The Sustainable Waste Management of Istanbul and London

The Global Issue of Waste: Understanding and Analyzing the Sustainable Waste Management of Istanbul and London Ryan Saathoff 4/24/15

Created for Global Urban Lab Rice University: School of Social Sciences

Executive Summary This paper will evaluate the sustainable waste management practices implemented by Istanbul, its Municipality of SarÄąyer, London, and its Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea.

This is accomplished by first introducing municipal solid waste (MSW) as an urban and global issue, and then exploring the general polices of the overarching central governments of the global cities of London and Istanbul, as well as explaining the organizational structure of waste management within the cities. After providing such context, this paper discovers and analyzes specific policies being utilized by the respective neighborhoods in their pursuit of greater recyclable recovery and waste minimization tactics. More so, this paper explores the role of non-governmental actors, specifically how they augment the waste management infrastructure and promote “greener� living. Finally, this paper offers recommendations in the form of greater global cooperation, increased local government funding, and community outreach to combat the rising urban issue of solid waste management.

1|Page

Table of Contents Cover Page .................................................................................................................................................... 0 Executive Summary....................................................................................................................................... 1 Table of Contents .......................................................................................................................................... 2 Report ........................................................................................................................................................... 3 Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 3 Issue Statement ........................................................................................................................................ 4 Research .................................................................................................................................................... 5 London .................................................................................................................................................. 6 The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea .................................................................................... 9 Istanbul ............................................................................................................................................... 12 The Municipality of Sar覺yer ................................................................................................................. 14 Findings ................................................................................................................................................... 15 Recommendations & Conclusion ............................................................................................................ 16 Works Cited ................................................................................................................................................. 17 Acknowledgments....................................................................................................................................... 18

2|Page

Report Introduction One of the greatest hindrances to urban sustainability lies in waste management. In fact, almost all city managers report that solid waste management is in their top five challenging problems (UN-Habitat 2010). One reason is clear: managing waste is not a glamorous profession in both appearance and practice. Nonetheless, government effectiveness is often interpreted by the cleanliness of the city streets, so efficacious policies for the removal of waste is paramount for happy citizens. It is also largely thrust upon local and municipal governments to manage waste “in the most economically, socially, and environmentally optimal manner possible” (World Bank 2013). More so, the management of municipal solid waste (MSW) is often the largest budgeted expense for most local governments, creating the most cityemployed jobs. Globally, it is estimated we now spend $205.4 billion annually on solid waste management, with this number expected to rise an additional $100 billion in the next ten years.

Therefore, the arguably least publicized urban management issue demands the greatest resources, both in capital and time, from local urban governments.

The impending effects of climate change have also created new pressures for these local governments. No longer is it acceptable for the world’s cities to simply put their waste in a landfill or burn it in an incinerator. Instead, more national governments are encouraging their local governments to invest in biomass collection (for fuel or compost), intensive recycling practices, and close-loop-consumer-good production. However, this relies on greater investment in infrastructure, citizen education, and new processing facilities. In a post-2008 financial crisis world, where austerity has dominated global economic policy, there is great hesitancy to invest in such projects. This, coupled with the mass exodus from rural to urban settings — more than 50% of humanity now lives in cities, with this percentage only rising — threatens the future of sustainability for all cities. In fact by 2050, it is projected that 70% of the world’s population will reside in cities (Mayor of London 2011). Additionally, it is expected that by 2025, 4.3 billion urban residents will be generating about 1.42 kg/capita/day of municipal solid waste, equaling about 2.2 billion tons per year. By these calculations, municipal solid waste rates are even surpassing urbanization rates throughout the world (World Bank 2013).

Surveys conducted by UN-Habitat show that in areas where waste is not collected frequently, the incidence of diarrhea is twice as high and acute respiratory infections six times higher than in areas where collection is frequent (UN-Habitat 2010). That statistic simply highlights the importance of collection in general; however, the health of people is just another reason the “greening” of waste management is necessary, as solid waste is a major producer of methane, a greenhouse gas (GHG) (UN-Habitat 2010) (World Bank 2013). Common global environmental and climate problems associated with open and unsustainable dumping include: air pollution and release of particulates, specifically from carbon dioxide and fine particles incurred from the burning of waste; the release of methane from anaerobic decomposition of organic materials under surface; and, the pollution of surface water from exposure to waste, or resulting from anaerobic decomposition under water (UN-Habitat 2010). All of these instances jeopardize the health of our planet, our people, and the sustainability of urban life.

