyo Metropolitan Government, Bureau of
Public Tokyo Metropolitan GovernmentBureau of Public Cleaning,
2000). Decreasing the amount of waste by incineration and
reclaiming incineration ash thus became the standard approach.
The end-of-pipe method, which imposes thorough environmental
regulation from waste generation to final disposal, became the
basis of waste policy (Takahashi et al., 2010). As incineration tech-
nology development made significant progress, exceeding 80% in
1977 (Ministry of Environment, 2013; Takahashi, 2018b), waste
disposal costs bloated to more than 2 trillion yen (about 170 million
US dollars) in 1992 (see Fig. 3; Takahashi, 2018c)). leading to an
amendment of the Waste Disposal and Public Cleansing Act 1991 to
legally define not only “disposal of waste” but also “suppression of
waste emission” and “recycling of waste.” To improve waste
reduction systems, related councils and treatment plans were
established in municipalities. To minimize waste disposal costs,
fees were allowed for bulky waste and trade refuse (only). From
1992 onwards, recycling plazas and centers were developed
nationwide, with systems for collection of waste sorted by resi-
dents' groups and others, and projects for promoting recycling
were implemented and subsidized, including in companies.
With the Resource Recycling Law in 1992, and with the PET bottle
industry as a leader, all industries started to jump into recycling.
However, while the recycling rate of industrial waste was 39% as of
1993, that of household waste was only 8%. The Containers and
 W. Takahashi / Journal of Cleaner Production 242 (2020) 118288
Fig. 3. Change in public municipal waste treatment expenses (unit: 100 million Japanese yen).
Source: Made by the author based on data presented at Ministry of Welfare (1972e2000) and Ministry of Environment (2001e2017), Japan; Takahashi (2018a,b,c) * Data between
1979 and 1988 were not disclosed.
* Conversion rates from Japanese yen to US dollar depend on the IMF's official annual change rate.
Packaging Recycling Law, established in 1995, promoted recycling of
household waste, including PET bottles, glass bottles, and paper
containers, and applied EPR (as of 1997) for the first time in Japan.
However, unlike Sweden, producer responsibility was limited
only to the recycling part (Yamakawa and Ueta, 2006; Otsuka,
1998). Municipalities were responsible for collecting sorted re-
cyclables separately from municipal waste, and citizens bore re-
sponsibility for separating waste (the so-called shared
responsibility theory). Informational campaigns were created to
educate citizens in how to separate containers and packages and
dispose of them. Thus, overall, in Japan, citizens have shared re-
sponsibility as subjects that should fulfill their obligations. There is
no discourse which emphasizes user-friendliness for residents and/
or improvement of the system itself.
Concerning curbside collection, concrete “guidance” was left to
each municipality. For example, in Niigata city, curbside collection
installation outlines set a goal of “striv [ing] to maintain cleanliness
at all times by preventing scattering, cleaning, and so on.” Installers
were required to “[p]lace on a location that does not hinder Road
Traffic Act,” and reminded that “[w]aste can be stored sufficiently
according to the type of waste, the amount of waste, and the
number of storage days”; they were asked to “[p]rovide water
supply/drainage, ventilation, lighting equipment, etc. as necessary,
and [store waste] hygienically”; to “prevent the scattering of waste
and outflow of odors, set fence and door and so on”; and “[p]revent
mice from living, and mosquito, fly, and other pest outbreak”
(Niigata city, 1995, 1e2).
Conflicts and compromises occurred between related ministries
and agencies related to the Containers and Packaging Recycling Law
system that limits producer responsibility. The Environment
Agency, sensitive to evolving international norms, comprehen-
sively examined economic methods to promote recycling, including
deposit systems, etc. However, in the policy decision process, this
original plan was dropped, and the final law greatly limited pro-
ducer responsibility based on agreement among the several
involved ministries. That is, consumers have a responsibility of
sorting, municipalities have a physical and financial responsibility
7
of collection, and producers have a responsibility of recycling. This
aroused criticism from many experts and civic groups. As Yorimoto
(1998) said:
[The d]ecreasing trend in returnable containers is not stopped
yet, the burden of [sorted collection in municipalities] rises greatly,
the burden on businesses is relatively light, it cannot be said that
restraining the use of containers and packaging and switching to
recycling type packaging are beginning to proceed as expected.
As Otsuka pointed out, “The viewpoint of restraining generating
containers and packaging waste is not adequately taken into
consideration and [we are] still not getting out of the idea of how to
treat waste. In addition, this law is not regulating enough of recy-
cling” (Otsuka, 2006, p. 13).
At the Japan Association of City Mayors meeting, in addition to
issues such as difficulty of separation and ambiguity of the rules,
the heavy financial burden on local governments, and the fact that
there was little effect of suppressing occurrence was taken as a
serious problem. For that reason, the Japan Association of City
Mayors requested an amendment to the law to “appropriately re-
view the cost burden and segregation of duties among the mu-
nicipality and businesses such as obliging manufacturing
companies to collect, from the ‘expanding producer responsibility’
viewpoint” and “as part of measures to curb the generation of
containers and packaging waste and to prevent illegal dumping,
[to] promote expansion of returnable containers and introduce a
deposit system.”
Based on these problems, the Containers and Packaging Recycling
Law added emission control to the legal purview over the issue in
2007. In 2008, a funding scheme for municipalities collecting waste
was also created. Nonetheless, producer responsibility for sorted
collection, both physically and financial, remains very limited
(Kurita, 2009). Tasaki points out that such shared liability brings
partial optimization, but the function of the system as a whole is
rather hindered (Tasaki, 2014).
In addition to EPR, in recent years a waste charge system known
as pay-as-you-throw (PAYT) has been gradually expanding (Sakai
et al. 2008), up to 57.3% municipalities throughout Japan in 2018
8 W. Takahashi / Journal of Cleaner Production 242 (2020) 118288

(Yamaya, 2018). This program can be traced back to the revision of
basic policy with the Waste Disposal Act in 2005. The revised Article
5-2, Paragraph 1, required municipalities to make use of economic
incentives to introduce household waste charge and promote
recycling, fair sharing of burden according to amount of emissions,
and public awareness. Waste charges are of course a policy tools
embodying economic rationalism; however, the charge is quite low,
making it superficially like but ultimately quite different from the
policy in Sweden.
4.2. Implementation, structure, and process of curbside collection
The previous section has shown that many policy instruments
such as deposit system, waste fee and full implementation of EPR
were applied in Sweden. This indicates that economic rationalism is
widely accepted in Sweden. On the other hand, waste fee, full
operation of EPR and introduction of deposit systems declined in
Japan. The background of this was heavy dependence on waste
administration expenses covered by tax. This indicates that
administrative rationalism rather than economic rationalism has
been dominant in Japan. This section considers the actual state of
local curbside collection subsequently to policy developments
described above, rooted in different discourses.
4.2.1. Sweden
Table 3 shows curbside collection in condominium. Among the
four types, 1) environmental houses and 4) underground collection
systems are increasing in recent years. The former are preferred for
their structural aesthetic harmony with nature and surroundings
buildings. Buildings are often locked, and residents go in and out
with keys. Waste is thrown into a container of about 2e4 m2 in the
basement part. Negatives of 3) uncovered collection points were
said by my informants to include bad sorting manners of residents
and clutter, leading condominium complexes to move to 1) or 4),
especially in Lund. According to the environmental communicator
informant, an environmental house is suitable when residents'
“consciousness level is high,” but underground collection is more
suitable otherwise, because environmental houses are usually hard
to monitor, often increasing cases of putting waste on the floor
outside the cart, whereas underground collection is exposed to the
public's eyes and therefore harder to abandon items at (Holm,
personal communication, September 5, 2016). From the resident
questionnaire survey, it was confirmed that systemized collection
approaches like environmental houses and underground collection
have higher sorting rates than the exposed type; for example, the
food waste sorting ratio was 80% for the former and 60% for the
latter (Takahashi et al., 2013) (see Table 4).
How is the cost of installing and operating sorted collection
systems covered? As mentioned, in Sweden, each household pays
administrative expenses, including a waste fee, heating manage-
ment fee, yard maintenance cost, and repair expenses and so as part
of condominium strata fees, varying greatly but ranging from 1,500
to 6,000 kronor (about 150e640 US dollars) per month; according
to the Waste Association, the waste disposal fee accounts for about
1260 kronor (about 133 US dollars) of this on average (for 2011).
The condominium management union manages these expenses
(Avfall Sverige, 2017).
Selection of a curbside collection system for condominium
called BRF (Swedish housing collective) is normally done demo-
cratically within the resident's union. Unions provide residents
with a briefing, sometimes followed by consultation with related
professionals, and then the vote. The BRF union also conducts
contracts with waste collectors, manages related funds, and so on.
Collection frequency changes depending on the item (ranging from
biweekly to semiannually).
In the case of Lund, UMS (underground collection) is becoming
more dominant. This is because, even if the initial cost is high the
operating fee will be lower. Meanwhile, some unions also select
environmental houses from the viewpoints of aesthetics or ease of
use.
