Improving the Performance of Waste Diversion Schemes: A Good Practice Guide to Monitoring and Evaluation

Annex 1 Case studies

Please note: Some monitoring and evaluation case studies are currently unavailable. Annex 1 will be updated on an ongoing basis as case studies become available for publication.

This annex provides examples of how other local authorities have used different monitoring methods in a variety of ways to help identify potential improvements. Project code: EVA092-000 Research date: Dec 08 – Jun 09 Date: February 2010

WRAP helps individuals, businesses and local authorities to reduce waste and recycle more, making better use of resources and helping to tackle climate change. Document reference: WRAP, 2010. Improving the performance of waste diversion schemes – A good practice guide to monitoring and evaluation (WRAP Project EVA092-000). Report prepared by Resource Futures, Banbury, WRAP.

Written by: WRAP, updated in association with Resource Futures

Front cover photography: n/a WRAP and Resource Futures believe the content of this report to be correct as at the date of writing. However, factors such as prices, levels of recycled content and regulatory requirements are subject to change and users of the report should check with their suppliers to confirm the current situation. In addition, care should be taken in using any of the cost information provided as it is based upon numerous project-specific assumptions (such as scale, location, tender context, etc.). The report does not claim to be exhaustive, nor does it claim to cover all relevant products and specifications available on the market. While steps have been taken to ensure accuracy, WRAP cannot accept responsibility or be held liable to any person for any loss or damage arising out of or in connection with this information being inaccurate, incomplete or misleading. It is the responsibility of the potential user of a material or product to consult with the supplier or manufacturer and ascertain whether a particular product will satisfy their specific requirements. The listing or featuring of a particular product or company does not constitute an endorsement by WRAP and WRAP cannot guarantee the performance of individual products or materials. This material is copyrighted. It may be reproduced free of charge subject to the material being accurate and not used in a misleading context. The source of the material must be identified and the copyright status acknowledged. This material must not be used to endorse or used to suggest WRAP’s endorsement of a commercial product or service. For more detail, please refer to WRAP’s Terms & Conditions on its web site: www.wrap.org.uk

Case studies 1

Contents 1 Monitoring of Community RePaint schemes ................................................................................. A1-2 2 Monitoring of the Highland Real Nappy Project ............................................................................ A1-5 3 Monitoring Food Waste Trials in the London Borough of Hackney ................................................. A1-8 4 Durham County Council Campaign Monitoring ........................................................................... A1-11 5 Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council Campaign Monitoring ......................................................... A1-15 6 Monitoring the impact of county-wide communications in Cumbria .............................................. A1-18 7 Borough of Poole beach and caravan site waste analysis ............................................................ A1-22 8 City of York Council campaign monitoring .................................................................................. A1-26 9 Staffordshire Moorlands District Council AWC roll-out and campaign monitoring........................... A1-30 10 Rutland County Council campaign monitoring ............................................................................ A1-34 11 London Borough of Barnet campaign monitoring ........................................................................ A1-38 12 Assessing the impact of communications to improve materials capture rates ............................... A1-42 13 Greater Manchester Waste Partnership monitoring communications campaign ............................. A1-46 14 Monitoring a countywide communications campaign in Gloucestershire ....................................... A1-50 15 Somerset Waste Partnership monitoring of collection trials ......................................................... A1-54

Case studies A1-2

Case Study: Monitoring of community projects to divert reusable paint

Monitoring of Community RePaint schemes

Community RePaint is a national network of schemes that collect and redistribute reusable paint back into the community. Monitoring the work that the network is important in understanding what impact member projects are having and in identifying areas for operational improvements.

Case studies A1-3

1.0 Introduction Community RePaint is a national network of individual community-based projects which divert leftover and unused paint away from final disposal for reuse by individuals and organisations in social need. Community RePaint projects are hosted by a variety of local groups including community recyclers, furniture reuse organisations, scrapstores and local authorities. Community RePaint sets annual objectives for its work. Some of the objectives of the network for 2010 are: to increase the number of projects in the UK who are members of the network from 65 in 2009 to 90 in 2010; to collect at least 500,000 litres of reusable paint from households in the UK; to divert 600 tonnes of reusable paint from landfill; to redistribute 365,000 litres of reusable paint back into the community; to provide at least 20,000 individuals and organisations with reusable paint; to redistribute on average 18 litres per beneficiary; and to offset at least £1 million in landfill disposal costs through diversion of reusable paint from landfill.

2.0 Aims and objectives The monitoring aims, objectives, key performance indicators (KPIs) and monitoring methods used by Community RePaint to assess its activities on an annual basis are summarised in Table 1.

Table 1 Summary of aims, objectives and KPIs

Monitoring aim Monitoring objective(s) KPIs used Monitoring method

used

To monitor the work of the Community RePaint network each year.

To count the number of members in the network per year.

Number of members

Membership records

To measure the quantity of reusable paint collected by all Community RePaint projects per year.

Litres of re-usable paint collected

See Section Error! Reference source not found.

To calculate the tonnes of paint diverted from landfill per year.

Tonnes of paint diverted from landfill

To measure the quantity of reusable paint redistributed by all Community RePaint projects per year.

Litres of paint redistributed

To count the number of organisations and individuals who receive paint from the scheme per year.

Number of beneficiaries

Beneficiary records

To monitor the number of litres redistributed per beneficiary per year.

Litres per beneficiary

Calculation (litres / beneficiaries)

To calculate the landfill disposal costs avoided through redistribution of reusable paint per year.

£/year Calculate (landfill costs tonnes diverted)

3.0 Monitoring Method In order to determine how much paint is collected and redistributed through the Community RePaint network, data capture templates are provided to each project in the network. On these forms, data are recorded about: the number of paint tins collected; the size (in litres) of each tin; and an estimate of the volume of reusable paint in each (using the options of ¼, ½, ¾ and full).

The number of litres which each project handles is then calculated using a ‘ready reckoner’ (see Table 2). One litre of paint weighs approximately 1.2kg, excluding the weight of packaging. Multiplied by 1.2 this gives an equivalent measurement in kg which, when divided by 1000, gives the figures in tonnes.

Case studies A1-4

Table 2 Ready reckoner for calculating litres of paint

Contents Fullness of container (in litres) Container size 1/4 full 1/2 full 3/4 full Full 250ml 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 500ml 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.5 750ml 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 litre 0.3 0.5 0.8 1.0 2.5 litre 0.65 1.25 1.9 2.5 5 litres 1.3 2.5 3.8 5.0 10 litres 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0

4.0 Results The objectives for 2010 have been informed, in part, by the results of previous monitoring undertaken to evaluate the Community RePaint project. In 2008, for example, monitoring data from the previous year was analysed which showed that in 2007 the network had: supported 62 projects in 2007; collected 450,000 litres of paint, almost doubling the amount of paint collected the previous year; diverted 540 tonnes of reusable paint from landfill; redistributed 250,000 litres to organisations and individuals; provided 12,000 organisations and individuals with reusable paint; and avoided landfill costs in excess of £702,000 for 2007.

5.0 Conclusions and implications for the future Assessing the difference between amounts of paint collected and amount of paint distributed has allowed the network to identify increased redistribution as a priority area of work, in order to avoid reusable paint simply sitting in storage. Furthermore, by monitoring each project’s contribution in terms of social and environmental benefits, the network is able to quantify for its national sponsors the effect that their funding is having on the network’s ability to achieve its objectives. “Monitoring our work is vital if we are to know for sure what impact we are having through Community RePaint. This is true both in terms of benefiting the environment by diverting hazardous materials away from landfill, but also with respect to knowing what difference we are making to people’s lives by giving them access to perfectly good, reusable paint” (Project Manager, Community RePaint) 6.0 Contact details Name: Project Manager Tel: 0113 2003959 Email: repaint@resourcefutures.co.uk

Case studies A1-5

Case Study: Real nappy project monitoring

Monitoring of the Highland Real Nappy Project

The Highland Real Nappy Project has developed a method of monitoring the impact of using real nappies based on the WRAP nappy tonnage conversion tool.

Case studies A1-6

1.0 Introduction The Highland Real Nappy Project (HNRP) started in November 2001 and has built up a network of dedicated and experienced volunteers who promote the benefits of real nappy use across the Highland Council area. The project provides: independent advice from people who have found real nappies a great choice for their children; lending kits to borrow and try at home free of charge or subsidised starter packs to buy; a wide range of nappies for potential customers to see and feel before ordering; volunteers available for demonstrations, whether to a group of parents or a meeting of health professionals details of suppliers (local and mail order); events such as regular nappucinos and events during Real Nappy week such as a real nappy fashion show

and second hand nappy sale; and a website with a wealth of information and a newsletter.

The Highland Real Nappy Project has developed a method of monitoring the impact of its nappy project, based on the WRAP nappy tonnage conversion tool. To calculate the tonnes of disposable nappies diverted from landfill per child, rates of conversion to real nappies are used which are based on consistent and robust data from previous follow-up surveys; these give a success rate of 74% for lending kits and 67% for starter packs. Experience also suggests that 60% of starter packs are passed on to other families, so a proportion of this figure is also included in the conversion rate. The method uses the following: A starting point of 3 months for conversion to real nappies, with nappy usage continuing up to potty training

at 27 months; An average of 6 nappy changes per day from 3-12 months and 5 thereafter up to 27 months; 1.4391 tonnes can potentially be diverted from landfill from each child converted to real nappies.

From the number of starter packs and lending kits given out, a figure can be calculated for nappy tonnage diverted as a direct result of project activity over a given period. Another element of the monitoring is to record other project activity (see Table 1). For example, inviting people to events such nappucinos or demonstrations can foster continued usage of real nappies. The project has annual targets to meet. For example, for the period 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 these were set as follows: to loan 30 lending kits and distribute 120 starter packs; and to run three ‘nappucinos’, 16 displays/stalls, 41 group demos, 54 one-to-one demos and answer 175

enquiries.

2.0 Aims and objectives Monitoring is needed to determine how successful the project is in reaching its annual targets. The monitoring aims, objectives, key performance indicators (KPIs) and monitoring methods used are summarised in Table 1.

Table 1 Summary of aims, objectives and KPIs

Monitoring aim Monitoring objective(s) KPIs used Monitoring method used

To monitor the work of the Highlands Real Nappy Project

To calculate the number of babies converted to real nappies per quarter as a result of the scheme.

New users per quarter Number of starter packs sold / lending kits given out

Surveys Records

To calculate the tonnes of disposable nappies diverted from landfill per child per quarter as a result of the scheme.

Tonnes of nappies diverted from landfill

Highland tonnage conversion method

To monitor the number of families or health professionals spoken to and the number of displays, demos and enquiries per quarter by the scheme.

Number of events held/people spoken to

Records

Case studies A1-7

To monitor the inputs of the project per quarter.

Number of: - nappucino’ events run - displays arranged - group demos

Records

To monitor the number of enquiries received by the project, per quarter.

Number of enquiries received by the project

Records

3.0 Results The Highland monitoring method is very easy for nappy projects to use, as all that is required is to keep track of the number of starter packs and lending kits that are given out over a given period and a spreadsheet to calculate tonnages diverted using the conversion factors determined. Past monitoring work has shown that: 66 starter packs and two lending kits were distributed between July and September 2009. It was calculated

that the starter packs would have been passed on to 40 families converting 71 babies to real nappies in this quarter. Lending kits were calculated to have converted six babies to real nappies;

by using reusable nappies, 104 tonnes were diverted from landfill between July and September 2009 between January and March 2009;

o five ‘nappucinos’ were held; o the project had direct contact with 237 people (including 39 professionals); o nine displays were held; o 12 group demos were given; o nine one-to-one demos were held; and o the project received 69 enquiries.

4.0 Conclusions and implications for future At present the survey work is carried out after 2–3 months of receiving a lending kit or starter pack. The Highlands Real Nappy Project would like to carry out additional survey work to find out whether families using real nappies continue to do so until their child is potty trained. This will enable more accurate calculations to be made of the tonnage diverted from landfill. “It is very helpful to be able to calculate the results of all our work in this way as it shows we are really making a difference in diverting waste from landfill and changing behavioural attitudes.” (Marion McDonald, Highland Real Nappy Project). 5.0 Contact details Name: Marion McDonald Tel: 0845 201 2609 Email: info@hrnp.org.uk

Case studies A1-8

Case Study: Focus groups and tonnage monitoring

Monitoring food waste trials in the London Borough of Hackney

London Borough of Hackney took part in a food waste ‘bring’ trial. A range of methods was used to measure the campaign’s impact including focus groups and tonnage monitoring.

