Laserfiche WebLink
Participants increased the amount of recycling put out for collection per pe�rson. After factoring out the <br />increase in contamination th� mean pounds per household collected went from 21.33 in the "before" period <br />to 28.16 in the "during" period. <br />Ninety percent of the residents in ihis area approved of the single-stream system. However, some <br />participants in the single-stream areas were contacted by an outside party. Although the residents who <br />informed City staff of the contact said their opinions were nat changed because of the contact. Some <br />residents received a phone call, while others received a post card. According to the residents who spoke to <br />City staff, the outside party gave the impression that they wanted the residents to have a favorable opinion of <br />single-stream recycling. <br />In the post-survey residents slightly less than half of residenis in this area (48.8%) said they were willing to <br />pay more for this service. Residents said the carts were easy to move (86.9%) and allowed them to recycle <br />tnore of what they recycled b�fore {38.8%}. For dislil�es 13% of residents said the cart was too big for their <br />needs and 46% were concerxzed that there was no campetition £or lower rates. <br />Respondents said they were almost equally split over what was the most innporiant component of a recycliz�g <br />sysiem between price (1.SQ average}, convenience (1.82) and environmental benefit (1.90). Components <br />were ranked on a scale of one to four with one being the most important. <br />�� <br />