One clear difference from Japan is which items are sorted is
decided by the BRF union or management association of other type
of condominiums. Some BRF unions provide their residents with
separate collection of not only containers and packaging but elec-
tronics, batteries, light bulbs, and others. The exception is food
waste. In recent years, municipalities are increasingly introducing
mandatory sorted collection of food waste (Lund Renhållningsverk,
2012; VA Syd, 2010). Normally, burnable waste has the highest unit
price, while recyclable waste such as food waste and containers and
packages are set at lower price. For this reason, almost all unions
limit the proportion of waste that is combustible to less than 30% of
the total. For example, in one standard BRF, allotment is as follows:
two carts of burnable waste (740 L), three carts of food waste
(260 L), two carts of plastic container packaging (740 L), two carts of
paper container packaging (740 L), two carts of used paper (740 L),
one cart of colored bottles (370 L), one cart of colorless bottles
(370 L), one cart of metal (370 L), one cart of fluorescent lamp and
light bulb cart, one cart of dry cell batteries. Collection frequency is
once or twice a week for burnable waste, food waste, plastic con-
tainers, packaging, and so on, and once every 2e4 weeks for other
waste, except fluorescent lights and the like that are only collected
when the container became full and the management asks for

Table 3
Classification of curbside collection systems in condominium in Sweden.

1) environmental house 2) fence/roof type 3) uncovered cart type 4) UMS (underground collection)

There are many carts for different types of
recyclable waste, including WEEE and
“rest of waste.” Residents open the door
with keys in most cases.
Carts for recyclable waste and “rest of
waste” are located. In some cases, members
of condominium management union make
the fence/roof as DIY.
Carts have stated location
or placed ad hoc by corridor
or by next to buildings the
road side.
The collection points are usually installed along
public rights-of-way. The capacity of the
containers ranges. The collection and
transportation of waste is carried out using
specially adapted heavy trucks.

Source: Takahashi (2014); photos taken by the author.

 W. Takahashi / Journal of Cleaner Production 242 (2020) 118288
Table 4
Curbside collection systems in detached housing in Sweden.
€)
1) Mixed waste and food waste containers (Malmo
Only mixed waste containers (normally 190 L) and food waste containers are for
curbside collection use in Malmo€ . Residents bring recyclable waste to recycling
stations, deposit machines, and/or recycling centers operated by municipal waste
companies.
Source: Takahashi (2014); a picture from City of Helsingborg (2016); photos taken by the author.
collection.
In detached houses, all municipalities provide door-to-door
collection as a public service. A single cart is generally used for
mixed waste, food waste, and garden waste (see Tables 4e1).
Households using single carts cannot dispose in their neighbor-
hood of waste producers are responsible for (under expanded
producer responsibility), such as containers and packages, and have
to bring the waste to the recycling collection place. Based on the
criticism that such inconvenience is lowering the recycling rate,
multiple sorting carts are increasing in the Skåne region in recent
years (Tables 4e2). The multiple-compartment sorting carts were
initially developed by joint consultation between the City of Lund; a
plastic products manufacturer, the PWS company; and a truck
bedding manufacturer, the NTM company. From its introduction in
Lund in 2001, municipalities using the cart increased around the
region, to 38 throughout Sweden in 2017. Carts are collected with a
frequency ranging from once a week to once every 8 weeks. In
Helsingborg, the sorting cart has two sizesd240 L and 370 Ldand
there is also a separate garden waste cart. The collection fee is
different depending on the size of the cart, collection frequency,
and the distance from the installation site to the site boundary. For
€ v.
Fig. 4. Sorting promotion effect of multiple sorting carts in Eslo
Source: made by the author based on a document provided by Go € ransson, PWS Company.
9
2) Multiple sorting carts: “Quattro system” (Helsingborg)
Two four-compartment sorting carts can separately collect food waste, paper
containers, colored bottles, colorless bottles, metal, plastic, newspaper and used
paper, and other waste. All four compartments empty into the bin in one single
movement.
example, when a household contracts two collection carts of
370 L at a collection frequency of 1e4 weeks, the annual contract
fee is 176 kronor (about 16 US dollars). Some households leave the
cart carelessly; others construct dedicated sites with their own DIY
skill.
The sorting promotion effect of multiple sorting carts should be
noted. Fig. 4 shows change in recycling rate from before to after
introducing the carts in Eslo €v. Compared to before when two
single-compartment carts for combustible waste and food waste
were used (2010), introduction of multiple sorting carts (2012) led
“other waste” to decrease 12%, while recyclables, including bottles,
paper containers, metals, plastic containers, and newspaper,
increased from 28% to 44%. In more detail, burnable waste
decreased by 21%, bottles waste increased 51%, paper containers
were þ85%, metals þ113%, plastic container packaging þ135%, and
used paper þ60%. The recycling sorting rate improved by 12% from
55% to 67% (Go €ransson, P. Personal Communication, September 10,
2015, August 25, 2017; Håkansson, D. Personal Communica-
tion2017; Pasic, A. Personal Communication, 2015).
