LIFE+ Up and Forward Project: Case Study B1 Recycling Rewards Area: Bury Date: September 2013 LIFE11 ENV/UK/000389
Contents Page 1. Executive Summary 2 2. Introduction 5 3 Campaign Area 6 4. Demographics & Acorn Data 9 5. The Approach to the Campaign 11 6. Results 20 7. Conclusion 25 8. Key Learning Points 26 1
Section 1: Executive Summary 1. Introduction 1.1 As part of the EU LIFE+ project Greater Manchester Waste Disposal Authority (GMWDA) has carried out a 42 different communications campaigns across nine Districts within Greater Manchester (Bolton, Bury, Manchester, Oldham, Rochdale, Salford, Stockport, Tameside and Trafford). Each campaign has had slightly different focus, targeting sections of the community that have traditionally been hard to reach, making the success of recycling schemes in these areas particularly challenging. This project enabled GMWDA to target smaller groups, generally around 1500 households, with much focused recycling messages. This allowed a variety of communication methods and messages to be piloted and the impact of each to be monitored. The project started in June 2013 and ran until January 2015 across nine Greater Manchester Districts. The project is split into 12 campaigns covering one of the four following themes: a) Households focused on communities in disadvantaged areas; b) Students and Short lets focused on those areas with a high level of rental properties or student rental accommodation; c) Faith and Culture focused on those areas with a strong religious or cultural background; d) Apartments focused on those areas with a high level of low rise or high rise apartments. 1.2 The communication campaign reported on in this case study falls within the deprivation theme and was carried out in the Bury area of Greater Manchester. It aimed to improve recycling rates by operating a community recycling rewards scheme. 1.3 The scheme encouraged residents to present their recycling bins correctly by offering a cash reward to local primary schools. Reward tags were attached to recycling bins of residents that presented their bin on the right day with the right materials inside. Residents were asked to donate their tags to one of the participating local primary schools. At the end of the campaign reward tags were counted and prize money allocated in proportion to the number of tags collected by each school. 1.4 Monitoring the impact of the campaign took place in a variety of ways. The number of households that were actively recycling was monitored and any change in the yield of recyclable materials collected in the area was calculated. Targets were set to increase both the set out rates in the study area and the weight of recyclable waste collected. These targets, and the formula used to set them for all of the GMWDA / EU LIFE+ projects are explained in more detail in the project handbook document. 1.5 The most success was seen with the pulpables waste stream, where the set out rate and weight of materials increased post evaluation. The set out in the commingled waste stream decreased post campaign, although the weight increased by 1.30 tonnes; no firm conclusions can be derived from this. Success was also seen in receiving a lot of support from the two local primary schools that were involved in the project and message delivery. For a relatively small financial investment which included the prizes this campaign was able to reach groups traditionally difficult to 2
engage with on recycling issues, and who may have resisted contact at the doorstep for recycling awareness and educational programmes. 1.6 Recruiting volunteers from the community allowed for improved engagement. The campaign found that residents were more likely to listen and respond to people within their own community. However it was assumed that volunteers would be willing to carry our door step engagement surveys, in reality volunteers preferred to use informal chats and carry our surveys at school gates. 2. Aims of the Campaign 2.1 The aim of this campaign was to support and reinforce kerbside recycling of garden and food waste, cans, plastic bottles and paper/card though a community based reward scheme. 3. Key Facts Key objectives were as follows: a) increase the level of recycling for all of the current materials collected; b) raise awareness of the importance of recycling; and c) embed good recycling behaviour within identified low performing areas by rewarding residents for recycling the correct items and presenting them for collection on the correct day. 3.1 The total cost of delivering the activity was 15,900.51 ( 13,266.78), of which 9,354.98 ( 7,747.78) was personnel costs and 6,545.53 ( 5,519.00) was consumables. GMWDA received 50% towards the total cost of this activity from the EU LIFE+ programme. 3.2 497.5 hours were spent delivering the campaign. 3.3 The campaign was delivered in partnership with Bury Council under a Service Level Agreement (SLA). 3.4 Two local schools were supported by the campaign St Mary s Primary and Gorsefield Primary. 3.5 12 recycling ambassadors were recruited from the local community. 3.6 74 school children attended an educational visit to GMWDA s recycling facilities. 3.7 165 surveys were completed and analysed on recycling behaviour. 3.8 2200 campaign leaflets were distributed within the community. 3.9 38 days were spent by recycling ambassadors on promoting the campaign. 3.10 5500 reward tags were distributed with 4423 redeemed. 3.11 500 prize money was awarded to both schools. 3.12 An increase in tonnage figures was recorded across two waste streams. 3
