Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections Defra Waste & Resources Evidence Programme (WR0209 ) Technical report
March 2010
Contents
1 Introduction and methodology 1 1.1 Overview of the research programme 3 1.2 Methodology 5 2 Current coverage of food waste collections in the UK 9 2.1 Domestic food waste arisings 9 2.2 Authority and household coverage 10 2.3 Issues to consider in the design of food waste collections 11 2.4 Trends in food waste collections 14 3 Collection services in the case study areas 15 3.1 Brief description of the food collection service in each area 15 3.2 Monitoring and performance data 20 3.3 Perceived socio-demographic and housing variations 26 4 Survey context: population characteristics and profile of respondents 29 4.1 The case study areas 29 4.2 Profile of respondents in the householder research 31 4.3 General attitudes towards the environment 34 4.4 Attitudes and behaviour to dry recycling 35 4.5 Home composting 37 4.6 Disposal of garden waste in mixed collections 40 4.7 Bins 41 5 Participation in food waste collections 44 5.1 Overall participation 44 5.2 Variations by urban density and housing type 52 5.3 Variations by population characteristics 54 5.4 Recognition of materials accepted in the food waste collection 57 5.5 What is being recycled in food waste collections? 61 6 In-home logistics of food waste recycling 68 6.1 Initial separation – general strategies 68 6.2 Interim storage indoors – caddies and improvised containers 70 6.3 Wrapping of food waste put into the collection bin 74 6.4 Use of caddy liners 77 7 Motivations and barriers 86 7.1 Understanding of why Councils collect food waste 86 7.2 Underlying attitudes towards food recycling 89 7.3 Motivations for participation 98 7.4 Barriers to participation 104 7.5 Suggestions for enhancing participation – unprompted responses 112 7.6 Suggestions for enhancing participation – reactions to prompted statements 121 8 Response to communications 130 8.1 Awareness and reaction to communications 130 8.2 Desire for more information 136
Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections | A report for Defra
9 Conclusions and implications 141 9.1 Conclusions 141 9.2 Implications and ideas for further work 144 10 Annex 1: Sounding Board 149 11 Annex 2: Local authorities interviewed 150 12 Annex 3: Survey topline results 151 13 Annex 4: summary of topic guide 174 14 Annex 5: Bibliography 176
© Brook Lyndhurst 2010
This report has been produced by Brook Lyndhurst Ltd under/as part of a contract placed by Defra. Any views expressed in it are not necessarily those of Defra. Brook Lyndhurst warrants that all reasonable skill and care has been used in preparing this report. Notwithstanding this warranty, Brook Lyndhurst shall not be under any liability for loss of profit, business, revenues or any special indirect or consequential damage of any nature whatsoever or loss of anticipated saving or for any increased costs sustained by the client or his or her servants or agents arising in any way whether directly or indirectly as a result of reliance on this report or of any error or defect in this report.
This research was commissioned and funded by Defra. The views expressed reflect the research findings and the authors’ interpretation. The inclusion of or reference to any particular policy in this report should not be taken to imply that it has, or will be, endorsed by Defra.
March 2010
Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections | A report for Defra
1 Introduction and methodology
This is the Technical Report for the Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections- household behaviour and motivations project commissioned by Defra (WR0209). The Technical Report provides additional detailed findings to support the main findings presented in the Final Project Report to Defra. In particular, it provides an analysis of extensive consumer research (qualitative and quantitative) conducted in six case study areas. A separate international review completes the set of reports from this research project.
The research team The work was commissioned in late 2006 from a research team led by Brook Lyndhurst with partners Waste Watch and the Resource Recovery Forum. Other contributions were made by consultant Jennie Rogers (data on coverage of collections), ICM (survey fieldwork) and Viewpoint Field (recruitment for focus groups).
In addition, the project team recruited a Sounding Board who are expert in either delivering food waste collections, waste sector research, and/or advising Defra on waste issues. The Sounding Board acted as ‘critical friend’ and source of expert knowledge at key points in the project1. The six case study authorities, too, made a valuable contribution to the project by taking part in interviews, supplying data and providing information in response to the team’s many enquiries. We are very grateful to both the Sounding Board and the authorities for their considerable help and support.