Note that with curbside collection, whether in collective or
detached housing, regardless of collection time, consumers can
10 W. Takahashi / Journal of Cleaner Production 242 (2020) 118288
dispose of waste at any time. In addition, in the case of condo-
minium, dedicated personnel conduct maintenance (Takahashi,
2013).
As the above shows, highly user-friendly design is spreading and
improves sorting rate, along with economic incentives.
4.2.2. Japan
Table 5 shows curbside collection systems in Japan. For detached
houses, we can categorize curbside collection into four types: 1) ad
hoc placement, uncovered waste bags, 2) ad hoc placement,
covered by foldable net, 3) ad hoc placement, collapsible net box,
and 4) preset placement, uncovered/covered by foldable net. As for
condominium use, there are three types; 5) metallic net box, 6) hut
type, and 7) inside the building.
In either case, residents bring waste at a fixed time and day. In
Japan, since household waste collection is financed through taxes,
collection times are broadly uniform: Monday and Thursday,
burnable waste; Tuesday, recyclable waste; Wednesday, non-
burnable waste, and so on. Some municipalities set a more
detailed schedule and put it on a calendar for residents (or in many
cases, nowadays, a smartphone app). Educational campaigns to
promote collection are also carried out at eco-events. New resi-
dents in a location get information kits with household trash
sorting and disposal instructions; the guide is not simple, usually
around 10 to 20 pages. Notable is that in the guide, “burnable trash”
covers food waste, produce waste (stems, etc.), clothing, rubber,
and leather products, and plastic products not labeled PET or EPR.
Sorting recyclable waste requires a lot of time and effort at home
in Japan (Takahashi, 2018b). For example, milk cartons are in most
municipalities collected and recycled separately from other paper
packages. Residents are required to wash and rinse milk cartons,
dry and cut with scissors to open and flatten, and bundle several
cartons up with a string. This also applies to PET bottles: residents
are expected to tear off the label, which goes to plastic packaging
waste. The bottlecaps are collected separately, and the ring of the
Table 5
Classification of curbside collection systems in Japan.
For detached house use
1)Ad hoc placement, uncovered waste 2) Ad hoc placement, covered by foldable 3) Ad hoc placement, collapsible net 4) Preset placement, uncovered/covered by
bags net
For condominium use
5) Metallic net box
Source: Takahashi (2014); photos taken by the author.
bottlecap, which is often troublesome to put off, also needs to be
removed. Finally, residents are expected to crush the main body of
the PET bottle after rinsing it thoroughly.
In contrast to the high technology used in incinerators and
landfills, curbside collection sites are characterized by low tech-
nology and low cost. Plastic waste bags are expected to be put out at
designated residential collection spots. In some municipalities, use
of simple equipment, such as foldable nets and net boxes, is
increasing, sometimes subsidizeddthis is to deal with scavenging
from crows at communal waste collection stations. Many studies
have looked for counters to this scavenging problem (Kurosawa
et al., 2003; Kurosawa, 2005). Sugita, known as “Professor Crow,”
developed anti-crow devices utilizing his knowledge about the life
and habits of crows and is frequently consulted by companies and
government on anti-crow measures (Sugita, 2005).
There is no waste fee in Japan like that in Sweden; however,
municipalities are increasingly introducing charges for designated
waste bags for burnable and non-burnable waste, provided by the
Ministry of Environment to help offset very high waste disposal
costs (see Fig. 4). Since producer responsibility started to be
expanded in the 1990s, the cost burden associated with increased
collection of municipalities invited municipalities’ “recycling poor”
(Machida, 1970). Nevertheless, bag income is not always used for
general waste administrative expenses. There is also a notion that it
prevents duplication of tax. That is, because waste management is
considered a “national minimum”, which is covered by tax, the
government should not add any additional charges to be paid by
citizens. For this reason, Niigata city, for example, uses the bag in-
come on provision of recycling information to citizens and for eco-
events only.
In Japan where residents' awareness and moral responsibility
have been key to recycling efforts, responsibility for separating
waste is placed on residents, and residents' associations manage it.
In a detached residential area, residents can dispose of waste at
curbside only by joining a neighborhood community association;
box foldable net
6) Hut type 7) Inside the building
 W. Takahashi / Journal of Cleaner Production 242 (2020) 118288
the waste duty (cleanup and management of curbside collection
systems) comes around to each household in turn. In some cases,
volunteers also stand at curbside and teach people how to separate
their waste. In tight-knit local communities, residents’ associations
and neighborhood associations (for detached housing) function
well and high sorting rates are seen. In these areas, curbside
collection is a kind of social arena and place to interact. However,
local communities are aging and tight-knit communities are
unraveling, and in the urban areas to which young people tend to
relocate there are fewer such ties and related activity. In modern,
large-scale urban collective houses, curbside collection using
administrative monies occurs, but less reliably and systematically.
