Based on the results of our study, to increase collection rates in
retail take-back programs, we recommend that jurisdictions should
consider adopting a more explicit container placement rule. Our
study found that containers placed in the most convenient location
were associated with higher collection rates for batteries and fluorescent lamps, which agrees with WRAP (2008). Consequently,
if a retailer wanted to reduce the collection rate, they could place
collection containers far from entrances, in locations not directly
accessible by customers (e.g., behind the counter), or in visually
hidden locations, which could occur if container placement regulations
are vague. While the SLO ordinances require that customers
must have convenient access to collection containers, there is no
definition or guidance provided as to what constitutes convenient,
which is a common deficiency in many EPR/PS programs (Wagner,
2013). Our in-store survey found wide disparity in container
placement, which was not unexpected given the vagueness and
subjectivity of the standard and the economic implications to retailers
with high collection rates. By establishing standards as to
customer access, visual prominence, or distance from an entrance,
access to collection containers could be made more convenient
while increasing the equity of collection container placement for all
stores. For example, a less vague standard could include the
following
Based on the results of our study, to increase collection rates inretail take-back programs, we recommend that jurisdictions shouldconsider adopting a more explicit container placement rule. Ourstudy found that containers placed in the most convenient locationwere associated with higher collection rates for batteries and fluorescent lamps, which agrees with WRAP (2008). Consequently,if a retailer wanted to reduce the collection rate, they could placecollection containers far from entrances, in locations not directlyaccessible by customers (e.g., behind the counter), or in visuallyhidden locations, which could occur if container placement regulationsare vague. While the SLO ordinances require that customersmust have convenient access to collection containers, there is nodefinition or guidance provided as to what constitutes convenient,which is a common deficiency in many EPR/PS programs (Wagner,2013). Our in-store survey found wide disparity in containerplacement, which was not unexpected given the vagueness andsubjectivity of the standard and the economic implications to retailerswith high collection rates. By establishing standards as tocustomer access, visual prominence, or distance from an entrance,access to collection containers could be made more convenientwhile increasing the equity of collection container placement for allstores. For example, a less vague standard could include thefollowing
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..