3|Page

Thus, the implementation of sustainable MSW practices will be paramount in the years to come. It is not, however, the simple answer of merely improving reclamation rates; waste minimization strategies will also become the focus of municipal policy as more and more landfills reach capacity (UN-Habitat 2010). Waste, due to the increasing population of cities, is largely an urban issue. While rural areas will clearly need to improve sustainable practices in the following years, they lack the issue that is the sheer volume of waste that challenges the sustainability of urban futures. Therefore, that is what this paper aims to do: understand the sustainable policies implemented by municipal governments in the global cities of London and Istanbul. Global cities, by definition, are the forefront of the urban experiment, as the international community is constantly watching and criticizing their strategies. Due to this global publicity and importance, cities such as London and Istanbul have a responsibility to promote sustainable images, and in this case, sustainable municipal solid waste management.

In summation, waste is an ever-growing urban issue, and there is a dire need for effective waste management practices that benefit the sustainability of an urbanized world. This necessity is rooted not only in the increased economic costs that waste management will incur (as discussed in earlier paragraphs), but also in the necessity of maintaining the public global health. London and Istanbul both have significant challenges in their own pursuit for sustainable waste management, which this paper will explore; but, they are not problems particular to these global cities alone. Instead, the cities are experiencing challenges that many cities around the world are facing currently or will face in the future. With that said, studying Istanbul and London’s sustainable waste management practices offers insight for policymakers across the globe, which this paper hopes to provide.

Issue Statement As touched on in the previous sections, this paper has three main aims: to understand the challenges that London and Istanbul are facing in their attempts to make their MSW practices more sustainable, to examine what policies are being implemented by the larger cities and their municipal subsets of the Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea and the Municipality of SarÄąyer respectively, and to establish what can be learned from these findings in terms of policy prescriptions. This paper will evaluate waste management at a local and city level, and asses its global implications under the theme of urban sustainability. Urban sustainability is defined in this paper as the idea that a city can be organized without excessive reliance on the surrounding countryside and environment, and without jeopardizing the future of the ecological health of our planet and the well being of future generations of humanity (Allen 2009). In the context of waste management, this translates into strategies that minimize waste, increase recycling rates, and promote conscious public consumption. This paper will focus on these strategies, and which policies the global cities of Istanbul and London create to realize them.

To define municipal solid waste, this paper utilizes the definition offered by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD): “municipal waste is collected and treated by, or for municipalities. It covers waste from households, including bulky waste, similar waste from commerce and trade, office buildings, institutions and small 4|Page

businesses, yard and garden, street sweepings, contents of litter containers, and market cleansing.” In essence, it is everyday waste. This definition offers a degree of flexibility in its use, as it allows this paper to look at MSW in the context of both commercial and residential waste. Nonetheless, the foremost interest of this paper’s focus lies in sustainable residential MSW strategies implemented by the municipal governments of Istanbul and London. Both of these cities have vastly different backgrounds, yet their organizational structure for MSW is relatively similar, allowing for comparisons and contrasts between the two. Still, the motivations behind sustainability in Istanbul and London (necessity and responsibility, respectively) are largely different, and this paper also attempts to uncover the implications of these motives on policy and practices.

While some of the questions this paper proposes can be interpreted as quite broad, the goal is not to uncover the finite details that challenge the fabric of urban sustainability. Rather, this paper’s goals are oriented in a way that give both local and international policymakers a general understanding of the barriers at hand and a foundation of potential policy solutions to build upon for greater research for sustainable waste management in global cities. In the end, the reader should be able to fully realize the broader situation at hand for both Istanbul and London, and what can be done to alleviate the problems that plague local governments in their pursuits of urban sustainability in the context of waste management.

Research To understand the sustainable policies and practices of MSW for Istanbul and London, and more specifically the policies of the local governments of the Sarıyer municipality and the Royal Borough of Chelsea and Kensington, this paper utilizes a broad array of sources, ranging from field observations and interviews to academic journals and data sets. Through this range of sources, this paper aims to offer a diversified perspective of MSW sustainability through different analytical lenses. More so, analyzing the policies of both the larger city and its municipal subsets allows for both macro- and micro-analysis of the issues at hand, resulting in more apt policy prescriptions.