Case studies A1-9

1.0 Introduction In Hackney a large proportion of the housing stock is multi-occupancy dwellings. These type of dwellings also have a diverse multi-ethnic population. The London Borough of Hackney has trialled various ways of collecting recyclable material and food waste from multi-occupancy dwellings. Due to the expense and time taken to undertake food waste collections, Hackney decided to trial a ‘bring’ style collection service. The food waste ‘bring’ trial has been operating since October 2007, with 4600 households all located in flats or multi-occupancy dwellings. Residents were provided with a 7-litre vented kitchen caddy and liners. Food waste collection containers were located near to the entrance of several estates and high-rise properties, alongside dry recycling containers. The food waste containers were serviced three times per week using a small non-compacting vehicle. The communication campaign for the food waste ‘bring’ trial was launched using a team of doorsteppers, and kitchen caddies and liners were distributed on an opt-in basis to people spoken to. The aim of the trial was to examine the performance and use of the food waste ‘bring’ sites, given the high relative costs of providing a door-to-door collection service for flats. The council wished to gain insight into the resident’s views regarding its food waste collection trial. The monitoring focussed on three key aspects of the food waste service: service delivery; containers and liners (provided free of charge to residents); and promotion of the service.

Door to door participation rate monitoring was not possible in this area as participants could take their food waste to multitude of collection sites, day or night. Also the problems with language and access to properties would make face-to-face surveys problematic. In light of these issues, focus groups were chosen to capture the views of some of the participating and non-participating residents. In February 2008, three focus group meetings were held in community centres on the estates and in the town hall. Meetings took place in the afternoon and evening to try and accommodate residents who are working, retired or who care for families. London Borough of Hackney staff carried out the recruitment. The focus groups were hosted by members of WRAP’s ROTATE team. The focus groups were targeted on residents from four areas in Hackney: The Arden Estate, The De Beauvoir Estate, The Colonnades and All Nations House. The focus group recruiter used a variety of methods to enlist participants, including emailing residents, posters in the housing blocks and doorknocking. The recruiter called each of the attendees the day before to remind them about the focus group and to see if they were still coming. Despite the best efforts of the recruiter, attendance at the focus groups was low (each had six people or less). Some people who had committed to attending did not for various reasons. Most of the focus group participants were using or had used the service. The aims of the focus groups and the topics used were: to find out if and how participants used the food waste collection service (i.e. which containers they used and

what they put in the bin; satisfaction with the service); an assessment of the collection containers provided (ie any issues experienced in their usage); recall of the food waste trial communication materials (i.e. what did they see and hear?); to find out if the collection service had changed participants food waste production habits (ie impact on food

shopping and waste generation).

Tonnage monitoring was undertaken in-house as part of the food waste collection trial from weighbridge tickets from vehicle used in the trial. 2.0 Aims and objectives Monitoring was needed to determine how successful the communications activities had been. The monitoring aims, objectives, key performance indicators (KPIs) and monitoring methods used are summarised in Table 1.

Table 1 Summary of aims, objectives and KPIs

Case studies A1-10

Monitoring aim Monitoring objective(s) KPIs used Monitoring method used

To investigate the views of residents regarding the new food waste collection trial

To conduct three focus groups with participants recruited from four estates within the trial area in Hackney in February 2008 to obtain qualitative feedback from residents about the food waste ‘bring’ trial

Responses of participants to topics on usage, containers, communications, and impacts on food waste production

Focus group

To measure the tonnage of the food waste collected from the food waste ‘bring’ trial over 26 weeks of the trial to determine the quantity recycled (October 2007 – March 2008)

Kg/hh/qtr Tonnage monitoring

3.0 Results The following results were obtained from the focus groups and tonnage monitoring: Three focus groups were held with five or six participants in each group (a total of 16 participants); Overall the residents seemed satisfied with the service and were satisfied with the facilities they had been

given; Of the 16 residents who attended the focus groups, 14 had used the service. There were no reports of

inconvenience or problems with smell. All those using the scheme seemed confident in the items that could be put in the food waste collection with the exception of bones;

Two people did not use the service. The first had only recently received their caddy and liners, and said they would start once that had enough food waste. The other person has stopped using the service as her husband was concerned about spillage as the aperture on the collection bin was considered to be too small;

The residents were satisfied with the caddies and the liners provided. There was some confusion concerning the acquisition of more liners and there was a reluctance to pay for liners. However, most of those who used the service did not think they would stop if liners were not free of charge. There was agreement that the aperture on the black street level collection container was too small;

The residents demonstrated good recall of the communication leaflets and their content. Some residents were keen to know where the food waste was being taken and how it would be processed and used;

Not many residents conceded that their shopping, cooking or eating habits had changed, though they did suggest that the scheme could help people to realise just how much food they do waste; and

A total of 34.4 tonnes of food waste was collected over 26 weeks. The average yield per household served was 0.29 kg per week.

4.0 Conclusions and implications for future The tonnages collected from the low performing areas of the Kerb-it scheme were analysed to gauge the success of this communication project. They continued to be analysed for a further six months after the campaign has finished, so that longer-term impacts from the communications campaign, service changes and season influences could be monitored and evaluated. In addition, the communications campaign identified resident’s request for the introduction of cardboard and plastic. A new contract has since been let, and two new material waste streams (plastic and cardboard) have been introduced to the kerbside collection. These are collected in a separate bag. “The student communications campaign had not been attempted before, but the team received a very positive/supportive response from the students and university staff. The results show that there was an increase in participation of 17% within the student areas, and a decrease in the levels of contamination from 17.5% to 5.8%, which is in line with the rest of the residential areas of the Kerb-it scheme.” (Rachel Gatland, Durham County Council) 5.0 Contact details Name: Rachel Gatland Tel: 0191 383 3186 Email: rachel.gatland@durham.gov.uk

Case studies A1-11

Case Study: Participation rates, tonnage and surveys

Durham County Council campaign monitoring

Durham County Council ran a communications campaign to increase participation in the County’s ‘Kerb-it’ recycling scheme. To monitor the effectiveness of the campaign, monitoring of participation rates, tonnages and committed recycler rates was undertaken.

Case studies A1-12

1.0 Introduction The ‘Kerb-it’ scheme was introduced in County Durham in 2003 for the separate collection of glass, cans and paper. Four of the seven districts within Durham were signed up to the partnership; these four councils – Durham City District Council, Easington District Council, Sedgefield Borough Council and Chester–le-Street District Council – were also the partners in the communications campaign to promote Kerb-it The campaign was aimed at all residents but with targeted messages in areas identified as low performing, including Durham City areas with high student populations. The campaign activities included adverts, posters, leaflets, bus back/sides and adshells, roadshows, and door-to-door canvassing in the student areas. The campaign partners hoped to recover more materials from those already recycling and to encourage participation from those residents who had not previously been recycling. Monitoring was needed to determine how successful the communications activities had been. The aim of the Kerb-it communication campaign was to increase participation in the Kerb-it scheme and to maximise the recovery of dry recyclables. The specific campaign objectives were: to increase participation by 10% in both the lower performing 'Kerb It' areas, and in the student areas within

12 months from November 2006; to increase by 25% the proportion of people in the lower performing areas who indicate their awareness of a

kerbside collection scheme, within 12 months from November 2006; to increase by 25% the proportion of people in the lower performing areas who indicate that they are aware

that the kerbside collection scheme is called Kerb-it, within 12 months from November 2006; to increase by 10% the tonnage of dry recyclables recovered through the Kerb-it scheme in the lower

performing and student areas, within 12 months from November 2006.

A number of different monitoring methods were used to assess the effects of the Kerb-it communication campaign. All the pre-campaign monitoring was undertaken in November 2006 and was repeated post-campaign in November 2007. The pre- and post-campaign participation monitoring was undertaken across a representative sample of properties, with 1100 properties identified in each of the four districts using tonnage data and ACORN categories. In each area, the full collection round was monitored for consistency. A further round was monitored in Durham related to the student population. The monitoring team travelled ahead of the crews. The collection service was fortnightly, so the monitoring was over a six-week period (i.e. three collection periods) in October and November 2006, before the communications campaign started. The monitoring was repeated post-campaign between October and November 2007. The pre- and post-campaign contamination monitoring in the students areas was undertaken at the same time as the participation monitoring and was measured by a visual assessment of the boxes and then a record made of the materials present that were not accepted for recycling (e.g. plastic, cardboard). The data was recorded on the participation monitoring sheet and the contamination rate was calculated using WRAP guidance. The pre- and post-campaign questionnaire survey was undertaken face-to-face in the lower performing areas of the Kerb-it scheme, with the same questions used in both phases. The survey was designed and carried out in-house by the team of staff employed for the project. The survey was undertaken over the same period as the participation monitoring, in the collection cycle when the residual waste presented for collection. The tonnages of residual waste for the low performing areas were recorded by the vehicle registration. The Kerb-it recycling scheme tonnages were provided by the contractor on a quarterly basis and were recorded by collection round. 2.0 Aims and objectives Monitoring was needed to determine how successful the communications activities had been. The monitoring aims, objectives, key performance indicators (KPIs) and monitoring methods used are summarised in Table 1.

Case studies A1-13

Table 1 Summary of aims, objectives and KPIs

Monitoring aim Monitoring objective(s) KPIs used Monitoring method used

To undertake performance monitoring and evaluation activities to assess the effect of the Kerb-it communications campaign on the Kerb-it scheme

To monitor participation levels across a representative sample of households in low performing and student areas of the Kerb-it scheme, pre- and post the communications campaign (i.e. November 2006 and October 2007)

Participation rate (%)

Participation monitoring

To measure the number of households in the campaign target areas who were aware of the kerbside collection and the Kerb-it campaign by October 2007

% of households aware of the kerbside recycling scheme, the Kerb-it name and the materials collected % of residents aware of the Kerb-it communication campaign

Survey

To calculate the change in committed recyclers in low performing Kerb-it areas before and after the communication campaign (i.e. November 2006 and October 2007)

% committed recyclers Survey

To measure the tonnage of dry recyclables collected monthly from the Kerb-it scheme from the low performing and student areas during the communications campaign period (i.e. November 2006 to October 2007)

Tonnes Tonnage monitoring

To measure contamination levels in the student areas before and after the communication campaign (i.e. November 2006 to October 2007)

% contamination Contamination monitoring

3.0 Results The monitoring showed that: Participation increased by 9.5% in the low performing areas of the Kerb-it scheme. Although the overall 10%

target was not met, there was an increase of 14% in Durham City (from 57.9% pre-campaign to 71.9% post-campaign);

Participation in the student areas of the Kerb-it scheme increased from 49.6% pre-campaign to 66.4% post-campaign, an increase of 16.8%, exceeding the 10% target;

The number of committed recyclers increased from 70.3% (pre-campaign) to 75.2% (post-campaign), an increase of 4.9%;

The pre-campaign survey results showed that awareness of the kerbside recycling scheme was high (98.7%) and this did not change post-campaign. This meant that lack of awareness was not the cause of low performance and the target 25% increase in awareness set for the campaign was not needed;

Awareness of the Kerb-it name was lower than for the kerbside service as a whole. The proportion of people in the low performing areas that indicated that they were aware of the Kerb-it name for the kerbside collection service increased from 13.1% pre-campaign to 21.0% post-campaign, an increase of 7.9%;

Tonnage of dry recyclables recovered through the Kerb-it scheme in the low performing areas increased by 11.7% in the campaign period, exceeding the 10% target. The target was not met for the student areas where the increase was only 2.9%;

Contamination rates in the student areas decreased from 17.5% to 5.8%, a decrease of 11.7%.

Through comparison of the results obtained from the pre- and post-campaign questionnaire surveys, it could be shown that that the communications campaign had a positive impact on attitudes towards recycling and

Case studies A1-14

contributed towards increased participation in the Kerb-it recycling scheme and increased tonnages. For instance, analysis of the survey results enabled the council to make the following observations: More respondents stated that recycling was very important to them after the campaign. The number of

respondents stating that recycling is either very or fairly important to them increased in three out of the four target areas over the period of the campaign. Only a very small percentage of respondents stated that recycling was not at all important to them, 1.3% in the pre-campaign survey and 0.9% post-campaign;

During the pre-campaign survey, 9% of respondents stated they did not recycle. This had decreased to 4.1% of respondents by the time of the post-campaign survey;

More people said that they recycled everything that they can by the time of the post-campaign survey, 79.5% compared to 67.9% in the pre-campaign survey.

