Marchand Rogier in response to Andreas Behnsen question wrote:
>From an economic perspective, implementing source separation
>system from zero implies what economists would call a social
>marketing approach, refering to a strategy of changing human
>behaviour in the sense that old habits must be overcome,
>and that new ones has to be learnt and maintained.
>Clear examples of these strategies are the famous
>anti-smoking campaigns, birth control in eg. India etc.
>
>The same holds true for changing our behaviour in discarding
>wastes. It goes without saying that such a change doesn't
>occur overnight and that it requires large (public?) investments.
>Investments in public campaigns at city or neighbourhood
>level, setting up of pilot projects of organic waste
>composting to show the implicit value of organic wastes, facilitate
>the collection of organic waste, find uses for the compost
>produced and make public its positive results, to name a few.

while I agree that large investments is needed, campaigns for anti-smoking
and birth control received a quicker change because both had a direct effect
on the individual (health) or family (long term economy).  With waste
management, sewage and garbage the situation can be viewed as different (thus
slower change) because waste removal have been efficient. For many
communities, you can get garbage disposal twice a week.  So such communities
just throw everything for the garbage collectors. We have also constructed
apartment buildings that dont facilitate or foster on-site use (with the
exception of roof-top gardens).

To me garbage removal (and processing) has become a service that is not
sustaining itself economically because the government isnt charging enough.
If a system of additional charge is imposed on people who dont sort their
wastes, I believe you will see a quick change.

regards
jacky