Nonetheless, due to information access hindrances and the language barrier, the Istanbul research is largely qualitative, based on two interviews and field observations. An abundance of online resources (such as waste databases and articles) exist for London, so quantitative analysis is overwhelming used to understand the London context. Still, similar information is obtained for both cities (with Istanbul being slightly less in depth), so a comparative framework is still very accomplishable. Even still, it is prudent to understand that London and Istanbul, while both definitive global cities, are very different cities in terms of both economics and perspectives on sustainability. These differences in the cities will be highlighted in their respective sections, but it is important to note these differences before proceeding further. The affluence of London results in a more responsibility-oriented approach to society, while Istanbul makes sustainability decisions through necessity, as resources, both material and financial, are more limited (Türkay 2015). This fundamental difference in approach will be an underlying theme throughout this paper.

In terms of methodology, the information obtained, as touched upon in earlier 5|Page

paragraphs, is through interviews with a local authority for environmental concerns for Sarıyer, and a mechanical engineering professor from Koç University specializing in sustainability. The field observations are obtained from walking around İnstinye in Sarıyer, whereas the field observations for Kensington & Chelsea are obtained from living in Earl’s Court. Finally, government databases are utilized for London, whereas a research paper summarizing the waste management of Istanbul is the main provider of quantitative information for the Turkish context. Through these means, this paper uncovers the current state of sustainable waste management practices in both cities.

For simplicity in understanding, this section is divided into four sub-sections: London, the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, Istanbul, and the Municipality of Sarıyer. Breaking it down in this manner allows the broader context of the city-at-large to be given for the local governments before delving into their own analyses; thus, the research hopes to be clear and digestible.

London

As mentioned above, due to the vast amount of quantitative resources available from the London and British governments, the majority of the research for understanding London, as a whole, is based on data sets provided by the Greater London Authority and GOV.UK, specifically the London DataStore. Moreover, datasets retrieved from the Department for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs (also accessible through the data store) are also utilized to understand London comparatively to the rest of England. Using these data sets, this paper aims to paint a picture with numbers of the state of London’s MSW in the context of sustainability. Therefore, this section aims to: (1) explain the sustainability of waste management in the context of England, (2) explain the structure by which London is organized to handle and process waste, and (3) provide insight into what the centralized authorities, specifically the Mayor of London’s Office has done to encourage sustainable waste management.

Despite London being ranked 2nd in the Sustainable Cities Index, its performance in recycling rates lag behind the rest of English regions, placing last with only 34% of Greater London waste being recycled (GOV.UK 2014). Nonetheless, when viewed in a five-year change, rates in all of England, including London, has seen an increase (2008/09-2013/14). (See Figure 1). However, the last few years (2012-2014) have shown stagnation in rates as a national phenomenon, and this is most apparent in London. In fact, “out of thirty-three London councils, fifteen recycled/composted less in 2012/13 compared to the previous year,” roughly 50% of all councils (LONDON.GOV.UK 2013). The root of this decline is difficult to pinpoint due to the structure of London’s collection of MSW. As mentioned in the previous quote, the collection of MSW is left to the 31 borough councils (plus the councils of the City of London and the City of Westminster) that London is divided into for local governance.

Because of this localized level of control of management of MSW, there are local factors highly specific to each local council that could not be feasibly teased out for the purpose of the paper. While the local councils perform collection, regional waste authorities (South London Waste Partnership, West London Waste Authority, North London Waste Authority and the East London Waste Authority) process the waste collected, whether that be through recycling center 6|Page

or disposal in landfills. These authorities handle approximately two-thirds of all waste produced

by London; however, the Greater London Authority (GLA) aims to make this figure 100% by 2026 (Mayor of London 2015).