4.0 Conclusions and implications for future The food waste bring trial has been successful and encouraged the council to roll out the service to an additional 8500 properties later in the year. Kitchen caddies were distributed to all households rather than on an opt-in basis. Two weeks later, teams of doorknockers visited residents to explain the new food waste service and to answer any queries. “The focus groups provided useful feedback from residents on the food waste collection scheme. For the roll out of the scheme to new properties, different street level collection containers are being used, which is partly due to cost and also to overcome the issue mentioned by residents of the small aperture on the current collection container.” (Rachael Riding, London Borough of Hackney)

Case studies A1-15

Case Study: Participation, contamination and satisfaction monitoring

Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council campaign monitoring

Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council received funding to deliver a communications campaign to reduce contamination and maximise satisfaction in a new alternate weekly collection service. A range of methods was used to measure the impact of the service change and associated communications, including contamination, participation and satisfaction monitoring.

Case studies A1-16

1.0 Introduction Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council implemented an alternate weekly kerbside (AWC) collection service of co-mingled dry recyclables to 90% of its population in late 2006 /early 2007. The recyclates were collected in 240-litre wheeled bins with some smaller properties receiving 140-litre bins. The remainder of the properties were large multi-occupancy properties, which were provided with the recycling service in May 2009, with a further roll out of recycling, planned for 600 rural locations to ensure full service coverage by December 2010. The council wanted to maximise acceptance by residents with the introduction of alternate weekly collections to achieve high participation rates, capture rates and recycling rate. To ensure that such changes to waste and recycling collections were implemented successfully, a supporting communications campaign was developed. This included articles, bus advertising and leaflets, and a roadshow before the scheme began. With delivery of the bin, residents received a collection calendar and service information leaflet. Further advertising such as vehicle livery, radio adverts and exhibitions supported the implementation. Waste contamination officers were employed to visit residents to assist them in reducing contamination. The campaign ranged from vehicle livery, including bin wagons, taxis and buses to fridge magnets and leaflets/booklets. Wirral also had three dedicated doorknockers aimed at tackling contamination and participation head on right from the start of the scheme. The campaign objectives were to: reduce contamination of grey recycling bins presented for collection to 15% by March 2008; and increase the participation of paper and packaging recycling bins to 85% by March 2008.

A range of methods was used to measure the impact of the implementation of AWC and associated communications, including contamination and participation monitoring. The participation monitoring was undertaken by external contractors, making sure that the dominant ACORN groups in Wirral were monitored. Monitoring commenced in April 2007 and was undertaken pre- and post-campaign. A total of 6119 households were monitored from three rounds over three consecutive collections. Contamination was measured by the rejection figures obtained from the materials recovery facility as percentage (%) contamination by weight of the collected recyclate. This is monitored daily with a summary document being produced at the end of each calendar month. The number of complaints received by the call centre help line measured resident satisfaction with the recycling service. Weekly meetings were held between the management team throughout the roll out (9 months) to assess levels of complaints as well as the number of calls handled. 2.0 Aims and objectives Some of the council’s monitoring aims, objectives and key performance indicators (KPIs) for monitoring the communications campaign, and the monitoring methods they used, are summarised in Table 1.

Table 1 Summary of aims, objectives and KPIs

Monitoring aim Monitoring objective(s) KPIs used Monitoring method used

To monitor the effectiveness of AWC and the communications campaign.

To measure participation in the new service by March 2008.

% participation Participation monitoring

3.0 Results The following results were obtained from the monitoring: Post-campaign participation monitoring showed a participation rate of 94%. The post-campaign recorded a

very impressive 73% increase in participation in the dry recycling scheme from 21% to 94%; Of calls concerning waste and recycling during this project period approximately 8% were as a result of

resistance to alternate weekly collections; and The contamination of grey recycling bins was recorded at 11.9% at the MRF, well below the project target of

15%.

Case studies A1-17

4.0 Conclusions and implications for the future The results are promising and show a massive increase in participation between pre- and post-campaign. However, it is difficult to compare the two recycling services as pre-campaign monitoring focused on the blue bag paper collection scheme for the fortnightly collection of paper. This service was poorly subscribed for a number of reasons; it was for only one material, the collections were erratic, it was poorly advertised and the sacks often blew away after collection. The contamination officers have played a key role in making the scheme a success and reducing the levels of contamination in the recycling bins. They work on referrals from crews who input into a live system the property details where bins were contaminated. In the early days of the campaign, the officers accompanied crews to check bins for contamination and visited householders where there were issues with contamination. As a result of their success, an additional contamination officer was funded from the Council’s own budget and has proved invaluable in making the scheme work efficiently. “During our time working with WRAP on funded projects and also through training courses, the awareness of monitoring and evaluation in general has been greatly improved. Monitoring and evaluation through project management is now considered an essential part in of any project undertaken by the waste and recycling team from roadshows to bin rollouts.” (Robert Jones, Waste Strategy and Recycling Manager, Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council) 5.0 Contact details Name: Rob Jones Tel: 0151 6062170 Email: robertjones@wirral.gov.uk

Case studies A1-18

Case Study: Participation, contamination monitoring and surveys

Monitoring the impact of county-wide communications in Cumbria

Resource Cumbria introduced a communications campaign to target three specific ACORN groups to increase recycling participation and reduce contamination. The partnership undertook participation and contamination monitoring and a committed recycler survey to assess the impact of the campaign.

Case studies A1-19

1.0 Introduction Cumbria County Council and its six district councils (Allerdale, Barrow-in-Furness, Carlisle, Copeland, Eden and South Lakeland) operate as the Cumbria Strategic Waste Partnership, known as ‘Resource Cumbria’. The aim was to develop a partnership approach to recycling communications throughout Cumbria so that the county recycling target to increase recycling from 30% to 50% by 2008 could be met. Using a combination of ACORN data and research conducted in the county, the partners identified three key target audiences for the communications campaign:

Secure and flourishing families – 29% of the population, spread evenly throughout the districts,

occasional recyclers;

Wealthy achievers – 30% of the population, located in more remote/hard-to-reach areas, most recycle

regularly; and

Blue collar roots/struggling families – 30% of the population located mainly in the north, west and

south-west of the county but present in other areas in smaller numbers, non/low recyclers.

Different communications methods were used to target each of these groups including: posters with a Christmas theme, roadshows (eg at farmers markets), and radio adverts targeted at secure and flourishing families; a county-wide golfing tournament and associated events aimed at wealthy achievers; bin stickers, leaflets and calendars for the blue collar group. Doorstepping was undertaken in all three ACORN areas. The aim of the communication campaign was to increase recycling in the ‘Resource Cumbria’ area to help to meet the 2008 target. Some of the communications campaign objectives were to: increase kerbside recycling by non-/low recyclers (‘blue collar roots’/ struggling families’ ACORN group) to

achieve and maintain a 65% participation rate by this group by December 2007; increase kerbside recycling by occasional recyclers (‘secure and flourishing families’ Acorn group) to achieve

and maintain an 85% participation rate by this group by December 2007; increase the quantity and quality of the materials recovered from those households that recycle regularly

(‘wealthy achievers’ ACORN group) by reducing contamination by 5% December 2007; increase the number of committed recyclers in all ACORN groups by December 2007; and to increase the usage of the recycling facilities at HWRCs and recycling points by 5% by December 2007;

The partnership undertook a range of monitoring including participation and contamination rates, committed recycler surveys, HWRC and recycling point usage to assess the success of the communications campaign. A specialist contractor undertook all the monitoring. Participation monitoring was undertaken over five weeks in October/November 2006 (pre-campaign) and repeated post-campaign in November/December 2007. The intention was to measure participation rates for the three dominant ACORN groups with a target of 1100 households each. It was not possible to identify rounds that typified each of the three ACORN groups in each district. Consequently, the approach taken was to identify rounds in each district area with the largest number of a particular ACORN group, combining these rounds to enable the required 1100 households to be monitored. This resulted in numerous rounds being monitored in each district. Contamination monitoring was undertaken at the same time as the participation monitoring for the rounds that included the ‘wealthy achievers’ group. It was measured as the number of recycling containers with contaminating materials as a percentage of the total for that round of those that participated. The classification of contaminating materials was based on what was permitted by the collection system in each district. Committed recycler surveys, and HWRC and recycling point usage surveys were undertaken in November/December 2006 (pre-campaign), and repeated in November/December 2007 (post-campaign). A postal survey was used for the ‘wealthy achievers’ ACORN group, with face-to-face surveys for the other two ACORN groups. The aim was 1100 completed questionnaires for each ACORN group and this was achieved. For the HWRC and recycling point survey, questionnaires were posted to households within the catchment of 13 selected sites in November 2006 (pre-campaign), repeated in November 2007 (post-campaign). Catchment areas were established before the monitoring took place by checking visitor postcodes for each selected site. The questionnaires were tailored to each site and asked respondents to indicate if they had used the site within the

Case studies A1-20

last two months. Although the target of 1100 responses was achieved, the numbers were low for some of the sites. 2.0 Aims and objectives Some of the council’s monitoring aims, objectives and key performance indicators (KPIs) for monitoring the communications campaign, and the monitoring methods they used, are summarised in Table 1.

Table 1 Summary of aims, objectives and KPIs

Monitoring aim Monitoring objective(s) KPIs used Monitoring method used

To monitor the effectiveness of a communications campaign targeting specific ACORN groups across Cumbria.

To measure participation in kerbside collection areas of the three ACORN groups targeted by the communications campaign, in November 2006 (pre-campaign) and in November 2007 (post-campaign)

% participation Participation monitoring

To measure contamination rates in the kerbside collection areas by ‘wealthy achievers’ in November 2006 (pre-campaign) and November 2007 (post-campaign)

% contamination Contamination monitoring

To measure the number of committed recyclers in the communications campaign target areas in November 2006 (pre-campaign) and November 2007 (post-campaign)

% committed recyclers

Survey

To measure claimed usage rates of the HWRCs / recycling points in the county in November 2006 (pre-campaign) and November 2007 (post-campaign)

% usage Survey

3.0 Results The results showed: 64% participation in kerbside collection amongst low recyclers (blue collar roots, struggling families) was

achieved, an increase of 6% - almost achieving the 65% participation target; 89% participation amongst occasional recyclers (secure, flourishing families) was achieved, an increase of

11% - exceeding the 85% target; the quantity and quality of the materials recovered from those households that recycle regularly (wealthy

achievers) improved to achieve a 4% increase in participation (91% to 95%) and an 8% reduction in contamination (11% to 3%) – achieving the target 5% contamination reduction;

the committed recycler rate overall for the county was 78%, an increase of 8% - the rate increased for all ACORN groups;

the committed recycler rate increased by 5% (50% to 55%) for ‘blue collar/struggling families’; 3% (71% to 74%) for ‘secure and flourishing families’; and 1% (81% to 82%) for ‘wealthy achievers’; and

usage of the HWRCs/recycling points increased by 8% from 53% pre-campaign to 61% post-campaign, though there was a decrease at some of the sites, mostly because householders were using other services.

4.0 Conclusions and implications for future The monitoring programme enabled the partnership to evaluate the effectiveness of the ‘Recycle for Cumbria’ project, which has shown that it has been a success. Changes in service provision may also have had an effect, as alternate weekly collections were introduced or extended in some of the districts and AWC is known to increase uptake. The pre- and post-campaign monitoring has shown an increase in participation rates across the county and a reduction in contamination levels. There was a percentage increase in people who consider themselves committed recyclers, with the largest increase (5%) with the ’blue collar roots / struggling families’ ACORN group. There was also an 8% increase in HWRC / recycling point usage across Cumbria.

Case studies A1-21

“The WRAP BCLF project gave our partnership shared goals that helped us learn how to work together practically for the benefit of the partnership rather than our individual authorities. The success we demonstrated by the monitoring of the campaign should ensure significant buy-in from senior officers and members for future projects.” (Julian Diaper, Cumbria County Council) 5.0 Contact details Name: Julian Diaper Tel: 01228 227645 Email: julian.diaper@cumbriacc.gov.uk

Case studies A1-22

Case Study: Capture rate monitoring

Borough of Poole beach and caravan site waste analysis

The Borough of Poole commissioned a waste compositional analysis of beach and caravan site waste to determine capture rates of recyclable materials in order to assess the effectiveness of its ‘Recycle Home and Away’ campaign. It backed this up with a questionnaire survey.

