Final Report
Recycling on the Go Containers
A reference document identifying considerations in the selection of
containers for different Recycling on The Go (RotG) sectors and
situations.
Project code: PAC004
Research date: February 2012-April 2012
Date: July 2012
WRAP’s vision is a world without waste,
where resources are used sustainably.
We work with businesses and individuals
to help them reap the benefits of reducing
waste, develop sustainable products and
use resources in an efficient way.
Find out more at www.wrap.org.uk
Written by: Polly Griffiths (Score Environment)
Document reference: [e.g. WRAP, 2006, Report Name (WRAP Project TYR009-19. Report prepared by…..Banbury, WRAP]
Front cover photography: Recycling on the Go containers at a South Ayrshire park (source: Taylors)
WRAP believes the content of this report to be correct as at the date of writing. However, factors such as prices, levels of recycled content and regulatory requirements
are subject to change and users of the report should check with their suppliers to confirm the current situation. In addition, care should be taken in using any of the cost
information provided as it is based upon numerous project-specific assumptions (such as scale, location, tender context, etc.).
The report does not claim to be exhaustive, nor does it claim to cover all relevant products and specifications available on the market. While steps have been taken to
ensure accuracy, WRAP cannot accept responsibility or be held liable to any person for any loss or damage arising out of or in connection with this information being
inaccurate, incomplete or misleading. It is the responsibility of the potential user of a material or product to consult with the supplier or manufacturer and ascertain
whether a particular product will satisfy their specific requirements. The listing or featuring of a particular product or company does not constitute an endorsement by
WRAP and WRAP cannot guarantee the performance of individual products or materials. This material is copyrighted. It may be reproduced free of charge subject to the
material being accurate and not used in a misleading context. The source of the material must be identified and the copyright status acknowledged. This material must
not be used to endorse or used to suggest WRAP’s endorsement of a commercial product or service. For more detail, please refer to WRAP’s Terms & Conditions on its
web site: www.wrap.org.uk
Contents
1
2
3
Overview ..................................................................................................................................... 4
1.1
Objective ............................................................................................................................4
1.2
Information sources ............................................................................................................4
1.3
Sectors and situations ..........................................................................................................4
Selection Considerations ............................................................................................................ 6
2.1
General considerations.........................................................................................................6
2.2
Considerations according to internal or external environment ................................................ 10
2.3
Considerations by sector .................................................................................................... 10
2.4
Security ............................................................................................................................ 11
2.5
Features ........................................................................................................................... 12
Containers ................................................................................................................................. 14
Tables
Table 1 RotG sectors and situations ..............................................................................................................5
Table 2 Key general considerations in container selection ...............................................................................6
Table 3 Conventional units versus reverse vending machines ..........................................................................8
Table 4 Container material considerations .....................................................................................................9
Table 5 Characteristics required of containers in different situations .............................................................. 10
Table 6 Specific considerations by sector .................................................................................................... 11
Table 7 Container features ........................................................................................................................ 13
Table 8 Examples of containers currently or planned to be utilised in different RotG sectors and situations ....... 15
Glossary
Container: receptacle used for the collection of recyclable materials within a RotG scheme.
Bin: receptacle used for the collection of residual waste. Also used in conjunction with ‘wheelie’ when
‘wheelie bins’ are used to collect recyclates within a RotG container.
Acknowledgements
WRAP would like to acknowledge the help of the container suppliers, who generously committed time to provide
information, and the individuals and organisations involved in the development of the Scottish RotG case studies.
Recycling on the Go Containers
3
1
Overview
1.1
Objective
The objective of the research was to identify recycling on the go (RotG) containers that are suitable for use at
different types of site.
It is recognised that a range of different container types are likely to be suitable for RotG schemes. The research
aimed to identify the key considerations in container selection and give examples of existing containers that are
suitable for different situations.
1.2
Information sources
The information sources used in the compilation of this document were:







Recoup (undated) Recycling on the Go Scoping Document
RotG workshop outputs
RotG literature review draft
Zero Waste Scotland RotG Capital Support Fund application forms (container type and site type information only); and
Direct contact with container suppliers (see Appendix 1).
Telephone conversations: Leafield and Glasdon; and
Face to face meetings: Broxap and Wybone.
1.3
Sectors and situations
Table 1 below gives a breakdown of the typical sectors and situations where RotG containers may be located.
This breakdown forms the structure for the information presented in the remaining sections.
Recycling on the Go Containers
4
Table 1 RotG sectors and situations
Sector
Academia
Sub-sector
Colleges
Public areas of schools
Universities
Events
Commercial (e.g. exhibitions)
Music / cultural festivals
Sporting festivals
Public areas including areas with retail
outlets and food outlets
Waiting areas
Hospitals
Leisure attractions
Local authority
Cinemas
Community halls
Conference centres
Music venues
Privately managed parks /open spaces
Sporting venues
Theme parks
Beaches / esplanades
Car parks
Parks
Streets
Shopping centres
Tourist accommodation
Camping and caravan sites
Holiday parks
Hotels
Transport hubs
Airports
Bus stations
Motorway service stations
Ports
Roadside
Train stations
Ferries
Trains
Transport vehicles
Potential situations
Car parks
Entrances
External
Internal
External
Internal
Car parks
Entrances
External
Internal
Car parks
Entrances
External
Internal
External
Pavement
Car parks
Entrances
External
Internal
Car parks
Entrances
External
Internal
Car parks
Entrances
External
Internal
Internal
Recycling on the Go Containers
5
2
2.1
Selection Considerations
General considerations
As shown in Table 2, there are a large number of considerations to take into account when planning the
installation of RotG containers or the upgrade of existing facilities.
Manufactures and suppliers who were consulted suggested that they will work with the client to undertake a site
survey or waste audit to help set the constraints and boundaries for container selection. All suggested that
footfall is a very important consideration as it impacts on the best locations for containers, the number of
containers required and the capacity needed to meet demand. Most suggested that clients should consider a trial
or pilot before implementing full schemes. Suppliers suggested that the trial stage need not necessarily involve a
cost to the client.
Table 2 Key general considerations in container selection
Headline considerations
Budget available
Sub-considerations
 Limits the number of containers;
 Some materials and signage requirements will be expensive; and
 High-tech reverse vending machines versus other types of container.
Potential locations for
containers





Geography – e.g. internal or external environment;
Ensuring that containers are visible;
Space available may be an issue;
Busiest locations – areas of highest footfall; and
High waste producing areas – e.g. canteens, food outlets.
Materials collection




Wastes arising and materials to be collected for recycling;
Segregated or co-mingled;
Number of materials collected; and
Plans for residual waste - will residual waste be paired/twinned/co-located with
recycling.
Selecting number of
containers





Size of location;
Space available;
Footfall;
Accessibility – adequate number to allow easy accessibility; and
Vehicle available for servicing containers – emptying / cleansing.
Selecting container
capacity
 Space available;
 Footfall; and
 Emptying frequency –in part will dictate capacity required. Frequency will depend on
whether the collection will be a new service or added to an existing collection round.
Operational constraints







Manual handling issues;
Emptying by hand versus by vehicle uplift;
Vehicles available for servicing containers – emptying / cleansing;
Ability to empty when full;
Number of operatives available to empty containers;
Ease of opening and accessibility; and
Ability for users to continue to use container while being emptied.
Security and fixing




Ability to lock;
Fixed versus free standing;
Fixed containers may need planning permission;
Ability to secure containers in the case of a security alert; and
Recycling on the Go Containers
6
Headline considerations
Sub-considerations
 Specific security consideration for certain sectors e.g. airports (see Section 2.3).
Other health and safety
considerations
 Ability to move containers;
 Exclude sharp edges; and
 Accessibility to disabled and children.
Signage and branding





Ability to brand with corporate and national messages/signs/iconography;
Aesthetically in keeping with surroundings;
Corporate style /street scene consistency;
Flexibility to change if scheme is modified/new materials added; and
Ability to add advertising/sponsorship – potential source of income.
Maintenance requirements






Ease of cleaning;
Vandalism risks – fly-posters, fire risks;
Vermin risks – seagulls, rats;
Longevity – corrosion (e.g. salt corrosion at seafront sites);
Ability to refurbish; and
Flexibility of solution – ability to easily adjust or change signage, apertures, volume split.
Procurement/sustainable
procurement/CSR




Ability to recycle;
Use of recycled materials in manufacture;
Ability to refurbish; and
Any procurement restrictions e.g. framework contracts.
This document focuses on ‘low tech’ containers i.e. containers which do not require an energy supply. Table 3
outlines some differences between conventional units and reverse vending units. There are conventional units
that require an energy supply to allow the incorporation of more high-tech solutions. These are recent additions
to the container market. Two examples are given in
Table 4 and Error! Reference source not found.
Recycling on the Go Containers
7
Table 3 Conventional units versus reverse vending machines
Conventional unit
 No requirement for an electrical supply;
 Substantially cheaper to procure than RV;
 Opportunity to collect mixed recyclables within the same
unit;
 Suitable for different sizes, shapes and forms of
packaging;
 Internal units are smaller in size and require less floor
space;
 Low daily maintenance; and
 Rely on external messages to the consumer to minimise
contamination.
Reverse vending
 Require an energy source (can be supplied through solar
panels);
 Generally more expensive than conventional units;
 Generally collect just cans and plastic bottles. Some units
can be used for hot drink containers;
 Ability to provide incentives to users; however, users







may expect a form of incentive which is not always
sustainable and withdrawing incentives can result in
lower capture rates;
Able to reject contamination; but can also reject
requested items (e.g. unidentified barcodes);
Electronic record keeping of the number of times the unit
has been used;
Can incorporate crushing and therefore have a higher
capacity compared to a non-crushing unit;
Require periodic emptying and cleaning;
Require software update (e.g. new barcodes);
Depending on the size, may not be applicable to all types
and sizes of packaging (e.g. no HDPE bottles or no 1-2L
PET bottles); and
If external, can attract vandalism.
Table 4 Renew in London
Locations installed:
200 Renew ‘communication pods’, that double as paper
recycling containers, have been installed in the Square
Mile of London.
High tech features:
 Two LCD screens displaying live news, entertainment
and information;
 Wi-fi hotspots; and
 Public broadcast network in emergency situations.
Other features:
 Designed to mitigate the force, fire and fragments of
an improvised explosive device: inner chassis four
times stronger than steel and body panels made from
glass-reinforced polymer; and
 Slot aperture for paper recycling.
Cost:
 £25,000 per unit;
 Renew pays for containers and maintenance; and
Recoup capital expenditure through sponsorship
and corporate news and announcements, as well
as the content that is shows in real-time.
Source: http://renewsolution.com/index.html and various internet news articles accessed.
Recycling on the Go Containers
8
Table 5 Big Belly solar bin
Locations installed (worldwide):
 External locations; and
 On-street, parks, colleges, beach fronts, leisure
venues.
High tech features:
 Solar panel which powers a compactor; and
 Wireless monitoring system – sends text or email
when 85% full.
Advertised advantages:
 Reduction in container collection costs;
 Elimination of over flowing containers; and
 Generates positive public response and “buy-in”.
Energy supply: Solar panel
Source: http://www.bigbellysolar.co.uk/
There are some considerations when thinking about the material most suitable for the body of the container (see
Table ). However, many units tend to be composites or manufactured from a mixture of materials.
Manufacturers of metal containers are able to supply containers with a variety of finishes such as anti-fly paint
and anti-corrosion paint. As such, it is hard to draw general conclusions about material suitability. (Material
considerations in relation to bomb proof units are discussed in Section 2.3.)
Table 6 Container material considerations
Material
Glass fibre
Characteristics
 Non corrosive; and
 Hard wearing.
Plastic





