GOOD PRACTICE GREECE: DOOR TO DOOR INFORMATION CAMPAIGN

Transcription

1 GOOD PRACTICE GREECE: DOOR TO DOOR INFORMATION CAMPAIGN September 2014

2 Content table 1. General information on the good practice (GP) General information Context Short description Objective Method used to identify the good practice External factors Implementation Preparation phase Technical implementation Communicative implementation Organisations involved Key success factors Resources Results Monitoring of the progress of the GP Other results Lessons learned Negative effects Challenges Pictures and other documentation Further information Other regions with similar good practices GOOD PRACTICES 2

3 1. GENERAL INFORMATION ON THE GOOD PRACTICE (GP) 1.1 General information Region Country Short name of the good practice Geographical level of implementation (country, region, municipality ) Target group Date of implementation/duration Waste stream (and subcategory) Legal framework Main local instruments involved Scale (pilot/partially roll out /roll out) Initiator/coordinator Demography Attiki Greece Door to door information campaign Municipality Households, shops, businesses November 2007 July 2009 / 21 months Packaging, biowaste, batteries, WEEE None Communication / Addressed communication Roll out Population 30,000 Ecological Recycling Society Number of households Approx. 10,000 Area (km²) 20 Population density (number of inhabitants/km²) 1,500 General waste data (Not necessarily related to the GP but to give some background information. Data about the GP should be included under 3.1) Year of the following waste data Sum of all waste streams excl. residual & bulky waste (kg/inhabitant/year) (Use indicator 1 or 2 from the R4R Online Tool) Residual waste (including sorting residues) (kg/inhabitant/year) (Use indicator 8 or 9 from the R4R Online Tool) GOOD PRACTICES 3

4 Total waste (add up the previous two) Sum of all waste streams excl. residual & bulky waste to DREC (kg/inhabitant/year) (Use indicator 3 of the R4R Online Tool) 1.2 Context Ecological Recycling Society (ERS) has implemented information campaigns in Elefsina municipality since 2004 for various reasons, such as a home composting pilot project, environmental education in all municipality s schools and has had good cooperation with the local authorities. Following the need to enhance its recycling levels, the municipality decided to go forward with ERS s suggestion to implement a door-to-door information campaign. The campaign was implemented by visiting the households individually to provide all the available information regarding the recycling facilities of the municipality. 1.3 Short description A number of young citizens from the municipality of Elefsina, most of them students, attended a training seminar organised by ERS. These citizens were then given leaflets and questionnaires and visited the households of Elefsina. They provided information regarding all the available recycling facilities of the municipality and they also recorded the opinion of the citizens regarding the performance of waste management in the municipality. 1.4 Objective The objective of the campaign was to engage the population at a personal level and create a sense of commitment towards the community. The commitment was to participate to all available recycling opportunities given by the infrastructures of the municipality, thus achiving the second objective which was to increase the municipal levels of recycling. 1.5 Method used to identify the good practice The good practice was identified by the evolution of recycling rates of the municipality. GOOD PRACTICES 4

5 1.6 External factors There was no significant impact on the development and results of the practice from an external factor. 2. IMPLEMENTATION 2.1 Preparation phase The preparation phase of the campaign was carefully implemented and consisted of the following steps. 1) A group of young citizens from Elefsina, most of them university students, participated in a series of training seminars about the sustainable management of waste and about public approach techniques. They took part in many simulations in order to be prepared to face each and every kind of situation that might arise during the campaign. 2) The geographic area of the municipality was divided in specific regions and detailed maps were prepared for each on of them. 3) The contact process with each household was defined i.e. the contents of the information to be provided, the type of note to leave on the door if no one was present at the moment of the visit and the pattern of revisiting the households. 4) A questionnaire was prepared, to be filled in during the visit of each household, with the purpose to record the level of awareness and any problems related to waste management in the neighbourhood. 2.2 Technical implementation Following the preparation phase of the campaign, during the implementation phase ERS closely monitored the progress of the project. The questionnaires that were filled in during each visit of a household, were collected weekly and all the data included in them were recorded in excel sheets. The visits were verified by ERS with random phone calls to households that had participated. Moreover, the quality and satisfaction level from the information provided by ERS s employee was recorded. The problems that arose during the implementation were divided into frequently occuring and rarely occurring, and certain ways of dealing with them were defined. One to three visits per household were made, in order to ensure that the household was informed. The information provided contained the following: a) packaging recycling infrastructure, b) availability of free home composting bins by the municipality, c) collection points for WEEE, d) collection points for batteries, e) collection points for construction and demolition waste, furniture and bulky waste etc. The data collected from the questionnaires, when the project finished, were then processed and a final report was produced. GOOD PRACTICES 5

6 2.3 Communicative implementation The good practice itself was a communication activity. The public became aware of the campaign because eventually somebody can to their household to inform them about recycling in Elefsina. 2.4 Organisations involved The organisations that participated in this practice were ERS and the Municipality of Elefsina. 2.5 Key success factors One of the most important key success factors of this good practice was the level of implementation. The number of households that were informed reached 72.18% of the total number which corresponds to about 7,218 households. That is one of the most important reasons for the increased levels of recycling in the Municipality. Another key success factor was the level of professionalism maintained during the whole period of implementation by the monitoring and coordination group in ERS and by the people that were involved in the actual campaign implementation. 2.6 Resources The campaign was fully financed by the municipality. Only recently, that the charging system for sending waste to landfill has been changed, and the municipalities are charged by tone of waste, the economic benefits of the campaign are starting to show. GOOD PRACTICES 6

7 3. RESULTS 3.1 Monitoring of the progress of the GP In the context of cooperation with the municipality of Elefsina and for the preparation of the final report, ERS acquired the packaging recycling rates of the municipality for a period of three years beginning The first data were taken before the campaign. Although there is not a unique link between the implementation of the campaign and the rise of the recycling rates, it is believed that the campaign acted as a very strong force towards recycling. Table 1 that follows shows quantitative data for packaging from 2006 to Month Packaging recycling before the campaign Nov2006 Oct2007 / tn/month (1) Packaging recycling during the 1st year of the campaign Nov2007 Oct2008 / tn/month (2) Packaging recycling during the 2nd year of the campaign Nov2008 Jul2009 / tn/month (3) Change (2) (1)/ tn/month Change (3) (1)/ tn/month NOV 98,58 144,46 205,43 45,88 106,85 DEC 96,62 173,12 210,02 76,50 113,40 JAN 83,28 173,30 215,35 90,02 132,07 FEB 90,87 165,70 173,30 74,83 82,43 MAR 116,96 97,22 200,50-19,74 83,54 APR 129,05 180,80 192,25 51,75 63,20 MAY 138,99 187,59 196,30 48,60 57,31 JUN 138,27 196,28 189,91 58,01 51,64 JUL 134,12 178,16 183,94 44,04 49,82 AUG 101,86 154,04 52,18 SEP 131,98 220,54 88,56 OCT 159,38 232,21 72,83 Total ΝΟV- ΟCT 1.419, Increase of 48,13% compared to (1) 683,46 Total ΝΟV- JUL 1.026, Increase of 72,10% compared to (1) 740, Other results Other results that came along with the implementation of this project were the number of people that were employed during the project, the increased level of awareness that was GOOD PRACTICES 7

8 achieved from the campaign and the environmental benefit from the increased recycling levels of other waste such as batteries, WEEE etc. 4. LESSONS LEARNED 4.1 Negative effects There were no negative effects recorded that were directly linked with the implementation of the campaign. On the contrary, the public opinion regarding this initiative was very positive. 4.2 Challenges An important challenge for this type of initiatives is to maintain the good level of recycling services so as not to disappoint the citizens hope for better environmental quality, especially in an industrial area, as the one Elefsina is located in. Moreover, there are continuity issues that dictate the implementation of follow up campaigns in order to maintain the high level of awareness, as it is well recognised that it is not something to be taken for granted but needs constant support. 5. PICTURES AND OTHER DOCUMENTATION GOOD PRACTICES 8

9 GOOD PRACTICES 9

10 6. FURTHER INFORMATION Organisation Ecological Recycling Society Address Mamai 3 Contact person Stavroula Papatheohari Phone address Website Others GOOD PRACTICES 10

11 7. OTHER REGIONS WITH SIMILAR GOOD PRACTICES The following partners of the R4R-project have a good practice similar to the good practice described in this factsheet: Organisation Address Region Country Contact person: Municipality of Lisbon Rua da Boavista, nº 9, Lisbon PORTUGAL Lisbon Portugal Carla Tamagnini Phone address Website Others Short description of the main differences. carla.tamagnini@cm-lisboa.pt The only difference is the aim of the information. Lisbon s campaigns are essentially about the materials that should be deposited and avoided in each bin, namely for the residual waste, biowaste, paper and cardboard, glass packaging and plastic, metal and multilayer packaging. These campaigns also give information about the days of collection of each type of material, timetable of collection, etc. GOOD PRACTICES 11

12