Case studies A1-23

1.0 Introduction Tourists to Poole create a seasonal influx of visitors whose patterns of behaviour are different to their normal ‘at home’ routines. Their behaviour while holidaying in Poole has an effect on the waste produced in the borough, and creates challenges for the council in terms of communicating recycling messages to a transient population. Poole is a popular seaside resort attracting long and short stay visitors mainly from the UK. Most visitors come to enjoy the expansive clean beaches. They tend to stay in temporary accommodation ranging from hotels, to caravan parks and campsites. The council ran a communications campaign in 2007, called ‘Recycle Home and Away’, funded by WRAP as part of the BCLF project. The aim of the ‘Away’ campaign was to increase recycling by the 3.5 million tourists visiting Poole each year, by encouraging them to use new public recycling facilities more effectively on the beaches and at one of the caravan parks. The communications materials in support of the ‘Recycle Home and Away’ campaign and new public recycling services, included: bus adverts, posters and notice boards at the beach and at car parks directing the public to the recycling and refuse points, and a mobile exhibition unit. The campaign directed visitors to use the dual blue recycling and black refuse bin collection points. The Council set up 55 recycling points (360 litre bins) along the most popular stretches of beach providing the public with the same co-mingled, blue bin recycling service used by householders for paper, cans, cardboard, plastic bottles and glass. The objectives of the communication campaign was to: increase awareness of the visitors to Poole of the recycling facilities on the beach and at the caravan park by

September 2007; increase capture rates of recyclable materials by visitors to Poole by 20% by September 2007. Two key audiences were: holidaymakers and day trippers visiting Poole’s beaches (many staying in and around Poole); and holidaymakers staying in a popular nearby caravan park (living outside Poole). Surveys were carried out throughout the summer and the ‘pledges’ established were: mainly within the 25-44 age group; predominantly families with children; from a smaller, yet significant number, in the 45-64 age group; and coming from a very wide range of postcodes from Bournemouth to Birmingham to Belgium.

Two main methods of monitoring were undertaken: capture rates and a committed recycler survey. The monitoring of capture rates was undertaken in summer 2007 via waste compositional analysis and tonnage analysis of waste containers on beaches and a caravan site. All the monitoring was carried out in July and August 2007 at points along three of Poole’s busiest beaches and at the caravan park. It was necessary to move away from the traditional method of doing a pre- and then post-campaign survey (with a doorstepping phase) as the target audience would be a transient population, visiting Poole for potentially just a day up to maybe a fortnight for example. Therefore it was decided that the monitoring would be carried out throughout the summer months, in three phases, which would be useful for comparisons but would not provide pre- and post-campaign analyses. All the monitoring work was contracted out. The beach is served with waste and recycling facilities consisting of 55 metal frames, each holding a 360 litre refuse and a 360 litre recycling bin. The waste sorting crew visited the compound where the waste was stored and collected all of the residual and dry recycling that had been set aside, in addition to litter. They then visited two beach sites and manually emptied the containers along the beachfront, in order to generate a suitably sized sample. The refuse and recycling bins were emptied, bagged separately and tagged for identification. The material was then taken back to the sorting facility for analysis. As the bins were all stored in frames containing one refuse and one recycling bin, an equal number of bins of each type were emptied, enabling calculation of capture rates. The caravan site is served with a number of residual waste bays, containing 1,100 litre wheeled bins. In addition, there are two blue skips for dry recycling. This material was collected by the local authority as usual and tipped at the sorting facility for analysis. In cases where it would not be possible to sort all of the collected material in a day, a sample was taken by shovel loader for analysis. The material collected was batch sorted by origin (beach or caravan site) and waste stream (waste or recycling), by a team of experienced staff into agreed categories.

Case studies A1-24

The questionnaire survey consisted of two questionnaires: one for beach visitors and the other for the caravan park. Both questionnaires included the three WRAP committed recycler questions and also recorded how long visitors had been in Poole. This provided useful insights to tourist and day-tripper recycling behaviour, which will be used to guide future campaigns. 2.0 Aims and objectives Monitoring was needed to determine how successful the communications activities had been. The monitoring aims, objectives, key performance indicators (KPIs) and monitoring methods used are summarised in Table 1.

Table 1 Summary of aims, objectives and KPIs

Monitoring aim Monitoring objective(s) KPIs used Monitoring method

used

To measure the impact of a communication campaign targeting holidaymakers to Poole.

To determine the capture rate for different types of dry recyclable materials at recycling points available to holidaymakers on beaches and at the caravan site from the beginning of July till the end of August 2007.

Capture rate of mixed dry recyclables

Composition analysis of both residual and recycling containers on beaches and at the caravan site

To determine how much recyclable material is in waste containers used by holidaymakers on beaches and at the caravan site from the beginning of July till the end of August 2007.

% recyclate in residual bins

Waste composition analysis of residual containers

To measure the committed recycler rate amongst visitors to Poole on beaches and at the caravan site from the beginning of July till the end of August 2007.

% committed recycler rate amongst visitors

Survey

3.0 Results Using the data from monitoring, an assessment could be made of how much recycling holidaymakers did during the period of the monitoring. The results showed that: beach residual containers on average contained 16% material that was readily recyclable. The figure for the

caravan site residual bins was 35%; the capture rates for materials were higher at the beach than at caravan parks; capture rates at the caravan site were low, due primarily to the small quantity of material being submitted

through the recycling system glass (24%) was the most common material from combined beach waste (litter, recycling and residual

containers), followed by organics (15%) (mostly food) and paper (14%); glass was the most common material in both the beach recycling containers and at the caravan site,

accounting for 43% and 38% respectively of the total; organics (27%) was the most common material in the beach residual waste, followed by plastics (14%), and

sand and stones (14%), compared with the caravan site where organics (32%) was the most common material, followed by paper (14%) and plastics (13%);

the beach waste analysis showed that recycling was highest during the second phase of monitoring, when activities with the Recycle Home and Away campaign were at their most intense, and that capture rates tailed off thereafter, although they remained higher than before the campaign commenced. The caravan site recycling rates did not seem to be affected by the campaign;

1244 questionnaires were completed at the caravan park and 1212 questionnaires were completed on the beach;

the committed recycler level was highest for visitors to Poole at the beach (81%) than at the caravan site (71%).

4.0 Implications for future The results of the monitoring were useful for evaluating the effectiveness of the communications campaign. The data has provided the Borough of Poole with vital information to further extend its recycling activity to the extent of placing blue recycling bins on the streets for litter. This has been very successful, achieving up to 50% recycling.

Case studies A1-25

“The Recycle Home and Away project demonstrated that it is possible to strongly influence peoples attitudes to recycling when visiting areas with different arrangements than they have at home providing they are clearly communicated ” (Rachel Davies, Borough of Poole) 5.0 Contact details Name: Rachel Davies Tel: 01202 261702 Email: r.davies@poole.gov.uk

Case studies A1-26

Case Study: Capture rate, survey and tonnage monitoring

City of York Council campaign monitoring

Communicating the ‘Recycle for York’ campaign to all households with an alternate week collection of refuse was important to encourage effective use of local services. Monitoring the results was important to establish how well the communications achieved their objectives.

Case studies A1-27

1.0 Introduction In 2005-06, City of York Council introduced an alternate week recycling and refuse collection to approximately 60,000 properties. All these properties received a fortnightly kerbside recycling collection for paper, card, plastic bottles, glass bottles and jars, drinks cans, food tins and aerosol cans. The target audience for the ‘Recycle for York’ campaign were households provided with an alternate week collection (AWC). Although tonnages and set out rates were good for households provided with an AWC, it was felt that capture rates could be improved, as analysis for 2005-06 showed that kerbside recycling collections were only capturing 23–37% of the targeted materials. The communications campaign used a mixture of communication methods supported by the WRAP branding and guidelines including leaflets, posters, vehicle livery, road shows, bus advertising, wheeled bin tags and newsletters. The communication objectives were to: increase the recycling rate by 10% by February 2008 among households with an alternate week refuse

collection; increase the capture rate of materials collected from the kerbside of households with an alternate week refuse

collection by 10% by February 2008.

Monitoring was needed to determine how successful the communications activities had been. The monitoring undertaken included capture rates via tonnage and pre-campaign compositional analysis, and a questionnaire survey. The 2006 waste composition analysis data was used for the calculation of capture rates as waste composition analysis was not funded by the campaign. For the post-campaign monitoring tonnages, predicted outturn figures for 2007-08 for the whole of the city were used. These data are prepared by the council’s Waste Management Officer, monitored quarterly and used for Landfill Allowance Trading Scheme (LATS) calculations so the council was confident that it was sufficiently robust. Participation rates were measured prior to this campaign across 10 areas of the city and ranged from 42% to 76%. The average participation rate was 58%. As this was relatively high, and the local authority operates an AWC, it was decided not to measure participation post-campaign. The committed recycler survey was undertaken face-to-face by an external contractor, working closely with in-house personnel on waste strategy and the marketing and communications team. The areas were selected to provide a good representation of the households on the alternate week collection service at the time of the communication campaign. 2.0 Aims and objectives Some of the council’s monitoring aims, objectives, key performance indicators (KPIs) and the monitoring methods they used are summarised in Table 1.

Table 1 Summary of aims, objectives and KPIs

Monitoring aim Monitoring objective(s)

KPIs used Monitoring method used

To monitor the effectiveness of communicating the ‘Recycle for York’ campaign to all households with an alternate week refuse collection

To measure the recycling rate in the target areas throughout the period of the campaign to determine whether the 10% target for increased recycling was reached by February 2008

% recycling rate (dry and composting)

Tonnage monitoring

Case studies A1-28

To monitor the capture rate of dry recyclable materials in the target areas before and after the campaign.

% capture of mixed dry recyclables and garden waste

Baseline waste composition analysis 2006 Tonnage monitoring % recyclate in residual

bins To measure the change in the level of committed recyclers using the AWC from the baseline in November 2006 by the end of the campaign in February 2008

% committed recycler Survey

3.0 Results The dry recycling rate increased every year of the campaign, from 16.50% in 2005-06, to 23.30% in 2006-07

and 24.70% in 2007-08; The overall recycling and composting rate also showed a huge increase from 24% in the baseline year to over

41% in the final year of the campaign; Capture rates for all kerbside material streams also increased (see Table 2), with a significant increase in

plastic bottles. The target to increase the capture rate by 10% was significantly exceeded, with plastic bottles playing a major part in this success; and

Committed recycler rates pre-campaign were high and did not increase post-campaign.

Table 2 Capture rates for different material streams at kerbside pre and post-campaign

Waste stream Pre-campaign Post-campaign Overall

improvement

Mixed paper and card 23% (paper only

collected) 32% +9%

Mixed glass 37% 49% +12% Mixed cans 24% 32% +8% Plastic bottles 0% 18% +18% Garden waste 28% 66% +38% 4.0 Conclusions and implications for the future At the kerbside, capture rate improvements have been as follows:

the quantity of plastic bottles being captured has increased by 18% – a waste stream not previously collected (the public had been keen to be able to recycle plastic at the kerbside);

the capture rate for mixed paper and card only increased by 9%, despite the introduction of a cardboard recycling collection; and

the biggest improvement was demonstrated by the garden waste capture rate, which increased by 38%. Monitoring of the collections over the winter months (reverting to weekly refuse collections with fortnightly recycling) showed that more residual waste and less recyclate was being collected. Waste composition analysis demonstrated the potential garden waste that is available in the waste stream for winter collection. Collections of garden waste now continue throughout the year, with the exception of two weeks over Christmas. This will result in more garden waste being recycled in the green bin.

These results are very interesting and were used in conjunction with the results of the committed recycler report to design communication messages for 2008-09. There has been little change in the percentage of residents who are considered to be committed recyclers. The pre-campaign survey established the baseline of 78% and the post-campaign survey revealed a 1% decrease in this figure. However, the baseline was very high and was unlikely to increase significantly. There are some interesting results from the committed recycler survey when broken down by area. Residents in Tang Hall appeared to be the most committed recyclers in York for both the pre- and post-campaign surveys. The

Case studies A1-29

more affluent suburb area of Heworth had the most non-recyclers in the post-campaign survey. For this area, specific information can now be used to target future communications work. “Put simply, without monitoring we would not be able to focus resources in areas where they are needed. Monitoring the ‘Recycle for York’ campaign has helped us to identify areas for improvement and, ultimately, to make the scheme a success.” (Elizabeth Parker, City of York Council) 5.0 Contact details Name: Elizabeth Parker Tel: 01904 553209 Email: Elizabeth.parker@york.gov.uk

Case studies A1-30

Case Study: Participation monitoring, tonnage and surveys

Staffordshire Moorlands District Council AWC roll-out and campaign monitoring

Staffordshire Moorlands District Council received funding to deliver a communications campaign to support the implementation of new local recycling services. A range of methods was used to measure AWC roll-out and associated communications including participation monitoring, tonnage monitoring and surveys.

Case studies A1-31

1.0 Introduction Staffordshire Moorlands District Council area is in North East Staffordshire, bordered by Cheshire to the west, Derbyshire to the east and Stoke on Trent to the south. The district is primarily rural, with three market towns Leek, Cheadle and Biddulph. The district covers an area of 57,624 hectares with a significant proportion lying in the Peak District National Park. The district consists of around 42,287 homes and a population of 94,600 inhabitants (2007/08). In 2006/7 household waste arisings amounted to 43,108 tonnes and a recycling/composting rate of just over 35%. In 2000, 140-litre wheeled bins were introduced to around 80% of homes, moving from a back door black sack collection service. Rubbish was collected on a weekly basis but was supported by a fortnightly garden waste collection service using biodegradable paper sacks, moving in 2002 to 240-litre wheeled bins. Further to this, a fortnightly kerbside recycling service has been operating since 2002 using a 55-litre kerbside box for the collection of food and drinks cans, glass bottles and jars, blue re-useable bags for the collection of newspapers and magazines and a sack for textiles. By 2006/7, the three-fold collection service was offered to 92% of homes, with the remaining 8% of properties remaining on a weekly black sack collection service.

The communications project ‘Recycle for Staffordshire Moorlands’ aided the service roll out of a new alternate weekly (AWC) waste and recycling service launched in September 2007. The project aimed to engage local residents to increase the amounts of waste they recycle or compost whilst reducing the amount sent for disposal. Communications included roadshows, articles and promotions through the monthly council newsletter, a training event for elected members, radio interviews, press briefings and production of a DVD. A detailed information pack was delivered to all homes being provided with the new services alongside the new blue-lidded wheeled bin. The primary aim of all publicity and promotional activities has been to educate the residents of Staffordshire Moorlands about the new collection services, encouraging an increased use of the services available and reducing the amount of waste disposed of whilst increasing the amounts either recycled or composted. The objectives of the new service and associated communications were: To increase tonnage of recyclables (dry and organic) collected in the Moorlands through the introduction of

enhanced services throughout 2007/08. To increase recycling in Moorlands from the introduction of enhanced services throughout 2007/8; To increase the participation rate in Moorlands 2007/8; To increase the number of committed recyclers in Moorlands 2007/8.

Monitoring was needed to determine how successful the AWC roll-out and associated communications activities had been. A range of methods was used including tonnage monitoring, participation rate monitoring and surveys. Tonnage was monitored during the course of the communications campaign (from April 2007 to March 2008) by an in house team of officers. Tonnages monitored included organic waste, dry recyclables and residual waste all collected at the kerbside. Tonnages from bring sites were also monitored to determine the impact on usage following the enhancements to the kerbside services. The participation monitoring was undertaken in the town of Cheadle over a six-week period in June/July 2007 and again in February/March 2008 with 1,432 households surveyed by an in-house team of officers. The survey area was selected as it provided the closest representation of the demographics of the district: 41% detached, 38% semi detached, 17% terraced, 4% flats. Officers ensured that they visited streets to be surveyed ahead of the collection crews to ensure participation results were accurate. A committed recycler survey was undertaken in the town of Cheadle in June 2007 and again February 2008 by external contractors. The aim of the survey was to gather information on residents’ attitudes and claimed behaviour on the kerbside recycling service before and after the introduction of the new service. Overall, 1,100 questionnaires before and after the roll out were completed to ensure that the results were statistically robust. Approximately 3,000 properties had their doors knocked to complete the surveys. It should also be noted that the households monitored for participation were also covered by the committed recycler surveys.

Case studies A1-32

2.0 Aims and objectives Some of the council’s monitoring aims, objectives and key performance indicators (KPIs) for monitoring the communications campaign, and the monitoring methods they used, are summarised in Table 1.

Table 1 Summary of aims, objectives and KPIs

Monitoring aim Monitoring objective(s) KPIs used Monitoring

method used

Monitor the results of the introduction of the new AWC service and associated communications

To measure the tonnages of residual waste, dry recycling and organic kerbside collections throughout 2007-08

Tonnage dry

Tonnage monitoring

Tonnage residual

Tonnage organic

To calculate the combined recycling rate (for dry recyclables and organic) and identify whether there had been an increase district wide over the course of the campaign from the baseline in June/July 2007

% recycled dry + organic

Tonnage monitoring

To measure the recyclate collected per household in the Staffordshire Moorlands in 2007-08.

Kg/hh Tonnage monitoring

To measure the participation in kerbside dry recyclable and organic waste collections from a representative sample area of the district before the launch of the new service (June/July 2007) and four months after in February/March 2008

% participation Participation rate monitoring

To measure the number of committed recyclers in February/March 2008 compared with rate established before the campaign began in June/July 2007

% committed recyclers

Survey

3.0 Results The following results were obtained from the monitoring: the tonnage of dry recyclables (kerbside and bring) collected in 2007-08 was over 1,801 tonnes higher than

for 2006-07, an increase of 29%; tonnage of garden waste increased from 9,014 tonnes in 2006-007 to 15,042 tonnes in 2007-8, an increase of

6,028 tonnes (40%), an increase of 66%; participation increased from 48% to 82% (pre-campaign) for dry recyclables and from 73% to 78% (post-

campaign) for the organic waste collection, an increase of 34% (dry) and 5% (organic); and the proportion of committed recyclers increased from 79% (pre-campaign) to 83% (post-campaign), an

increase of 4%.

4.0 Conclusions and implications for the future The increase in the level of participation post-campaign in the organic waste collection was, significant as the surveys were undertaken in months that are not considered as typical gardening months. This suggests that the tonnage being collected is primarily food waste and cardboard. The high participation rate pre-campaign monitoring could be attributed to the service change that took place in March 2007, when cardboard and food waste were added to the list of accepted materials to then garden waste service. The slight increase in participation in the organic waste service, since the start of an alternate week collection, could be attributed to both the reduced collection frequency and capacity of the residual waste collection (180-litre bin emptied fortnightly as opposed to a 140-litre bin emptied weekly). This appears to have encouraged householders to recycle more. The reduction in the number of respondents that reported that they had seen / heard about the recycling services through the Moorlands Messenger was a cause for concern in the post-campaign survey – as this was previously

Case studies A1-33

the main channel of communication utilised by the council to disseminate information to residents. Either full or half page articles on recycling were printed in every monthly edition since July 2007. However, this publication no longer exists and the poor result was probably due to poor readership generally. A greater emphasis is now placed on press releases and direct mail, delivered annually, to communicate recycling messages. The data from the post-campaign committed recycler survey revealed a number of households who commented that they wished to have their blue-lidded bin (residual waste) emptied weekly, that they required a larger blue-lidded bin, bags for paper/textiles or more information on plastics. Such information will hopefully help to shape future promotional activities, either district-wide or in relation to this survey area. “The monitoring undertaken during this project has helped to endorse the successes of the scheme and also provided a basis for responding to some of the negative press coverage we received. The use of surveys has been recognised to provide valuable information on services, and both Senior Officers and Members have been impressed with the collated feedback. I am positive that such methods will be utilised in future to monitor service effectiveness and satisfaction.” (Nicola Kemp, Staffordshire Moorlands District Council). 5.0 Contact details Name: Nicola Kemp Tel: 01538 395400 ext 4426 Email: Nicola.kemp@staffsmoorlands.gov.uk

Case studies A1-34

Case Study: Participation, tonnage and usage monitoring

Rutland County Council campaign monitoring

Rutland County Council delivered a communications campaign to increase uptake of local recycling services. A range of methods was used to measure the campaign’s impact, including, participation rate monitoring, tonnage and usage surveys.

Case studies A1-35

1.0 Introduction Rutland is the smallest county and unitary authority in England; it is situated in the East Midlands and is bordered by Leicestershire, Lincolnshire, Cambridgeshire and Northamptonshire. The population is 37,300 with 15,137 households. The largest proportion of the population lives in the market towns of Oakham and Uppingham, with the remainder of the population in the 52 small rural villages. At present only 1,118 properties are served by a kerbside recycling collection. This involves a weekly collection of dry recyclables (paper, cardboard, plastic bottles and cans) and a fortnightly collection of green waste during March to November then monthly December to February. The green waste is collected in 240-litre wheeled bins and the dry recyclables in non-reusable bags. A new recycling and refuse collection service is planned for March 2008, this will be an alternate week collection with three bins. A grey bin for recycling (paper, card, cans, plastic bottles and glass), a green bin for garden waste and a black bin for landfill waste. This service will be for all households in Rutland so all households will be served by a kerbside collection. In the meantime, most residents in Rutland rely on two household waste recycling centres (HWRCs) and 22 bring recycling sites around the county to recycle their waste, where a wide range of waste can be recycled, including card, paper, plastic bottles, cans, textiles, glass, books, green waste, wood, white goods, electrical items, household batteries, fluorescent tubes and scrap metal. Therefore the main emphasis of the communications campaign was to encourage the use of these facilities. Promotion of the small-scale blue bag kerbside recycling area was included to maximise the use of these facilities and to help residents understand how to use the system efficiently. To improve communication to all residents, communication methods included a general recycling leaflet about bring recycling facilities, wheeled bin stickers, improved signage at HWRCs and bring sites, roadshows / displays, radio adverts, ‘Recycle for Rutland’ logo on refuse collection vehicles and internal bus adverts. Residents with a kerbside recycling service were also given an annual information leaflet and calendar. The campaign aimed to increase usage of the recycling sites and participation in the kerbside collection services for dry and organic materials. The campaign had the following specific communication objectives:

to increase the overall recycling rate to 27% in 2007-08;

to increase the participation rate for the blue bag recycling to 85% and to increase in the green waste

participation to 70% in 2007-08;

to increase the recycling rate at the HWRCs from 54% (2005-06) to 61% in 2007-08.

Monitoring was needed to determine how successful the communications activities had been. A range of methods was used to measure the campaign’s impact, including participation monitoring, tonnage and usage surveys. An employee of the waste contractor undertook the participation monitoring travelling with the crew and the data were collated and analysed in-house by Rutland council staff. All the 1,118 households in the kerbside recycling area were included in the sample. As dry recycling is collected weekly and green waste fortnightly, the monitoring took place over a six-week period. The monitoring was undertaken before and after the communications campaign. The usage monitoring at bring / HWRC sites was undertaken by the waste contractor, and data was collated and analysed in-house by Rutland council staff. Three bring sites and one HWRC were selected for the monitoring. For one monitoring week, postcode information was collected from members of the public using the site on weekdays and over the weekend in the monitoring period. This information was plotted using GIS software and the catchment area of each recycling site was established. Following this, 5,000 postal questionnaires were distributed to a random selection of households within each catchment area. The usage monitoring was undertaken pre- and post-campaign. The tonnage monitoring at bring / HWRC sites and the kerbside collections was undertaken by the waste contractor, and data were collated and analysed in-house. The monitoring covered the period of the communications campaign.

Case studies A1-36

2.0 Aims and objectives Some of the council’s monitoring aims, objectives and key performance indicators (KPIs) for monitoring the communications campaign, and the monitoring methods they used, are summarised in Table 1.

Table 1 Summary of aims, objectives and KPIs

Monitoring aim Monitoring objective(s) KPIs used Monitoring

method used

To monitor the effectiveness of a communication campaign aimed at increasing recycling in Rutland.

To monitor the usage of the county’s HWRC sites and bring sites by looking at four sites (three bring sites and one HWRC) to determine the overall usage rate in 2007-08 and compare this against the 2005-06 baseline of 69%.

% usage

Usage monitoring

To measure participation rates of all residents receiving the green waste collection before and after the communication campaign.

% participation Participation rate monitoring

To measure participation rates of all residents receiving the blue bag recycling collection before and after the communication campaign.

% participation Participation rate monitoring

To measure the kerbside collection recycling rate in 2007-08 and compare this with the 2005-06 figure to determine if the target increase of 27% was achieved.

% recycling at kerbside

Tonnage monitoring

To measure the recycling rate at bring and HWRC sites in 2007-08 and compare this with the 2005-06 figure to determine if the target increase of 7% was achieved

% recycling at bring and HWRC sites

Tonnage monitoring

3.0 Results The following results were obtained from the monitoring:

The recycling rate overall increased from 25% in 2006-07 to 29% in 2007-08, an increase of 4%, exceeding

the27% target.

