Improvement of Packaging Circularity Through the Application of Reusable Beverage Cup Reuse Models at Outdoor Festivals and Events

sustainability

Article Improvement of Packaging Circularity through the Application of Reusable Beverage Cup Reuse Models at Outdoor Festivals and Events

Valdone˙ Šuškeviˇce˙ * and Jolita Kruopiene˙

Institute of Environmental Engineering, Kaunas University of Technology, LT-44249 Kaunas, Lithuania; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +370-615-95-760

Abstract: Festivals generate huge amounts of waste during a short period of time, usually in three to four days. Single-use packaging is one of the dominant waste streams at the festivals. In order to minimize single-use plastic packaging waste generation and negative impacts on the environment, outdoor festivals apply alternative reusable cup systems and strategies. However, little studies have been made on how different reusable beverage cup reuse models can affect material circularity within certain festivals, and how it contributes to cup damage and loss. This article presents the results of a pilot study of different reusable cup reuse models within seven Lithuanian summer outdoor festivals. Three different models were applied and tested: A—only reusable cups, non-refundable model; B—only reusable cups, with deposit-refund; C—a mixed system of reusable cups with deposit-refund and of single-use cups. Material flow analysis (MFA) was performed, and the Materials Circularity Indicator (MCI), developed by Ellen MacArthur Foundation, was calculated to study the applied models. According to the findings, refund models (B, C models) have lower rates of damaged and lost cups compared to non-refundable reusable cup reuse model (A model). This paper shows that different reuse models provide different damage, loss and return rates of reusable cups. The data presented can aid decision-makers who need to choose a reuse model for a certain event. Citation: Šuškeviˇce,˙ V.; Kruopiene,˙ J. Improvement of Packaging Keywords: circular economy; reusable cups; sustainable events; deposit-refund system; packag- Circularity through the Application ing waste; reuse systems; material flow analysis (MFA); circularity indicators; waste prevention; of Reusable Beverage Cup Reuse resource efficiency Models at Outdoor Festivals and Events. Sustainability 2021, 13, 247. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13010247 1. Introduction Received: 3 November 2020 Accepted: 24 December 2020 Global plastics consumption rates have been increasing steadily since the 1950s [1]. Published: 29 December 2020 In 2015, global plastics production had reached 380 million metric tons with around 40% used for packaging [2]. Packaging is recognized as the dominant type of single-use plastic Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neu- in the market with around 60% of all plastic packaging used for the food and beverage tral with regard to jurisdictional clai- market [3]. Further still, the consumption of plastic packaging is on the rise [2]. ms in published maps and institutio- Geyer et al. calculated that, in 2015, around 6300 MT of plastic waste had been nal affiliations. generated, from which only 9% was recycled, 12% incinerated, and 79% was accumulated in landfills or the natural environment [4]. These authors presumed that this linear waste management trend can lead to roughly 12,000 MT of plastic waste entering the natural environment and landfills by the year 2050. Copyright: © 2020 by the authors. Li- Single-use plastics have potential to cause a negative impact on the environment censee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. through littering and accumulation, as well as landfilling and incineration. Inappropriate This article is an open access article disposal, inadequate management of plastics and the linear single-use plastic consumption distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons At- model can become a source of leakage to the natural environment leading to pollution tribution (CC BY) license (https:// in many forms [2], and negative environmental effects on natural habitats [1,5]. Every creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ year from 5 to 13 million tons of plastic are estimated to end up in the ocean, and plastic 4.0/). pollution reaches even the most remote areas of the planet [6]. Single-use plastics make

Sustainability 2021, 13, 247. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13010247 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability Sustainability 2021, 13, 247 2 of 18

up 86% of all single-use items found on beaches. Beverage cups are one of the top ten single-use items found there [7]. As single-use plastics are designed to be used once, this leads to the loss of this valuable material, which plays an important role in our economy. To reduce environmental damage, efforts are now needed to significantly increase the recycling rates of packaging plastics [8]. The latest report by the European Court of Auditors reveals that new calculation methods for the actual share of plastic packaging being recycled could drop the value down from 42% to 30% across EU member states [9]. In some cases, waste collection is missing or is difficult to implement, and consequently, waste recycling performances are low; this is the case of the festivals. Industry research showed that only 32% of single-use PET (polyethylene terephthalate) cups used in UK festivals are recycled [10]. The European Commission has reviewed Directive 94/62/EC to reinforce the manda- tory essential requirements for packaging to be allowed on the EU market with a focus on reduction of packaging and packaging waste through waste prevention measures and design for reuse and recyclability of packaging [11]. A new Circular Economy Action Plan, represented by the European Commission in 2020, also aims to accelerate the transition from materials recycling to waste prevention and reuse strategies [12,13]. The Plan gives incentives that pursue the transformation of current packaging systems to more circular and sustainable ones [12,14]. The Single-Use Plastics Directive that entered into force on 2 July 2019 is another significant step forward to urge the transition from single-use plastics towards reusable products and systems [15]. The directive foresees certain policy measures, such as market restriction, new product design requirements, extended producer responsibility (EPR) schemes, awareness-raising measures, consumption reduction, improved collection and labeling requirements as the key elements to move away from single-use plastic products [8,16]. Relatively limited use and application of reusable packaging reuse systems today might be the result of the global drift from reusable packaging to single-use packaging during the past decades [17]. Nevertheless, Coelho et al. (2020) claim that packaging reuse is not new in both B2B (business to business), and B2C (business to consumer) segments, where the application of different forms of reusable packaging solutions have been established for primary and secondary, to tertiary (transportation) packaging [18]. Mahmoudi and Parviziomran (2020) point out that even reuse practices are not new, but primary packaging, that has direct contact with the product, is recognized to be a newer concept in comparison to secondary and tertiary packaging reusability. Additionally, changes in packaging ownership have been observed—the authors state that there is a clear move from packaging owning to renting services [18]. This could have a significant impact on our consumption patterns. Coelho et al. (2020) see the growth of acceptance for service systems, instead of ownership in the reusable packaging market. This ownership transformation has both some evidential advantages and challenges for the decision- makers. As the authors have noted, reusable packaging return systems may increase customers’ loyalty to retailers through refund schemes. The authors identify advantages for the reusable returnable packaging consumers, which are cost reduction through discounts, as well as the reduction in waste amounts [17]. Economic incentives can play a big part in reducing the consumption of single-use plastic [15]. There is strong evidence that charges have a better performance than discounts in reducing the use of single-use disposable beverage cups. A review carried out by the University of Cardiff revealed that a minimum charge of £0.20 would be needed to change the behavior of 49% of the population [19]. Moreover, social marketing tools and information campaigns can contribute to the success of the charges [19]. Increased and improved information and raising consumer awareness go hand-in-hand with the regulatory measures to reduce consumption, redesign products and contribute to ending plastic pollution [15]. Festivals and events in a short period of time (from a few hours to a few days) generate huge amounts of single-use packaging that become one of the dominant waste streams at Sustainability 2021, 13, 247 3 of 18

these events due to a large number of people, intensive activities, and location characteristics [20,21]. The waste hierarchy concept shows that waste prevention and minimization is the most efficient and effective means of resource management. Therefore, different waste prevention measures are being implemented at different festivals worldwide to tackle the problem of single-use packaging, beverage cups included. The most popular waste prevention measures applied by green-minded festivals are reusable packaging deposit-refund models, package-free alternatives, festival rules for the participants to carry their own dishes, and special requirements (guidelines) for the vendors to provide certain types of packaging or alternative packaging systems at the festival venue [22]. In 2017, Linder et al. presented three levels of circularity where different activities can be applied in order to empower the transition to circular economy: micro level (in- dividual companies and consumers), meso level (eco-industrial parks), and macro level (city, province, region, and nation) [23]. Festivals can be seen as micro-level closed systems, where material inputs and outputs can be measured and easily controlled. Maintaining the value of products, materials, and resources for as long as possible is the fundamental goal of circular economy, and the reuse of packaging can help achieve this. It is recognized that deposit-refund schemes help to manage and control resource recovery from the consumers. The majority of authors agree that reuse of packaging has a huge potential for environmental impact reduction through the decreased need of materials, especially virgin or primary materials, when the reuse systems are well developed and function sustain- ably [17,24]. A comprehensive comparative life cycle analysis of different cup systems for selling of drinks at events performed by Pladerer et al. (2020) revealed that reusable cup models have lower environmental burden compared to disposable cup models, despite the fact that life cycle assessments (LCA) for reusable cups were always based on the most disadvantageous scenario compared to disposable cups [25]. According to the Realising Another World (RAW) Foundation [26], a reusable cup is the better environmental option compared to a disposable polyethylene terephthalate (PET) cup, after more than 3 uses in many cases, and after around 9–14 uses compared to cardboard. Another analysis showed that after 10 uses of reusable polypropylene (PP) cup, it generates less environmental impact compared to single-use polypropylene cups [27]. Nevertheless, reuse packaging systems may have a higher environmental footprint compared to single-use packaging if the reuse systems are not being managed carefully in a sustainable way. Most of the negative impacts of reusable packaging reuse systems have the potential to occur through certain aspects such as inappropriate packaging design, complex logistics, containers’ service life, cleaning, food safety, etc. [17,18]. Coelho et al. (2020) agree that economics, as well as environmental impacts of reuse systems, strongly depend on several factors like logistics, reusable packaging return rates, cleaning, labor costs, and market size. The authors note that more studies of life cycle costing have to be made to compare the costs of single-use and reusable packaging systems. A total of 29 festivals and festival-like events were organized during the 2019 summer season in Lithuania where standard linear “take-make-dispose” model of disposable single-use beverage cups was applied. No clear measures have been made in order to minimize the use of disposable beverage cups and reduce the waste of single-use plastics within the events. Until then, event organizers had no alternative to disposable beverage cups. Several events used reusable cup deposit systems in the past, but the cups for these events had promotional attributes and were therefore used as souvenirs. Single-use plastic beverage cups remain the most popular packaging choice for cold drinks like beer, cider, and cocktails in Lithuanian open-air festivals. However, such a choice significantly increases waste treatment costs for the festival organizers due to a big volume of waste, additional labor, and time needed for the clean-up of the area after the festival. A more resource-efficient and circular approach needs to be realized. The objective of our work was to assess the environmental benefits of cup reuse models in open summer festivals on material circularity and the avoidance of disposable Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 18