Steel/galvanised
steel
 Heavier than plastic;
 High durability;
 Can be more vulnerable to corrosion but galvanised metal containers are more resistant
Generally lighter than steel;
Generally cheaper than steel;
Can be more vulnerable to vandalism and fire damage;
Can have double-skin moulding for added strength; and
Can be manufactured using recycled plastic.
and anti-corrosion paint is commonly available;
 Can get hot in summer if positioned in direct sunlight;
 Can have sharp edges; and
 Can be refurbished.
Recycling on the Go Containers
9
2.2
Considerations according to internal or external environment
Table 7 outlines some of the characteristics required for containers depending on where they will be located. Internal
locations are frequently more space-limited than external situations and so container footprint is a key consideration. Internal
environments tend to be more controlled than external environments - features can be included such as liquid reservoirs and
vandalism is less of an issue. In external environments, the key considerations are selecting containers that will be robust,
hard-wearing and resistant to weather and vandalism.
Table 7 Characteristics required of containers in different situations
Car park
 As external;
 Highly visible; and
 Tend to require larger capacity than internal.
Entrances
 As internal.
External








Fireproof;
Fixed and locked;
Hard wearing;
Larger capacity / large footprint;
Planning permission (required for fixed containers);
Resistant to vandalism;
Vermin-proof including seagulls; and
Weather resistant.
Internal





Easily accessed;
Easily serviced / cleaned;
Movable;
Resist damage; and
Small footprint.
Pavement
 As external; and
 Small footprint.
2.3
Considerations by sector
Table 8 sets out some specific considerations by sector; these have been highlighted at the WRAP organised
RotG stakeholder engagement workshops1 or identified by container suppliers. Generally, the considerations
outlined in Table 2 are common across different sectors and have not been specifically repeated below. The only
design specification identified in this research was produced by BAA for their airports (see Section 2.4). The NHS
sets strict fire requirements which have to be met by waste collection containers.
Stakeholder engagement workshops were held in England, Scotland and Wales with organisations involved in RotG development and
delivery to explore the financial mechanisms behind their schemes and how existing partnership arrangements could be replicated. The
workshops were held in January and February 2012.
1
Recycling on the Go Containers
10
Table 8 Specific considerations by sector
Sector
Hospitals
Consideration
 Compliant with fire safety;
 Infection control – must be easy to clean; and
 Restricted space (in corridors).
Local authority managed
spaces
 Ability to empty using existing vehicles;
 Aesthetically in keeping with surroundings, particularly in conservation and heritage





areas / with street-scene requirements;
Containers that will not corrode - specifically for coastal areas;
Easy to open and empty;
Low maintenance;
Meet the requirements of the population that use the area; and
Resistant to vandalism.
One-off events