The quantity of dry recycling material collected overall increased from 2,595 tonnes in 2006-07 to 3098

tonnes in 2007-08 – an increase of 503 tonnes. From the bring / HWRC sites monitored for usage, three were bring recycling sites (one large, one busy and

one rural) and one HWRC. Usage at these sites increased from 69% (pre-campaign) to 80% (post-campaign),

an increase of 11%.

Participation in the dry recycling (blue bag) collection increased from 79% to 82%, an increase of 3%, though

it did not meet the 85% target.

Participation in the green waste collection increased from 68% to 75%, an increase of 8%, exceeding the

70% target. This was very encouraging and highlighted the effect of the increased communication regarding

the scheme.

The recycling rate at the HWRC sites increased from 54% (2005-06) to 61% in 2007-08, meeting the target.

4.0 Conclusions and implications for the future The signage at the HWRCs and bring recycling sites has improved the appearance of the sites and made it easier and clearer for residents to see what can be recycled. The large welcome signs at the entrance to each HWRC have been particularly effective and helped to increase the usage and recycling rate at the sites.

Case studies A1-37

The publication of the information leaflets worked really well. A consistent design was used throughout the campaign, which enabled easier recognition by the public that the leaflets contained Rutland-specific information on waste and recycling. The future of communications within the council has been influenced by the success of this campaign. The branding that has been developed over the past two years has been carried forward into the communications campaign for the new alternate week collection service that started on 31 March 2008. “The success of monitoring what we do in regard to recycling participation, communication and recycling rates is that we can see the impact, good or bad, of the publicity that we carry out. This allows us to target council resources in the most efficient and effective way.” (George Chase, Waste Services Manager, Rutland County Council) 5.0 Contact details Name: George Chase Tel: 01572 758430 Email: gchase@rutland.gov.uk

Case studies A1-38

Case Study: Monitoring of claimed usage surveys

London Borough of Barnet campaign monitoring

The London Borough of Barnet received funding to deliver a communications campaign to increase effective use of its local flats recycling services. The main method used to measure the campaign’s impact was surveys.

Case studies A1-39

1.0 Introduction At the time of its flats communication campaign in 2006, the London Borough of Barnet had a weekly source-separated multi-material recycling service serving 17,194 of the total 20,503 flats. Dry recyclables were collected in 55-litre boxes at smaller sites and five 240-litre bins at larger sites. However, it was recognised that participation and tonnages collected were relatively low and a focused communications campaign was required to increase participation by residents of the flats. The campaign took place between October and December 2006. The campaign used doorstepping and marketing techniques to promote the service including service leaflets, direct mail, posters for flats notice boards, information on recycling containers and vehicle livery. All of these linked into national campaign branding. Two communication aims were set and monitored to measure the project’s effectiveness: To maximise participation and tonnage of recyclate collected from flats using communal recycling facilities,

through a comprehensive doorstepping campaign; and To reinforce participation in the flats recycling service using a variety of marketing techniques to ensure

successful promotion of the service.

The objectives of the communications campaign were:

To increase by 10% the claimed usage of the recycling collection service by flat-based residents between the pre-campaign survey in October 2006 and post-campaign survey in January 2007

To increase by 10% the proportion of people in flats who indicate their awareness of the recycling collection service between October 2006 and January 2007;

To increase by 10% the number of flat-based committed recyclers between October 2006 and January 2007.

The main method used to measure the campaign’s impact was claimed usage surveys and a visual inspection of recycling bins. A survey of flat-based residents was undertaken to assess their usage and awareness of the collection service and committed recycler levels before and after the communication campaign. The survey was undertaken pre-campaign in October 2006 and repeated post-campaign in January 2007. The survey involved doorstepping visits to complete face-to-face questionnaire surveys, and this was carried out by external contractors. Estates in Barnet are classified into the following groups: large housing association, small housing association, large private, small private and sheltered or special accommodation. Estates ranged in size between 16 and 456 households and represented the property types found across Barnet as a whole. The surveyors visited a representative number of properties from each property group where the estates recycling services are provided. For the pre-campaign survey 3,730 properties were visited achieving 1,168 responses. For the post-campaign survey 3,384 properties were visited achieving 1,124 responses. To overcome the issue of no weighing facility, the crew that emptied the flats recycling bins were asked to make a visual inspection of how full each bin was, i.e. empty, 25% full, 50% full, 75% full or 100% full. The crew recorded this information for every bin on every site, starting six weeks before the doorstepping campaign and continuing until the end of the project. The percentages were then converted to tonnes using average weights for a full 240-litre bin of each material. 2.0 Aims and objectives The monitoring aims, objectives and key performance indicators (KPIs), and the monitoring methods used by London Borough of Barnet to assess the effectiveness of their campaign, are summarised in Table 1.

Case studies A1-40

Table 1 Summary of aims, objectives and KPIs

Monitoring aim Monitoring objective(s) KPIs used Monitoring method used

To monitor the success of a communications campaign targeting flats in the London Borough of Barnet

To monitor the claimed usage rate of residents provided with the flats recycling service once before the campaign began and again after the end of the campaign.

% usage Survey

To monitor the number of committed recyclers of residents provided with the flats recycling service once before the campaign began and again after the end of the campaign.

% committed recyclers

Survey

To monitor the level of awareness of the flats recycling service found among flat dwellers once before the campaign began and again after the end of the campaign.

% of residents aware

Survey

To monitor the level of usage of specific material containers as part of the flats recycling service once before the campaign began and again after the end of the campaign.

% usage each container type

Survey

To monitor the quantity of recyclable waste collected from the flats recycling service once before the campaign began and again one month after the end of the campaign.

Estimated tonnage

Visual inspection and estimation

3.0 Results The following results were obtained from the monitoring: the number of residents that did not use the service decreased by 10% as a result of the campaign, from

22.2% (pre-campaign) to 12.5% (post-campaign), achieving the campaign objective; the monitoring showed that there was a significant increase in weekly claimed usage of the recycling service

by residents living in flats (from 52% pre-campaign to 71% post-campaign); the campaign objective for claimed usage of material-specific containers was achieved and exceeded for

paper (12% increase), cans (14%) and glass (18%). The other materials (aerosols and foil) showed increases of less than 10%. However, awareness of these materials was very low at the start of the campaign. As a result of the campaign, awareness of aerosols tripled and awareness of foil increased 14 times;

the number of committed recyclers increased, by 6% (from 36.9% pre-campaign to 43.1% post-campaign). The objective of a 10% increase was therefore not reached;

there was an increase in awareness of recycling facilities of 11%, from 81.3% pre-campaign to 92.7% post-campaign, meeting the campaign objective;

inconclusive results were obtained for tonnage monitoring due to not having the facility to weigh the communal recycling bins as they are being emptied into the vehicle.

4.0 Conclusions and implications for the future There was an increase in claimed usage rate of 10% between the pre-campaign and post-campaign surveys, achieving the campaign objective. The claimed usage of residents in different types of housing was analysed. The pre-campaign survey showed that residents of small private, small social and large private sites all had a very similar level of claimed usage (77–79%). Large social sites scored lowest (65%) and sheltered accommodation highest (89%). These results are not surprising, as one might expect residents on the large social sites to feel less ownership and awareness of their facilities given that these are the largest sites in the total population. Conversely one would expect sheltered accommodation sites to score well as in many cases the recyclable materials will be handled by staff on site.

Case studies A1-41

The necessarily crude method used to estimate tonnages collected from the flats recycling service has given inconclusive results. Additionally, it proved to be a relatively time-consuming exercise to convert the visual estimates from the crew into tonnage data. Serious thought should be given to using this method in future projects. In addition, many of the sites that could have demonstrated an increase in tonnage may not have done so because the bins at these sites were already close to capacity. However, the other indicators used for the project (e.g. levels of awareness, number of committed recyclers and claimed usage of each material) showed an overwhelmingly positive outcome. “A key outcome of the tonnage monitoring is that we have been able to identify sites where the recycling bins are regularly full and extra bins are required to meet demand, and facilitate collection of greater tonnage. The installation of these bins will hopefully allow overall tonnages to increase, and particularly further increase the tonnage of paper collected.” (Michael Lai, London Borough of Barnet) 5.0 Contact details Name: Michael Lai Tel: 020 8359 7435 Email: michael.lai@barnet.gov.uk

Case studies A1-42

Case Study: Capture rate monitoring and surveys

Assessing the impact of communications to improve materials capture rates

Northumberland County Council introduced a communications campaign to increase capture rates and participation in its recycling services. The council undertook a monitoring programme to assess the impact of the campaign including using waste analysis for capture rate monitoring, contamination monitoring and committed recycler surveys.

Case studies A1-43

1.0 Introduction Northumberland is the sixth largest county in England by size with a land area of 500,000 hectares, but one of the smallest by population with 310,000 people, including 140,000 households. All six districts in Northumberland have twin-bin schemes in place with alternating weekly collection services. In excess of 95% of properties have this type of service, the balance being offered sack or weekly collections. The materials which are actively promoted as recyclable through the twin-bin schemes vary according to the district and therefore the MRF which accepts it. The three district councils in the north and west of the county (Tynedale, Berwick and Alnwick) treat cardboard as a contaminant, whilst Blyth, Wansbeck and Castle Morpeth promote this material for recycling. All districts promote the recycling of mixed cans, paper, junk mail, catalogues, directories, and plastic bottles. The ‘Doorstepping for Northumberland’ campaign aimed to increase the level of materials recycled through the kerbside service and to reduce the level of contamination of the recyclate. The main area of focus for the campaign was ACORN 5 groups of homes (‘hard pressed’). The campaign included leaflet delivery and face-to-face interviews (14,000 information leaflets were distributed to ACORN 5 homes) and bus advertising. The campaign was also promoted in the local and regional press and the council magazine by way of prize presentations, information articles and advertisements.

The campaign objectives were: to visit 10% of households to reduce contamination and increase participation in recycling among those

residents who receive alternating weekly collections (AWCs), but with particular emphasis on those ACORN groups considered to present the biggest contamination problems and poorest set-out rates for recycling;

to reduce the level of contamination in the recycling bin by 2% by 31 October 2007; to increase capture rates in the recycling bins of the target areas, for paper, cans and plastics by 2% per

material by 31 October 2007; and to increase overall awareness of recycling, as measured by ‘committed recycler’ in the target areas, by 2% by

31/10/2007.

Monitoring was needed to determine how successful the communications activities had been. The council undertook a monitoring programme including contamination, waste analysis for capture rate monitoring and committed recycler surveys. Waste composition analysis was carried out by an external contractor. It was undertaken in June 2007 and October 2007 over the six district council areas, before and after the communications campaign. Three streets with 50 recycling bins and 50 residual bins per district were sampled. The waste was hand-sorted and weights noted for each material collected in the categories required. Capture rates for the recyclable material were calculated. The external contractor that carried out the waste composition analysis also undertook contamination monitoring. Contamination was measured as the number of recycling containers with contaminating materials as a percentage of the total participation rate for that round. A committed recycler survey was conducted by an external contractor before and after the communications campaign. A baseline survey was carried out during May 2007 to monitor the percentage of committed recyclers in the chosen areas prior to any bus adverts, leaflet drops, and doorstepping. The sample areas were all predominantly ACORN 5 type properties, with 1,220 questionnaires completed and all six districts covered. A follow-up survey was carried out during October and November 2007 to monitor the percentage of committed recyclers in the same chosen areas as the pre-campaign survey, with 1,100 questionnaires completed over the six districts. 2.0 Aims and objectives Some of the council’s monitoring aims, objectives and key performance indicators (KPIs) for monitoring the communications campaign, and the monitoring methods they used, are summarised in Table 1.

Table 1 Summary of aims, objectives and KPIs

Case studies A1-44

Monitoring aim Monitoring objective(s) KPIs used Monitoring method used

To monitor the effectiveness of a communications campaign targeting ACORN 5 ‘hard pressed’ residents.

To monitor capture rates in the recycling bins of target areas for paper, cans and plastic once before the campaign (to determine a baseline) and again at the end of the campaign in November2007

% capture Waste analysis

To measure contamination in the recycling collections in the target areas to establish a baseline and again at the end of the campaign in November 2007

% contamination Waste analysis

To monitor the change in committed recyclers in the campaign area as a result of the communications campaign

% committed recyclers

Survey

3.0 Results The results showed: the target of increasing capture rates by 2% in each of the materials (paper, cans and plastics) was not

achieved in all districts; the capture rate for the county averaged out at 68% for the target materials in the pre-campaign sample.