Due to the relatively low diversion rate of MSW, “The municipal waste that London sends to landfill generates approximately 460,000 tons of greenhouse gas emissions each year” (Mayor of London 2011). To combat this figure, Boris Johnson, the Mayor of London, published the Mayor’s Municipal Waste Management Strategy in November 2011. This publication set forth the goals for the future of sustainable waste management in London. In this manifesto for MSW practices, the Mayor aimed to: • achieve zero municipal waste direct to landfill by 2025; • achieve a 20% decrease in household waste by 2031; • increase London’s capacity to reuse or repair municipal waste from approximately 6,000 tons a year in 2008 to 20,000 tons a year in 2015 and 30,000 tons a year in 2031; • and recycle or compost at least 45 per cent of municipal waste by 2015, 50 per cent by 2020 and 60 per cent by 2031. (Mayor of London 2011) Interestingly though, the stagnation of the reclamation of MSW began the year the strategy was published, thus highlighting the difficulties that the waste management goals imposed on the local governments. The 2015 goals set by this strategy are also not on track to meet their target, with the recycling/composting rate looking to fall short by around 10%, as the rate has remained at 34% since 2011/12 (GOV.UK 2015).

Despite these policy challenges, when the Mayor’s office iterated their targets in The London Plan published in March of this year, the goals of London largely remained the same.

The only difference was the pushing back of total waste diversion from landfills to 2026, a mere one-year difference (Mayor of London 2015). More so, no new policies were set forth by The 7|Page

London Plan, again emphasizing the desire to manage and process all waste internally, educate citizens, reduce waste in general, and promote re-use (Mayor of London 2015). To meet these expectations, a hierarchy of waste management has been established by the Mayor’s office.

The hierarchy is ordered as follows: (1) prevention or reduction, (2) re-use and repairing for reuse, (3) recycling, (4) other recovery such as gasification or anaerobic digestion that produce fuels for heat and power, and (5) disposal (Mayor of London 2011) (Mayor of London 2015).

(See Figure 2)

The GLA and Boris Johnson are not the only actors attempting to combat unsustainable waste management. Other entities such as non-profit organization and NGOs are attempting to provide resources, information, and promote sustainability for MSW management. One of the most prolific of these entities is the London Re-Use Network, which is comprised of “charities, social enterprises and non-profit organisations” that work in tandem to increase the practice of re-use throughout in London (London Re-Use Network 2014). Often partnering with the local boroughs, the London Re-Use Network collects unwanted furniture, appliances and household items, which they then quality/safety-check, refurbish, and then pass on to new homes. They can pick up items from peoples’ homes upon request, or items can be dropped off at a local reuse shop within the network. Organizations such as the London Re-Use Network are becoming the backbone of the Mayor’s waste management initiatives, as they have seen greater success in their goals, with the Re-Use Network exceeding their targets for recycling and re-use by 49% in 2013 (London Re-Use Network 2013).

Therefore, the current state of London’s waste can be summarized as: while there might be stagnation in the composting/recycling rate, the centralized authorities, the Mayor of London and the Greater London Authority, have made clear goals for the local councils to not 8|Page

only improve landfill diversion, but minimize waste in general. The presence of other outside active participants, such as NGOs and non-profits who aim to “green” waste management and foster a culture of re-use, also bolster the policies put forth, and official partnerships between them and local governments will continue to amplify their importance in the years to come.

The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea

It is noted earlier in previous section that 15 of the the 33 councils have seen decreases in their recycling and composting rates in the past few years. One such council is that of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. In fact, from the 2013/14 data, Kensington and Chelsea ranks only 25th out of the 33 councils in composting and recycling rates at 25.45%. (See Figure 3). Seeing a steady rise in this rate from 2008 to 2012, it fell sharply in 2013 and continued to fall in 2014. To understand this situation, this section aims to: (1) explain how the Royal Borough Kensington and Chelsea subvert expectations in terms of sustainability in solid waste management, and (2) explain their polices for recycling and composting.

Kensington and Chelsea contains some of the most high-skilled workers in all of London, with the second highest proportion working in the finance sector (22%), the highest proportion in real estate (3.4%), and the sixth highest proportion in ‘Professional, Scientific and Technical industries’ in all of England and Wales (17%). Even more so, nearly 75% of employed residents 9|Page

work in senior occupations, with “23 per cent ‘Manager, Directors and Senior Officials’ (e.g. chief executives, financial managers), 23 per cent in ‘Professional Occupations’ (e.g. scientists, engineers) and 25 per cent ‘Associate and Technical Occupations’ (e.g. town planners, laboratory technicians, civil engineering technicians)” (RBKC.GOV.UK 2011). With the incomes and required education that are associated with these professions, it comes at no surprise that 58 per cent of all residents describe their health as “very good”, the highest proportion in all of England and Wales. In these regards, it is fair to call Kensington and Chelsea a center of affluence in London, and possibly the most affluent of all boroughs.