As a result, burnable waste increases, as do people who do not
comply with waste rules (Takahashi, 2018b). Some municipalities
instruct people on how to identify waste dumpers from mail items
and return collected waste to the dumper.
Shiiya (2008) says that spatial conditions such as the form and
arrangement of the curbside collection affect improper disposal
and waste remaining after pickup (Shiiya, 2008), and Okamoto
points out that this situation is lowering quality of life in residential
areas (Okamoto, 2016). These previous studies suggest that the
current operational reality of curbside collection in Japan is not
sufficient for good waste separation.
Thus, in Japan, systematization of curbside collection as in
Sweden largely did not occur, and it a simple local collection place
became the main method. Waste separation and management is
not easy for families, but as consumers’ disposal responsibilities
and moral aspects are emphasized, there is little discourse on
improving curbside collection.
5. Conclusion
In summary, Sweden emphasizes user-friendliness and eco-
nomic incentives, while in Japan shared responsibility and citizens'
education are emphasized. These totally different approaches can
be well explained by the different discourses and different per-
ceptions of influential actors. The perspective of economic ratio-
nalism has been overwhelming in Sweden, with adoption of
economic policy instruments including waste fees, deposit systems,
and EPR, covering not only recycling but also collection by pro-
ducers, and with very little opposition or alternative approaches. In
contrast, in Japan we see a strong tradition of administrative
rationalism and lack of economic rationalism. From the beginning,
Japan did not introduce waste fees, deposits, or a principle of re-
sponsibility of producers, but used general taxes to establish a
waste governance system resting on consumers’ responsibility. Of
course, some policy tools involve economic incentives, such as
expansion of EPR and the waste charge system; however, they are
quite different from the analogous arrangements in Sweden.
These differences are clearly reflected in curbside collection
systems in the two countries. In Sweden, the norm that family
sorting has to be easy is shared nationally, regionally, and locally.
Thus, systematic improvement of curbside collection systems has
relatively strong impetus, and leads in turn to significant
improvement of sorting rate. The principle of producer re-
sponsibility, including collecting responsibility, and the fact that
municipal waste management is an independent source of funds
for municipalities also help. Residents are “customers,” and public
waste corporations have incentives to provide information that is
easy and convenient for them to use, because increased recycling
rate means more profitability. Further, citizens who are “cus-
tomers” are also more economical as they sort their waste. In Japan,
none of these discourses is present, systemization of curbside
collection is low, simple collection places are still mainstream, and
sorting and management are complex and not easy for families.
11
Against this background, limited shared liability between country,
municipality, and producer has been introduced, and there are
circumstances in which consumers' moral disposal responsibility is
emphasized. The administration, like in Sweden, is responsible for
information provision, but its purpose is mainly to encourage res-
idents’ awareness and moral responsibility.
As we can see, “administrative rationalism” is strong in Japan,
“economic rationalism” is strong in Sweden, and this paradigm
difference helps create the gap between the two countries' policies
and implementation on curbside collection. This study's findings
suggest that there is a potential that the gap in environmental
discourse between the two countries will explain not only aspects
of curbside collection but also of other kinds of collection, and other
aspects of the circular economy. Further studies are needed to test
this assumption.
Acknowledgement
This work was financed by the Japan Society for the Promotion
of Science (Grant number 26301014).
References
Andersson, C., Stage, J., 2018. Direct and indirect effects of waste management
policies on household waste behaviour: the case of Sweden. Waste Manag. 76,
19e27.
Asano, Y., 2013. In: A Comparative Study of Environmental Education in Preschool a
Municipalities Aiming to Be Sustainable Societies in Sweden and Japan, vol. 14.
Kiyo of Graduate School of Human Life Science,Japan Women's University,
pp. 9e20.
Avfall Sverige, 2017. Swedish Waste Management 2017.
Brunklaus, B., Rex, E., Carlsson, E., Berlin, J., 2018. The future of Swedish food waste:
an environmental assessment of existing and prospective valorization tech-
niques. J. Clean. Prod. 202, 1e10.
Cassel, A., Ensegård, H., et al., 2011. Study of recycling habits in Lund municipality.
MVEN05 VT 2011, environment law in practice, module teacher. In: Naoko Tojo.
IIIEE. Lund University.
City of Helsingborg, 2016. Avfallsplan: Helsingborgs 2020. City of Helsingborg
(Helsingborg).
Corvellec, H., Bramryd, T., Hultman, J., 2012. The business model of solid waste
management in Swedenea case study of two municipally-owned companies.
Waste Manag. Res. 30, 512e518.
Dahle n, L., Lagerkvist, A., 2010. Evaluation of recycling programmes in household
waste collection systems. Waste Manag. Res. 28 (7), 577e586.
