2005-07-26_PWETC_AgendaPacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Scenario B: Single-stream in contrast demographic area Single-Stream Contrast Area Collection Schedule Bi-Weekly Recycling Containers 64-gallon cart Number of Households 367 Participation Rate 94.3% I Avg. Lbs Collected per HH per Route 34.39 2 Convenience 1.73 Most Important Component Resident Satisfaction 16.2% , Willing to Pay More 64% T Derived from Appendix H Table 3 net average po~ndsperhousehold calculations 20n a scale of 1 - 4 with 1 being the most il11Portant In this testing area residents were provided a single 64-gallon cart for the commingled collection of all their recyclable material. This collection method measured the impacts of a simplified sorting system for the residents along with a different collection container. Residents remained on the every other week collection schedule. This area had 367 homes - 22 more than the next closest area and 24 homes above the average sample size. When asked in the pre~sl1ryey what would Illotivate them to recycle mOre the residents rated laJ:g~r bins (40.2%) slightly ahead of a financial rebate (39.8%). Residents in this area were strong recyclers to begin with ~90% participation rate in the "b~fgre" period. In the "during" period, partiCipation rose to 94.3%. While this was the lowest percentage increase, this area had very little room to improve. It remained the highest participating area. This area also had thFl1igl1e.~t.~Ft outdltein the "before" period - 82.3% of residents had recycling at the curb on collection day. Thisw<j.s.7% higl1er than the Control area and 13% higher than the next highest test area. In the "d1Jring" period the setgut rateil1cr~ased to 90.1 % still 6% greater than the next closest area. This was the third Nghest percentage increase. The single-stream test Ilre<j.S had an occurrcnce not found in any of the other areas - people who stopped putting out material for colle(;tion. In this area 1.9% of the participants became non-participants in the "during" period. There wasllo. (;ontact with any participants in this area who stopped putting material out for collection (see Scenario A). There was a marked increase in contaminants in the single-stream areas that was discovered in the composition sorts. Contaminant categories in the sorts included: beer, pop and water boxes; plastic bags and film, other paper trash, other trash and fines. Data from the composition sorts shows contaminants increased from 4.8% of the sample in the "before" period to 9.2% in the "during" period. The increase in contaminants may be due, in part, to residents in this area not being aware of what was accepted in the program. Almost 24% of the residents in the pre-survey said they threw recyclable material in the garbage because they are unsure of what to recycle. That was a higher level of uncertainty than in any 27