Laserfiche WebLink
<br />There was also a marked incrcase in contaminants in the single-stream areas that was discovered in the <br />composition sorts. Contaminant categories in the sorts included: beer, pop and water boxes; plastic bags and <br />film, other paper trash, other trash and fines. Data from the composition sorts shows contaminants increased <br />from 3.2% of the sample in the "before" period to 8.1 % in the "during" period. <br /> <br />Participants increased the amount of recycling put out for collection per person. After factoring out the <br />increase in contamination the mean pounds per household collected went from 21.33 in the "before" period <br />to 28.16 in the "during" period. <br /> <br />Ninety percent of the residents in this 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 not changed because of the contact. Some <br />residents received a phone call, while others received a post card. Accordingt()the residents who spoke to <br />City staff, the outside party gave the impression that they wanted the residents f()j1ave a favorable opinion of <br />single-stream recycling. <br /> <br />In the post-survey residents slightly less than half of residentsjn. thi~.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 />more of what they recycled before (38.8%). 13% ofiesid.ents said the cart was too big for their <br />needs and 46% were concerned that there was for 10Weuates. <br /> <br />Respondents said they were almost equally split <br />system between price (1.80 convenience <br />were ranked on a scale of one one being <br /> <br /> <br />most important component of a recycling <br />benefit (1.90). Components <br /> <br />26 <br />