De Bruijn, H.A., Hufen, H.A., 1998. The traditional approach to policy instruments.
In: Peters, B.G., van Nispen, F.K.M. (Eds.), Public Policy Instruments: Evaluating
the Tools of Public Administration. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp. 11e32.
Díaz-Siefer, P., Neaman, A., Salgado, E., Celis-Diez, J.L., Otto, S., 2015. Human-envi-
ronment system knowledge: a correlate of pro-environmental behavior. Sus-
tainability 7, 15510e15526.
Dryzek, J.S., 2005. The Politics of the Earth: Environmental Discourses. Oxford
University Press, Oxford.
Ek, C., Miliute-Plepiene, J., 2018. Behavioral spillovers from food-waste collection in
Swedish municipalities. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 89, 168e186.
Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2012. Towards a Circular Economy: Business Rationale
for an Acclerated Transition. Ellen MacArthur Foundation, Cowes.
Fujii, S., 2018. The Work of Waste Collection: the Local Autonomy I Thought about
on a Waste Collection Truck. Commons, Tokyo in Japanese).
Fujinami, H., 1997. By public information, enlightenment activity uplift of the in-
habitants awareness. Public Welf. 52 (7), 26e28 in Japanese).
Gaidajis, G., Angelakoglou, K., Aktsoglou, D., 2010. E-waste: environmental prob-
lems and current management. J. Eng. Sci. Technol. Rev. 3 (1), 193e199.
Hirose, Y., 1985. Determinants of environment-conscious behavior. Res. Soc. Psy-
chol. 10 (1), 44e55 in Japanese).
Hungerford, H., Volk, T., 1990. Changing learner behavior thorugh environmental
education. J. Environ. Educ. 21, 8e21.
Ichikawa, S., 1997. A system for relationship with a school and its local community
in the field of environmental education: environment counselor project of the
Environment Agency, Japanese Government. In: Japan Science Educational
Academic Society Annual Meeting Proceedings. Japan Science Educational Ac-
ademic Society, Tokyo, pp. 441e442 in Japanese).
International Resource Panel (Ed.), 2016. Resource Efficiency: Potential and Eco-
nomic Implications: Summary for Policy-Makers. www.unep.org/
resourcepanel. (Accessed 9 July 2019).
Kaffine, D., O'Reilly, P., 2013. What Have We Learned about Extended Producer
Responsibility in the Past Decade? A Survey of the Recent EPR Economic
Literature. OECD, Paris.
Kaiser, F.G., Fuhrer, U., 2003. Ecological behavior's dependency on different forms of
12 W. Takahashi / Journal of Cleaner Production 242 (2020) 118288
knowledge. Appl. Psychol. 52 (4), 598e613.
Katsutani, T., 1992. Special issues: the present status and trends of waste-related
laws. Law for the promotion of utilization of recycled resources. Waste
Manag. Res. 3 (2), 104e107 in Japanese).
Kobayashi, Y., 2006. From waste disposal law to sound-material recycling society
fundamental law: history and overlook for future. J. Jpn. Waste Manag. Assoc.
59 (272), 315e322 in Japanese).
Kurasaka, H., 2003. On designer responsibility principle: the cost sharing principle
for environmental problems caused by artificial materials. Econ. J. Chiba Univ.
18 (3), 69e108 in Japanese).
Kurishima, H., 2002. Domestic waste collection service and regional characteristics
of municipalities in the Nagoya region. Geogr. Rev. Jpn. 75 (2), 69e87 in
Japanese).
Kurita, I., 2009. The new cost-sharing system under the containers and packaging
recycling law. Environ. Econ. Policy Res. 2 (2), 35e47 in Japanese).
Kurosawa, R., 2005. A case of the coexistence of humans and crows: a town with
decrease of waste dispersion (Chofu-shi, Tokyo). STRIX 23, 125e129 in
Japanese).
Kurosawa, R., Kanai, Y., Matsuda, M., Okuyama, O., 2003. Conflict between humans
and crows in Greater Tokyo: garbage management as a possible solution. Glob.
Environ. Res. 7 (2), 139e147.
Lindhqvist, T., 2000. Extended Producer Responsibility in Cleaner Production: Policy
Principle to Promote Environmental Improvements of Product Systems. IIIEE,
Lund.
Lund Renhållningsverk, 2012. Avfallsplan (Waste Plan). Lunds kommun.
Lund Renhållningsverk, 2015. The Lund Recycling System. Lund. Retrieved. https://
carbonn.org/uploads/tx_carbonndata/LundRecyclingSystem.pdf. (Accessed 9
July 2019).
Machida, M., 1970. Paradox of separate collection and recycling. Mem. Chu o Acad.
Res. Inst. 42, 137e157 in Japanese).
