2005-07-26_PWETC_AgendaPacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Scenario C: Weekly collection with the current two-sort system Recycling Containers One 18-gallon bin Participants in this area continued to use the current two-sort system with their current bins, but instead of the material being picked up every other week, it was collected weekly. This method tested the increased frequency of collection as well as the ease of remembering when to put material atthe curb for collection. Weekly Collection Schedule Weekly Number of Households 345 Participation Rate 88% Wh~nasked in the pre-survey what would ll1.()tivatethem to recycle more their top choice was\veekly collection at 36.2%. I Avg. Lbs Collected per HH per Route 28.79 Most Important Component2 25.7% The participatiorir~te in the "before" period was the third highest at 82%. It weritup 6% in the "during" period to 88% Which remained the third highest rate and was. the third highest percentage increase. Resident Satisfaction Environmental Benefit 2.0 Meal1while fewer homes had material out on any given collection day. The set out rlltedipped to 57.5% - a rate that is similar to other cities with weekly collection. Not all of the residents may have been aware of weekly pickup because approximately 3 "During" Pilot data represents weekly pounds to 20% of the residents put their material out to routes collected eve other week. every other week. Although not all residents were oIl.1he same fW(Ji"'Y~ek scheci~le - some residents put material out on the first and third weeks while others were out on the second and fourth weeks. The number of homes that had material out at least twice in a four weelueriod was 71.4%. Slightly more than forty percent of households (40.5%) put their recycling out everyw~~k. Willing to Pay More 62% Derived from Appendix H Table 3 net 20n a scale of 1 - 4 with 1 being the This area did have a half bI9(;~ of [(:ilfal townhomes. These 18 residences were added to the sample that was originally identified so that th~<U'eawould include the complete block. Rental properties tend to have lower participation rates in part because of the transient nature of these residents (for more on this see the section Observations on Lower Participating Areas). Only a third of the homes in this area were diligent participants putting material out on most collection days. While more than 20% of these residents 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 the "before" period to 28.79 in the "during" period. Sixty-two percent of the residents in this area preferred weekly collection. Although a little less than half (45.1 %) said they were willing to pay more for the service. 29