Sustainability 2021, 13, 247 4 of 18

The objective of our work was to assess the environmental benefits of cup reuse mod- plastic.els in open The summer paper describes festivals the on performance material circ ofularity service and systems the avoidance implemented of disposable in Lithuanian plas- festivalstic. The paper with thedescribes aim to the identify performance which of models service (and systems market-based implemented instruments) in Lithuanian can optimizefestivals with the use the of aim reusable to identify cups which and minimize models losses(and market-based and damages. instruments) The aim of this can work opti- wasmize achieved the use byof reusable answering cups three and research minimize questions losses (RQs):and damages. The aim of this work 1.was achievedHow many by cupsanswering will be three used, research lost, and questions damaged (RQs): during the festivals when different 1. Howreusable many cup cups reuse will models be used, are lost, applied and (RQ1)?damaged during the festivals when different 2. reusableWhat impact cup reuse do reusable models cup are reuse applied models (RQ1)? make on material circularity compared to 2. Whatthe use impact of single-use do reusable beverage cup cupsreuse at models the festivals make (RQ2)?on material circularity compared 3. toHow the manyuse of single-use single-use plastic beverage cups cups were at avoidedthe festivals by applying (RQ2)? reusable beverage cup 3. Howreuse many models single-use at the festivals plastic (RQ3)? cups were avoided by applying reusable beverage cup reuse models at the festivals (RQ3)? 2. Materials and Methods 2. MaterialsThree alternative and Methods reusable beverage cup reuse models were implemented as pilot testsThree at 7 Lithuanian alternative open-airreusable beverage festivals cup during reus thee models summer were season implemented of 2019 as in pilot order tests to eliminateat 7 Lithuanian single-use open-air plastic festivals cups. during “Take-make-use-reuse” the summer season model of 2019 was in provided order to byeliminate the so- calledsingle-use “CupCup” plastic initiativecups. “Take-make-use-reuse for each festival instead” model of a was single-use provided “take-make-use-dispose” by the so-called “Cup- model.Cup” initiative for each festival instead of a single-use “take-make-use-dispose” model. Festivals varied in size, style, attendees’ behavior, and the implemented reuse model. Festivals varied in size, style, attendees’ behavior, and the implemented reuse model. Those models were (Figure1): Those models were (Figure 1): Model A: only reusable cups, non-refundable; Model A: only reusable cups, non-refundable; Model B: only reusable cups with deposit-refund; Model B: only reusable cups with deposit-refund; Model C: a mixed system of reusable cups with deposit-refund, and of single-use cups. Model C: a mixed system of reusable cups with deposit-refund, and of single-use cups.

FigureFigure 1.1. ThreeThree testedtested reusereuse modelsmodels ofof reusablereusable cupscups atat sevenseven LithuanianLithuanian open-airopen-air festivals.festivals. MBT— mechanicalMBT—mechanical biological biolog treatmentical treatment plant. plant. Sustainability 2021, 13, 247 5 of 18

2.1. Case Studies Case study was chosen as a research method in order to represent the data of real-life situations and to provide better insights into the detailed behaviors of the subjects of interest [28]. Seven micro-level events, namely open-air festivals, were chosen. These were the festivals whose organizers agreed to test the practice of using reusable cups. The events took from 2 to 4 days, had from 500 to 6000 attendees, and applied different reusable cup reuse models (Table1). Participants of the events had the option to exchange dirty cups for clean cups an unlimited number of times. One-size (500 mL) reusable plastic cups weighing 32 g per unit, made from polypropylene (PP, no. 5) were used. Dirty cups were washed at the washing center outside the festivals. A simpliﬁed scheme of reusable and single-use cup ﬂows is presented in Figure2.

Table 1. Summary of the festivals, the applied reuse models, and additional characteristics of each festival.

Festival 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Number of 1500 900 3000 500 950 700 2000 attendees Duration, 3 3 4 2 3 2 3 days The applied reuse model A1 A2 B1 B2 B2 B2 C for beverage cups Festival char- August 28– June 14–16, acteristics July 4–7, August 8–11, July 25–28, August 9–11, July 11–14, September 1, Vilnius (time, Palanga Trakai district Utena region Trakai district Anykšˇciai Nida region location) Average age of attendees 30+ 30+ 35+ 20+ 20+ 25+ 25+ (years) Mature attendees; Metal, hard over 50% Small punk Electronic rock music, foreigners; festival, Electronic music niche festival, Special most of them alternative, music festival, dark international, Open-air guests, high artists, experimental festival. Strict music, post popular event at the standards for hipsters, music. The face control, punk, lot of among Baltic city center, attendance: creative main concept people are DJ sets, some states’ hard free of charge, Main only with people. The of the festival long-term experimental rock fans. no restricted concept, costumes, festival had was a green participants, music, Has its own territory or activities higher price strict and higher price people are audience, ticketing. tickets, secret entrance and sustainable tickets, far long-term most Live music, and very ticketing event. away from participants, attendees are food, drinks, secure policy— Attendees are city, in the far away fans of this yacht racing. festival party. organizers younger age, middle of from city, festival and chose to lower woods. surrounded attend it whom they entrance fee. by nature. many years sell the as a tradition. tickets. Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 18

2.1. Case Studies Case study was chosen as a research method in order to represent the data of real- life situations and to provide better insights into the detailed behaviors of the subjects of interest [28]. Seven micro-level events, namely open-air festivals, were chosen. These were the festivals whose organizers agreed to test the practice of using reusable cups. The events took from 2 to 4 days, had from 500 to 6000 attendees, and applied different reusable cup reuse models (Table 1). Participants of the events had the option to exchange dirty cups for clean cups an unlimited number of times. One-size (500 mL) reusable plastic cups weighing 32 g per unit, made from polypropylene (PP, no. 5) were used. Dirty cups were washed at the washing center outside the festivals. A simplified scheme of reusable and single-use cup flows is presented in Figure 2.

Table 1. Summary of the festivals, the applied reuse models, and additional characteristics of each festival.

Festival 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Number of 1500 900 3000 500 950 700 2000 attendees Duration, days 3 3 4 2 3 2 3 The applied reuse model for A1 A2 B1 B2 B2 B2 C beverage cups Festival July 4–7, August 8–11, Trakai August 28– June 14–16, July 25–28, Utena August 9–11, July 11–14, characteristics Palanga district September 1, Nida Vilnius region region Trakai district Anykščiai (time, location) Average age of 30+ 30+ 35+ 20+ 20+ 25+ 25+ attendees (years) Small punk Metal, hard rock Special guests, Mature attendees; festival, Electronic music music, niche high over 50% alternative, Electronic music festival, dark festival, Open-air event at standards for foreigners; most of experimental festival. Strict music, post punk, international, the city center, free attendance: them artists, music. The main face control, lot of DJ sets, some popular among of charge, no only with hipsters, creative concept of the people are long- experimental Baltic states’ hard Main concept, restricted territory costumes, people. The festival festival was a term participants, music, people are rock fans. Has its activities or ticketing. Live higher price had strict entrance green and higher price long-term own audience, music, food, tickets, secret and ticketing sustainable tickets, far away participants, far most attendees are drinks, yacht and very policy—organizers event. Attendees from city, in the away from city, fans of this festival racing. Sustainability 2021, 13secure, 247 festival chose to whom they are younger age, middle of woods. surrounded by and attend it6 many of 18 party. sell the tickets. lower entrance nature. years as a fee. tradition.

