Full length article
The identification of the domestic waste collection system associated with the least operative musculoskeletal disorders using human Resource absence data

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104424Get rights and content

Abstract

With increasing pressures around public sector costs, UK Local Authorities (LAs) and waste collection companies, are under pressure to reduce absence rates due to ill health. The identification of the 'safest' method of waste collection in the UK has been largely unresolved with many different types of waste and recycling receptacles used and deemed acceptable. The purpose of the study was to investigate the relationships between domestic waste collection methods and absence due to Musculoskeletal Disorders (MSDs) through the comparison of absence rates for different activity. Studies based upon ergonomic theory had suggested the use of wheeled bins is better than the use of boxes, but this has not been tested empirically. Absence data was obtained from 15 LAs who allocated a more detailed activity role to their records, allowing for activity absence rates to be calculated. The outputs were collated and analysed using SPSS to identify statistically significant relationships between types of waste collection services. The results confirm that wheeled bins are associated with less proxy measures of MSD than boxes, baskets and sacks with even lower absence rates associated with 1100 L capacity bins, when handled by two workers. Findings also indicates that there is a level where MSD absence interventions are unlikely to be sustainable.

In conclusion these findings should help LAs better understand some critical factors regarding waste collection strategies and MSD absence and inform HSE enforcement strategies. Employers should interrogate their own ill health data and seek to move to systems that create less MSDs.

Introduction

One of the greatest challenges in the UK waste collection sector has been to identify the least harmful ways of collecting domestic waste. This study suggests a method to help identify relationships between work and ill health absence (IOSH, 2015) to improve health and safety (H&S) working conditions.

Local Authorities (LAs) in the United Kingdom are required to collect household waste (LGU, 1990), each one is legally required to assess and minimise risks to an acceptable level before the implementation of new collection systems (HSE, 2009a) and have a choice with regards the collection system (Mills and Andrews, 2009).

The waste sector is one of the UKs most dangerous having a major accident rate 4.1 times that of all industry (HSE, 2018, 2012, & Bomel, 2004), with significant health risks around manual handling leading to Musculoskeletal Disorders (MSDs) (Kuijer, 2002 & Garrido et al., 2015). HSE (2013) define MSD as any injury, damage or disorder of the joints or other tissues in the upper/lower limbs or the back. Work in the waste sector is physically demanding with operatives each walking over 10 km and handling between 10 tonnes (Pinder and Milnes, 2002) and 16 tonnes of waste per day (An et al., 1999). Westgaard and Winkel (1997) suggest both work and non-work factors act together to create MSDs, with Froggett (2010) suggesting MSDs are often made worse by work and impair the ability to work at normal capacity.

Holmes (2009) identified that waste and recycling employees identified as drivers, loaders or operators had an average of 13.2 days absence per year. Naylor (2014) identified annual absence of working and recycling workers of 10.3 days absent per year with the CIPD (2018) stating an average level of employee absence in UK industry as. 6.6 days per employee per year. This suggests that the sector has higher absence rates than other sectors.

This is the first paper to compare actual absence rates of different waste collection activities rather than ergonomic theory(Pinder and Okunribido, 2019; Ziaei et al., 2018, and Garrido et al., 2015), and therefore of interest to both waste policy makers and Human Resource Managers with responsibility for absence management strategies. HSE (2015) suggest the importance of routinely analysing sickness absences to improve working conditions. The authors have assumed that all employees subject to this study are deemed to have been assessed as being individually capable of carrying out their assigned roles consistent with UK employment law (Saranga et al., 2017).

The use of waste collection systems that are associated with the least amount of MSD is the first workplace intervention necessary as identified by Garrido et al (2015). Many LA risk assessments carried out before the introduction of boxes to segregate glass from co-mingled systems do not adequately identify the risks, tend to be qualitative and do not offer risk protection (Warburton, 2019; Hughes, 2018; Lamb, 2013; Read, 2013; Anastasi, 2013). With some authorities’ still adopting source /semi sourced segregated boxed collections (Date, 2016), other LAs have moved to co-mingled collection in wheeled bins (Slow, 2019; HSE, 2011).

