257
Summary
This thesis deals with perceptions of refuse as an asset or as a lia-
bility and the questions
of waste management practices, especially
disposal. The aim has been to gain new insights into Stockholm’s
waste management in the period 1900–1975 by studying change
and continuity in municipal practices and the notions that gover-
ned the municipal actors’ actions. The central questions are what
factors determined the city’s waste management, and how an urban
and local (environmental) problem
was formulated and addressed
by the local authorities and political bodies. In answering, I have
applied a theory of inertia in large technical–administrative sys-
tems and an analytical framework based on the concept of waste
management regimes.
The focus of the analysis is the course of events which saw local
councillors, civil servants, and experts discuss and act to manage
the Stockholm’s refuse. Until 1972, it
was open to property owners
and business proprietors to buy waste management services from
providers other than local authority, provided they followed the
relevant regulations for how the waste was to be handled. It is
likely, however, that most domestic refuse collection services were
provided by the local authority. When it came to industrial waste,
however, the scope and nature of the management regime is not as
well known, but it was certainly not municipalized in the period
1900–1975. The thesis therefore builds on source material in the
form of texts and statistics from Stockholm
City Council and the
local authority departments that handled refuse collection and
disposal. The source material has been examined in a longitudinal
study, which makes it possible to trace both significant and minor
changes in both practice and theory.
In addressing change and continuity in waste management
regimes, I have applied the concept of inertia. I have used the
258
summary
Hungarian-American sociologist Zsuzsa Gille’s concept of waste
management regimes, which in turn
was inspired by the concept
of regimes as formulated by Oran R. Young. I have also borne in
mind the scope of Gille’s work, although my use of the term waste
management regime applies only on the municipal level as opposed
to Gille’s national level. I hold the term to embody both concepts
and praxis, but while Gille looks at the materiality of the refuse by
considering
its quantity and composition, I hold that its materia-
lity was a factor that impacted on disposal practices and notions of
refuse and disposal.
I would argue that any waste management regime will be slow to
change. The inertia stems both from the existing organization and
technology and from the associated ideas and modes of thought.
A waste management regime changes when the standard methods
of disposal encounter difficulties that
require different measures
to be taken. It might be something that can reasonably be solved
within the established regime, or that poses such a challenge that
no immediate solution presents itself, or indeed that questions the
management regime’s very existence.
The influencing factors or
challenges can be of various types and come from various quarters.
They can concern ideas or material changes, or both, and they are
as likely to be specific as general in character. The system tends to
want to overcome challenges within the existing management regime,
but if the problems are too large, too numerous,
or too difficult to
manage, a regime change takes place. Just as various factors can pose
a challenge to a management regime in such a way as it changes, so
they can also contribute to the same regime’s stability and inertia.
In the period 1900–1975, Stockholm’s resource recovery regime
was replaced by an incineration regime. I explain this by viewing
waste disposal and perceptions of refuse in the context of the waste’s
quantity and composition, the factors
affecting waste disposal, and
the social climate.