Figure 2. A simplified simpliﬁed scheme of reusable and single-use cup ﬂows.flows.

2.1.1. Model A: Only Reusable Cups, Non-Refundable Some of the festivals preferred a non-refundable reuse model in order to simplify processes and money ﬂows. Two types of non-refundable models, A1 and A2, were applied: A1: Festival took a non-refundable eco-fee, and organizers collected the cups during the whole event from the territory; no penalty for lost cups was applied; A2: Festival took a non-refundable eco-fee, but if the cup was lost during the event, a new cup cost 1 euro extra fee.

2.1.2. Model B: Only Reusable Cups with Deposit-Refund This model provided partly and fully refundable reuse schemes for event attendees: B1: Fully refundable reuse model. Full deposit was refunded for the attendees. This model is easy to apply and communicate, but the cost of the service has to be covered by organizers. B2: Partly refundable reuse model. Only half of the amount was refunded when the cup was returned. The non-refundable part of the deposit was considered as a fee in order to cover service costs, and the other half was a refundable deposit that motivated attendees to return the cups. The B2 model was used for data verification. Three events applied the following reuse model, so this particular B2 model was chosen to verify the data, and check data reliability. Verification is used in order to identify how significant cup loss, damage, and return rates differ within three different events with the same reuse model (B2) applied.

2.1.3. Model C: A Mixed System of Reusable Cups with Deposit-Refund, and of Single-Use Cups This model allowed the festival participants themselves to choose whether to use reusable or disposable cups. It was applied as a compromise due to a sponsorship agree- ment between the festival and drink producer, in order to retain an advertising position on single-use cups provided by drink producers. Organizers made an announcement before the event that there will be an alternative to disposable cups at the festival, and those who feel environmentally supportive will be able to use the reusable alternative. Partly refundable reuse scheme (as in model B2) was applied at this festival in order to cover service costs for providing reusable cups for vendors, and to allow customers to exchange used cups for clean cups an unlimited number of times throughout the whole event.

2.2. Material Flow Analysis (MFA) Material Flow Analysis (MFA) has become a reliable instrument to describe material ﬂows and stocks within various systems [29]. Substance Flow Analysis (STAN) software Sustainability 2021, 13, 247 7 of 18

was used to perform MFA according to the Austrian Standard ÖNORM S 2096. STAN is often used simply for displaying mass flows of goods and substances as Sankey arrows [29] (see Figures1 and2). Material flow analysis (MFA) has a considerable history as an environmental accounting approach and in the field of industrial ecology. The flow of material resources, products, and wastes have been intensively studied during the past decade with the aim of charac- terizing the burden on the economy and setting targets for the sustainable use of material resources [30]. For this research, it was important to identify differences among three different reusable cup reuse models (A, B, C), and find out if there is a notable distinction among them in the context of reusable cup damage, loss, and return rates, as well as potential numbers of avoided single-use cups. Festivals are considered closed systems where certain activities and processes are being operated. Material flow analysis (MFA) was performed in order to measure reusable cup flow in and out of the system using Substance Flow Analysis software STAN [29].

2.3. Material Circularity Indicator (MCI) Circularity metrics are useful for empirical assessment of the effects of a circular economy in terms of job creation, profitability, and environmental impacts [19]. The Ellen MacArthur Foundation with partners have created a Material Circularity Indicator evaluation methodology. It measures how restorative the material flows of a product or company are, and complementary indicators allow additional impacts and risks to be taken into account. The indicators can be used as decision-making tools for designers, but might also be used for several other purposes including internal reporting, procurement decisions and the evaluation or rating of companies. The MCI gives a value between 0 and 1 where higher values indicate a higher circularity. The MCI is calculated according to the following equation [31]: MCIp = 1 − LFI · F(X) (1) where LFI is the Linear Flow Index, and is associated with the linear product flow—sourced from virgin materials and ending up as unrecoverable waste. A product is called fully linear if it is made purely from virgin material and it completely goes into landfill or energy recovery after its use; that is, LFI = 1, which is calculated according to the following equation: V + W LFI = (2) 2M In this case, the maximum value of 1 for LFI occurs when the mass of virgin raw material used in manufacture (V), and the mass of unrecoverable waste (W) are both equal to M—when there is no recycled (or reused) content and no collection for recycling (or reuse). The minimum value for LFI occurs when V = W = 0, that is, when there is 100% recycled (or reused) content and 100% collection for recycling (or reuse). The MCI depends on three main characteristics: V, W, and a utility X. In MCI calculations, the utility factor F(X) is depicted as a function of the utility X of a product. X shows the length and intensity of the product’s use. These characteristics are expressed according to the following equations: V = M·(1 − FR − FU), (3) which reflects the material that is not from reuse, recycling or biological materials from sustained production. In this equation, M is the mass of a product; FR is the fraction of a product’s feedstock mass that is taken from recycled sources; FU is the fraction of a product’s feedstock mass that is taken from reused sources. The mass of unrecoverable waste (W) that is attributed to the product is expressed according to the following equation:

W + W W = W + F C , (4) 0 2 Sustainability 2021, 13, 247 8 of 18

where W0 is the mass of unrecoverable waste through a product’s material going into landﬁll, waste to energy, and any other type of process where the materials are no longer recoverable; WF is the mass of unrecoverable waste generated when producing recycled feedstock for a product; and WC is the mass of unrecoverable waste generated in the process of recycling parts of a product. The utility X is expressed by the following equation:

L U X = · , (5) Lav Uav

where L is the actual average lifetime of a product; Lav is average lifetime of an industry- average product of the same type; U is the actual average number of functional units achieved during the use phase of a product; Uav is the average number of functional units achieved during the use phase of an industry average product of the same type. The utility X has two components: one accounting for the length of the product’s use phase (lifetime) and another for the intensity of use (functional units). Increasing the lifetime L when the industry average Lav remains ﬁxed leads to an increase in X and, correspondingly, to an increase (and thus an improvement) in the product’s MCI.

3. Results and Discussion Case studies at seven festivals have revealed the peculiarities, advantages and disad- vantages of different reuse models for reusable cups.

3.1. Material Flow Analysis Results Material flow analyses showed that each reuse model, and even smaller reuse cat- egories (A1, A2, B1, B2, C) have relatively different cup loss, damage, and return for reuse rates, where certain patterns can be identified. B2 reuse model was chosen for data verification because it covered three different events. Damaged cups were recycled to make pads for coffee cups in partnership with the Precious Plastic Lithuania initiative, and some of the cups with shape deformations and color changes were repurposed to souvenir pots for plants. Washing and cleaning of used cups took place at the washing center, where industrial washing equipment was used and detergents were applied for disinfection and proper cleaning of reusable cups. The loss was associated with taking cups home, or in some cases, with throwing them away with mixed waste, especially when no economic incentives for return were applied.

3.1.1. Material Flow Analysis of Different Reuse Models (A1, A2, B1, B2, C) Reuse model A (both A1 and A2) had no economic incentives to return the cups after use; only a single-use fee was applied. The first type of event with reuse model A1 had no financial motivation for attendees to return and take care of the cups, and the second type of event with reuse model A2 had a small penalty for the loss of the cup, but no financial motivation for attendees to return the cups at the end of the festival. The results of reuse model A1 revealed a relatively high rate of total cup loss (22%) compared to the B and C models, but it was lower than for the A2 reuse model, for which the rate of total cup loss was 22.9% (see Figure3) Reuse model A1 had the highest consumption rate of cups used for 100 participants per one festival day. Such a high consumption rate is associated with the model specifications like each drink being served in a new cup because most of the drinks were cocktails. Additionally, there was no need for taking care of your own cup—no penalties for lost cups were applied and most of the cups were left in the territory, at the bars and in special collection boxes that were spread throughout the territory. Reuse model A1 was the most intensive in consumption of beverages and was similar to single-use or disposable model with the principle “take-make-dispose (leave)”. Nevertheless, several key factors led to the recovery of the cups: good cup collection from the territory by volunteers during the whole event; small, closed and well-defined festival area; large number of cup collection boxes spread through the territory; good communication with participants—the Sustainability 2021, 13, 247 9 of 18

Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 18 organizers informed the participants about the system just before the event and showed an attractive video.

Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 18

FigureFigure 3.3. Material flow ﬂow diagram of reusable reusable cups cups at at th thee festival festival where where reuse reuse model model A1 A1 was was applied. applied.

Reuse model A2 showed the highest rate of total cup loss—22.9% (see Figure4). This can be explained by participants taking cups home as souvenirs, bearing in mind that more than half of the participants in this festival were foreigners. Cups lost in the festival territory were collected by the volunteers during the whole event. Most of the cup damage observed in this festival was aesthetic; that is to say, cups were colored, painted, or applied with stickers. However, in reuse model A1, most of the damage was crucial, consisting of cigaretteFigure 3. Material burns and flow breaks, diagram etc. of reusable cups at the festival where reuse model A1 was applied.

