My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2005 Recycling Pilot Program Report
Roseville
>
Studies, Task Forces, Special Committees, Reports
>
2005 Recycling Pilot Program Report
>
2005 Recycling Pilot Program Report
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/9/2014 12:57:42 PM
Creation date
6/5/2012 3:05:10 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
146
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
March 23, 2005 <br />Page 5 <br />Results of Data Anaiysis <br />The Project Team compared the results of the following recyclable materials collection methods: <br />■ Comparison of the Monday dual stream coilection before the pilot started to the Monday <br />single sbream collection during the pilot progam. <br />■ Comparisan of the aggregated results of the single stream collec�ion meihod to the <br />aggregated results of the dual streaxn collection methoc�. <br />■ Cotnparison of tbe current dual stream, bi-weeldy method (Friday control route} to the dual <br />stream, weekly method (Tuesday). <br />■ Comparison of the cunrent dual stream, bi-weekly method (Friday control route) to the dual <br />stream, bi-weekly znethod wilh additional education (Wednesday). <br />■ Comparison af the current dual stream, bi-weekly met�iod (Friday control route) to the dual <br />strearn, bi-weekly method with larger, 22-gallon bins (Thursday). <br />� Comparison of the aggregated results of the dual streazxi, bi-weekly collection method <br />(Wednesday through Friday) beforc the pilot started to t}�e zesults during the pilot pzogram_ <br />The results of each comparison are shown in several tables, along with the Project Team's <br />interpretation of the data. <br />The mean, ar�d uppez and loverer 90% confidence intervals are provided along with a colut�nn <br />titled `�tatistically Sigzaificant Differenc�'. If there is a checic mark in this coluxnn, it indicates <br />that the ranges of the lower and upper coxaf dence intervals between the tvvo collection methods <br />are statistically different. That is, there was no overlap in the perccntages and therefore the <br />zesults between the two methods reflect a statistically signif cant difference. <br />Comparison of the Monday Collection Routes <br />Two Monday collection routes were chasen hy the City to be the pilot areas for the single stream <br />collection method. The main diffcrence between the two axeas was the age of the housing stock. <br />The first piloi route included older homes, typically with detached, siz�gle car garages and highez <br />density than tne second p�lat route. The seconc� route included newer homes, typically with <br />attached, two stall garages, and lower density than the first pilot route. <br />For the comparative analysis shown below, the composition resulis of the two Monday routes <br />during the pilot vc�ere coinbin.ed into one data set for September and one data set for October. <br />OI-00253-10I01-0101 � 070001 � 335D0 P:\13500 Ramsey Co. 2003�RTA1Roseville�FA1B1544 - Final Data Analysis <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.