This study sought to compare absence rates of staff carrying out different waste collection activities. The null-hypothesis was that there was no difference in absence rates between different methods of collection. The aim was therefore to ‘find the waste collection system associated with the least operative MSD absence using HR absence data’. It was vital to ensure that the methods used could be adopted by individual employers and in a form where comparison between employers could be made. Through adopting a process using group data it was possible to avoid the identification of individuals (UKG, 2018), something that has made the availability of ill health data difficult. By understanding the real health risks rising out of work it is possible to redesign work to reduce their impacts and create a more sustainable workforce. Previous studies (Poulsen et al., 1995) had identified associations between waste sorting and recycling, hence the need to increase knowledge to prevent occupational health problems when new waste collection systems are developed.

What limited studies into health that are available are limited to environmental and public health issues (Woon and Lo, 2016) with those studies looking at waste strategies often excluding human resource factors (Bartolacci et al., 2019).

With England looking to standardise waste collection (UKG, 2019) to simplify and improve household recycling (Romano et al., 2019 and Meng et al., 2019), there is importance in ensuring that there is appropriate Health and Safety knowledge making this paper timely and welcome.

There are two key factors at play regarding waste collection methods and MSD prevalence:

  • (i)

    how LAs set waste strategy,

  • (ii)

    the lack of understanding of the relationship between that strategy and the MSD risk factors.

There is often a disconnect between these and implementing findings from research; the implementation of research is often of limited use because of generality with arguments often focused on accidents.

Waste strategy is driven by increasingly stricter interpretation of EU waste directives leading to segregated collections (Ottery, 2013). The UK Government requires each household to have a minimum of three different segregated collections to increase recycling rates, with more demanding requirements for source-segregate recycling in Scotland (Scottish Government, 2012). The recycling supply chain has incentives for uncontaminated materials, making kerbside sorting into ‘clean’ uncontaminated distinct types appear financially rewarding, providing lowest cost for maximum recycling (Williams and Cole, 2013).

This has led to a diverse range of containers being used to contain (mainly kerbside collected) household waste including food waste (Bees and Williams, 2017) ranging from different sized wheeled bins, smaller containers and plastic bags (Poulsen et al., 1995), each of which has its own manual handling issues (Pinder and Milnes, 2002 and Qureshi et al., 2007).

Secondly, there is poor evaluation of the manual handling risk factors created by recycling activities undertaken in Great Britain Bomel (2009). Bomel (2009) also identified that the UK Health and Safety Executive (HSE) recording categories were inadequate making studies in this area difficult.

Studies by Pinder and Milnes (2002); Hollett et al. (2009), and Oxley et al. (2006) identified that the use of wheeled bins reduces the risk of manual handling injury, compared to handling non-wheeled containers and the decanting of boxes into vehicles when kerbside sorting. Wheeled bins are therefore preferable to boxes and baskets and, where used, boxes should not exceed 40 Ls, have lids and must be lifted by two hands. These studies were confined to relationships between accidents and waste systems rather than ill health arising out of work activity. Hollett et al. (2009) also identified issues with throwing bags up to 3 m in the air into vehicles.

MSD research invariably involves some analysis of pain (Thomas et. al 2018). McGill (1997) identified three key scenarios that usually interact together to cause pain; ‘Single Exertion’, ‘Static Loading’ (e.g. posture), and ‘Repetitive Wear and Tear’. These work in combination, albeit differently, in each of the key elements of waste collection systems that include:

  • Collecting and sorting into constituent parts (e.g. paper, plastics, metals etc.) from boxes and baskets at the kerbside,

  • Transportation of co-mingled material to centralised premises, such as Materials Recycling Facilities (MRFs), for sorting and or processing,

  • Separate garden waste collection,

  • Separate food waste collection service (through 30 L (L) wheeled bins),

  • Collection of the above or trade waste in 1100 L bins.

Collections of waste in 1100 L bins tend to:

  • be less frequent, with travel between one or more collection points,

  • require forces within individual capabilities (Kuijer et al., 2010) when a team of two operatives should be used rather than collections with a single worker,

  • allow for breaks in activity reducing the effects of prolonged static loading.

These different systems create different MSD risk profiles (Ziaei 2018) with Wai et al. (2010) identifying association between bending and twisting, awkward occupational postures and low back pain. Widanarko et al. (2011) found that there was an association between industrial physical risk factors and absenteeism due to lower back symptoms of the individuals working in industry.

There are also risks for drivers; Pillastrini et al., 2010investigated postural static loading and identified relationships between sitting and Lower Back Pain, suggesting issues when seated for prolonged periods. Kuijer (2002) noted that truck drivers are also exposed to whole body vibration, made worse with worn suspension created by ‘non metalled’ roads on landfill sites.

