By Robin Ammerlaan (the Netherlands)
During the 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP21) world leaders acknowledged that previous goals to reduce global warming were inadequate. Countries are to pursue efforts to limit the global temperature increase to 1.5 °C. The waste sector is in a unique position to reduce emissions from all sectors of the global economy by reducing and recovering waste. Metropolitan areas present particularly interesting opportunities. This study will focus on the municipal solid waste infrastructure of Amsterdam. More accessible waste containers yield higher recycling rates. But how do we determine accessibility? Through a review of the literature and the exploration of the study area we establish which factors determine pedestrian route choice within the context of household waste disposal. Distance is the most important of these factors. In order to determine distance, specific paths need to be predicted. In doing so we tackle something everyone has an intuitive feeling about, but is never the less complex and difficult to quantify. We compare the commonly applied Euclidean and Network distance methods with a less common approach: Least Cost Path Analysis (LCPA). The Behavioural Model of Environment provides the conceptual framework for a LCPA-model. The three distance measurement methods are compared through descriptive statistics and visual mapping methods. The results show that LCPA has various advantages over Euclidean and Network distance measurements. A validation of the results shows Euclidean distances to be clear underestimations of real pedestrian route distances. The accuracy of the LCPA and Network method cannot be established conclusively. While the validation indicates that LCPA may be most accurate, a more large-scale validation is required.
Keywords: Household waste; Facility placement; Pedestrian route choice; Route distance.