Figure 4. Material flow diagram of reusable cups at the festival where reuse model A2 was applied.

The success of reuse model B1 is presumed to be due to the full refund of the deposit and to the dominant age group of the participants being over 30 years. Moreover, this festival was supported by the municipality, which insisted that organizers use reusable solutions instead of single-use plastics. The results show that the total loss of reusable cups was 3.1%, which is 11.9% lower than for reuse model B2 (see Figure 5).

FigureFigure 4.4. Material flow ﬂow diagram of reusable reusable cups cups at at th thee festival festival where where reuse reuse model model A2 A2 was was applied. applied.

ReuseThe success model of B reuse (both model B1 and B1 B2) is presumed had economic to be incentivesdue to the tofull return refund the of cups.the deposit This modeland to motivatedthe dominant the participantsage group of not the to particip break andants not being to lose over the 30 cups. years. If oneMoreover, participant this lostfestival their was cup supported in the festival by the territory, municipality, someone which else could insisted return that their organizers cup to the use eco-point reusable orsolutions to the bar instead to get of refunded. single-use plastics. The results show that the total loss of reusable cupsThe was success 3.1%, which of reuse is 11.9% model lower B1 is presumedthan for reuse to be model due to B2 the (see full Figure refund 5). of the deposit and to the dominant age group of the participants being over 30 years. Moreover, this festival was supported by the municipality, which insisted that organizers use reusable solutions instead of single-use plastics. The results show that the total loss of reusable cups was 3.1%, which is 11.9% lower than for reuse model B2 (see Figure5).

Figure 5. Material flow diagram of reusable cups at the festival where reuse model B1 was applied.

Figure 5. Material flow diagram of reusable cups at the festival where reuse model B1 was applied. Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 18

Figure 3. Material flow diagram of reusable cups at the festival where reuse model A1 was applied.

Figure 4. Material flow diagram of reusable cups at the festival where reuse model A2 was applied.

The success of reuse model B1 is presumed to be due to the full refund of the deposit and to the dominant age group of the participants being over 30 years. Moreover, this Sustainability 2021, 13, 247 festival was supported by the municipality, which insisted that organizers use reusable10 of 18 solutions instead of single-use plastics. The results show that the total loss of reusable cups was 3.1%, which is 11.9% lower than for reuse model B2 (see Figure 5).

Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 18

Figure 5. Material flow flow diagram diagram of of reusable reusable cups cups at at th thee festival festival where where reuse reuse model model B1 B1 was was applied. applied. Reuse model B2 was partly refundable. Participants paid a refundable deposit, and half Reuseof the sum model was B2 refunded was partly when refundable. the cup Participantswas returned paid without a refundable damage. deposit, This type and of halfrefund of themodel sum is wasas effective refunded as whenthe fully the refundable cup was returned type of event. without However, damage. it Thisis hard type to ofapply refund this modelmodel isfor as every effective event, as especially the fully refundablefor one-day type events of event.or city markets, However, where it is hardpeople to are apply visiting this modelepisodically. for every It is event, also hard especially to apply for when one-day there events are no ordefined city markets, bound- wherearies of people the event. are visiting In that episodically.case, the movement It is also of hard people to apply is chaotic, when and there the are time no definedspent at boundariesthe event is of relatively the event. short—from In that case, 30 the min movement to one day. of people This presumes is chaotic, that and an the extra time fee spent for atcup the service event iswould relatively be an short—from undesirable 30 investment min to one for day. the This participant. presumes In that this an case, extra event fee fororganizers cup service would would have be to an cover undesirable cup service investment fees, so for the the B1 participant. refund model In thiswould case, have event to organizersbe applied. would Reuse have model to coverB2 was cup applied service for fees, three so the festivals, B1 refund so this model model would was have used to for be applied.data verification. Reuse model The average B2 was appliedtotal loss for of threereusable festivals, cups in so this this model model was was 15% used (see for Figure data verification.6). The average total loss of reusable cups in this model was 15% (see Figure6).

FigureFigure 6. Material flow ﬂow diagram of of reusable reusable cups cups at at th thee festival festival where where reuse reuse model model B2 B2 was was applied. applied.

ReuseReuse modelmodel CC waswas partlypartly refundable,refundable, asas waswas reusereuse modelmodel B2.B2. TheThe onlyonly differencedifference amongamong these two two models models was was that that the the B2 B2model model had hadonly only a reusable a reusable solution solution for the for partic- the participants,ipants, while whilethe C model the C model had both had single-use both single-use and reusable and reusable choices. choices. In this type In this of festival, type of festival,participants participants were allowed were to allowed choose between to choose sing betweenle-use and single-use reusable and systems, reusable so this systems, model sowas this chosen model only was by chosenconscientious only by and conscientious motivated participants and motivated who felt participants responsible who for feltthe responsibleenvironment. for For the this environment. reuse model, For communic this reuseation model, was communication a key success fa wasctor ato key reach success more factorparticipants to reach and more increase participants the reuse rate. and increaseFrom 6000 the participants, reuse rate. 2000 From participants 6000 participants, chose the 2000reusable participants “CupCup” chose alternative, the reusable which “CupCup” accounts alternative, for one third which of the accounts total festival for one attendees. third of theThis total reuse festival model attendees. had a relatively This reuse low model total damage had a relatively rate—2.5%, low and total total damage loss rate—2.5%,of reusable andcups total in this loss model of reusable was 6.6% cups (see in Figure this model 7), which was 6.6%is associated (see Figure with7), the which consciousness is associated and withmotivation the consciousness of people who and chose motivation this alternative. of people who chose this alternative.

Figure 7. Material flow diagram of reusable cups at the festival where reuse model C was applied. Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 18

Reuse model B2 was partly refundable. Participants paid a refundable deposit, and half of the sum was refunded when the cup was returned without damage. This type of refund model is as effective as the fully refundable type of event. However, it is hard to apply this model for every event, especially for one-day events or city markets, where people are visiting episodically. It is also hard to apply when there are no defined bound- aries of the event. In that case, the movement of people is chaotic, and the time spent at the event is relatively short—from 30 min to one day. This presumes that an extra fee for cup service would be an undesirable investment for the participant. In this case, event organizers would have to cover cup service fees, so the B1 refund model would have to be applied. Reuse model B2 was applied for three festivals, so this model was used for data verification. The average total loss of reusable cups in this model was 15% (see Figure 6).

Figure 6. Material flow diagram of reusable cups at the festival where reuse model B2 was applied.

Reuse model C was partly refundable, as was reuse model B2. The only difference among these two models was that the B2 model had only a reusable solution for the participants, while the C model had both single-use and reusable choices. In this type of festival, participants were allowed to choose between single-use and reusable systems, so this model was chosen only by conscientious and motivated participants who felt responsible for the environment. For this reuse model, communication was a key success factor to reach more participants and increase the reuse rate. From 6000 participants, 2000 participants chose the reusable “CupCup” alternative, which accounts for one third of the total festival attendees. Sustainability 2021, 13, 247 This reuse model had a relatively low total damage rate—2.5%, and total loss of reusable11 of 18 cups in this model was 6.6% (see Figure 7), which is associated with the consciousness and motivation of people who chose this alternative.

Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 18

FigureFigure 7.7. MaterialMaterial ﬂowflow diagramdiagram ofof reusablereusable cupscups atat thethe festivalfestival wherewhere reusereuse modelmodel CCwas wasapplied. applied.

3.1.2.3.1.2. CupCup Loss,Loss, Damage,Damage, andand ReturnReturn TakenTaken asas aa wholewhole forfor all all festivals, festivals, thethe total total lossloss (damaged (damaged andand lost)lost) ofof reusablereusable cupscups waswas 13.92%,13.92%, ofof whichwhich 8.18%8.18% werewere damageddamaged and and sent sent toto recycling,recycling, and and 5.74% 5.74% were were lost lost (not (not returned)returned) (see (see Figure Figure8). 8). Deposit-refund Deposit-refund models models (B, C)(B, hadC) had lower lower rates rates of damaged of damaged and lost and cupslost cups compared compared to the to model the model when when no refund no refund scheme scheme was applied was applied (A) (see (A)Figures (see 1Figures and8 ).1 Theand lowest8). The losslowest rate loss was rate observed was observed in reuse in model reuse B1,model which B1, waswhich explained was explained by a good by a combinationgood combination of economic of economic incentives incentives (fully refundable (fully refundable deposit), deposit), governmental governmental support sup- for theport reusable for the solutionsreusable solutions in the festival, in the and festival, good and communication good communication strategy. Reusestrategy. model Reuse C hadmodel the C second had the lowest second loss lowest rate in comparisonloss rate in comparison with other models, with other which models, is explained which by is theex- factplained that theby the choice fact to that take the a reusablechoice to cup take was a reusable a deliberate cup actionwas a bydeliberate motivated action participants, by moti- andvated a clearparticipants, message and about a clear the reuse message model about was the delivered reuse model to the was festival delivered participants to the festival before theparticipants event. before the event.