Easy to transport, stack and store;
High capacity;
High visibility; and
Quick to install.
Permanent leisure
attractions / venues
 Aesthetically in keeping with surroundings; and
 Highly visible.
Shopping centres
 Aesthetically in keeping with surroundings; and
 Highly visible.
Transport hubs
 Aesthetically in keeping with surroundings;
 Airports – the collection of materials that cannot be taken through security e.g.
sharps, liquids and textiles;
 Highly visible;
 Security – requires frequent emptying; and
 Security – transparent or blast resistant containers may need to be considered.
2.4
Security
Security is a particular concern at transport hubs and some other potential terrorist targets. Blast proof
containers have been installed within the Square Mile in London ( Section 2.1).
The Aviation Security in Airport Developments (ASIAD) provides recommendations on the positioning and
structure of containers for airports that can be accessed through official sources.
The Centre for the Protection of National Infrastructure (CPNI) 1 has carried out a number of tests on containers.
They then allocate a rating and it is up to the airport to decide on the standard and suitability of the containers
they install.
The Home Office has produced a guidance note (HOSDB 12/08) – The selection, positioning and testing of Blast
Resistant Litter Bins2.
BAA has a ‘Design Performance Standard for Airport Bins’3. This sets out detailed requirements including: being
able to sustain intense use; having a high quality visual appearance; being readily maintainable and cleanable;
1
http://www.cpni.gov.uk/
2
http://www.cpni.gov.uk/documents/publications/2008/2008052-hosdb_guidance_note_12_blast-resistant_litterbins.pdf?epslanguage=en-gb
3
BAA Airports (2009) Airport Bins: Design Performance Standard.
Recycling on the Go Containers
11
being portable and meeting manual handling regulations; and being colour-coded according to WRAP
conventions.
Based on the consultation with the suppliers, it would seem that railways station operators are more concerned
about the security risks than airports. Glasdon produces the only container approved by TRANSEC 1 for use in
railway stations. The ‘C-thru’ container is fire and blast-proof. Some containers available from suppliers can be
provided with blanking plates to block the apertures of containers if there is a security alert.
2.5 Features
This section highlights some of the specific features that can be included on RotG containers to encourage use
and to help operationally.
Container suppliers and practitioners at the RotG workshops suggested that material-specific apertures help
reduce contamination. Containers are available with apertures specific for bottles, cans, paper and mixed dry
recyclate. Generally, it seems to be agreed that the aperture size for all materials, including residual litter, should
be restricted to prevent contamination and, for larger capacity containers, used by commercial businesses. In
addition, it also seems to be generally agreed that the aperture provided for residual waste should be larger than
that for the recycled material streams. Error! Reference source not found. identifies some of the other
container features available.
The Transport Security and Contingencies Directorate (TRANSEC) was set up as a separate unit within the Department for Transport (DfT)
following the Lockerbie bombing of 21 December 1988.
1
Recycling on the Go Containers
12
Table 9 Container features
Feature
Ability to group bins
Comments
 Some containers are specifically designed to be grouped together e.g. collecting
Ashtray/stubber plate
Branding/good signage







Brushes on apertures
Castors on liners
Colour


source-segregated material.
For external environments.
Branding and signage can look busy on smaller containers;
Needs to be very clear, simple, eye-catching and easy to understand; and
Should look different from residual waste bins.
Can extinguish lit matches decreasing the fire risk;
Can prevent food waste; and
Can reduce potential health and safety risk e.g. broken glass escaping out of
container.
Helps to make emptying easier.
Recycle Now1 and Recycle for Scotland colour code is current standard best
practice;
Black can work well for RotG if well signed and has coloured apertures for
recyclate;
Black can be viewed by users as residual waste containers, if not distinguished by
signage/colour-coding;
Colour can be used to tie in with kerbside scheme in a local authority situation;
this may not be appropriate in tourist areas where the kerbside colour has no
meaning to visitors; and
Colour on the apertures and doors can be used to help identify the materials
accepted.
Allows positioning against a wall.
Deters fly posting.











Allows emptying without lifting.
Gives flexibility to modify what is being collected.
To collect liquids and help cleaning.
Can be used to help reduce liquid contamination; and
Not suitable in an external environment.
For consideration in areas where rats are an issue.
For consideration in areas where seagulls are an issue.
Containers can still be used while being emptied.
For consideration if collecting glass.
Prevents materials being placed on the top of the container.
Can be considered for specific external situations.