Objectives The overarching objective of this project was to build evidence on:
How householders respond to the provision of food waste collections; How their response varies across socio-demographic groups and housing situations; How service design affects behaviour; Which participation barriers need to be addressed through communications; Lessons from existing practice in the UK and overseas.
The project ran from October 2006 to March 2008, with the majority of the primary data collection and analysis being completed between April 2007 and December 2007. The results should help local authorities, Defra and strategic agencies (e.g. Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP), the Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) identify what action can be taken in order to maximise public engagement in food waste recycling. The research is timely because local authorities will increasingly need to reduce/divert food waste in order to meet their landfill targets for bio-degradable waste, and public engagement will be a key factor in whether they are successful.
Definitions and scope of the research Throughout the report we have used the term “food waste”, instead of the original term “kitchen waste”, since it became clear early on that this phraseology made more sense to practitioners and public alike. For the same reasons the report tends to refer to “food waste recycling” rather than “composting” (except where reference is made to home composting, of course).
1 Sounding Board membership is shown in Annex 1.
March 2010 1 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections | A report for Defra
The report also refers to two different kinds of food waste collection systems which are defined as follows. “Mixed food and garden waste (mixed FGW)” is used to refer to collections where food and garden waste are collected mixed together but in a separate ‘organics’ bin. “Food-only” refers to collections where food waste is collected on its own in a separate bin. In both cases, residents are allowed to put food waste into their residual or ‘ordinary’ bin but the separate bin is provided to encourage them to recycle food which the authority can then compost in a central treatment facility. ‘Food-only’ collection areas tend to charge for garden waste collections where this service is provided.
The research focused on consumer/household perspectives on food waste collections. Scheme characteristics and operational issues are covered only to the extent that they could affect householder perceptions and behaviour. More detailed examination of scheme design considerations is available in WRAP Rotate’s guidance note Food Waste Collection Guidance (2009) and Eunomia’s, Dealing with Food Waste in the UK (2007).2
At the same time as this study was underway, WRAP (funded by Defra) was supporting 21 authorities in trials of food waste collections. These trials identified how much material can be captured through food- only organics collections, and the key operational characteristics which underpin scheme performance. Unlike our work, the WRAP study did monitor participation and material capture but focused less on consumer perspectives. The two studies are therefore complementary in many ways and readers would be advised to consider the results from the WRAP study alongside our work.3
The remainder of the Introduction provides an overview of the research programme and details of the research methodology. The report proper begins with contextual information on kitchen waste collection provision - in the UK generally and the six case study areas specifically - before moving on to present the household research findings on attitudes, participation, motivations, barriers and communications. The report concludes with the project team’s interpretation of the implications for services and communications.
2 Food Waste Collection Guidance, WRAP Rotate, November 2009 and Dealing with Food Waste in the UK, Eunomia (Hogg, D., Barth, J., Schleiss, K. and Favoino, E.), March 2007. 3 http://www.wrap.org.uk/downloads/Evaluation_of_the_WRAP_FW_Collection_Trials_Update_June_2009.47f5 4e9b.7271.pdf
March 2010 2 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections | A report for Defra
1.1 Overview of the research programme
The research involved seven distinct phases:
1. Scoping – a review of UK & overseas practice4; data on UK coverage of food waste collections. 2. Lessons from practice - 32 telephone interviews with local authorities. 3. Case study background – visits to the six case study authorities and background data gathering on service characteristics and performance. 4. Household research – 12 qualitative discussion groups with users and non users of the food collection (2 in each case study area). 5. Household research – a quantitative survey with 4,431 households in the study areas. 6. Analysis and synthesis – analysis, report drafting and initial dissemination to policy and practice stakeholders. 7. Dissemination – presentation at various food waste and resource conferences, including one organised by the RRF, WRAP and Brook Lyndhurst in November 2007. Report publication on Defra’s website.
Each element fed into subsequent phases. The flow chart in figure 1 shows how the different elements joined up, and the contribution made by the Sounding Board throughout.