100%

80%

60% 78 77.1 85 96.9 93.4 40%

20% 15.1 13.5 1.3 8.5 2.5 0% 8.5 7.8 1.8 6.5 4.1 A1 A2 B1 B2 C

Lost Damaged sent to recycling For washing and reuse

FigureFigure 8.8. CupCup damage, loss, and return for for reuse reuse rates rates of of different different reuse reuse models models (A1, (A1, A2, A2, B1, B1, B2, B2, C). C).

CupCup loss depends on on several several factors. factors. An An impo importantrtant influence influence on the on results the results is the is num- the numberber of cups of cupsthat are that taken are takenhome [20]. home The [20 UK].The music UK festival music “Shambala” festival “Shambala” chose to brand chose 15% to brandof cups, 15% to balance of cups, the to desire balance for the souvenirs desire forwhilst souvenirs maximizing whilst the maximizing reuse to realize the reuseenviron- to realizemental environmentalbenefits [21]. Given benefits the fact [21 that]. Given “CupCu thep” fact reusable that “CupCup”cups had no reusablebranding cupsor festival had noattributes, branding it did or festival not perform attributes, as a souvenir it did not for perform the participants. as a souvenir Customers’ for the behavior participants. and Customers’cooperation behavior level can andhave cooperation a significant level impact can on have thea economics significant of impact reusable on packaging, the economics and ofare reusable an optimal packaging, strategy and choice are an[18]. optimal Reusable strategy packaging choice damage [18]. Reusable mainly packaging depends damageon pack- mainlyage design depends (material on package used, color, design shape, (material surfac used,e texture, color, etc.), shape, users’ surface behavior, texture, communica- etc.), users’ behavior,tion strategy, communication and economic strategy, incentives. and economic In this research, incentives. the In loss this of research, the reusable the loss cups of was the reusableconsidered cups when was people considered took whenthe cups people home took or thethrew cups them home out or as threw waste. them Most out of as the waste. cups Mostwere oflost the due cups to weretaking lost them due home, to taking and them some home, of the and cups some lost ofas thewaste cups in lost the aswaste waste bins, in theespecially waste bins, in the especially not refundable in the notreuse refundable models (A reuse1, A2). models In this (A1,research, A2). Intwo this types research, of damage two were distinguished: crucial damage and aesthetic damage (see Figure 9). Damage is crucial when the cups cannot perform their function any longer, such as when they are broken into parts or burnt with cigarettes (see Figure 9a). Aesthetic damage occurs when cups lose visual properties like color, get scratched, bent, or have long-lasting paint or lipstick applied (see Figure 9b). The importance of design, as well as environmental and economic feasibility are presented by Mahmoudi and Parviziomran (2020) as the key measures that have to be addressed to adopt reuse systems. According to Coelho et al. (2020), design can become a limiting factor for reusable packaging system efficiency and sustainability through certain aspects such as system convenience for the customer, material choice, and application of measures for the reduction of product damages and losses. Sustainability 2021, 13, 247 12 of 18

types of damage were distinguished: crucial damage and aesthetic damage (see Figure9). Damage is crucial when the cups cannot perform their function any longer, such as when they are broken into parts or burnt with cigarettes (see Figure9a). Aesthetic damage occurs when cups lose visual properties like color, get scratched, bent, or have long-lasting paint or lipstick applied (see Figure9b). The importance of design, as well as environmental and economic feasibility are presented by Mahmoudi and Parviziomran (2020) as the key measures that have to be addressed to adopt reuse systems. According to Coelho et al. (2020), design can become a limiting factor for reusable packaging system efﬁciency and SustainabilitySustainability 2021 2021,, 1313,, xx FORFOR PEERPEER REVIEWREVIEWsustainability through certain aspects such as system convenience for the customer, material1212 of of18 18 choice, and application of measures for the reduction of product damages and losses.

FigureFigure 9.9. DamagedDamaged cups cups from from the the festivals: festivals: ( a( a) )Cups Cups with with with crucial crucial crucial damage damage damage were were were recycled; recycled; recycled; (b () (b bCups)) Cups Cups withwith aestheticaesthetic damagedamage were werewere repurposedrepurposedrepurposed to to plant plant pots. pots.

3.1.3.3.1.3. DataData VerificationVerification TheThe B2B2 reusereuse modelmodelmodel waswas chosenchosen for for data data verification verificationverification due duedue to toto its itsits application applicationapplication for forfor three threethree differentdifferent events.events. TheThe verificationverificationverification results resultsresults show showshow th thatthatat there therethere is isis a aa slight slightslight difference differencedifference in inin cup cupcup loss, loss,loss, damagedamage andand returnreturn forfor reusereuse ratesrates amongamong the thethe three threethree different differentdifferent events eventsevents where wherewhere the thethe B2 B2B2 reuse reusereuse modelmodel waswas applied,applied, butbut thethe differencesdifferences are are not not significant significantsignificant (see (see(see Figure FigureFigure 10). 10 10).). The TheThe data datadata show showshow that total average loss of reusable cups (damaged and lost) for the three festivals was 14.6%, that total average lossloss ofof reusablereusable cupscups (damaged(damaged and and lost) lost) for for the the three three festivals festivals was was and the average return rate was 85.1%. 14.6%, and the average returnreturn raterate was was 85.1%. 85.1%.

100% 90% 80% 80% 70% 70% 60% 60% 84.9 84.5 86 50% 84.9 84.5 86 50% 40% 40% 30% 30% 20% 20% 10% 8.6 10.1 5.2 10% 6.58.6 5.510.1 7.95.2 0% 7.9 0% 6.5 5.5 Festival 1 Festival 2 Festival 3 Festival 1 Festival 2 Festival 3 Lost Damaged sent to recycling For washing and reuse Lost Damaged sent to recycling For washing and reuse

FigureFigure 10.10. CupCup damage,damage, loss, and return for reuse rates in three different festivals (1, (1, 2, 2, 3) 3) where where the Figure 10. Cup damage, loss, and return for reuse rates in three different festivals (1, 2, 3) where B2the reuse B2 reuse model model was was applied. applied. the B2 reuse model was applied. 3.2. Single-Use Cups Avoided from the Festivals 3.2. Single-Use Cups Avoided from the Festivals The amount of eliminated single-use cups from the festivals was measured by mul- tiplyingThe reusable amount cupsof eliminated used by thesingle-use average cups number from of the drinks festivals consumed was measured by one personby mul- tiplyingper one festivalreusable day. cups The used presumption by the average was made number that one of drinksperson consumedconsumes 3.5by drinksone person per perone onefestival festival day. day. Figure The 11 presumption gives an overview was made of potential that one single-use person consumes plastic cups 3.5 drinks avoided per onefrom festival all seven day. festivals. Figure The11 gives results an revealedoverview that of potential the total single-useamount of plasticavoided cups single-use avoided fromplastic all cups seven from festivals. the festivals The results is 98,280 revealed units. This that number the total corresponds amount of toavoided 786.2 kg single-use of pol- plasticypropylene cups waste.from the Polypropylene festivals is 98,280 is a dominaunits. Thisnt material number forcorresponds currently toused 786.2 single-use kg of pol- ypropyleneplastic cups forwaste. the coldPolypropylene beverages. Itis wasa domina presumednt material that the for collection currently rate used of single-use single-use plastic cups for the cold beverages. It was presumed that the collection rate of single-use Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 18