D-shaped profile or flat profile
Dimpled/perforated/ribbed
surface
Front opening
Interchangeable apertures/lids
Liner tray with reservoir
Liquid reservoir
Rat modification
Seagull flaps
Side or rear opening
Sound dampening
Sloping/pyramid roofs
Special coatings e.g. anti-fly
posting, anti-corrosion
Transparent
Weight warning graphic
1
Users can see what materials should go in the container;
Discourages contamination;
High security –any suspect package can be seen;
It has been suggested that transparent containers are not suitable in an external
environment. However, some suppliers are now producing transparent containers
considered to be tough enough to use externally; and
 Can have some aesthetic issues, as not everyone likes to see the content of a
recycling container.
 On clear containers to indicate when contents reaches a certain weight within the
container (e.g. used for battery collection).




http://www.recyclenow.com/ and http://www.recycleforscotland.com/
Recycling on the Go Containers
13
3
Containers
Table 10 gives some more detailed examples of containers that have been adopted in different RotG sectors
and situations. This information has been compiled from the Scottish RotG case studies and the Scottish RotG
Capital Support Fund applications.
The accompanying Excel file (RotG container database July 12.xls) gives details of recycling containers currently
available from the main manufacturers. It should be noted that suppliers have development programmes and as
such new products are continually being developed. In addition, some suppliers are able to offer bespoke
solutions. Hence, there is likely to be greater flexibility in container provision than can be demonstrated in the
database.
Within the database the following details are provided for each container, subject to the information being
available via the manufacturer’s website (details are listed in same order as the database):


















Manufacturer;
Model;
Main material type;
Containment method inside container e.g. metal liner, plastic sack;
Colour;
Colour of aperture/lid;
Number of apertures;
Type of aperture;
Volume;
Suitability for grouping;
Number of material streams;
Situation most suitable (external or internal);
Other comments on suitability (based only on information provided by supplier);
Features;
Optional features;
Lockable option;
Fixing; and
Source (website link).
The information in the database was supplemented with material provided directly by the suppliers consulted.
Recycling on the Go Containers
14
Table 10 Examples of containers currently or planned to be utilised in different RotG sectors and situations
Organisation
Sector
Subsector
Situation
Container
types
Material
type
Aberdeenshire
Local
authority
managed
space
On-street
External
Glasdon
Nexus 360,
Leafield Eco
Envirobank,
Broxap
Derby
Plastic,
cans,
residual
waste
Clackmannans
hire Council
Local
authority
managed
space
On-street
External
Double
Derby Bins
Slimline
Recycling
Unit (BX
2596-DDSRC)
Community
Central Hall
Permanent
leisure
attraction
Community
hall
Internal
Wybone –
box cycle
single
Dundee City
Council
Local
authority
managed
space
Parks /
open
spaces
External
Local
authority
managed
space
On-street
External
Dundee City
Council
Wybone
Timber
Fronted
(RLA/5 & 6)
Broxap
Single
Sided
Recycling
Internal
containment
method
Wheelie bin –
240 or 140
litre
Number
of
apertures
2
Aperture
type
Vol.
(litres)
Reasons given for selection
Specific to
material
stream
3x140
or 240
Mixed
recycling
(paper,
card,
plastics,
metal food
and drink
containers
); residual
waste
Paper,
plastic
bottles,
cans
Clear plastic
liner
4
Specific to
material
stream.
2x80

Clear plastic
sack
1
Specific to
material
stream.
60

Plastic
packaging,
aluminium
cans and
paper/card
board
Plastic
packaging,
aluminium
cans,
-
1-2
 Residual waste can be collected
adjacent to recycling to reduce
contamination
 Compatible with wheeled bin
collection system so existing
vehicle fleet can be utilised for
collection
Allows collection of residual
waste with recycling