In combination, these factors create difficulties carrying out risk assessments and carrying out research. Holmes (2009) identified problems obtaining data due to limited resources and difficulties accessing data in a suitable form but suggested waste and recycling employees have more days absent than other public sector employees. Additionally, the increased use of temporary (agency) staff across the sector (Toyer, 2015) with ill health records held by the agency and not the LA, suggests the possibility of absence rate under reporting (Mason and Matthews, 2013).

Some LA’s have carried out detailed evaluations of H&S issues arising from boxed collections. Parry (2008) & Thomas (2006) identified maximum box weight was above the suggested limits of approximately 13 kg for men and 7.5 kg for women (Oxley et al., 2006) likely to cause damage to the back”. Van der Beek et al. (1999) carried out studies of wheeled bins with an inserted top caddy and tray and noticed significantly higher compressive forces on the lower spine than placing the box on the ground to reduce bending. Walker (2012) recommended smaller kerbside boxes rather than using a caddy that drops into the top of a wheeled bin.

Fylde Borough Council (Oldfield, 2008) reported high sickness absence rates (25.13 days/employee) with a service containing box and basket collections giving a 50% recycling rate, eventually moving to a wheel bin service. Some LAs were less robust in their evaluation of the risks arising out of glass collection, either underestimating the risks (Read, 2013; Lamb, 2013) or failing to evaluate the risks (Anastasi, 2013). Thomas et al. (2018) confirmed that although employees were active outside of work there was no statistical difference between work groups for each non work activity identified through return to work interviews.

Henry (2010) suggested high MSD absence was associated with the collection and kerbside sorting of boxes and baskets and compared MSD absence arising out of the different domestic recycling systems due to different collection methods and receptacles available. Henry (2010) focuses on types of receptacles used rather than type of waste collected thus dictating the size, weight and manner of moving each load of waste, which is highly relevant to MSD.

Yang et al., 2001confirmed that bagged collections present a risk for the development of self-reported ‘low-back’ pain with Ziaei (2018) identifying that 92.5% of waste collectors reported MSD symptoms in at least one body region in the previous 12 months. Fisher (2017) reported that 50% of workers reported having a musculoskeletal injury; and 33% reported a lack of support from co-workers or supervisors, Garrido et al (2015) identified back pain was reported by 67.2%, with other musculoskeletal complaints reported by 15.4% of the workforce.

Most injuries occur to upper and lower extremities and the back. Jeong (2016) focused on fatalities and injuries in Korea using national data with more than 4 days of absence identified 7.9% of accidents were attributed to MSDs with Jeong et. al. (2016) identifying that 11.1% of injuries and illness are MSDs.

Jeong et al (2016) identified a need for policies and guidelines for preventing workplace injuries and work-related ill health with Kuijer et al. (2007) suggesting that a paradigm shift in how LAs view ill health absence is needed, moving to matching physical ability to healthy work activities.

Feuerstein et al (2003) identified that those with pre-existing injuries recruited into manual work are likely to suffer deterioration presenting challenges when rehabilitating people with existing injuries. Finally, Burton et al (2006) suggest that back pain cannot be prevented, suggesting that employers’ strategies need to be around accommodating people with backpain.

In summary the main issues are:

  • The waste sector has higher absence rates than other sectors,

  • Waste collection methods do not always use the theoretically lowest risk systems of work,

  • A reluctance by waste sector employers to accept the connection between work and ill health without quantitative evidence.

The main knowledge gap displayed in current literature is around the lack of comparable MSD absence data for different systems of work with one of the biggest barriers engaging with employers, hence making interventions whilst protecting jobs difficult (McHugh, 2001).

Section snippets

Materials and methods

The study required access to LA ill health absence data covering both MSD and Non-MSD. By doing this it would be possible to compare absence rates and see if there were differing patterns; it was important to have access to authorities carrying out different methods of refuse and recycling collection. This would also help in reducing the effects of different management regimes and other service differences and allowing for statistical comparisons to be carried out.

The study adopted the industry

Results

The process implemented confirmed that the categories used in this study could be mapped with categories used by Holmes (2009) & Henry (2010) and consequently used as a foundation for the study with some authorities having additional sub-codes to reflect the parts of the body affected. Those authorities whose recording systems identified ‘combined neck and back absence’ couldn’t easily be compared or benchmarked with those who identify ‘back absence’ only (usually lower back in the lumbar

Discussion

This study of waste collection systems confirmed extensive use of the use of sacks, boxes and baskets was associated with higher absence rates. Many LAs have failed to incorporate findings from published research (Pinder and Milnes, 2002; Warburton, 2019) suggesting opportunity to reduce absence rates has been missed. Bagged collections remain a part of most wheeled bin collections to properties without facility for storage of wheeled bins.