Matsui, Y., Ohsako, M., Tanaka, M., 2001. A Study for Structural Modelling on
Recycling Behavior (692). Doboku Gakkai Ronbunshu, Tokyo, pp. 73e81. in
Japanese).
Miki, J., 2001. The extent of the public/private sector involvement in garbage
disposal. Rev. Econ. Bus. Manag. 29, 29e39 in Japanese).
Miliute-Plepiene, J., Plepys, A., 2015. Does food sorting prevents and improves
sorting of household waste? A case in Sweden. J. Clean. Prod. 101, 182e192.
Ministry of Environment, Japan, 2013. Waste Treatment and Recycling Technology
in Japan: towards Sustainable Society. MoE, Tokyo in Japanese).
Ministry of Environment, Minister’s Secretariat, Waste Management and Recycling
Department Policy Planning Division, 2014. History and Current State of Waste
Management in Japan. MoE, Tokyo.
Ministry of Environment, Japan, 2018. Situation of Household Waste Emission and
Treatment in 2016. MoE, Tokyo in Japanese).
Niigata city, 1995. Niigata City Waste Collection Site Guidelines (Niigata city).
OECD, 2001. Extended Producer Responsibility: A Guidance Manual for Govern-
ments. OECD, Paris.
Okamoto, K., 2016. Actual conditions of garbage collection sites and evaluation by
users in detached house area: basic study to realize the beautiful and
comfortable detached house area. J. Archit. Plan. Environ. Eng. 81 (722),
1019e1028 in Japanese).
Onuma, S., Hirose, Y., Sugiura, J., 2002. How did the citizen perceive a troublesome
classification system? System evaluation by the Nagoya citizens. J. Jpn. Soc.
Waste Manag. Expert. 13, 81e83 in Japanese).
Otsuka, T., 1998. Moot points of the new recycling law and a propasal for a
framework comprehensive law pertaining to waste management and recycling
in Japan. Waste Manag. Res. 9 (6), 413e423 in Japanese).
Otsuka, T., 2006. The evaluation of the container and packaging recycling law and
future tasks. Waste Manag. Res. 17 (4), 166e173 in Japanese).
Otto, S., Kibbe, A., Henn, L., Hentschke, L., Kaiser, F.G., 2018. The economy of e-waste
collection at the individual level: a practice oriented approach of categorizing
determinants of e-waste collection into behavioral costs and motivation.
J. Clean. Prod. 204, 33e40.
Ouellette, J.A., Wood, W., 1998. Habit and intention in everyday life: the multiple
processes by which past behavior predicts future behavior. Psychol. Bull. 124,
54e74.
Reinius, K., 2012. School education on the environment and green tourism in
Swedish style. J. Dev. Sci. Res. Miyagi Gakuin Women Univ. 12, 93e96 in
Japanese).
Rousta, K., Bolton, K., Lundin, M., Dahle n, L., 2015. Quantitative assessment of dis-
tance to collection point and improved sorting information on source separa-
tion of household waste. Waste Manag. 40, 22e30.
Rousta, K., Ordon ~ ez, I., Bolton, K., Dahle
n, L., 2017. Support for designing waste
sorting systems: a mini review. Waste Manag. Res. 35 (11), 1099e1111.
Sakai, S., Ikematsu, T., Hirai, Y., Yoshida, H., 2008. Unit-charging programs for
municipal solid waste in Japan. Waste Manag. 28 (12), 2815e2825.
SCB, 2015. Population and Land Area within and outside of Localities by Region,
Type of Area, Observations Every Fifth Year. Retrieved. http://www.
statistikdatabasen.scb.se/sq/73189. (Accessed 9 July 2019).
Schreurs, M.A., 2002. Environmental Politics in Japan, Germany, and the United
States. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Shiiya, A., 2008. A case study of circumstances of garbage collection sites' form,
location and condition of residual garbage. Pap. Environ. Inf. Sci. 22, 275e280 in
Japanese).
Shimizu, M., 2001. A study of environmental education through school and com-
munity systems in Sweden: with a focus on outdoor education. J. Dep. Educ.
Stud. Hiroshima Univ. 2 (50), 33e40 in Japanese).
Statistic Bureau of Japan, 2015. 2015 Population Census. Population and household
of Japan.
Sugita, S., 2005. Urban life learning from crows. In: Utsunomiya University Envi-
ronment Guide Editorial Commiitte ed., Looking into World from Tochigi,
15e17. Shimoduke Newspaper Company in Japanese).
Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, 2005. A Strategy for Sustainable Waste
Management. Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, Stockholm.
Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, 2006. Framtida Producentransvar Fo €r
Fo€rpackningar Och Tidningar. Swedish Environmental Protection Agency,
Stockholm.
Syd, V.A., 2010. Waste Management Plan 2011e2015 for the Municipality of Burlo €v
and the City of Malmo €. VA Syd, Burlo
€v and Malmo €.
