Laserfiche WebLink
of the other test areas. This may well be because many of these residents were not living � the area during <br />the big recycling push of the late 80s early 90s. Accarding to data. compiled by the Community <br />Development deparhnent, 11 % of the homes in this area are less than ten years old and more than 36% of the <br />residents have lived in the area four years or less. <br />There was also a marked increase in the percentage of paper in the recycling sample. Paper rnade up 58% of <br />the sample by weight in the "before" camposition sorts. In the "during" period, paper made up 78.1 % of the <br />sample. The percentage of newspaper and boxboard in the samples remained approximate�y the same, but <br />the rest of the major paper categories (HOPM, magazines and OCC) increased. <br />Participants increased �he amount of recycling pnt out for collection per person. After factor�ng out the <br />increase in contamination the mean pounds per household collected went from 26.87 in the "before" period <br />to 34.39 in #he "during" period. <br />This area had the highest approval rating for the tested method at 92.5%. However, some participants in the <br />single-stream areas were contacted by an outside party. Althaugh the residents who in�£ormed City staff of <br />the contact said their opinions Were not changed because of the contact. Some residents received a phone <br />call, while others received a post catd. According to the residents who spoke io City staff, the outside party <br />gave the impression that they wanted the residents to have a favorable opinion of single-stream recycling. <br />Sixty-four percent of the residents in this area said they were willing to pay zxiore for this service. <br />In the post-suirvey resident said the carts were easy to move (9i.9%) and allowed them to recycle more of <br />what they recycled before {41.4%). For dislikes, l 0.2°/a said the 64-gallon cart was not big enough for <br />residents needs and 42% were concerned that there was no competition for lower rates. <br />In the post survey participants rated convenience of the program. the most important component wi�h an <br />average score of 1.73. <br />28 <br />