cups from the festivals was 99%, and used single-use plastic cups are thrown into mixed waste containers and delivered to regional mechanical biological treatment plants (MBTs) together with mixed municipal waste. Lithuania has a regional waste management system Sustainability 2021, 13, 247 with 10 regional waste treatment centers where MBT plants are constructed. All 13mixed of 18 municipal waste is transported to regional MBTs, where sorting is performed in order to separate biological material, solid recovered fuel (fraction for incineration), the fraction suitable for recycling, and the fraction that is only suitable for landfilling. 3.2. Single-UseThe assumption Cups Avoided was made from that the Festivals 69% of single-use plastic cups delivered to MBTs are incineratedThe amount together ofeliminated with the combustible single-use waste cups fromfraction the due festivals to impurities was measured or poorby quality. mul- tiplyingThis makes reusable up 537 cups kg usedof polypropylene by the average waste, number and 30% of drinks (241.3 consumed kg) of such by plastic one person waste percould one be festival recycled day. toThe other presumption products (see was Figure made 11). that The one assumption person consumes was made 3.5 drinks based per on onegeneral festival statistical day. Figure information 11 gives on an plastic overview waste of potential recycling single-use rates that plastic only 30% cups of avoided plastic frompackaging all seven is being festivals. recycled The results[9,10]. revealedPackaging that waste the totalis collected amount in of two avoided different single-use ways: plastictogether cups with from mixed the municipal festivals iswaste 98,280 (when units. no Thissorting number is applied); corresponds and together to 786.2 with kg sec- of polypropyleneondary waste (using waste. packaging Polypropylene sorting is ainfrastruc dominantture). material In the for festivals currently and used events, single-use no sort- plasticing was cups performed for the coldor only beverages. so-called It “emotional” was presumed sorting that thewas collection used to demonstrate rate of single-use envi- cupsronmental from theawareness festivals and was responsibility, 99%, and used and single-use therefore, plastic packaging cups are waste thrown such into as mixedsingle- wasteuse plastic containers beverage and cups delivered enter tomixed regional municipal mechanical waste biological bins. treatment plants (MBTs) togetherSecondary with mixed waste municipal that is sorted waste. and Lithuania collected has separately a regional as wastea part managementof the EPR (extended system withproducers’ 10 regional responsibility) waste treatment scheme, centers is delivered where straight MBT plants to specialized are constructed. waste sorting All mixed cen- municipalters without waste entering is transported MBTs. Another to regional assumption MBTs, wherewas made sorting that is 1% performed of single-use in order plastic to separatecups are biologicalbeing lost material,in the environment, solid recovered and this fuel percentage (fraction for depends incineration), mainly the on fractioncleanup suitablequality of for the recycling, festival andarea, the and fraction participants’ that is onlybehavior. suitable for landﬁlling.

FigureFigure 11.11. Material flow ﬂow diagram diagram of of single-use single-use cups cups fr fromom the the festivals, festivals, and and potential potential amount amount of of single-usesingle-use cupscups avoidedavoided fromfrom thethe festivalsfestivals byby applyingapplying reusablereusable cup cup reuse reuse models. models.

TheThe assumptionfindings indicated was made that that 300 69%cups of per single-use 100 participants plastic cups per deliveredone festival to MBTsday were are incineratedbeing avoided together in the with case theof models combustible with the waste use fraction of reusable due tocups impurities only (models or poor A, quality.and B); Thiswhile makes a mixed up reuse 537 kg model of polypropylene with the usage waste, of both and reusable 30% (241.3 and kg) single-use of such plasticcups resulted waste couldin an beavoidance recycled of to 108.25 other productscups per (see100 Figureparticipants 11). The per assumption one festival was day made (model based C) (see on generalFigure 12). statistical The numbers information show that on plastic fully reusable waste recycling reuse models rates like that models only 30% A and of plasticB have packaginghigher single-use is being cup recycled eliminat [9ion,10]. potential Packaging than waste any other is collected mixed systems in two different where both ways: re- togetherusable, and with single-use mixed municipal options are waste provided (when for no the sorting customers. is applied); Only fully and togetherreusable reuse with secondarymodels can waste achieve (using material packaging circulation sorting and infrastructure). material savings In theat a festivals higher rate. and events, no sorting was performed or only so-called “emotional” sorting was used to demonstrate environmental awareness and responsibility, and therefore, packaging waste such as single- use plastic beverage cups enter mixed municipal waste bins. Secondary waste that is sorted and collected separately as a part of the EPR (extended producers’ responsibility) scheme, is delivered straight to specialized waste sorting centers without entering MBTs. Another assumption was made that 1% of single-use plastic cups are being lost in the environment, and this percentage depends mainly on cleanup quality of the festival area, and participants’ behavior. The ﬁndings indicated that 300 cups per 100 participants per one festival day were being avoided in the case of models with the use of reusable cups only (models A, and B); while a mixed reuse model with the usage of both reusable and single-use cups resulted in an avoidance of 108.25 cups per 100 participants per one festival day (model C) (see Figure 12). The numbers show that fully reusable reuse models like models A and B have Sustainability 2021, 13, 247 14 of 18

higher single-use cup elimination potential than any other mixed systems where both Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 18 reusable, and single-use options are provided for the customers. Only fully reusable reuse models can achieve material circulation and material savings at a higher rate.

FigureFigure 12.12. Avoided single-usesingle-use cupscups perper 100100 participantsparticipants perper oneone festivalfestival dayday whenwhen differentdifferent models mod- (A,els (A, B, C) B, applied.C) applied.

3.3.3.3. Material Circularity IndicatorIndicator ResultsResults TheThe results revealed that single-use polypropylenepolypropylene cups with the current waste treat- mentment scenario,scenario, wherewhere 99%99% ofof single-use cupscups werewere beingbeing collectedcollected andand treatedtreated byby recyclingrecycling oror incinerationincineration processes,processes, hadhad lowerlower MaterialMaterial CircularityCircularity IndicatorIndicator valuesvalues comparedcompared toto reusablereusable cupcup reusereuse models.models. AllAll three reuse modelsmodels werewere summarizedsummarized intointo oneone comparablecomparable reusereuse model.model.

3.3.1.3.3.1. Virgin Feedstock The mass of virgin material (V) was calculated according to Equation (3). The mass (M) The mass of virgin material (V) was calculated according to Equation (3). The mass of single-use cups is 8 g, while a reusable cup weights 32 g. Both single-use, and reusable (M) of single-use cups is 8 g, while a reusable cup weights 32 g. Both single-use, and re- cups are produced from 100% virgin source polypropylene, and no recycled content is usable cups are produced from 100% virgin source polypropylene, and no recycled con- used for both products (FR = 0). The reusable cup reuse rate is 93% (FU = 0.93), while the tent is used for both products (FR = 0). The reusable cup reuse rate is 93% (FU = 0.93), while single-use cup reuse rate is 0% (FU = 0). The mass of virgin material is therefore: V (reusable the single-use cup reuse rate is 0% (FU = 0). The mass of virgin material is therefore: V cup) = 2.24 g; V (single-use cup) = 8 g. (reusable cup) = 2.24 g; V (single-use cup) = 8 g. 3.3.2. Unrecoverable Waste 3.3.2. Unrecoverable Waste The mass of unrecoverable waste (W) was calculated according to Equation (4). It The mass of unrecoverable waste (W) was calculated according to Equation (4). It is is assumed that 100% of damaged reusable cups are being recycled (CR = 1), and 30% assumed that 100% of damaged reusable cups are being recycled (CR = 1), and 30% of of disposed single-use cups are being recycled (CR = 0.3). The assumption of disposable single-usedisposed single-use plastic cup cups recycling are being rate recycled (30%) was (CR made = 0.3). according The assumption to the currently of disposable available sin- statisticalgle-use plastic data [9cup,10]. recycling There is norate accurate (30%) andwas reliablemade according statistical informationto the currently on how available many single-usestatistical data plastic [9,10]. packaging There is isno being accurate collected and reliable and recycled statistical from information festivals and on how events. many A disposablesingle-use plastic cup recycling packaging rate is of being 30% wascollected chosen and according recycled to from some festivals data provided and events. in the A Introductiondisposable cup [9, 10recycling]. The recycling rate of 30% efficiency was chosen rate for according polypropylene to some is data assumed provided to be in 99%. the TheIntroduction recycling [9,10]. efficiency The rate recycling for single-use efficiency and rate reusable for polypropylene cups is EC = EisF assumed= 0.99. The to amountbe 99%. ofThe waste recycling generated efficiency at the rate time for of single-use collection is:and W reusable0 (reusable cups cup) is =EC 0.32; = EF W = 00.99.(single-use The amount cup) =of 0.08. waste The generated quantity at of the waste time generated of collection in recycling is: W0 (reusable process cup) is: W =C 0.32;(reusable W0 (single-use cup) = 0.2976; cup) W= 0.08.C (single-use The quantity cup) of = 0.024.waste Thegenerated waste generatedin recycling to process produce is: the WC recycled (reusable content cup) = (W 0.2976;F) is zero.WC (single-use The total amount cup) = 0.024. of unrecoverable The waste gene wasterated is: W to (reusable produce cup)the recycled = 0.4688; content W (single-use (WF) is cup)zero. =The 0.092. total amount of unrecoverable waste is: W (reusable cup) = 0.4688; W (single- use cup) = 0.092. 3.3.3. Linear Flow Index (LFI) 3.3.3.The Linear LFI Flow was measuredIndex (LFI) according to Equation (2). Linear flow indices for reusable and single-useThe LFI cups was are: measured LFI (reusable according cup) = to 0.0423; Equation LFI (single-use(2). Linear cup)flow =indices 0.5057. for The reusable results and single-use cups are: LFI (reusable cup) = 0.0423; LFI (single-use cup) = 0.5057. The results show that the reusable cup linear flow index (LFI) is lower than the single-use cup value, which indicates higher reusability and recyclability of reusable cups.