4. Results 4.1 Monitoring the impact of this campaign took place in a variety of ways. In addition to the level of interest in recycling projects (highlighted by the school participation), the number of households that were actively recycling was monitored and any changes in the yield of recyclable materials collected in the area was calculated. 4.2 Set out monitoring The two weekly set out rate increased for pulpables recycling, but fell for commingled recycling. The two weekly set out rate for organics collections remained consistent pre to post campaign at 20%. 4.3 Weight monitoring The weight of recyclable materials collected increased in two waste streams; the increase was greater for the pulpables (3.76 tonnes) than the commingled (1.44 tonnes). Due to seasonal round changes in the organics collection and a round restructure, the data for this waste stream is not comparable and has therefore not been presented. 4.4 Targets Once the study area was selected, monitoring of set out rates took place and the current weight of waste and recycling collected at the kerbside was established. Targets were set to increase both the set out rates in the study area and the weight of recyclable material collected. The weight of both dry recycling (pulpables and commingled) waste streams increased, and exceeded the set target. Set out rates for pulpables waste increased by 5%, from 59% to 64%, exceeding the set target of 62%. Set out rates for commingled waste decreased by 5%, from 61% to 56%, failing to meet the target set. The organics waste stream set out rate remained consistent at 20% pre to post campaign and therefore failed to meet the target set. 4.5 Volunteer recruitment A group of 12 local volunteers were recruited and trained to work in the community to engage with residents to increase participation in recycling and to encourage them to recycle correctly. 4
Section 2: Introduction 2. 2.1 The recycling rewards campaign is one of 12 campaigns run by GMWDA s Up and Forward project. The campaign was delivered by GMWDA in partnership with Bury Council. It ran for 22 weeks, from August 2013 to December 2014 in Radcliffe, Bury. 2.2 The campaign targeted 2200 households in an area with a poor record for recovering recyclable materials from household waste. To raise awareness of the importance of recycling, embed correct recycling behaviour and increase recycling rates, the recycling message was refocused and moved into the community; delivered through a recycling rewards initiative with the help of local primary schools. 2.3 Although traditional methods of delivering a recycling message were still used the majority of the engagement took place through direct face to face contact in and around the target schools. A team of 12 local volunteers were also recruited and trained to deliver and promote key recycling messages within the community and to raise awareness of the campaign. 2.4 The recycling rewards (golden tickets) were issued on at least two consecutive collection rounds across all three recycling waste streams (pulpables, commingled, organics) to residents who presented their recycling for collection on the right day with the right items inside. 2.5 Residents were asked to donate their golden tickets to one of the participating primary schools. A campaign fund of 1000 was made available and split proportionately according to the number of tickets collected by each participating school. 2.6 It was expected that over the life time of the campaign residents would understand why they were being asked to recycle and then continue to recycle as part of their normal routine. It was also assumed that community volunteers would be willing to commit over a three month period and that by recruiting local people they would have better access to residents that Council workers. This is aligned to behavioural change theory which identifies that the person delivering the message has an important impact on whether people are receptive to it. 5