This affluence is important to note, because research on environmental consciousness in consumer behavior has shown that affluence and education correlate strongly to greater environmental concern, and therefore higher recycling rates (Barnett et al. 1997). Therefore, it would be expected that the borough of Kensington and Chelsea would have some of the highest recycling rates in London, if not all of England. To further subvert expectations, Kensington and Chelsea is the only borough to decrease in population in the past census, thus only creating less of a burden for the local council in terms of waste management. “Waste experts said the drop — after years of progress — was the result of the Coalition [Government of Liberal Democrats and Liberal Democrats] scrapping its own statutory target in 2010 and local government devoting less resources to the recycling drive due to budget cuts” (Prynn 2014).

Despite these budget cuts, the borough council has actually taken many steps forward to revitalize the recycling culture in Kensington and Chelsea. One such innovation is the transition form orange tinted recycling bags to clear transparent bags in 2014. (See Image 1). Using the tagline “let’s be clear about recycling,” the council aims to encourage people to recycle responsibly and allow residents and recycling collectors to spot items that cannot be recycled.

Reportedly, the Council has to pay seven times as much for a contaminated load of recycling as it does for a clean load; therefore, the new bags allow the waste management workers to easily recognize if the contents are clean and dry (RBKC.GOV.UK 2015). Kensington and Chelsea utilize a single-stream recycling system — paper, glass, cartons, metal containers, and plastic are all bagged together — which theoretically creates ease for the consumer. However, the increases in contamination that drove the borough council to transition to the clear bags highlights the challenges that a single stream system can encounter.

To encourage re-use, Kensington and Chelsea is one of the boroughs that has partnered with the aforementioned London Re-Use Network. In this partnership, similar to the information booklet included with the recycling bags that are shown in Image 1, some recycling bag packages also have included booklets detailing the re-use network resources available to all Kensington and Chelsea residents. A local drop-off area is available, as well as training opportunities for retail skills, business administration, and waste management. Thus, the London Re-Use Network not only offers an infrastructure for waste minimization, but also educates and trains the populace to expand a supporting culture for the borough.

10 | P a g e

Waste minimization is a priority for Kensington and Chelsea, as their website recognizes that while “it is generally accepted that recycling is one of the best ways of dealing with waste, a much better way is by producing less waste in the first place” (RBKC.GOV.UK 2015). To foster this statement they encourage their residents to: • “buy loose fruit and vegetables rather than packaged varieties, or choose products packaged in recyclable material; • buy products like washing up liquid in large quantities; • use a milk delivery service or vegetable box delivery service; • have their name removed from most mailing lists in the country; as well as thinking twice about: • buying bottled water when chilled tap water might do just as well; • using disposable products such as tissues, face wipes, razors, paper and plastic cups, plates and cutlery; • throwing away your garden waste (composting instead); • sing cling film and aluminum foil to wrap food and use boxes with lids instead;” among other things. (RBKC.GOV.UK 2015).

Therefore, while the borough residents subvert sustainability expectations, it perhaps cannot be attributed to a lack of messaging from the council. As the experts mentioned earlier, the falling rate might have more to with a lack of funding for waste management generally, again highlighting the challenges of austerity packages in a post-2008 financial crisis world.

11 | P a g e

Istanbul

Istanbul lacks the vast digital resources that are so readily available in the United Kingdom; so, as mentioned previously, my information of Istanbul is derived from two sources: an interview with Metin Türkay of Koç University, a mechanical engineering professor who studies in sustainability, a 2011 paper by Cevat Yaman of the Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality titled Evaluation of the current condition of packaging wastes throughout Istanbul.

These two sources offered quite differing perspectives of the sustainable waste management practices at hand, which highlights the challenge that is analyzing sustainability in Istanbul, a sprawling global city of over 14 million people (compared to London’s 8.6 million).

Nevertheless, this section aims to: (1) explain how waste management practices are structured in Istanbul, and (2) what sustainable waste management looks like at a broader scale for Istanbul.