4 The international review is provided as a separate report.
March 2010 3 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections | A report for Defra
Flowchart of research process
Figure 1 – Flowchart of research process
Issues Scoping Paper Reviewing: Published participation/attitudes studies Data and analysis on current UK Operational issues Schemes (February 2007) Overseas experience
First Sounding Summaries to Interviews with 32 LAs Board Meeting Sounding Board
Criteria for case study selection
Project team short-list selection of six case studies & Sounding Board long list including all 79 LAs collecting food waste
Second Sounding Board meeting to review
Case study areas finalised Issues for primary research
Qualitative research Case study research
Quantitative surveys Feedback to LAs
Interim report
RRF/WRAP Food, Consumers & Resource Efficiency Conference Third Sounding Board Meeting with LAs
Meeting WRAP
Final report
Dissemination
March 2010 4 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections | A report for Defra
1.2 Methodology
1.2.1. Scoping Initial scoping work brought together both practice and research evidence which was used to inform the design of the rest of the study. It involved a review of the state of play in food waste (FW) collections in the UK and overseas. The main findings from the scoping work are incorporated in chapter 2.
1.2.2. Lessons from practice Phase 2 which followed consisted of telephone interviews with 32 authorities that were collecting kitchen waste as at the end of 2006.5 The project budget allowed for interviews with 30 local authorities (LAs) which, at the time of preparing the proposal (May 2006), was understood to be the number with kitchen waste collections (based on a background briefing note on biowaste prepared for Defra by Open University). As shown in section 2, the situation was changing rapidly so that by March 2007 (when interviews were conducted) more than 80 authorities were running food waste collections or trials.
The criteria used for selecting the 30 authorities to interview were the following:
Urban and rural representation Regional representation in proportion to regions’ share of UK schemes Different household types Representation of authorities with high density/high rise housing Representation of WRAP trials Longevity of scheme Culturally and ethnically diverse authorities Collection frequency Collection type (mixed FGW or food-only) Number of households covered by scheme
The telephone interviews enabled us to learn first-hand what local authorities (LAs) perceive as the factors which encourage or deter participation. The findings from this element informed the selection of case studies areas and fed into the design of the household research.
Phase 2 also identified the extent to which tonnage, participation or compositional data were available for existing FW collection schemes; this was a key criterion which guided the selection of case study areas. These case study areas were then the focus for the main elements of this project.
1.2.3. Selection of case study areas and background research Pen portraits of the food waste collection in each authority interviewed were circulated to the Sounding Board along with an outline of six suggested case study areas and a detailed spreadsheet summarising the key features of the 79 LAs then found to be collecting kitchen waste.
5 A list of the LA contacted can be found in Annex 2.
March 2010 5 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections | A report for Defra
After detailed discussions with the Sounding Board, the final selection of case study areas was as follows:
London Borough of Bexley Cambridge City Council Fenland District Council London Borough of Hackney Taunton Deane Council Weymouth & Portland Borough Council
These areas were selected because they best fit the following criteria:
Availability of monitoring data – there was a preference for those Local Authorities who had been interviewed over the telephone in phase two of this project because we had established the extent of the data they had; Scheme maturity; Coverage of socio-demographic groups & housing types - 3 urban areas were selected, 3 rural/mixed and some with householders in flats (encompassing both city centres flats and remote rural properties); Permutations of food waste collection scheme characteristics - 3 areas with food only collections and 3 mixed FGW; Range of materials collected. On the advice of the Sounding Board schemes only collecting uncooked fruit and vegetable, often mixed with garden waste, were excluded on the basis that they did not offer the greatest diversion potential; Permutations of collection frequency – the following were selected: o 2 schemes with weekly collections of both organic & residual waste; o 2 schemes with weekly organic collections and fortnightly residual collections; o 2 schemes offering Alternate Weekly Collections (AWC), alternating between organic and residual waste; and Number of households covered – a minimum of 10,000 to 15,000 participating households were needed to generate the required sample size for the quantitative survey phase of the research.
Waste Watch prepared a detailed account of the characteristics of the schemes in operation in each local authority together with a summary of existing performance data. Information about service characteristics informed the content of the household research, as did the findings from the scoping phase.
1.2.4. Household research - qualitative The qualitative phase consisted of 12 discussion groups, two in each area, one for users and one for non users. Lapsed and ‘occasional’ users were included in the non user groups. The group discussions lasted approximately 120 minutes, and there were between seven and ten participants in each discussion group. The topic guide took on board findings about motivations and barriers that had been identified in the scoping work (Annex 4).