Section 3: Campaign Area 3. 3.1 The campaign area of Radcliffe in Bury was selected based on the following two data sets: a) weight of waste (tonnages) collected at the kerbside for the various waste streams (to select a waste collection round with a low yield); and b) socio-demographic profile of the area (to select a waste collection round with a high proportion of school age children in a deprived/low income area). It should be noted that for the B1 Bury campaign, an external company (M E L) were commissioned to monitor and evaluate one collection round covering three recyclate waste streams. As the school selected for this campaign encompassed two collection rounds, it was decided that Bury Council would independently monitor the adjoining collection round (pulpables and commingled waste streams only). Therefore the results of both rounds monitored for both dry recyclate waste streams have been combined and presented accordingly. The study area census results presented and discussed refers to the collection round monitored by M E L only, whilst the set out rate and tonnage data collected is a combination of the two collection rounds. B1 Bury study area by output area Radcliffe 6
3.2 About Bury 3.2.1 Bury is one of ten districts in Greater Manchester, England. It lies on the River Irwell, 8.9 km east of Bolton, 9.5 km west-southwest of Rochdale and 12.7 km north-northwest of the city of Manchester. 3.2.2 Bury has a total population of 185,100 where 9% are non-white British. Of the total population 14% live in flat/apartment/maisonette accommodation, 30% terraced, 38% semi-detached, and 18% detached. (Derived from 2011 Census data) 3.3 About Radcliffe (Information from Radcliffe Township Forum Plan 2012-2015) 3.3.1 Radcliffe is located towards the west of the borough of Bury, bordered to the north by Bury West, to the east by Bury East and to the south by Whitefield and Unsworth. It consists of three wards: Radcliffe North, Radcliffe East and Radcliffe West. Radcliffe has an estimated total population of 33,183. 3.3.2 Radcliffe is within the five most deprived areas in the country and the second most deprived Township in the borough of Bury. Radcliffe has 20 lower super output areas (LSOA) with five in the top 25% most deprived in England. 3.4 Household Collection Service (as at 1 December 2014) 3.4.1 Bury Council provides a four weekly household collection service for pulpables (paper/card) and commingled (glass and plastic bottles/aluminium and tin cans). Food and garden waste collected two weekly. Residual waste is collected two weekly. A combination of different containers types (i.e. predominantly wheeled bins but also bags and boxes) are used for the recycling collections, each container is colour coded for a particular waste stream. Operational features of the recycling collections such as collection days, collection frequency and container types are shown in the table below. Table: Bury recycling collections Bury B1 - Recycling collections Waste stream Collection day Collection frequency Containers used for collection Commingled Wednesday Four weekly Blue wheeled bin Pulpables Wednesday Four weekly Green wheeled bin Organics Wednesday Two weekly Brown wheeled bin 3.4.2 Bury s current recycling rate is 46% (the third best rate in Greater Manchester and one of the most improved rates in the country). 3.5 Identifying a low performing collection round. The tonnages provided for the three recyclable waste streams (pulpables, commingled and organics) have been used to estimate the amount of kilograms produced per households for the selected round. 7
3.5.1 MEL monitored round The table below presents the average tonnage of waste materials generated for the selected round in Bury which was monitored by MEL; this is based on the tonnage data provided by the District. Both the pulpables and commingled rounds selected were low yielding, ranking 14 th and 16 th respectively out of the 48 rounds operated by Bury. The organics round selected ranked 8 th out of the 42 rounds operated. Table: Round ranking based on average kg collected per household per collection (MEL monitored round) Waste stream Route/Round Total Kg collected during period No. of collections recorded during period Average Kg Number of collected per properties collection Average kg per household per collection Ranking (where 1 is lowest yeilding) Pulpables Round 3 Wednesday Week 1 117660 12 9805 1662 5.90 14th / 48 Comingled Round 2 Wednesday Week 3 117220 12 9768 1662 5.88 16th / 48 Organic Round 3 Wednesday Week 1/3 221900 24 9246 2175 4.25 8th / 42 3.5.2 Bury Council monitored round The table below presents the average tonnage of waste materials generated for the selected round in Bury; which was monitored and by Bury council independently, this is based on the tonnage data provided by the District. Both the pulpables and commingled rounds selected were low yielding, ranking 3rd and 10th respectively out of the 48 rounds operated by Bury. Table: Round ranking based on average kg collected per household per collection (Bury Council monitored round) Waste stream Route/Round Total Kg collected during period No. of collections recorded during period Average Kg collected per collection Number of properties (average) Average kg per household per collection Ranking (where 1 is lowest yielding) Comingled Wed Blue Round 1 Week 3 110680 10 11068 1995 5.55 10th / 48 Pulpable Wed Blue Round 1 Week 1 116020 12 9668 1995 4.85 3rd / 48 Organics NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 8