Self-closing
flaps

-
3
Flap
270



Clear containers to reduce
contamination
Fit together easily to create
recycling points
Timber fronted containers
match the circular slatted timber
litter bins currently on-site
Blend in well with the
surroundings
Same container as found to be
successful in beachfront location
Hard-wearing
High enough capacity to cope
with demand
Recycling on the Go Containers
15
Organisation
Dundee City
Council
East Lothian
Sector
Local
authority
managed
space
Local
authority
managed
space
Subsector
On-street
On-street
and car
park
Situation
External
External
Edinburgh
Leisure
Permanent
leisure
attraction
Swimming
pool
Internal
Essential
Edinburgh
Permanent
leisure
attraction
Parks /
open space
External
Glasgow
Council
Local
authority
On-street /
parks /
External
Container
types
Material
type
Container
(BX45
SEPR8)
Glasdon
Nexus
range /
Wybone
Mini Cyclo
paper/card
board
Taylors
Node 360º
Wybone –
triple,
double,
single and
plastic cup
recycling
Broxap
Buxton
Double
Recycling
Unit
Wybone
Peat unit
Internal
containment
method
Plastic
packaging,
aluminium
cans and
paper/card
board
Double
unit
-
Mixed
recyclates:
mixed
paper and
cardboard;
comingled
cans,
plastic and
glass.
-
-
Number
of
apertures
-
Aperture
type
-
Vol.
(litres)
Reasons given for selection
200 300

Size not too obtrusive

Co-ordinate with the existing
litter bins yet distinctive enough
to avoid confusion (and hence
contamination)
Minimise the risk of fly posting
damage
Aperture sizes limits large-scale
deposits or the dumping of
larger materials


1
-
4x800



Clear plastic
liner
1-3
Mixed
recycling;
residual
waste
Liners
Mixed
papers
Metal liner.

High capacity (to fit with
fortnightly collection frequency)
Locking post and base plate
gives security without need for
planning permission
Material specific apertures
reduce contamination and
minimise health and safety risks
Ability to relocate – if location
chosen not working
Similar in design to those found
in many other public spaces
therefore easier for visitors to
recognise and use
Specific to
material
stream.
-
6
Large
aperture
2 x 120

1
Keyhole
120 
Able to secure on concrete plinth
which makes them secure and less

None given
Recycling on the Go Containers
16
Organisation
Highland
Council
Perth and
Kinross
Council
Sector
Subsector
managed
space
open
spaces
Local
authority
managed
space
Local
authority
managed
space
Situation
Container
types
Car park
External
Glasdon
Nexus 200
On-street
External
Taylors
Node 360
Material
type
(newspape
rs/magazi
nes), card,
plastic
bottles
and cans
Paper,
cans and
plastic
bottles
Mixed
recyclates:
Paper,
cardboard,
cans,
mixed
plastics
Internal
containment
method
Number
of
apertures
Aperture
type
Vol.
(litres)


Reasons given for selection
likely to be knocked over
Size makes it suitable for highly
visible location
Size does not cause any manual
handling issue
Liner
4
Small hole
200

-
4
-
4x800

None given





Royal Botanic
Garden
Edinburgh
Leisure
attraction
Royal Botanic
Garden
Edinburgh
Leisure
attraction
Parks /
open space
Parks /
open space
Internal
Internal
Dolphin
recycling
container –
stainless
steel
Glasdon –
Nexus 100
Paper,
plastic
bottles,
residual
waste
Plastic,
paper,
cans
Clear plastic
liners
3
Large
aperture
2 x 50
1 x 70





Clear plastic
liners
1
Slot
(paper);
small hole
(plastic)
100




Able to be serviced by current
fleet of RCVs – reducing
operating costs
High capacity (to fit with
fortnightly collection frequency)
Highly visual
Locking post and base plate
gives security without need for
planning permission
No need for groundwork
Container can be moved –
freedom to adjust location of
containers if required
Reduced manual handling risk
High specification
Aesthetically appropriate to
setting (visitor centre entrance)
Robust
Clear signage
High specification.
Aesthetically appropriate to
setting (meeting rooms).
Robust.
Clear signage
Source: Successful applications to the Zero Waste Scotland RotG Capital Support Fund – Phase 1.
Recycling on the Go Containers
17
www.wrap.org.uk/relevant link