March 2010 6 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections | A report for Defra
Discussion group participants were recruited according to Brook Lyndhurst’s specification by Viewpoint Field according to Market Research Society rules, through door-knocking in the relevant local authority. The screening questionnaire for recruitment included the following criteria:
User groups - representation of high users and medium-high users; Non-user groups - representation of low-medium users, lapsed users and non users; Home composting (at least two participants in each group); Gender (at least two and no more than five males per groups); Age (no under 20s and no more than two over 65 year olds per group); Housing type (varied slightly according to case study area in question); Cambridge, Fenland and Taunton Deane: at least two block of flats residents; LB Bexley: no quota was set as service is largely not provided to flats. However, in the user group two block of flats residents attended; LB Hackney: at least four block of flats residents; and Weymouth and Portland: no quota was set as service is not provided to flats. Socio-economic background (all groups had a maximum of two people from both socio-economic classes A and E); and Ethnicity (at least three and up to ten participants from ethnic groups other than “white British” in Hackney and Bexley). The achieved profile included an ethnic mix in both areas; Cambridge and Fenland groups also included non ‘White British” participants.
Discussion group participants were also screened to ensure that only those who are aware they are eligible for the organics collection were included – whether they use the service or not.
Participants from user groups were, after the discussion group, invited to take part in a small-scale waste capture study in which volunteers stored their waste for a week, which was then analysed by Waste Watch. In all, 32 households volunteered. The results from this work are not reported extensively here as WRAP has since published much more comprehensive and robust data on food waste arisings and composition6. The volunteer capture study showed similar patterns in terms of food types to the WRAP study, though very significant variability between individual households.
1.2.5. Household research - quantitative Samples were selected so as to be representative of the local population in each area, drawn from streets that were provided with food waste collections. Individual addresses on the sample list were checked against local authority data on service availability so that those not provided with the collection service could be removed.
To take part in the quantitative phase, respondents had to be aware that a kitchen waste collection scheme was available to them. This was done to ensure that respondents were able to provide feedback about the service offered and to exclude ineligible households (mainly occasional flats in streets that are predominantly houses) that may not have been picked up in the initial sample ‘cleaning’ exercise.
The questionnaire (Annex 3) was designed by Brook Lyndhurst, informed in particular by the qualitative research, and approved by the Defra research manager. Interviews of approximately 10 - 12 minutes were conducted in-home by ICM interviewers.
6 WRAP (2008) The food we waste; WRAP (2009) Household food and drink waste in the UK.
March 2010 7 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections | A report for Defra
The quantitative phase included Wave 1 (main stage) where 3136 surveys were achieved (against a target of 3000). Quotas for each area were achieved to provide an even spread across all 6 case study areas. The second booster wave of interviews was targeted at users only (including ‘lapsed’ users who were a low percentage in the main stage). 1295 surveys were achieved for the booster stage, against a target of 1200. In total 4,431 people were interviewed.
A topline of the combined data from main and booster stages is provided as Annex 3 to this report. The achieved sample profile is given in section 3. The analysis in sections 4 onwards identifies the main differences between groups within the sample based on analysis of differences that are statistically significant.
Table 1 Profile of respondents for householder research
Area Discussion Groups Survey Work
Group 1 Group2 Mainstage Booster Total (11 Aug – 6 Sep) (8-23 Sep)
Bexley Users Non-users 541 219 760
Cambridge “ “ 556 220 776
Fenland “ “ 501 219 720
Hackney “ “ 499 199 698
Taunton Deane “ “ 499 219 718
Weymouth & Portland “ “ 540 219 759
A national telephone omnibus was undertaken by ICM according to our design, in order to provide national benchmark data against which the data from the study areas can be compared. This was designed to identify the extent to which key attitudes held in the study areas are representative of the national picture. 1029 interviews were achieved (target 1000). However, this survey returned significant over-reporting of the incidence of food waste collections which did not match the known coverage of the population. Because this was the case, results have only been used selectively (in section 7) where we are comparing the whole population of the study areas with the national picture, rather than users or non users of food collections.
March 2010 8 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections | A report for Defra
2 Current coverage of food waste collections in the UK
The situation for food waste (FW) collections is changing fast. When this research was commissioned in 2006, only 30 authorities offered separate food waste collections; by September 2009 that had risen to 1377. This section summarises some of the key findings from the scoping phase of this research project.