In the interview with Professor Türkay, he provided an overview of Istanbul practices, in regard to both general waste management and recycling more specifically. For general waste management, he talked about the desire for more landfill diversion by the government, following explosions caused by built up methane gas in covered landfills. This has resulted in both greater pushes by the metropolitan government to encourage recycling, as well as investment in utilizing the methane gas produced from the anaerobic digestion of landfills for power. While not the cleanest source of power, this is still considered a step in the right direction. In terms of diversion, Professor Türkay said that around 90% of all glass, paper, plastic, and metal is recovered. This is driven largely by the worth of these products in Istanbul.

Further, their value in the Turkish context highlights the necessity of sustainability in Istanbul, as it is far too costly for the Turkish economy to only import or create these goods from raw materials and natural resources.

12 | P a g e

This also encourages one of the unique facets of the waste management system in Istanbul: the street collectors who dig through street waste to recover recyclables to sell to the junkman or direct to the collection/separation facilities. According to Yaman (2011), street collectors account for nearly “10% of total urban waste and 25-30% of recyclable solid waste is collected” by the near 100,000 street collectors in Istanbul, “who are generally from immigrant, minority or other radical groups.” In fact, Professor Türkay (2015) called the street collectors “one of the most important parts of Istanbul recycling.” This informal sector of recycling comes at no cost to the formal waste management center, and UN-Habitat (2010) lauds that “this form of inclusion in solid waste management shows how spectacular results can be achieved where the involvement of the informal sector is promoted.” The relationship of the street collector to the general structure of waste management is shown below in Figure 4.

However, the rates of recovery proposed by Professor Türkay are challenged by the data provided by the Yaman paper. In the paper, Yaman (2011) finds that recovery rates are more around 20-25% for all of solid waste in Istanbul. Incredibly different than Türkay’s estimates, this figure paints a much more difficult obstacle for urban sustainability in Istanbul.

Nonetheless, the metropolitan authority has stated the goal that 60% of all paper, plastic, glass, and metals will be recovered by 2020. These goals rely heavily upon the 74 county municipalities that Istanbul is broken up into for local governance and solid waste management. Each municipality sets its own policy. Figure 5 visually shows the relationship in MSW policymaking.

Professor Türkay believes that one of the greatest challenges Istanbul will face in the years to come will be in the form of e-waste and battery waste. While some municipalities do collect these forms of waste, it is not the collection that poses the issue. Rather, it is what can be done with it afterward. Turkey, as a whole, does not have any electronic or battery manufacturing, importing the majority from China. Therefore, this requires Istanbul to export its waste to countries that have this manufacturing infrastructure. The exportation of “waste” 13 | P a g e

carries stigma, and many countries that manufacture e-goods and batteries have regulations put in place to ban such imports. This leaves countries such as Istanbul in a severe predicament for urban sustainability (Türkay 2015).

In general, Istanbul, due to its massive sprawl and vast number of municipalities, is hard to generalize in terms of sustainable waste management. That said, it would seem that Istanbul’s reclamation rate stands somewhere in 30% range when taking into account both Professor Türkay’s and Cevat Yaman’s estimates. A great deal of this recovery is thanks to the informal sector of street collectors; however, advancement in the formal sector is needed to achieve the 2020 goal rates set by the Metropolitan Municipality. Finally, the necessity of sustainability in waste management will surely be factor that influences Istanbul in the years to come.

The Municipality of Sarıyer

The Municipality of Sarıyer is offering an abundance of services to its residents to encourage sustainable waste management. For this section, this insight is gathered from an interview with Oğuz Abacan, the Environment Protection Manager of Sarıyer, and from field observations in Intinye of Sarıyer. This section aims to (1) explain the options provided to residents of Sarıyer to be sustainable with their waste, and (2) describe the presence of recycling within the municipality jurisdiction. Through these means, this paper hopes to adequately define sustainable waste management in Sarıyer.

In the interview, Oğuz Abacan (2015) provided polices set by the municipality, which is actually rather diverse in its applications to different forms of waste. For residential pick-up, Sarıyer collects plastics, metals, paper/cartons, and glass. Residents must separate these items; however, the municipality offers receptacles for all residents. Bulk items, cooking oils, e-waste, and batteries are also collected by the municipality; however, residents need to either phone for pick-up or deliver the items personally. Abacan has said these methods have been largely successful with “many residents taking part in the program”. Once the waste has been collected, it is then transferred to private waste-processing centers. Abacan prided the municipality in its beauty and says that the polices put in place would sustain such beauty.