This dropped slightly to 67% in the post-campaign period; the level of contamination in the recycling bins was reduced by 3% by 31 October 2007, exceeding the 2%

target; an average of 30.1% or 0.90kg per household per week (kg/hh/wk) of recycling waste was classed as

contamination pre-campaign. By October / November 2007 (post-campaign), this proportion had dropped to 27.3% or 0.87kg/hh/wk; and

the number of committed recyclers actually reduced during the campaign, from 72% (pre-campaign) to 54% (post-campaign).

Alnwick and Wansbeck districts both showed an improvement and Blyth Valley a very slight improvement, while results for Berwick, Castle Morpeth and Tynedale were lower than previously recorded. The best performing districts both pre- and post-campaign were Berwick, Blyth Valley and Tynedale with a 70%+ capture rate before and after the communications campaign. Capture rates for paper and card in the areas monitored declined by 1.86%. The biggest reduction (7.6%) was in Berwick. The best area was in Blyth Valley, with an increase of 3.43%. The target for increased capture of these materials was only achieved in two of the six districts. The capture rates for plastics in the monitored areas showed a drop of 3.45% between pre- and post-campaign. Again the most disappointing result was in Berwick where material captured fell by 11.07%; the best picture was given by Alnwick District with an increase of 3.06%. The target for increase capture of these materials only achieved in two of the six districts. 4.0 Conclusions and implications for future Of all materials, capture of plastics was the most disappointing. However, this perhaps should not have been a surprise as everyday feedback from customers and enquiries are predominantly about what kinds of plastic should be put in the recycling bin; the doorstep campaign was seen as a good opportunity to clarify that very issue but seems not to have been successful.

When a study was made of contaminants found in a sample of recycling bins from the ACORN 5 streets both in June (pre-campaign) and October (post-campaign), it was observed that there was an overall drop of 1.31% from 25.07% to 23.77%. The largest difference was attributed to black sacks filled with contaminants, followed by glass, plastic trays, etc and putrescibles. Working against those improvements were the problems of an increase shown in non-recycled card and ‘other’ (generally made up of nappies, furniture items, carpets, unrecyclable metals, hazardous waste and small electrical items).

Case studies A1-45

“It was beneficial to carry out monitoring works so that we were able to judge the success of the campaign. An improvement plan is currently being developed which aims to reduce the amount of waste arisings, reduce the waste destined for landfill and increase the material which is recycled by addressing the problems of low capture rates and high contamination of recycling bins.” (Sheila Johnson, Northumberland County Council) 5.0 Contact details Name: Sheila Johnson Tel: 01670 534087 Email: shelia.johnson@northumberland.gov.uk

Case studies A1-46

Case Study: Participation, surveys and tonnage monitoring

Greater Manchester Waste Partnership monitoring communications campaigns

Greater Manchester Waste Disposal Authority and its partners carried out a WRAP funded communications campaign between August 2006 and March 2008 to increase recycling rates throughout the region and to improve performance in low participation areas. Monitoring included participation, surveys and tonnages.

Case studies A1-47

1.0 Introduction Greater Manchester Waste Disposal Authority’s (GMWDA) conducted a communication campaign in 2007 for the whole region. The partnership includes Bolton, Bury, Manchester, Oldham, Rochdale, Salford, Stockport, Tameside and Trafford councils. The campaign consisted of several elements, including bus and press advertising, a new website (www.recycleforgreatermanchester.com) and leaflets at the household waste recycling centres. The main aim was to build on the already successful national RecycleNow communications campaign and take this message across the Greater Manchester area but localising the message to promote the existing recycling infrastructure across this region. The main objectives of the campaign were to: gain an understanding of how well the relevant services are being used; promote the recycling schemes available through face-to-face contact with householders; increase participation and capture rates in low performing areas; increase the level of householder awareness of the range of materials that can be recycled identify issues preventing householders from recycling; improve knowledge and understanding of the region’s HWRCs; and increase recycling levels throughout the region by March 2008.

The partnership supported individual district work, which focused on distinct and identified target audiences. The partnership has come to appreciate from previous campaigns the importance of focused local communications across this diverse region, as they have a greater impact on householders recycling behaviour by targeting hard to reach groups and areas. The partnership approach provided economies of scale on campaigns such as bus advertising and a new website. In addition, each of the districts in Greater Manchester adopted a range of campaign options including bin stickers, bring site signage, door-to-door canvassing, collection calendars, focus groups, new service information leaflets, newsletters, posters, promotional items and roadshows. These were used for a variety of reasons including: to assist with expanding an existing kerbside service; to boost participation; and to target black and ethnic minority (BME) and social landlord areas.

The national iconography was adopted by all of the authorities and previous partnership branding was replaced with Recycle for Greater Manchester branding. Previous partnership campaigns have highlighted that gathering information from different authorities that work to different timescales is very difficult. With the growing emphasis on performance management information, all authorities were involved in developing a realistic and suitable monitoring plan. The monitoring undertaken before and after the communications campaign included participation, committed recycler surveys, usage and catchment monitoring at HWRCs, and tonnages. The participation monitoring was undertaken by external contractors in all areas except Stockport. Each was a standalone activity with sample selection and methods designed to track the effects of the campaign in the target areas (BME, social landlords, and particular collection types eg paper, garden waste, or where collections systems had changed eg from AWC to weekly). The timings of the pre- and post-campaign monitoring varied in each area, to fit with the needs of the campaign and the target population. Pre- and post-campaign HWRC catchment and usage monitoring was undertaken by external contractors. Prior to the pre-campaign monitoring a postcode survey was completed at each HWRC site and the catchment of the site plotted. The number of properties was estimated in each catchment area and a household survey was undertaken face-to-face in the catchment area to determine the usage rate of each site. In Salford, a postal survey was sent to all households, rather than focusing on a pre-determined site catchment. A pre- and post-campaign committed recycler survey was carried out by external contractors for the whole of the partnership area and also in target areas for the communications campaign. Tonnage monitoring for the campaign period was undertaken in all districts either by external contractors or in-house.

Case studies A1-48

2.0 Aims and objectives Monitoring was needed to determine how successful the communications activities had been. The monitoring aims, objectives, key performance objectives (KPIs) and monitoring methods used are summarised in Table 1.

Table 1 Summary of aims, objectives and KPIs

Monitoring aim Monitoring objective(s) KPIs used Monitoring method

used

To assess the impact of communication campaigns across Greater Manchester.

To determine the change in participation rates in the target low participating areas by determining participation rates pre-campaign in November 2006 and January 2008 post-campaign

% participation Participation monitoring

To identify whether the proportion of “committed recyclers” had changed across Greater Manchester from 41% in November 2006 (pre-campaign) by January 2008 (post-campaign).

% committed recyclers

Survey

To establish the catchment area of the HWRCs and to identify whether residents’ usage of the sites increased over the period of the campaign from a pre-campaign baseline of 44% in November 2006 in comparison with January 2009 (post-campaign)

% usage

Survey

To measure tonnages collected for recycling at kerbside and HWRCs across the Greater Manchester area, to determine how the quantity recycled by January 2008 differs against the pre-campaign baseline in November 2006

kg/hh/qtr % recycled

Tonnage monitoring

3.0 Results Using the data from monitoring enabled an assessment to be made of the effectiveness of the communications campaign in the Greater Manchester partnership area. The results showed that: Bolton, Bury, Manchester City, Oldham, Rochdale, Salford and Tameside all reported increased participation in

their target groups. The highest increase was in Bury from 43% to 72%, an increase of 29%, followed by Rochdale (23%) from 16% to 39%, and BME target groups in Oldham (21%) from 37% to 58%, with lower increases in other areas;

the proportion of committed recyclers recorded by the GMWDA went from 41% in November 2006 to 55% in January 2008, an increase of 14%;

GMWDA’s audited recycling rate increased by 6% from 41% in 2006/07 to 47% in 2007/08; the tonnage of waste disposed to landfill decreased by over 100,000 tonnes from 2006/07 to 07/08. The

tonnage of dry recyclate collected almost doubled for the same time period; tonnages of residual waste delivered to household waste recycling centres (HWRCs) decreased and the

tonnage of recyclates such as paper, cardboard, plastic and cans increased in the same period, from 91,243 to 95,116 tonnes, an increase of 4%;

the usage overall of the four HWRCs monitored increased from 44% to 48% over the duration of the campaign. However, the greatest increase at any one site was 8%.

4.0 Conclusions and implications for future The GMWDA is continuing with further county-wide communication campaigns following on from the success of these campaigns. The focus is now on reducing contamination in plastics recycling and also waste prevention. Committed food waste recycler surveys and tonnage monitoring will be used to assess the success of the new Love Food Hate Waste Campaign.

Case studies A1-49

“We have learnt a great deal from the usage survey and it will help us plan future consultation with residents. A self completion survey is not the ideal way to collect this type of data accurately and I would suggest the most reliable way of collecting data and the views of residents is to collect the data at a recycling site or the doorstep where it is easier to talk face-to-face to residents. This method also gives you an opportunity to respond to complaints and offer advice” (Pamela Taylor, Greater Manchester Waste Disposal Authority). 5.0 Contact details Name: Pamela Taylor Tel: 0161 770 1720 Email: Pamela.taylor@gmwda.gov.uk

Case studies A1-50

Case Study: Participation, surveys and tonnage monitoring

Monitoring a countywide communications campaign in Gloucestershire

The Gloucestershire Waste Partnership carried out participation monitoring, committed recycler surveys and tonnage monitoring to assess the impact of the Recycle for Gloucestershire Campaign.

Case studies A1-51

1.0 Introduction Gloucestershire is split into three distinct areas – the Cotswolds, the Forest of Dean and the Severn Vale – each of which has its own characteristics. The county is largely rural in nature with the main urban focus in Gloucester and Cheltenham, although there are a number of market towns throughout the county, including Stroud, Cirencester, Lydney and Tewkesbury. The Gloucestershire Waste Partnership conducted the Recycle for Gloucestershire communications campaign between September 2006 and March 2008 to increase participation in its recycling services. The partnership includes the councils of Cheltenham, Cotswold, Forest of Dean, Gloucester City, Stroud, Tewkesbury and Gloucestershire County Council. The communications campaign consisted of a countywide campaign targeting low-to-medium recyclers including a number of mini campaigns reflecting national themes such as glass recycling at Christmas and ‘Its Cool to Recycle’, which linked recycling to climate change. The other major element of the campaign was door-to-door canvassing in lower performing areas. The campaign activities included collection calendars, information leaflets, district specific and countywide recycling guides delivered to every household, roadshows, updates on the campaign website and recycling champion programmes in Cheltenham and Gloucester. The main objectives for the Recycle for Gloucestershire communications campaign were to; increase waste recycled and composted across Gloucestershire by 3% by March 2008; increase participation rates in dry recycling schemes in low to medium performing areas by 20% by March

2008; increase participation in recycling collections in the lower performing areas to 58% by March 2008; and increase the committed recycler rate to 68% by March 2008.

In the target areas, monitoring included tonnage, participation and a questionnaire survey. The tonnage monitoring was undertaken in-house by each member of the partnership and the data collected quarterly during the campaign period. There were two elements to the participation monitoring. The first was a county-wide study of over 11,000 properties, with two to three rounds selected per district to represent the ACORN profile of the county, which has a prevalence of ACORN categories 1, 3 and 5. The baseline for the monitoring was a previous study undertaken in-house in 2006. The post-campaign monitoring was carried out in early 2008 by an external contractor. There were differences in approach taken between the pre- and post-campaign monitoring. For example, some of the sample sizes in the pre-campaign monitoring were very small, whereas full rounds were monitored post-campaign. Where possible, the same properties were included. The second element of participation monitoring was in lower performing areas. With a sample size of around 7000 properties (approximately 1100 per district), the rounds were selected to represent the target areas in each district. The monitoring was carried out by external contractors in November/December 2006 and repeated in February 2008. The questionnaire survey included checking committed recycler levels against pre-campaign baselines already established for Gloucestershire in September 2006. The survey is conducted annually by telephone. The post-campaign survey was conducted by external contractors in February 2008. 2.0 Aims and objectives Monitoring was needed to determine whether targets set at the beginning of the campaign had been achieved. The monitoring aims, objectives, key performance indicators (KPIs) and monitoring methods used are summarised in Table 1.