2.1 Domestic food waste arisings Domestic food waste amounts to 5.5. million tonnes per year in England (6.7 million tonnes in the UK) and accounts for 19% of municipal waste arisings.8 Around 4.1 million tonnes of this food waste could have been eaten, according to WRAP. Food waste also makes a significant contribution to the UK’s greenhouse gas (GHG) impact, accounting for around 5% of UK annual CO2 emissions as well as significant methane emissions (a more potent GHG).
Eunomia (2007) estimate that only around 2% (110,000 tonnes) of this household food waste is collected for centralised composting; 204,000 tonnes is composted at home.
On average, each household produces 276 kg of food waste a year9, or 5.3 kg per week, of which 3.2 kg could have been eaten. The amount and type of food waste varies between different types of household, a factor which local authorities need to build into their planning of food waste collection services (e.g. the best size of food bin for residents; capacity required for collection vehicles; which food types to inform residents about). The WRAP study provides very detailed evidence on who produces what, and how much. Their study shows that the number of people in a household is a key a determinant of the amount of food waste produced, such that differences noted between socio-demographic groups are often attributable to variations in household size. Differences between groups calculated on a per capita basis tend to be smaller. Variations that provide useful context for the present report are:
Households that produce less food waste than average include (kg/hh/wk for total food waste): o People aged over 65 (3.5 kg) o Single person households (3.2 kg) o Households in social classes AB (professional) (5.0 kg)
Households that produce more than the average include: o Large households (7.6 kg in households of 5 people, 9.6 kg in households of 6) o Households with children (7.3 kg) o Younger households (7.4 kg where the household head is aged 16-24; 6.9 kg for 25-34s) o Households in social classes DE (6.1 and 6.3 kg) o Asian households (9.1 kg) (particularly the ‘non-avoidable’ portion which includes peelings, at 4 kg)
In WRAP’s research, Asian households were on average larger so could be expected to have more food waste in total; on a per capita basis there was little difference between households of different ethnicity.
7 WRAP, personal correspondence, September 2009. 8 WRAP (2008) The food we waste. See also WRAP (2009) Household food and drink waste in the UK. 9 WRAP, ibid. This does not include food waste that is disposed of through the sewer. WRAP estimates that 1.8 million tonnes of food waste is disposed in that way.
March 2010 9 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections | A report for Defra
Earlier research (cited by WRAP10) had similarly found that Asian households tend to produce more food waste, while a number of local authorities involved in our research highlighted this factor as something that local authorities need to consider when designing food recycling services. Based on the WRAP data, ethnicity is clearly only one of the factors that local authorities need to take into account in planning food recycling services.
WRAP’s work did not look at the difference between houses and flats, but earlier research demonstrated a significant difference between the amount of food waste produced by houses and flats (260 kg/hh/yr and 195 kg/hh/yr respectively)11. The authors also noted a wide range around the average, from 1.3kg per week in the lowest household to 6.2kg in the highest.
2.2 Authority and household coverage The map below shows the authorities which were providing some sort of food waste collection as at March 2007. 377 UK authorities (87%) were offering an organic waste collection, of which most were collecting garden waste only (297 authorities); Only 79 authorities provided a food waste collection service.12 Of these: o 21 authorities provided a separate, single stream, collection for food waste at times collected with cardboard; o the other 56 authorities collected food waste (cooked, uncooked or both) with garden waste; and o at the time of data collection, two authorities had set up trials piloting both mixed FGW and food-only schemes.
Altogether, 11% of households in England (10% in the UK) were covered by food waste collections.
10 Luckin (2003) Ethnicity, Waste Generation and Related Behaviour. 11 AEA Technology (2004) Variations in the Composition of Household Collected Waste. 12 This data is correct at the time of data collection which was completed in March 2007.
March 2010 10 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections | A report for Defra
The style of collection systems varies considerably. As at March 2007:
The most common model was to collect cooked and uncooked food with garden waste – just under half of all households with collections had this option; A further quarter were covered by garden waste collections which accepted uncooked food only; The remaining quarter of households received a separate food waste collection, sometimes with a charged garden collection in parallel; Some authorities also collected card in combined kitchen and garden waste collections to add bulk and increase carbon content; and Fortnightly collections were typical, with food waste collection often being introduced alongside alternate weekly collection (AWC) of residual waste and dry recyclables. Some authorities, however, offered weekly collections; these were more likely to be where food waste was collected separately.