Sustainability 2021, 13, 247 15 of 18

Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 18 show that the reusable cup linear ﬂow index (LFI) is lower than the single-use cup value, which indicates higher reusability and recyclability of reusable cups.

3.3.4.3.3.4. Utility TheThe utility X X was was calculated calculated by by Equation Equation (5 (5).). Average Average reusable reusable cups cups were were used used 105 105times times (L), (L),Lav was Lav wasaround around 107 times, 107 times, U = 1, U U =av 1, = U1;av average= 1; average single-use single-use cups are cups used are 1 used time 1(L), time Lav (L), is 1 L time,av is 1 U time, = 1, UUav = = 1, 1. U Theav = utility 1. The X utility of both X of reusable both reusable and single-use and single-use cups are cups as arefollows: as follows: X (reusable X (reusable cup) = cup)0.83; =X 0.83; (single-use X (single-use cup) = cup)1. = 1.

3.3.5.3.3.5. Material Circularity Circularity Indicator Indicator (MCI) (MCI) TheThe MCIMCI waswas calculated calculated according according to to Equation Equation (1). (1). The The MCI MCI of of reusable reusable polypropylene polypropyl- cupsene cups was was 0.94 0.94 and and the the single-use single-use polypropylene polypropylene cup cup MCI MCI was was 0.49 0.49 (see (see Figure Figure13 13).). The The calculationscalculations showshow thatthat PPPP cupcup reusereuse hashas higherhigher MCIMCI thanthan single-usesingle-use PPPP cupcup recyclingrecycling withwith 99%99% collectioncollection raterate andand 30%30% ofof recyclingrecycling rate.rate.

FigureFigure 13.13. Material Circularity IndicatorIndicator (MCI),(MCI), andand LinearLinear FlowFlow IndexIndex (LFI)(LFI) ofof reusablereusable polypropy- polypro- lenepylene (PP) (PP) cup cup reuse, reuse, and and single-use single-use polypropylene polypropylene (PP) (PP) cup cup recycling. recycling.

3.4.3.4. Overview and Discussion EachEach festivalfestival differeddiffered inin size,size, time,time, location,location, typetype ofof drinksdrinks servedserved (canned(canned drinks,drinks, cocktails,cocktails, taptap drinks),drinks), asas wellwell asas socialsocial aspectsaspects likelike averageaverage age,age, education,education, andand dominantdominant socialsocial classclass ofof attendees.attendees. Additionally, all eventsevents werewere affectedaffected byby somesome unpredictableunpredictable circumstancescircumstances likelike weather weather conditions. conditions. All ofAll these of these circumstances circumstances can influence can influence the number the ofnumber cups used, of cups lost, used, damaged, lost, damaged, and returned. and Consumers’returned. Consumers’ motivation motivation and awareness and areaware- key elementsness are key that elements have a significant that have impacta significant on the impact circularity on the of circularity the packaging. of the packaging. WasteWaste managementmanagement atat thethe eventevent oror festivalfestival isis anan importantimportant factorfactor thatthat determinesdetermines thethe overalloverall impactimpact onon thethe environment.environment. It isis knownknown thatthat inin LithuaniaLithuania eacheach festivalfestival andand eventevent isis basedbased onon linearlinear wastewaste managementmanagement models.models. Only aa smallsmall portionportion ofof thethe eventsevents taketake responsibilityresponsibility andand collect collect waste waste separately separately into into recycling recycling bins. bins. Sorting Sorting is mostly is mostly performed per- dueformed to emotional due to emotional reasons, andreasons, the efficiency and the effici of it isency questionable. of it is questionable. Lithuania hasLithuania a single-use has a beveragesingle-use packaging beverage depositpackaging refund deposit scheme refund which scheme helps which to manage helps theto manage waste at the festivals waste andat festivals reduce and the amountreduce the of waste.amount The of waste. rest of theThe wasterest of from the waste take-away from foodtake-away packaging food andpackaging single-use and beveragesingle-use cups beverage is being cups thrown is being away thrown as regular away mixedas regular waste. mixed There waste. is a trend in Lithuania to refuse single-use plastic packaging in municipal events and exchange There is a trend in Lithuania to refuse single-use plastic packaging in municipal events them for the commonly used alternatives—single-use paper-based cups with polyethylene and exchange them for the commonly used alternatives—single-use paper-based cups lining as a barrier or bio-based single-use alternatives like paper cups with bioplastic lining with polyethylene lining as a barrier or bio-based single-use alternatives like paper cups or single-use beverage cups from bioplastics, usually from polylactic acid (PLA). These with bioplastic lining or single-use beverage cups from bioplastics, usually from polylactic commercially popular biodegradable alternatives require industrial composting equipment acid (PLA). These commercially popular biodegradable alternatives require industrial which is not available in the Lithuanian market. Thus, this type of single-use paper-based composting equipment which is not available in the Lithuanian market. Thus, this type of packaging cannot be recycled in Lithuania due to the barrier lining. Most of these single-use single-use paper-based packaging cannot be recycled in Lithuania due to the barrier lin- plastic alternatives become additional waste and go to MBT plants with the regular mixed ing. Most of these single-use plastic alternatives become additional waste and go to MBT waste stream. plants with the regular mixed waste stream. Another challenging single-use packaging waste management aspect at the festivals and outdoor events is attendees’ behavior, which is hard to influence and control. Sorting skills, knowledge, understanding and awareness level are personal features that have to Sustainability 2021, 13, 247 16 of 18

Another challenging single-use packaging waste management aspect at the festivals and outdoor events is attendees’ behavior, which is hard to inﬂuence and control. Sorting skills, knowledge, understanding and awareness level are personal features that have to be developed through societal change over a long period of time. Other factors like package labeling, communication, infrastructure of the recycling stations or sorting bins are also recognized as key aspects to ensure good quality of recovered packaging material and high collection rates. On the other hand, there is no clear comparative data for how festivals manage their single-use items, and how many of the single-use packages are being recycled. Moreover, a lack of disposable beverage cup waste treatment methods is another issue that needs further study. Taking into account reusable cup losses, it was noticed that losses depend on several factors and is mainly associated with people taking cups home as souvenirs. Branding of cups can reduce the overall reuse rate and increase environmental impact. Reusable packaging damage mainly depends on package design (material used, color, shape, surface texture, etc.), users’ behavior, communication strategy, and economic incentives (Section 3.1.2). The results are summarized in Table2.

Table 2. Summary overview of the results.

Festival 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Electronic Mature music An Small punk Metal, hard High attendees, festival. Electronic open-air festival. rock music. standards many Attendees and event at the Attendees International, for foreigners. are another city center, are many Summary of festival type attendance, Strict younger music free of younger attendees higher entrance age, higher festival far charge, no age, lower attend it for price and price away from restricted entrance many tickets. ticketing tickets, far the city. territory. fee. years. policy. away from the city. A1 A2 B1 B2 B2 B2 C A mixed system of The applied reuse model Only reusable cups, reusable for beverage cups non-refundable model: cups with one-time eco-fee with a Only reusable cups, with deposit-refund deposit- possibility for unlimited refund and exchange of cups of single-use cups. No extra Extra fee Fully Partly Type of refund fee for a for a lost Partly refundable refundable refundable lost cup cup Number of cups per 100 133.33 48.66 24.51 54.02 36.08 participants per day

For wash- 84.9 84.5 86 ing and 78 77.2 96.9 93.4 85 Share of reuse Damaged, reusable 8.6 10.1 5.2 cups, % went to 13.5 15.1 1.3 2.5 recycling 8.5 6.5 5.5 7.9 Lost 8.5 7.8 1.8 4.1 6.5 Sustainability 2021, 13, 247 17 of 18

4. Conclusions A study of different models of reusable cup services used during open-air summer festivals to avoid disposable plastic entering the environment demonstrated the difference in achieving results when different models are applied. The three models applied and their two variations reveal the deposit being an important incentive to return more cups while fewer cups are lost or damaged. Still, even in the absence of a deposit, 77.2–78% of the cups were destined for washing and could be reused. The biggest share of cups was returned for reuse under the fully refundable deposit system, almost 97%. Still, such a model has the feature that the costs of providing the service have to be covered by the festival organizers, which is not always possible. With the return of the deposit partially, the problem of ﬁnancing the service is eliminated and the achieved percentage of reuse of the cups is 85%. A very large proportion of the cups, 93.4%, were returned to reuse when applying the model where festival participants were able to choose between reusable and disposable cups. Still, the overall result of such a model to avoid disposable plastic use is questionable, as only the most conscientious participants chose reusable cups, while others stayed with disposable ones. There is a lack of studies and information about reusable cup damage and losses during the events, therefore, it is important to compare the study data, and evaluate the efﬁciency of reusable cup reuse models. The case studies showed that success of the event reuse rate mainly depends on reuse model and communication with festival participants. The research revealed that economic measures have a positive impact on the return rates and preservation of reusable packaging led to higher return rates, and lower damage rates (B, C models). There is a need for a deeper understanding of single-use polypropylene (PP) cup recycling and waste treatment technologies along with methods in the Baltic states region in order to compare single-use and reusable cup systems more precisely. Material and product circularity measurement metrics need development and adaptation to packaging materials and systems. Additionally, it would be useful to include circularity measurements in life cycle assessment metrics. However, in order to assess the full situation and compare reusable models with single-use options, environmental life cycle assessment (LCA) could be used. In addition to LCA, LCC (life cycle costing) may be performed to assess the economic sustainability of reusable cup models vs. single-use cups models.