Section 4: Demographics and Acorn Data 4. 4.1 ACORN data ACORN data was used to determine the demographic profile of the study area. ACORN is a segmentation tool which categorises the UK s population into demographic types. ACORN combines geography with demographics and lifestyle information, and the places where people live with their underlying characteristics and behaviour, to create a tool for understanding the different types of people in different areas throughout the country. ACORN segments households, postcodes and neighbourhoods into six categories, 18 groups and 62 types. 4.1.1 ACORN profile by category The table below presents the ACORN profile by category and group classifications of the study area and compares this to Greater Manchester as a whole. Almost one third (30%) of households are classified as ACORN 5 Urban Adversity, within this sample, 21% fall into Group O Young Hardship and 9% fall into Group Q Difficult Circumstances. This Group is characterised with higher proportions of younger people and more likely to have single parent households compared to the national average. Areas are more likely to be deprived, with higher levels of unemployment and higher proportions claiming benefits. Almost half (44%) are classified as ACORN 4 Financially Stretched, within this sample, 22% are fall into Group L Modest Means and 11% fall into Group M Striving Families. This Group is characterised by having a mix of families, including singles, couples with children and single parent households. The age profile being younger and incomes being below the national average. Unemployment levels may be above average. Table: ACORN classification of B1 Bury study area (Radcliffe) and Greater Manchester ACORN Classification Count B1 Bury profile Count Greater Manchester profile Count % Count % 1 Affluent Achievers 175 6.3 212,941 18.5 1.A Lavish Lifestyles 0 0 11,111 1 1.B Executive Wealth 157 6 103,091 9 1.C Mature Money 18 1 98,739 9 2 Rising Prosperity 34 1 63,314 6 2.D City Sophisticates 0 0 18,119 2 2.E Career Climbers 34 1 45,195 4 3 Comfortable Communities 522 19 258,428 22 3.F Countryside Communities 0 0 5,987 1 3.G Successful Suburbs 105 4 52,546 5 3.H Steady Neighbourhoods 343 12 109,703 10 3.I Comfortable Seniors 44 2 30,665 3 3.J Starting Out 30 1 59,527 5 4 Financially Stretched 1,229 44 303,715 26 4.K Student Life 0 0 22,982 2 4.L Modest Means 620 22 132,581 12 4.M Striving Families 309 11 82,082 7 4.N Poorer Pensioners 300 11 66,070 6 5 Urban Adversity 833 30 310,023 27 5.O Young Hardship 585 21 112,302 10 5.P Struggling Estates 0 0 83,816 7 5.Q Difficult Circumstances 248 9 113,905 10 6 Not Private Households 0 0 1,651 0 9
4.1.2 Age profile and family structure As the campaign focused on school going children, specifically at primary school age, the age profile of the area was assessed. The table below shows the age profile of the study area and compares this to Greater Manchester as a whole. Whilst it has a very similar profile to the complete Greater Manchester area, just over a fifth (21%) of the population of the study area fell into the 0-15 age group. While 21% fell into the 30-44 age groups, this proportion is more likely to have primary age children. Table: Age profile of B1 Bury study area and Greater Manchester Age B1 Bury profile (%) Greater Manchester profile (%) 0-15 21 20 16-19 5 5 20-24 7 8 25-29 8 7 30-44 21 21 45-59 19 19 60-64 6 6 65+ 14 15 The table below presents the family profile of the study area, 51% of households have dependent children, again this is a very similar profile to the Greater Manchester area as a whole. Table: Family profile of B1 Bury study area and Greater Manchester Family profile B1 Bury profile Greater Manchester (%) profile (%) Family with no dependant children 49 49 Couple family with dependant children 34 35 Single parent with dependant children 17 16 Total 100 100 4.2 In summary, based on the information collated above, the round selected for the Bury Recycling Rewards campaign was low yielding and met the objectives of the campaign with a high proportion of school age children and a high percentage of households with primary school children living in them. 10