Three of the LAs in this study used bags as the chosen

Limitations

The study identified 26 different combinations of collection systems and assumed that was no significant operational difference between similar systems when carried out in different LAs.

Although this is the first study to compare absence figures it does not consider confounding factors such as age, local geography or length of service. These confounding factors were assumed to be constant throughout the wider sample population. Other studies should therefore seek to strengthen any statistical

Conclusions and recommendations

The aim of this study was to ‘find the waste collection system associated with the least operative MSD absence using HR absence data’.

The study found that there was a reluctance for organisations to release data for an industry wide study and suggests that this issue may be perceived to be “too difficult to do”. There were statistical differences between different collection systems and MSD absence which were missing when comparing non-MSD absence. This shows how targeting specific types of

References (71)

  • A.J. Van der Beek et al.

    Assessment of exposure to pushing and pulling in epidemiological field studies: an overview of methods, exposure measures, and measurement strategies

    Int. J. Ind. Ergon.

    (1999)
  • E.K. Wai et al.

    Causal assessment of occupational bending or twisting and low back pain: results of a systematic review

    Spine J.

    (2010)
  • R.H. Westgaard et al.

    Ergonomic intervention research for improved musculoskeletal health: a critical review

    Int. J. Ind. Ergon.

    (1997)
  • B. Widanarko et al.

    Prevalence of musculoskeletal symptoms in relation to gender, age, and occupational/industrial group

    Int. J. Ind. Ergon.

    (2011)
  • I.D. Williams et al.

    The impact of alternate weekly collections on waste arisings

    Sci. Total Environ.

    (2013)
  • K.S. Woon et al.

    An integrated life cycle costing and human health impact analysis of municipal solid waste management options in Hong Kong using modified eco-efficiency indicator

    Resour. Conserv. Recycl.

    (2016)
  • C. Yang et al.

    Adverse health effects among household waste collectors in Taiwan

    Environ. Res.

    (2001)
  • H. An et al.

    Occupational health and safety amongst municipal solid waste workers in Florida

    Waste Management Resource

    (1999)
  • K. Anastasi

    Freedom of Information Request Kerbside Glass Recycling Service (FOI/1314/146), e-mail From Katy Anastasi, Directorate Management Assistant Southampton City Council

    (2013)
  • C.D. Black et al.

    Health at Work-an Independent Review of Sickness Absence

    (2011)
  • Bomel

    Update to Mapping Health and Safety Standards in the UK Waste Industry

    (2009)
  • Bomel

    Mapping Health and Safety Standards in the UK Waste Industry

    (2004)
  • A.K. Burton et al.

    Chapter 2 European guidelines for prevention in low back pain

    Eur. Spine J.

    (2006)
  • CIPD

    Health And Well-Being At Work

    (2018)
  • W. Date

    Veolia Rolls Out Southend Recycling Collection Changes

    (2016)
  • T. Fisher

    Role of occupational therapy in preventing work-related musculoskeletal disorders with recycling workers: a pilot study

    Am. J. Occup. Ther.

    (2017)
  • M. Froggett

    Policy For Managing Musculoskeletal Disorders, The Musculoskeletal Disorders Group

    (2010)
  • M.V. Garrido et al.

    Health status and health-related quality of life of municipal waste collection workers–a cross-sectional survey

    J. Occup. Med. Toxicol.

    (2015)
  • M.S. Handcock et al.

    Comment: on the concept of snowball sampling

    Sociol. Methodol.

    (2011)
  • M. Henry

    Sickness Absence Survey Health and Safety Executive

    (2010)
  • N. Hollett et al.

    A Health and Safety Study of Kerbside Recycling Schemes Using Boxes and Bags- Centre for Health and Environment Research and Expertise

    (2009)
  • E. Holmes

    Review of Sickness Absence Data in the Waste and Recycling Industry

    (2009)
  • HSE

    Health and Safety at Work-summary Statistics for Great Britain 2017

    (2018)
  • HSE

    Management of Health and Safety in the Workplace - UK Results From European Survey of Enterprises on New and Emerging Risks, 2014 (ESENER-2)

    (2015)
  • HSE

    Musculoskeletal Disorders’, Health and Safety Executive

    (2013)
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text