When walking around Sarıyer, recycling is well publicized via bottle shaped receptacles with the municipality logo (see Image 2). These receptacles, seen throughout Instinye, offer clear iconicity to recycling. More so, the clear messaging of these receptacles allow residents, immigrants, visitors, and tourists to clearly understand where they can recycle. These receptacles will surely be useful in the Metropolitan’s pursuit of increased recovery rates for recyclables.

Finite recovery figures for Sarıyer were not available, so

14 | P a g e

the successes of the sustainability policies are mostly conjectures. Nonetheless, the principles guiding the sustainable waste management practices of the municipality are sound, and should buttress the recovery rate in the years to come.

Findings With recovery rates both around 30%, Istanbul and London seem fairly similar in their waste management at a distance; however, both are utilizing fairly different policies. More so, the motivations are quite different. Economic pressures on Istanbul cause greater need to be sustainable, whereas London’s sustainability is more of response to expectations and responsibilities as a city of a fully developed country within the European Union. Nonetheless, the similarity in recovery rates emphasizes that no matter the motives at hand, global cities are finding it increasingly difficult to keep up with growing populations and their waste in sustainable fashion. Of course, this paper also finds that central governments are responding to this issue, with both the Metropolitan Municipality of Istanbul and the Greater London Authority (specifically the Mayor of London) creating clear goals for recovery rates in the years to come.

Responding to these goals however proves difficulty for local governments, this paper finds, as sustainable rhetoric by central governments does not mean sustainability in practice.

Therefore, greater financial resources are probably needed for local governments, municipalities, and councils in years to come. Waste grows as population does, so increased investment is a clear necessity for the urban future. Of course, this also highlights another finding of this paper: waste minimization is just as important (if not more) as the increase of recovery rates. Decreasing waste will relieve both local councils and central governments of the economic burden of collecting and processing waste.

Additionally, both Istanbul and London exemplify the fact that outside players in the network of sustainability are also vital players. In Istanbul, the street collectors are an invaluable resource who collect nearly one third of all recyclables, while London’s NGOs and non-profits (such as the London Re-Use Network) are going beyond this own expectations in terms of sustainability and outreach. These successes also highlight the fact that London and Istanbul can learn from each other. An integration of NGOs and non-profits into the waste management of Istanbul and a support system that encourage street collecting in London could result in both waste minimization and recovery being bolstered in both of the global cities.

Another key finding in this paper is that simplicity in policy and effective imaging are key practices by local governments in both London and Istanbul, highlighted by the clear bags in Kensington and Chelsea, and by the bottle-shaped receptacle in Sarıyer. Both of these examples are engineered to make sustainability in consumer practice simple yet effective. Thus, designing other sustainable innovations should be the focus of local governments’ time, energy, and resources.

With similar recovery rates in both cities, this paper finds that neither single-stream recycling nor separated goods is superior to the other, and each has their own challenges.

While single-stream recycling is simpler for the consumer, contamination risk is greater and separation of the recyclables incurs greater costs. That said, the requirement of residents to 15 | P a g e

separate their own waste might be hindering higher recovery rates for materials. Finally, due to the similarity of recovery rates, this paper challenges the assumption of affluence and its correlation to “greener� lifestyles, as the arguably most affluent area in all of the United Kingdom has seen less than stellar recycling/composting rates.

Recommendations & Conclusion The implications of the findings are quite broad, but responding to them can be done simply: investment in education for waste minimization and infrastructure for greater recyclable recovery is paramount in the years to come for global cities. Austerity-driven economic policy and its reverberations in local council budgets only harm the chance at sustainable urban futures. Therefore, even if local government budgets need to be downsized, this paper recommends that the waste management section of the budget remain untouched (if not be expanded). Only then can sustainable waste management goals established by central governing bodies can be fully realized and attained.

More so, acknowledging that non-governmental actors can supplement the waste management infrastructure, assist in establishing a re-use culture, and help the image of sustainability should be another priority for urban governments who are economically stressed.

This will require learning from unconventional practices from countries in all stages of development, such as street collecting, but will better exemplify the definition of a global city who learns from itself and the international community. Therefore, providing frameworks and support systems for these outside actors should guide waste management policymakers in local and central governments.