Section 5: The Approach to the Campaign 5. 5.1 The campaign employed two members of staff, a Campaign Officer from the GMWDA and an Outreach Worker from Bury Council s Recycling Team. 5.2 Following the selection of the target area (see section 3), monitoring of set out rates took place and the current weight of waste and recycling collected at the kerbside was established. Targets were then set to increase both the set out rates in the study area and the weight of recyclable waste collected. 5.3 The main target group for this campaign was households with primary school age children. Families with children tend to be better recyclers, therefore, it was assumed low income families (with children) would be an effective 'quick win' route to increase recycling rates in poorly performing deprived areas. The campaign therefore looked to encourage people to recycle more and accurately through a rewards scheme in support of two local primary schools within the target area: St Mary s Primary and Gorsefield Primary. 5.4 The delivery of the campaign followed three set phases: research, engagement and behavioural change, with pre and post monitoring occurring before and after the main campaign periods. 5.5 Research period 5.5.1 Engaging with local schools Project Officers engaged with the two local primary schools in the area, Gorsefield Primary and St Mary s Primary, to encourage participation in the scheme. With both schools on-board, regular meetings were held with Headteachers and key members of staff throughout the campaign. 5.5.2 Identifying local businesses to act as collection points Local businesses were approached in the area to act as key collection points for residents to donate their golden tickets. Photograph: Collection boxes at ASDA Radcliffe 11
5.5.3 Volunteer recruitment packs To aid in volunteer recruitment, welcome packs and promotional literature were designed and produced containing contact details of the Project Officer. 5.5.4 Identify dates for reward tagging Working with Bury Council s Waste Management team, a schedule was agreed for the reward tagging of all three recycling bins on at least two set out occasions. 5.6 Engagement period 5.6.1 Recruiting volunteers To involve the community further and to gain better access to residents, Project Officers looked to recruit a team of recycling ambassadors to aid in campaign promotion. Recruitment of recycling ambassadors was undertaken with the help of both schools. Headteachers were able to identify possible volunteers through existing groups and knowledge of parent helpers. Adverts for ambassadors were also placed via Bury volunteering centre (B3sda) and the environment jobs website. A total of 12 ambassadors were recruited to the campaign and trained in recycling and door step engagement. Ambassadors also visited the recycling facilities at Sharston Manchester as part of their training. Volunteers were asked to carry out pre-campaign surveys and act as community waste advisors for residents during the campaign. Image: Recycling ambassador visit to Sharston Education Centre 5.6.2 Recycling behaviour surveys As part of the campaign a research company was commissioned to design and analyse a survey on residents recycling to: 12
a) examine attitudes towards recycling; b) measure residents recycling behaviour; c) explore the levels of understanding; and d) identify the main motivators/inhibitors. Project Officers, recycling ambassadors and volunteer pupils undertook surveys at the school gates at home time. This allowed for the capture of a high number of parents. Surveys were also sent home via the pupils from both schools. A total of 165 surveys were completed and analysed. The results of the survey (see 6.1) allowed Project Officers to better understand current recycling behaviour. The key outcomes then formed the basis for the development of the campaign to promote correct recycling behaviour through the recycling rewards campaign. Photograph: Recycling surveys at Gorsefield Primary School Photograph: Recycling surveys at St Mary s Primary School 13
5.6.3 Campaign materials Campaign materials were a key part of the campaign and were developed through focus groups to ensure they appealed to families. Schools selected two pupils, one from each school, to be the face of the campaign and their photograph was used on all campaign materials. Photographs: Ellie and Jack The face of the campaign Campaign materials produced were: a) reward tags were developed in the form of a Golden Ticket; and b) an A5 leaflet explaining the campaign was produced and posted door to door to the 2,200 targeted households. The leaflet included clear information about how to take part and where to return the tickets. Images: Promotional leaflet and golden ticket 5.6.4 Assemblies Each school hosted a recycling assembly delivered by the education team at Recycle for Greater Manchester and Project Officers. The assembly followed a fun who wants to be a binnionaire theme followed by an 14
introduction to the campaign. Pupils were encouraged to tell their friends, family and neighbours about the campaign and how to recycle correctly. Photograph: School recycling assembly 5.6.5 Making of collection boxes To encourage children to take part in the campaign, each school was asked to make five golden ticket collection boxes. Collections boxes were brightly decorated in a recycling theme and clearly stated the name of the school. Collection boxes were placed at the school and four identified locations in the community as follows: a) Asda Radcliffe; b) Tesco Express, Water Street; c) Radcliffe Leisure Centre; and d) Radcliffe Library. Photographs: Making of collection boxes St Mary s Primary 5.6.6 School Councillors A fun activity was delivered by Project Officers to discuss recycling and the campaign. School councillors were asked to be ambassadors for the campaign and help to promote it to friends, families and neighbours. 15
