Prevention of waste from unsolicited mail in households: measuring the effect of anti-advertising stickers in Barcelona

  • Ignasi Puig-VentosaEmail author
  • Marta Jofra-Sora
  • Jaume Freire-González


Unsolicited mail (also called junk mail) received by households is a potential source for the application of waste prevention measures. There are insufficient systematic studies on the potential reduction of this kind of waste and on the effects of certain policies for its reduction. The present research presents the results of an assessment of the effectiveness of anti-advertisement stickers in Barcelona, as a way of preventing waste generation. 50 households from 25 buildings were monitored during a period of 3 months. The retrieved advertising material was weighted and classified into addressed and unaddressed material, and into several categories of the activities being advertised. The number of units of advertising material was also calculated. The statistical analysis (which includes a pairwise analysis within buildings in order to isolate the effect of the sticker) concludes that the use of stickers could prevent between 0.31 and 0.36 kg/inhabitant/year, which represents around 43 % of all unsolicited advertising and 0.4 % of all paper waste generated in Barcelona.


Waste prevention Unsolicited mail Junk mail Waste policy 



This article derives from a project funded by the Barcelona City Council. We would like to thank the contributions of Carles Vázquez, Núria Fradera and Helena Barracó, as well as the collaboration of all the persons that participated in the sampling. The authors also wish to thank the comments received from three anonymous reviewers and from Dr. Matthew Copley.


  1. 1.
    ARC (2007) Programa de gestió de residus municipals a Catalunya. PROGREMIC 2007–2012. Departament de Medi Ambient i Habitatge—Generalitat de Catalunya, BarcelonaGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Zorpas A, Lasridi K (2013) Measuring waste prevention. Waste Manag 33:1047–1056. doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2012.12.017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Read M, Gregory MK, Phillips PS (2009) An evaluation of four key methods for monitoring household waste prevention campaigns in the UK. Resour Conserv Recycl 54:9–20. doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2009.05.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Salhofer S, Obersteiner G, Schneider F, Lebersorger S (2008) Potentials for the prevention of municipal solid waste. Waste Manag 28:245–259. doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2007.02.026 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sharp V, Giorgi S, Wilson DC (2010) Delivery and impact of household waste prevention intervention campaigns (at the local level). Waste Manag Res 28(3):256–268. doi: 10.1177/0734242X10361507 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    ADEME (2007) Le gisement des emballages ménagers en France, Evolution 1994/2006. Agence de l’Environnement et de la Maîtrise de l’Energie, FranceGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    ADEME (2012) Réduire ses déchets et bien les jeter. Agence de l’Environnement et de la Maîtrise de l’Energie, FranceGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hansen MS, Bakas I, Kjær B (2010) Baggrundsmateriale til Miljøstyrelsens affaldsforebyggelseskampagne 2010. 3. Udkast. Copenhagen Resource Institute, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Martinez Sanchez V, Møller J (2011) LCA on the prevention of unsolicited mail in the Vestforbrænding municipalities. Department of Environmental Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, LyngbyGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wassermann G, Schneider F, Hingsamer R, Steyer F, Zinöcker K (2004) Werbung auf Wunsch—Modellversuch zur Erprobung von Maßnahmen gegen die Zustellung unerwu¨nschten Werbematerials (Advertising on request—model test for measures against unsolicited advertising), on behalf of the Initiative ‘‘Abfallvermeidung in Wien’’. Vienna, AustriaGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wassermann G, Schneider F (2005) Waste minimisation potential through the limitation of unwanted mail advertising. In: Cossu R, Stegmann R (eds) International waste management and landfill symposium, 10th edn. St. Margharita di Pula, CagliariGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    ACR+ (2008) Analysis of municipal waste management practices in Europe—an image of some of the best performing cities and regions. Association of Cities and Regions for Recycling and Sustainable Resource Management (ACR+), Brussels.
  13. 13.
    Eunomia, The Environment Council, Öko-Institut, TNO and Atlantic Consulting (2007) WR0103: household waste prevention policy side research programme. A project for DEFRA’s WREPGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    NRWF (2004) Waste minimisation toolkit. For the latest version redeveloped by WRAP, see:
  15. 15.
    Tucker P, Douglas P (2007) WR0112: understanding household waste prevention behaviour. Final Report and Technical Reports 1–4. A project for DEFRA’s WREPGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Infoadex (2013) Estudio Infoadex de la inversión publicitaria en España 2013. Infoadex, MadridGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gentil EC, Gallo D, Christensen TH (2011) Environmental evaluation of municipal waste prevention. Waste Manag 31:2371–2379. doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2011.07.030 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kim IC (2002) Korea’s policy instruments for waste minimisation. J Mater Cycl Waste Manag 4:12–22. doi: 10.1007/s10163-001-0060-0 Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Japan 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ignasi Puig-Ventosa
    • 1
    Email author
  • Marta Jofra-Sora
    • 1
  • Jaume Freire-González
    • 1
  1. 1.ENT Environment and ManagementBarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations