2005 Recycling Pilot Program Report

Home

Scenario C: Weekly collection with the current two-sort system Weekly Collection Schedufe Weekly Recycling Containers One 18-gallon bin Number of Households 345 ParticipaEion Rate 88% Avg. Lbs ColEected per HH per Routel 28 79 Most lmportant Component2 Environmental Benefit 2.fl Resident Satisfaction 62% Willing to Pay More 45.1 % Derived from Appendix H Table 3 net average pounds per hausehold calouEaUons 20n a scale of 1- 4 with 1 being the most imporlant Participants in this area continued to use the current two-sort system with their cunent bins, but instead of the maierial being picked up every otber week, ifi was collected weekly. This method tested the increased frequency of collection as well as the ease of remember�ng when to put material at the curb fo:r collection. When asked in the pre-survey what would motivate thetn to recycle more thetr top choice was weekly collection at 3b.2%. The participation rate in the "before" pe�riod was the ihird highest at 82%. It went up 6% in the "during" period to $S% which remained the third highest rate and was the third highest percentage increase. Meanwhile fewer homes had material out on any given collection day. The set out rate dipped to 57.5% - a rate that is simiiar to other cities with weekly collec�ion. Not all of the residents may have been aware of weekly pickup because approximately 3'During' Pilot data represents weekly pounds multiplied by two in order to compare to 20% of the residents put their materiai out roufes collected eve other week. every ather week. Altitough not aIl residents were on the same two week schedule — some residen,ts put material out on ihe first and third weeks while others were out on the second and fourth weeks. T'he ni,�mber of homes that had material out at least twice in a four week period was 71.4%. Slightly more than forty percent of households (40.5%) put their recycling out every week. This area did have a half block of rental townhomes. These 18 residences were added to the sample that was originally identified so that the area would include the complete block. Rental properties tend to have iower participation rates in part becaus� of the transient nature of these residents (for more on this see #he sectian Observations on Lower Participating A�-eas). Only a third of the hom�es in this ar�a were diligent participants putting material out on most collectzon days. While more than 20% of ihese reside:nts were non-recyclers and the rest were infrequent recyclers. These patterns did not change during the testing period. Participants increased the amount of recycling put out for collection per person. The mean pounds per household collected went from 23.53 in ihe "before" period to 2$.79 in the "during" period. Sixty-two percent of the residents in this area preferred weekly collection. Alihough a little less than hal£ (45.1 %) said they were willing to pay more for the service. 29