5.6.7 Educational visit Both schools attended the recycling education centre at Sharston, Manchester. Children were shown the correct way to recycle through hands on activities and received a tour of the facilities. It was envisaged that by educating the children they would educate their families, friends and, neighbours on how to recycling correctly. 5.6.8 Attendance at event Prior to the campaign commences Project Officers attended various events to promote recycling and the campaign including St Mary s summer fair and a combined school sports day. Image: Promoting the campaign at St Mary s summer fair 5.7 Behavioural change To reach the wider community several methods of communication were used: 5.7.1 Community engagement Recycling ambassadors engaged with residents to promote the rewards scheme in their local neighbourhood and carried out informal chats at school. Project Officers went door to door over three days to promote the scheme and tackle recycling issues identified as part of the surveys and problems identified from the initial bin tagging. 5.7.2 Campaign leaflets 5.7.3 Events Leaflets promoting the campaign (see 5.5.3 b) were delivered door to door to the 2200 targeted households by Project Officers. An awareness raising day was held a local supermarket in the heart of the community. 16
Photograph: Campaign promotion ASDA Radcliffe 5.7.4 Press coverage This was seen as an important media anchor to further instil and disseminate the recycling message. The campaign received significant coverage in local press, and was promoted on the Up and Forward website. 5.7.5 Banner competition A design a recycling banner competition was implemented at both schools. In 17
addition schools were asked to display a Bury Council recycling banner along with the campaign banners created. 5.7.6 Recycling vehicle visit Each school received a visit from one of Bury Council s Recycling Vehicles. The visit included a question and answer session with members of Bury Council s Waste Management team and bin crew. 5.7.7 The rewards scheme The rewards scheme ran over an eight weeks period to allow for the tagging of the three identified waste stream twice. Over the campaign period every uncontaminated recycling bin put out for collection on the correct collection day was tagged with a Golden Ticket. Tagging was undertaken By Bury Council s Waste Management Team and Project Officers. Recycling bins that were found to have the wrong materials inside were given a contamination sticker and an appropriate recycling information leaflet was left for the household. Streets that were identified as having a higher than normal contamination levels were targeted door-to-door by project Officers. 18
The reward tags could be dropped off at the schools or at designated drop off points in the community. There were four collection points in the local community including two local supermarkets, a leisure centre, and library. All collected rewards were returned to the local council for counting and prize money was proportionally allocated depending on the number of rewards collected per school. The reward scheme funds were presented at a school assembly at the end of the campaign. Special guest star Actor Will Ash presented the prize cheque. Image: Will Ash presenting the prize cheque 19
Section 6: Results 6. 6.1 Surveys (pre campaign) 6.1.1 Attitudes towards recycling An overwhelming 92% felt that they were good recyclers and 87% expressed a willingness to take part in the recycling rewards competition to benefit local primary schools. 6.1.2 Recycling behaviour Paper/cardboard, glass bottles/jars and plastic bottles were recycled by almost all households, with high levels of recycling seen generally. The number of residents recycling the wrong items in the commingled waste stream was found to be high. 61% recycled margarine/butter tubs, 55% yoghurt pots, 53% plastic bags. On exploring the frequency of use of kerbside collection services, it was encouraging that most households put out each bin every time. 6.1.3 Understanding On being asked which bin they were supposed to put different items in, 87% to 93% identified the correct colour bin to the identified waste stream. 6.1.4 Motivators/inhibitors On exploring the barriers to recycling, a high level of non-response was evidenced, but some felt that the bins were not collected enough. Overall, the key motivator for residents recycling was their concern for the environment (79%), with doing their bit also notable (61%). 6.2 Participation monitoring Set out rate monitoring took place pre campaign and post campaign to enable any changes to be monitored. The post campaign monitoring was carried out in December 2013 and January 2014 by an outside consultancy. This meant monitoring would be able to show any immediate responses to the campaign, but not track any long term embedded behaviour changes. Waste streams monitored were pulpables, commingled and organics. 20
