Frequently asked questions

Why is food waste not included?

Food waste is of course a type of waste, and there are many community-based efforts to reduce food waste and its environmental and social impacts. However, the ideas and meanings that we attach to food are quite different compared to what we attach to stuff. The food waste hierarchy looks different compared to the standard waste hierarchy. This research also builds on, updates, and develops previous research (from 20 years ago), which focused on non-food waste. Ultimately, however, the choice to exclude food waste was a practical research choice. All research needs to have boundaries so that you have time and opportunity to look at something in depth. This was one of those boundary choices.

​

This is not to say that community-based food waste groups should not be considered a part of the Community Waste Movement. They can advantageously be added when we talk about community waste projects, and the insights and knowledge produced through this research can, and should, be used by such projects, when and where useful. One suggestion for future research is to map and understand food waste projects, using similar aims and questions as for this research project.

​

Why do you call it 'waste' when it's not?

It is true that the movement and the projects deal with lots of materials and stuff that can be used again, and in this way, they are not wasted forever. The Community Waste Movement and Community Waste Projects, however, all deal with some kind of waste or waste prevention. It is against waste that the movement mobilises and because of waste that people come together. Waste is the common denominator, the common enemy.

​

On a more philosophical level, waste may describe anything that is discarded, whether that is discarded into a bin or to a charity shop. In the moment it is discarded, it is waste. It is when someone says ‘hang on, that’s still useful’ that it can move from being waste to being a thing of (use) value, something to care for and use again.

​

Lastly, it is a reactive choice to use ‘waste’ instead of for example ‘resource’. In policy and industry, ‘resource’ is often used to downplay the environmental and social issues that arise because of waste. It might also take attention away from that waste arises in the first place, and ‘rebrand’ waste as something positive – a resource. This can shift our focus away from preventing or reducing waste streams to thinking that waste is less of a problem, because we can use it again, as for example recycled plastic or fuel in waste incineration plants. These are of course important parts of the waste system, but prevention and reduction are even more important.

​

How have you calculated the number of projects in the movement?

The number of projects is an estimated number, and is based on:

• the survey that was part of the research project

• websites for different umbrella organisations, for example Freegle and the Reuse Network

• web searches

​​

Why are participating projects anonymous?

This was a choice made early on in the research process. It makes sure that any sensitive information that may have been gathered would not be traceable to either projects or individuals involved in projects. Even though this research aimed to be celebratory and make projects and alternative ways of working with waste visible, having participating projects be anonymous also allowed for more critical perspectives and analyses.

​

Why do you call it a movement and not a sector?

Most of previous research projects in this field have used the term 'sector' to describe the collective of Community Waste Projects. During the course of my project, however, it became clear that so many groups and projects in this movement are not only providing a service or representing a productive sector of the economy. They are also championing new, more sustainable and fairer ways of dealing with, and preventing, waste, and doing so through awareness-raising, campaigning, lobbying, experimenting, normalising for example reuse, upcycling, and litter-picking, and challenging ideas around both what a community does and how waste management should be done. That is much more like a movement than a sector. By calling it a movement, I have tried to draw attention to all these things that Community Waste Projects do, that fall outside the definition of a sector.

​

Why do you not include the things governments and for-profit companies do in your research?

What governments and for-profit companies do to create more sustainable and fair waste systems and practices is really important (meaning, how waste is managed and planned by national, regional, and local authorities, and what we as individuals, families, communities, organisations, and societies do with waste). But – they already get a lot of attention, not to mention funds and opportunities, so a reason to focus only on community action is to elevate this and make it more visible, alongside other actors.

 

Governments and for-profit companies are also guided by ‘logics’ that community projects are not: a statutory responsibility for government, and profit motive for companies. Community projects, on the other hand, can be guided by values that put people and planet over profit, they may do more than they ‘have to’, and they often do that which is not profitable (which a for-profit company would not do). Also, the many additional benefits these projects have are created because they are rooted in communities, driven by passionate people, and guided by other ‘logics’. For this reason, they are very interesting from a sustainability and fairness point of view – they can experiment, showcase, and push the boundaries for what is considered ‘normal’ and ‘acceptable’. Ultimately, this kind of boundary-pushing is necessary to create more sustainable and fair waste systems and practices.