Author Contributions: V.Š. created the research design, performed case studies at seven summer events, collected and analyzed the material, performed calculations, and a literature review. J.K. advised on analysis and presentation of the results, and co-wrote the text of the paper. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Funding: This research received no external funding. The publication of this article was funded by The Baltic University Programme. Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable. Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable. Data Availability Statement: Data available in a publicly accessible repository. Conﬂicts of Interest: The authors declare no conﬂict of interest.

References 1. Boucher, J.; Faure, F.; Pompini, O.; Plummer, Z.; Wieser, O.; de Alencastro, L.F. (Micro) plastic ﬂuxes and stocks in Lake Geneva basin. TrAC Trends Anal. Chem. 2019, 112, 66–74. [CrossRef] 2. Gallo, F.; Fossi, C.; Weber, R.; Santillo, D.; Sousa, J.; Ingram, I.; Nadal, A.; Romano, D. Marine Litter Plastics and Microplastics and Their Toxic Chemicals Components: The Need for Urgent Preventive Measures. Environ. Sci. Eur. 2018, 30, 13. [CrossRef] 3. Groh, K.J.; Backhaus, T.; Carney-Almroth, B.; Geueke, B.; Inostroza, P.A.; Lennquist, A.; Leslie, H.A.; Mafﬁni, M.; Slunge, D.; Trasande, L.; et al. Overview of Known Plastic Packaging-Associated Chemicals and Their Hazards. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 651, 3253–3268. [CrossRef] 4. Geyer, R.; Jambeck, J.R.; Law, K.L. Production, Use, and Fate of all Plastics Ever Made. Sci. Adv. 2017, 3.[CrossRef][PubMed] 5. Chen, Y.; Awasthi, A.K.; Wei, F.; Tan, O.; Li, J. Single-Use Plastics: Production, Usage, Disposal, and Adverse Impacts. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 752.[CrossRef] Sustainability 2021, 13, 247 18 of 18

6. Jambeck, J.R.; Geyer, R.; Wilcox, C.; Siegler, T.R.; Perryman, M.; Andrady, A.; Narayan, R.; Law, K.L. Plastic waste inputs from land into the ocean. Science 2015, 347, 768–771. [CrossRef][PubMed] 7. European Commission. Staff Working Document. Impact Assessment. Reducing Marine Litter: Action on Single-Use Plastics and Fishing Gear. 2018. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/environment/circular-economy/pdf/single-use_plastics_impact_ assessment.pdf (accessed on 2 November 2020). 8. European Parliament and of the Council. Directive 2019/904 on the Reduction of the Impact of Certain Plastic Products on the Environment. 2019. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32019L0904 (accessed on 2 November 2020). 9. European Court of Auditors. Plastic Packaging Waste: EU Needs to Boost Recycling to Achieve Ambitions. Press Release, Luxembourg, 6 October 2020. Available online: https://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECADocuments/INRW20_04/INRW_Plastic_ waste_EN.pdf (accessed on 21 November 2020). 10. Johnson, C. The Show Must Go On. Environmental Impact Report and Vision for the UK Festival Industry. Powerful Thinking. 2015. Available online: http://www.powerful-thinking.org.uk/site/wp-content/uploads/The-Show-Must-Go-On-Report.pdf (accessed on 21 November 2020). 11. European Commission. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. A New Circular Economy Action Plan. For a Cleaner and More Competitive Europe. Brussels. 2020. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM:2020:98: FIN (accessed on 2 November 2020). 12. Foschi, E.; Zanni, S.; Bonoli, A. Combining Eco-Design and LCA as Decision-Making Process to Prevent Plastics in Packaging Application. Sustainability 2020, 12, 9738. [CrossRef] 13. Van der Wagen, L. Events & Tourism Essentials, 1st ed.; Pearson Australia: Frenchs Forest, NSW, Australia, 2010; pp. 65–80, ISBN 9781442517837. 14. European Commission. Circular Economy Action Plan. For a Cleaner and More Competitive Europe. 2020. Available online: https: //ec.europa.eu/environment/circular-economy/pdf/new_circular_economy_action_plan.pdf (accessed on 10 December 2020). 15. Rethink Plastic Alliance and Break Free from Plastic. Moving Away from Single-Use. Guide for National Decision Makers to Implement the Single-Use Plastics Directive. Report. 2019. Available online: https://rethinkplasticalliance.eu/wp-content/ uploads/2019/10/2019_10_10_rpa_bffp_sup_guide.pdf (accessed on 19 November 2020). 16. Herberz, T.; Barlow, C.Y.; Finkbeiner, M. Sustainability Assessment of a Single-Use Plastics Ban. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3746. [CrossRef] 17. Coelho, P.M.; Corona, B.; ten Klooster, R.; Worrell, E. Sustainability of reusable packaging—Current situation and trends. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. J. 2020, 6.[CrossRef] 18. Mahmoudi, M.; Parviziomran, I. Reusable packaging in supply chains: A review of environmental and economic impacts, logistics system designs, and operations management. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2020, 228.[CrossRef] 19. Poortinga, W.; Nash, N.; Hoeijmakers, L. Rapid Review of Charging for Disposable Coffee Cups and Other Waste Minimisa- tion Measures. 2019. Available online: http://orca.cf.ac.uk/124422/1/rapid-review-charging-disposable-coffee-cups-waste- minimisation-measure-full-report.pdf (accessed on 19 November 2020). 20. Zelenika, I.; Moreau, T.; Zhao, J. Toward Zero Waste Events: Reducing Contamination in Waste Streams with Volunteer Assistance. Waste Manag. 2018, 76, 39–45. [CrossRef][PubMed] 21. Martinho, G.; Gomes, A.; Ramos, M.; Santos, P.; Gonçalves, G.; Fonseca, M.; Pires, A. Solid Waste Prevention and Management at Green Festivals: A Case Study of the Andanças Festival, Portugal. Waste Manag. 2018, 71, 10–18. [CrossRef][PubMed] 22. Rigamonti, L.; Biganzoli, L.; Grosso, M. Packaging Re-use: A Starting Point for its Quantiﬁcation. J. Mater. Cycles Waste Manag. 2019, 21, 35–43. [CrossRef] 23. Linder, M.; Sarasini, S.; Loon, P. A Metric for Quantifying Product-Level Circularity. J. Ind. Ecol. 2017, 21, 545–558. [CrossRef] 24. Cottafava, D.; Costamagna, M.; Baricco, M.; Corazza, L.; Miceli, D.; Riccardo, L.E. Assessment of the environmental break-even point for deposit return systems through an LCA analysis of single-use and reusable cups. Sustain. Prod. Consum. J. 2020, 27, 228–241. [CrossRef] 25. Pladerer, C.; Meissner, M.; Dinkel, F.; Zschokke, M.; Dehoust, G.; Schüler, D. Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of Various Cup Systems for the Selling of Drinks at Events. Available online: http://www.meucopoeco.com.br/environmental_study.pdf (accessed on 2 November 2020). 26. Realising Another World (RAW) Foundation. The Drastic on Plastic Reusable Bar Cup Guide. Available online: http://www. powerful-thinking.org.uk/site/wp-content/uploads/RAW_REUSABLE-CUPS-GUIDE.pdf (accessed on 2 November 2020). 27. Garrido, N.; Castillo, A. Environmental Evaluation of Single-Use and Reusable Cups. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2007, 12, 252–256. [CrossRef] 28. Zainal, Z. Case Study as a Research Method. Jurnal Kemanusiaan. 2007. Available online: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/11 784113.pdf (accessed on 5 October 2020). 29. Cencic, O.; Rechberger, H. Material Flow Analysis with Software Stan. Environ. Eng. Manag. J. 2008, 18, 3–7. 30. Moriguchi, Y. Material Flow Indicators to Measure Progress toward a Sound Material-Cycle Society. J. Mater. Cycles Waste Manag. 2007, 9, 112–120. [CrossRef] 31. Ellen MacArthur Foundation. Circularity Indicators. An Approach to Measuring Circularity. Project Overview. Available online: https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/assets/downloads/Circularity-Indicators-Methodology.pdf (accessed on 5 October 2020).