6.2.1 Pulpables The baseline two weekly set out rate was 59%, this means that 59% of households set out their green wheeled bin at least once during the two monitoring weeks. During the post monitoring period the two weekly set out rate increased by 5%, from a baseline of 59% to 64%, increasing above the set target. Pulpables round Pre Post Set out week 1 Set out week 2 2 Weekly set out rate Set out week 1 Set out week 2 2 Weekly set out rate Set out Green wheeled bin 637 611 805 693 745 873 % 47% 45% 59% 51% 55% 64% Total 1359 1359 6.2.2 Commingled The two weekly set out rate decreased by 5%, from a baseline result of 61% to 56% post campaign, failing to reach the set target. Comingled round Pre Set out week 1 Set out week 2 2 Weekly set out rate Set out week 1 Set out week 2 2 Weekly set out rate Set out Blue wheeled bin 666 604 815 615 580 739 % 50% 46% 61% 46% 44% 56% Total 1326 1326 Post 6.2.3 Organics The organics waste stream set out rate stayed the same at 20%, failing to meet the target set. Although the performance of this round is very low, the decrease is understandable due to the time periods the monitoring was carried out. The pre monitoring was carried out in spring/summer and the post in the winter, therefore this would although for seasonal variations in set out of the organics. Organics round Set out week Set out week 2 Weekly set Set out week Set out week 2 Weekly set 1 2 out rate 1 2 out rate Set out rate overall (brown wheeled bin/brown food waste bin) 138 114 180 121 116 178 % 15% 13% 20% 14% 13% 20% Excess overall 0 0 0 0 0 0 % 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Set out brown wheeled bin 138 114 180 95 83 137 % 15% 13% 20% 11% 9% 15% Excess 0 0 0 0 0 0 % 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Set out brown food waste bin 0 0 0 27 33 44 % 0% 0% 0% 3% 4% 5% Excess 0 0 0 0 0 0 % 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Total 895 895 Pre Post 6.3 Tonnage data A targeted increase of 1.5% was set for pulpables and commingled recycling, with a higher rate of 6.5% projected for organics recycling. The levels of collected pulpables rose by 33.51% or 3.76 tonnes after the campaign reaching 14.96 tonnes, exceeding the targeted increase of 0.86 tonnes. The levels of collected commingled recycling rose by 9.83% or 1.30 tonnes after the campaign reaching 14.48 tonnes, exceeding the targeted increase of 1.30 tonnes. 21
Due to seasonal round changes in the organics collection and a round restructure, the data for this waste stream is not comparable and has therefore not been presented. Table: Pre and post tonnage data and targets for Bury B1 recycling rewards Pulpables Commingled Pre campaign tonnages 11.21 13.18 collected Targeted % Increase 7.66% 6.30% Targeted tonnage increase 0.86 0.83 Target tonnage 12.06 14.01 Post Campaign Collection 14.96 14.48 Tonnage Tonnage Change 3.76 1.30 % Change 33.51% 9.83% % of tonnage target achieved 124.01% 103.32% The graph below presents the tonnes of recyclate collected for each collection and also provides an average for pre and post campaign. 6.3.1 Pulpables A collection target of 12.05 tonnes was set for the pulpables waste stream. The tonnages of pulpables recycling increased following the campaign from 11.21 tonnes to 14.96 tonnes, with the tonnage target being exceeded. 22
Graph: Average tonnes collected pre to post campaign with target - pulpables 6.3.2 Commingled A collection target of 14.01 tonnes was set for commingled waste stream. The tonnages of commingled recycling increased from 13.18 tonnes to 14.48 tonnes, exceeding the target set. Graph: Average tonnes collected pre to post campaign with target commingled 6.4 Golden tickets 5500 reward tags were distributed throughout the campaign period with a total of 4423 redeemed. 2195 from Gorsefield Primary and 2228 from St Marys Primary. The 1k prize money was therefore evenly distributed with both schools receiving a cheque for 500. 23
6.5 Contamination levels Contamination levels were monitored using Bury Council s in cab technology. Contamination levels fell in all three waste streams as identified in the table below: Waste Stream Pre campaign contamination Post campaign contamination Pulpables 12 4 Commingled 14 8 Organics 3 2 6.6 Staff costs / time (2013 conversion rate) ( ) ( ) Hours Project Support Officer 52.44 43.43 3.25 Campaign Officer 6,482.54 5,368.83 291 Outreach Worker 2,820.00 2,335.52 203.25 TOTAL 9,354.98 7,747.78 497.5 6.7 Cost of campaign materials / ambassador training Description ( ) ( ) Ambassador training 352.11 291.00 A5 Promotional leaflets 665.50 550.00 Reward tags (Golden Tickets) 2202.20 1820.00 Sorry we missed you cards 26.62 22.00 Laminated ID badges (Ambassadors) 22.99 19.00 Reward prize fund 1210.00 1000.00 School trips to the education centre 453.75 375.00 Ambassador trips to the education centre 193.60 160.00 Other 1551.22 1282.00 TOTAL 6,677.99 5,519.00 6.8 Cost per head (including personnel costs) ( ) ( ) 7.29 6.03 6.9 Cost per head (excluding personnel costs) ( ) ( ) 3.04 2.51 24
Section 7: Conclusion 7. 7.1 The campaign met the objectives of being community-led with support received from two local primary schools and the recruit of 12 resident volunteers. Both schools found the campaign to be extremely rewarding, particularly in the education of children on recycling and the use of a financial rewards incentive. The campaign showed a high level of awareness and enthusiasm for the collection of golden tickets. The campaign had the potential to tag over 9,000 recycling bins during the eight week campaign period. In total, 5500 reward tags were distributed with a total of 4423 redeemed. Other schools in the local area have shown an interest in the campaign and would be willing to take part in a similar scheme. 7.2 The campaign resulted in an increase in the weight of recyclable materials collected and mixed results for set out rates. The weight of recycling collected in both dry recyclate waste streams (pulpables and commingled) increased. However, the set out rates only increased for the pulpables recycling waste streams (from 62% to 70%) and fell for the commingled waste streams (from 65% to 54%). The set out of the organics waste stream remained consistent pre to post campaign. It is difficult to say why the set out rates decreased by 11% for the commingled waste stream, whilst the weight of materials collected increased. The time of the monitoring for the post intervention monitoring may have had some impact. Some of the monitoring took place during late December and early January so will have been affected by the Christmas holiday when recycling behaviour and the types and weight of materials householders have to dispose of is different to other times of the year. It is good practice to avoid the 2 weeks before and after Christmas to avoid this holiday season impacting on the results. However, this was not possible with the Bury B1 campaign. It is also worthwhile noting that contamination levels were higher and more noticeable in the commingled waste stream pre campaign. The main problem identified was incorrect plastics being placed in the recycle bin including plastic yoghurt pots, butter tubs, plastic bags and plastic food trays. Pre and post monitoring shows a reduction in contamination across which could account for the decrease in tonnages. 7.3 A high level of press activity was recorded throughout the campaign increasing the awareness and importance of household recycling in Bury. A local supermarket joined the campaign through its own Community Champions Scheme, which gained additional media coverage and raised awareness of the campaign. 7.4 In summary, the campaign successfully educated the local community in correct recycling behaviour through a variety of activities in particular the education of children who took their knowledge home to friends, family and neighbours. For a relatively small financial investment (which included the prize fund) the campaign was able to reach groups traditionally difficult to engage with on recycling issues. 25
Section 8: Key Learning Points 8. 8.1 A key contributor to the success of the campaign was the commitment of both schools involved and the ability to instil a competition element to encourage children to take part. 8.2 To improve participation in future campaigns consideration could be given to introducing a guilt factor whereby residents who do not participate are given a red ticket or similar. 8.3 Recruiting volunteers from the community allowed for improved engagement. The campaign found that residents were more likely to listen and respond to people within their own community. However it was assumed that volunteers would be willing to carry our door step engagement surveys, in reality volunteers preferred to use informal chats and carry our surveys at school gates. 8.4 Careful consideration needs to be given to the target area. To measure the recycling rate in the most economical way waste vehicle collection weights were used. However, recycling and residual waste collection rounds cover a different number of properties so did not match exactly. It was therefore necessary to draw a boundary and exclude some properties from the calculation. 8.5 The campaign encountered minor problems with children taking tags of bins to take to their own school. Both schools were asked to address this issue at their school assemblies. 8.6 It is suggested that participation monitoring is not the best indicator of success due to seasonal variations in pre and post monitoring periods. 26