Table 1 Summary of aims, objectives and KPIs

Case studies A1-52

Monitoring aim Monitoring objective(s) KPIs used Monitoring method

used

To assess whether targets of the Recycle For Gloucestershire communication campaign had been achieved

To monitor waste recycled and composted across Gloucestershire in March 2008 (post-campaign) to assess whether the 3% increase had been achieved in comparison with a baseline established in September 2006 (pre-campaign)

Tonnages dry recyclables and organics % recycled and composted Kg/hh/yr

Tonnage monitoring

To monitor participation rates in the low to medium target areas in March (2008) against a baseline set in September 2006 (pre-campaign)

% participation Participation monitoring

To establish whether changes in participation in low to medium kerbside areas in March 2008 (post-campaign) had a positive influence on overall participation rates in Gloucestershire, against a baseline county-wide of 71% established in September 2006 (pre-campaign)

% participation Participation monitoring

To measure the proportion of committed recyclers in March 2008 (post-campaign) in comparison with a county-wide baseline of 64% established in September 2006 (pre-campaign)

% committed recyclers

Survey

3.0 Results Using the results of the monitoring enabled an assessment to be made of the effects of the communications campaign on the targeted low to medium recyclers in Gloucestershire and whether the targets set to increase rates of recycling and participation had been achieved. During the campaign there were no service changes. The results showed: the objective to increase the percentage of waste recycled and composted across Gloucestershire by 3% by

March 2008 was exceeded in all districts. Recycling rates increased by as much as 12% in one district; tonnages countywide could not be assessed as there were gaps in the data, however there has been an

overall increase in the kg/hh/yr rate from 133.39 tonnes to 142.79, an 8% increase; the mini-campaigns focussing on materials were successful although the picture was mixed overall - with a

48% increase in glass collections in Cheltenham, can recycling was up 45% in Forest of Dean, paper collection was up 24% in Cotswolds, with lower increases elsewhere;

although the target of a 20% increase in participation in low to medium participation areas was not met, there was a 12% increase from the baseline of 38% pre-campaign to 50% post-campaign;

participation rates appeared to have declined countywide from 71% (pre-campaign) to 66% (post-campaign), but comparisons are problematic as comparable monitoring methods were not used; and

committed recyclers increased from a baseline of 64% in February 2006 to 80% in March 2008.

4.0 Conclusions and implications for the future The target of increasing participation in the low performing areas by 20% was challenging. However, a 12% increase was considered to be a success. A decrease in participation was recorded county-wide, which it is thought is likely to be due to inconsistent methodology. The pre-campaign monitoring was carried out on an ad hoc district by district basis, whereas an external contractor carried out the post-campaign monitoring using consistent methodology and standard sample sizes, and so is likely to be a more reliable result. This is an important result demonstrating the value of ensuring that monitoring methods can be replicated year on year and that consistent methods are used. The annual telephone survey has continued to be carried out and provides a useful insight into non-participation, motivations to recycle, awareness and satisfaction of services and promotional material. The survey results have been used to counter criticism of the countywide direct mail out. A small number of residents questioned direct mail of leaflets and stating that it was a “waste of money and resources”. Survey results were cited, which revealed that receiving information by post was the most popular survey response with 59.0% in 2006 and

Case studies A1-53

61.3% in 2008. It was also noticed that ‘e-mail’ increased from 3.8% to 5% so it is planned to set up an e-mail address database to be administered via the partnership website. Following on from this countywide campaign, the focus of marketing is to support the introduction of service changes in the districts. Monitoring of tonnages will be continued, however, it is not anticipated that participation monitoring will be carried out in the near future due to the expense. However, the Joint Waste Strategy has a target to increase participation to an average of 80% by 2020 so in the future participation monitoring will be used to identify whether this target has been met. “Participation and tonnage monitoring has been very useful to identify whether or not the targets set at the outset of our campaigns have been met. It has enabled us to see where the campaign has achieved most success and where we need to concentrate our efforts in the future.” (David Hughes, Gloucestershire County Council) 5.0 Contact details Name: David Hughes Tel: 01452 425974 Email: david.hughes@gloucestershire.gov.uk

Case studies A1-54

Case Study: Recycling yields, residual arisings, contamination, participation and surveys

Somerset Waste Partnership monitoring of collection trials

Somerset Waste Partnership conducted a series of trials to assess how best to introduce two new materials – cardboard and plastic bottles – to its existing kerbside collection schemes in Somerset. A range of methods was used to measure the performance of the trials including recycling yields, refuse arisings, productivity, contamination, participation rates and a survey.

Case studies A1-55

1.0 Introduction In 2008, Somerset Waste Partnership (SWP) ran a series of trials looking at how best to add two material streams – cardboard and plastic bottles – to its existing kerbside collections in Somerset. This decision followed feedback from members of the public that they wished to recycle these two materials at the kerbside. SWP felt that the service would be greatly enhanced if these materials could be added, but wanted to determine what would be the most affordable and effective way of doing so through a kerbside sort collection system. The trials were launched during the week commencing 19 May 2008 and covered 8,519 households on 13 rounds in Mendip, Sedgemoor and Taunton Deane. The objective for the trials was to select the most cost-effective service package for the introduction of two new materials that was also acceptable to the public. A number of different options were considered for the trials. The main differences between them were: the frequency with which dry materials for recycling were collected (weekly or fortnightly); and collection vehicle arrangements (i.e. how many vehicles were used to collect the different recyclable materials

and what each vehicle collected).

This generated a number of different service combinations, or service packages (see Table 1).

Table 1 Service packages recycling frequencies

Waste stream Service package 2

Service package 3

Service package 5

Food waste Weekly Weekly Weekly Plastic bottles and cardboard Fortnightly Fortnightly Weekly Standard dry recyclables Weekly Fortnightly Weekly

To identify which of the service packages was the most effective, SWP decided on an extensive, multi-method programme of monitoring and evaluation. The monitoring included recycling yields, residual waste arisings, productivity, participation and a questionnaire survey. In addition to monitoring the collections, a carbon assessment of each service package was undertaken by comparing the carbon emissions from estimates of the fuel used by the vehicles delivering each service package and the quantity of carbon dioxide equivalent saved by recycling materials instead of sending them to landfill. The waste contractor monitored tonnages before and after the trial (between April 2008 and September 2008). An external contractor undertook the participation monitoring in two trial rounds in each of the three districts before and after the collection trials (April 2008 and September 2008). The contamination monitoring was undertaken by an external contractor observing and recording contamination during collections and also recording weights of materials put out for recycling. Contamination was determined to be either placing the wrong materials out for collection on the wrong day, or by putting out materials for collection that the recycling service does not accept. The contractor also filmed collection teams in action to compare the productivity of each collection method. A questionnaire survey was designed and analysed by the partnership. The survey was undertaken in July 2008 by distributing the questionnaire to all 8500 households in the trial areas together with a newsletter providing further information and feedback on the collection trials. 2.0 Aims and objectives The monitoring aims, objectives, key performance indicators (KPIs) and monitoring methods used are summarised in Table 2.

Case studies A1-56

Table 2 Summary of aims, objectives and KPIs

Monitoring aim Monitoring objective(s) KPIs used Monitoring method used

To identify the most cost-effective and publicly acceptable way to add two new materials to existing kerbside recycling collection systems in Somerset.

To record and analyse the quantity of material collected on 13 rounds on three occasions pre-trial in April/May2008 and post-trial in September 2008

Tonnage kg per household per fortnight

Weighing (weighbridge tickets)

To record and analyse the quantity of residual waste collected on the 13 rounds on three occasions pre-trial in April/May2008 and post-trial in September 2008

Tonnage kg per household per fortnight

Weighing (weighbridge tickets)

To monitor participation in the kerbside recycling service in each of six rounds (one urban and one rural from each service package) before and after the collection trials (April 2008 and September 2008)

Participation rates

Participation rate monitoring

To assess contamination rates by determining which householders, if any, were participating incorrectly (either by placing the wrong materials out for collection on the wrong day, or by putting out materials for collection which the service does not accept for recycling) before and after the collection trials (April 2008 and September 2008)

Presence or absence of contamination

Contractor observation

To obtain householder feedback via a postal questionnaire to households on the trials distributed with a newsletter in July 2008

% satisfaction with each service package % saying bin sizes were sufficient % suggesting further service improvements

Survey

3.0 Results The following results were obtained from the monitoring: The trial round weights indicated that service package performance was closely linked to collection frequency.

The highest recycling yields were achieved on rounds receiving service package 5 and the lowest yields on rounds with service package 3;

The weight data also showed that, on rounds with service packages 2 and 5, not only was there extra recycling from the additional plastic bottles and cardboard collected, but also from additional recycling of existing materials (paper, glass, cans, food waste, etc). An increase of 0.7 and 0.8 kg per household per fortnight was observed for these ‘standard’ materials. This effect did not occur or was much smaller on trial rounds with service package 3;

The material measurements confirmed that yields of plastic bottles and cardboard were highest with service package 5;

Weights recorded for food waste across all households served increased slightly from service package 3 to service package 2 to service package 5;

Participation levels were measured as being 78 – 97%. Participation was found to be slightly higher on rural rounds than on urban rounds and increased slightly from service package 3 to service package 2 to service package 5;

Recycling rates projected for each service package (with a range covering all Somerset districts) were 45-52% for service package 3, 48-55% for service package 2 and 51-58% for service package 5.

A note was made of how materials were being presented. In some cases, incorrect cross-use of boxes was noted. One in six households put out recyclables alongside their boxes, which is accepted and was encouraged for cardboard in service leaflets. Cardboard was the material most put out alongside boxes, followed by plastic bottles and paper. Service package 2 rounds had a higher proportion of households putting out materials alongside boxes during weeks when both boxes were collected;

Case studies A1-57

Inspections also revealed problems with many households initially putting out non-bottle plastics and, in some cases, cartons for collections and a fair number being confused by fortnightly recycling collection cycles and so putting the wrong materials out on the wrong week;

A total of 3046 completed questionnaires was returned (36% response rate); The overall response to the survey was very positive and encouraging with 77% saying that the trials were

much better or better than the previous system. This figure is an average though with actual results ranging from 69% in service package 3 (SP3) areas to 87% in service package 5 (SP5) areas;

Over 70% of residents (over 80% in SP5) say that they are now recycling more or a lot more; and Residents were generally very happy with the trial collections, and this is reflected in the fact that 42% in

SP5, and over 20% in SP2 and SP3 stated that there was no need to improve the trial collections.

In terms of carbon, service package 5 had the least carbon impacts from emissions and the greatest greenhouse gas savings from recycling. For all three service packages, the carbon benefits of supplying quality recyclables to end markets far outweigh the direct emissions associated with the collection of that material from households. 4.0 Conclusions and implications for the future Information obtained during monitoring helped to make the trial more effective. For example, after noticing that people were contaminating their boxes with non-bottle plastics and cartons, labels were attached to boxes explaining what could go into the container and what could not. Similarly, when the monitoring showed that residents with fortnightly collections were confused about which material was collected on which week, another copy of the collection calendar was provided to those putting out on the wrong week. The monitoring also yielded some unexpected results. For example, it was concluded from the observations made that there may have been a lack of box capacity for some households with service package 2, given how many of them put cardboard out alongside boxes. This may also explain the lower participation and yields on service package 3 rounds, where all dry recycling collections were fortnightly. The following conclusions were reached regarding the cost-effectiveness of the service packages and their acceptability to the public: Service package 5 achieved the best performance and was the most popular service package with residents,

although service package 2 also achieved a good performance and popularity. Service package 5 was identified as the best option and was recommended for adoption.

The survey crew feedback suggested that it would benefit both householders and collection crews if different coloured and better marked boxes were provided for different materials streams. As a result of the trials, it was recommended that the second recycling box provided to householders should be a different colour and pre-printed with materials that can be accepted in it with a sticker provided with a material list for existing boxes.

“Following on from the success of the trials, service package 5 was adopted as our favoured collections option, which is now known as SORT IT PLUS. To be affordable, this also required our collection contractor to develop a new collection vehicle design, based o what they learnt from the trials. The SORT IT PLUS collections have now been introduced in two Somerset districts, who are to be followed by the other three, so this will soon be provided throughout the county as a common collection system. It has also been adopted by several neighbouring authorities. The monitoring of the collection trials gave Somerset Waste Partnership the confidence and knowledge that this service would work well and meet the aspirations of our residents. ” (David Mansell, Somerset Waste Partnership) 5.0 Contact details Name: David Mansell Tel: 01823 625713 Email: david.mansell@somersetwaste.gov.uk

www.wrap.org.uk/local_authorities