Tabata, T., Tsai, P., 2015. Heat and electricity supply from municipal solid waste
(MSW) incineration plants in Japan: the current situation and issues for the
future. Proc. Jpn. Inst. Energy 24, 252e253 in Japanese).
Takahashi, W., 2011. Food waste separate collection/recycling systems in Swedish
urban area. J. Fac. Int. Stud. Utsunomiya Univ. 31, 117e128 in Japanese).
Takahashi, W., 2013. Transformation of household waste separation and collection
in Sweden: how has convenience been taken into account? J. Fac. Int. Stud.
Utsunomiya Univ. 35, 57e72 in Japanese).
Takahashi, W., 2014. Household recyclable waste sorting and collection system:
policy development and implimentation in Sweden. Environ. Econ. Policy Res. 8
(1), 99e103 in Japanese).
Takahashi, W., 2016. An actor analysis of the rapid rise of well-equipped curbside
recycling systems in Sweden. J. Fac. Int. Stud. Utsunomiya Univ. 41, 51e64 in
Japanese).
Takahashi, W., 2017. The Comparative Politics of Transboundary Air Pollution:
Europe. Chikura Shobo, North America and East Asia. Tokyo in Japanese).
Takahashi, W., 2018a. Governance issues in policy integration for waste energy use:
a comparison of case studies of Jaapn and Sweden. Environ. Econ. Policy Res. 11
(2), 39e44 in Japanese).
Takahashi, W., 2018b. Decrease of housewife citizen and the user-friendly house-
hold waste classification and collection system: a comparison of Japan and
Sweden. Environ. Econ. Policy Res. 11 (1), 50e55 in Japanese).
Takahashi, W., 2018c. Toward a sound material-cycle society History of Japanese
policy and its interaction with international norms. In: Routledge Handbook of
Japanese Foreign Policy. Routledge, London, pp. 119e135.
Takahashi, W., Yagishita, M., Suzuki, K., Yokota, I., 2010. Development trajectories of
waste and resource management policies : a comparative analysis of Japan and
Korea. J. Fac. Int. Stud. Utsunomiya Univ. 29, 49e60 in Japanese).
Takahashi, W., Itoh, S., Tojo, N., 2013. Waste sorting/disposal habits in Swedish
households: relations with facilities, gender and knowledge of waste treatment.
J. Fac. Int. Stud. Utsunomiya Univ. 36, 1e16 in Japanese).
Takami, S., 2009. Environmental education of Sweden as a environmentally
advanced country. Toshi Seiso 62 (288), 119e124.
Tanaka, S., 1995. The conditions of the recycle social system: on the general waste in
big cities. Econ. Manag. 26 (2), 185e224 in Japanese).
Tasaki, T., 2014. A harmful influence of shared responsibility in recycling system and
significance of the goal seting. Environ. Econ. Policy Res. 8 (1), 78e81 in
Japanese).
Tokyo Metropolitan Government, Bureau of Public Cleaning, 2000. 100-Year History
of the Public Cleaning Enterprise of the Tokyo Metropolitan Government. Tokyo
Metropolitan Government, Tokyo in Japanese).
Ueda, M., 1977. A research study about regional development and welfare in Osaka
Metropolitan Area: problems of welfare in the Large City. Compr. Res. Inst. Bull.
3 (1), 1e10 in Japanese).
Wada, N., 2004. A study for dumping charge system. Stud. Commun. Dev. 31e42 in
Japanese).
Wendling, Z.A., Emerson, J.W., Esty, D.C., Levy, M.A., de Sherbinin, A., Mara, V.,
Esty, D.C., Jaiteh, M., 2018. 2018 Environmental Performance Index. Yale Center
for Environmental Law and Policy, New Haven.
Werner, S., 2017. District heating and cooling in Sweden. Energy 126, 419e429.
Yamakawa, H., Ueta, K., 2006. Reassessment of the containers and packaging
recycling law issues concerning the revision of the containers and packaging
recycling law and extended producer responsibility. Waste Manag. Res. 17 (4),
174e181 in Japanese).
Yamaya, S., 2018. Current Status of Implementation of Charged Waste System of
Municipalities in Japan. http://www2.toyo.ac.jp/~yamaya/survey.html.
(Accessed 9 July 2019).
Yorifuji, K., Hirose, Y., Sugiura, J., Ohnuma, S., Hagiwara, Y., 2005. Effects of prior
voluntary recycling on social acceptance of mandatory resource separation
system. J. Jpn. Soc.Waste Manag. Expert. 16 (1), 55e64 in Japanese).
Yorimoto, K., 1998. Policy Making and Citizens: Enactment Process of Containers
and Packaging Recycling Law. Yuhikaku (in Japanese).