At a global scale, greater partnerships and networks need to be established to tackle the issue of e-waste. Both producers and consumers should be held responsible, and therefore trade agreements should be established that allow for the ease of exportation and importation of these materials. If not, e-waste, which consists of rare, precious, and semi-precious metals, (and of which extraction is financially and environmentally intensive) will be lost to landfills. In a globalized world, waste of all kinds is not a national or local issue; rather, this problem belongs to the world and its pursuit of sustainability.

Finally, this paper concludes with and recommends emphasizing the importance of consumer/resident engagement. The problems of faulty and unsustainable waste management are incredibly important for the future of our society, people, planet, and health; yet, many urbanites are not aware of the stakes and risks at play. Therefore, policymakers would be wise to focus on community outreach and messaging that clearly and simply explains the financial, ecological, and societal burdens that the perpetuation of unsustainable waste management will incur. This interaction with the public will hopefully bolster recycling practices and promote waste minimization tactics, thus finally defeating the global issue of waste.

16 | P a g e

Works Cited Abacan, Oğuz. "Interview with Oğuz Abacan." Personal interview. 1 Mar. 2015.

Allen, Adriana. "Sustainable Cities or Sustainable Urbanisation?" Journal of Sustainable Cities (2009). Web. <https://www.ucl.ac.uk/sustainable-cities/results/gcsc-reports/allen.pdf>.

Baker, Dominic. Census 2011: Kensington and Chelsea. Rep. The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, 11 Dec. 2012. Web. Greater London Authority. Media. Recycling Rates Drop in Almost Half of London Boroughs as Incineration Soars.

LONDON.ORG.UK. Greater London Authority, 15 Nov. 2013. Web. Jonathon, Prynn. "Recycling in London Has Fallen for the First Time." The Evening Standard. The Evening Standard, 21 Nov. 2014. Web. Let's Be Clear About Recycling. London: Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, 2014. Pamphlet. Print.

Local authority collected waste management - annual results. 18 Nov. 2014. Raw data.

Https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/local-authority-collected-waste-management-annual-results, London.

"London Re-use Network: About Us." London Reuse. The London Re-Use Network, 2014. Web. London Re-Use Network. NETWORK EXCEEDS RE-USE TARGETS AGAIN. Londonreuse.org. The London Re-Use Network, 1 July 2013. Web. LONDON’S RESPONSE TO CLIMATE CHANGE. Rep. no. Chapter 5. THE LONDON PLAN (Mayor of London), Mar. 2015. Web. Mainieri, Tina, Elaine G. Barnett, Trisha R. Valdero, John B. Unipan, and Stuart Oskamp. "Green Buying: The Influence of Environmental Concern on Consumer Behavior." The Journal of Social Psychology 137.2 (1997): 189-204. Web. Solid Waste Management in the World’s Cities. Rep. no. 3. United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UNHABITAT), 2010. Web. "The Mayor's Waste Management Strategies." LONDON.ORG.UK. The Mayor of London, 18 Nov. 2011. Web. Türkay, Metin. "Interview with Metin Türkay." Personal interview. 3 Mar. 2015.

"Waste Minimisation." RBKC.GOV.UK. The Royal Borough of Chelsea and Kensington, 2015. Web. World Bank. "What a Waste: A Global Review of Solid Waste Management." The World Bank: Urban Development.

The Work Bank, 2013. Web. Yaman, Cevat. "Evaluation of the Current Condition of Packaging Wastes throughout Istanbul." Scientific Research and Essays 6.16 (2011): 3378-388. Web.

17 | P a g e

Acknowledgments I would like to firstly thank Professor Nia Georges, Jeffrey Fleisher, and Ipek Martinez for guiding me through this paper. Without their help, this paper would be not nearly the caliber or quality it is today. Moreover, I would like to thank Abbey Godley for responding to my incessant emails, and Giray Ozseker for making Istanbul an immersive experience. Additionally, I would like to School of Social Sciences Gateway program for giving me the wonderful opportunity that is Global Urban Lab London. All who I have interacted with and helped me turn thoughts into a coherent paper also deserve my gratitude, including (but surely not limited to) Omar ChrisRotimi, Avi Gori, Rosa Elswood, Metin TĂźrkay, OÄ&#x;uz Abacan, and all my other Global Urban Lab Londoners. This experience has been vastly rewarding and I am proud that this is the final product of my time in London and Istanbul.

18 | P a g e