Throughout this report the following conventions are used:
Mixed FGW – is a collection where food is collected mixed with garden waste. Food-only – is a collection where food is collected separate from other materials. 2.3 Issues to consider in the design of food waste collections The literature reviewed in the scoping phase of the research identified a number of issues that need to be taken on board in designing a collection13.
With or without garden waste? The most common model of food waste collections (three-quarters of households covered) is to collect food waste with garden waste, most usually in a fortnightly collection. However, Eunomia (2007) suggests that a combined collection of food waste & garden waste may not be the optimum solution, either in terms of capture, end product quality, treatment costs, or environmental costs.
13 See also WRAP Rotate (2009) Guidance on food waste collection.
March 2010 11 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections | A report for Defra
From the householder’s point of view, most of these issues may not be of any interest. However, the decision of whether or not to collect food waste and garden waste together impacts on collection frequencies, types of bins offered (e.g. big or small) and the need for rules on what materials can be put into the collection (e.g. card, bio-degradable liners, etc.). Each of these has a possible impact on the success of schemes at the local level.
Weekly or fortnightly? In terms of collection frequencies, there are three main options:
Weekly food waste, weekly residual; Alternate weekly (AWC) food and residual waste (i.e. a weekly collection alternating between the two types of waste); and Weekly food waste, alternate weekly residual collection.
In the UK, food waste collection is frequently provided fortnightly, often as part of an AWC. In theory, this model should encourage households to use the food waste collection because it frees up space in their residual bin. In practice, however, it may be that they continue to dispose of food waste weekly, alternating between placing their food waste in the food waste and residual bins. In order to explore how different patterns of collection frequency relate to householder engagement, examples of all three frequency models were included in the case studies.
Bins and containers Three aspects need to be considered when looking at the impact of bins and containers on participation rates: external containers for presentation at kerbside; containment inside the home; and the provision of liners.
External containers Since most collections are currently food mixed with garden waste, 240L or 180L bins are the most usual option provided. Smaller food waste bins (typically of 20L, 25L or 35L) are normally made available where food waste collection is provided as a stand-alone service, or is collected with certain dry recyclables (such as cardboard).
It is already documented that the size of containers and their ease of use can influence scheme participation levels (though the evidence is not yet conclusive). For further information on maximising participation based on container assortment, see Eunomia’s ‘Kitchen Waste Collections: Optimising Container Selection’ report (November 2006).
It was suggested in Sounding Board discussions that the total waste capacity available to residents will affect participation levels in the food waste collection. Containment capacity in the study areas is shown in section 3.1 and its relationship to participation is discussed in relation to the survey results.
In-home containers Many, but not all, services provide indoor caddies for interim storage of food waste. Caddies vary in size, from small rigid counter-top containers to bins large enough to store a week’s worth of food waste. On the one hand, caddies need regular emptying to avoid smell and may need liners (which introduces on- going cost to the authority or the householder and increases contamination risks where bags are not provided). On the other hand, they enable materials to be separated out in the home and provide added convenience to the householder, especially for liquid or ‘sloppy’ items. Not all local authorities are
March 2010 12 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections | A report for Defra
convinced that the value of caddies warrants the expenditure incurred in making them available to all households.
Liners Whether liners should be provided or not is also relevant to the question of balancing costs against the potential for higher participation rates. The evidence so far does seem to suggest that provision of free liners encourages participation and discourages contamination by plastic bags and cardboard (where this is not allowed)14. However, providing bags can add significantly to costs and some authorities have chosen not to do so.
Treatment Much of the current provision in the UK has evolved out of pre-existing garden waste collections to which food has been added at a later date. This means that many authorities are operating systems that they may not have chosen if they had designed a food waste collection from scratch, and for which the style of collection is dictated by other service factors15.
Authors16 have pointed out the ‘wasted’ costs that arise in mixed FGW collections because, once mixed with food, the garden waste element has to be treated in-vessel, at greater cost than if it were collected separately and windrow composted. Experts contributing to the present research concurred. WRAP has since evaluated trials of food-only collections in 21 local authority areas, providing more detailed evidence on costs and operational aspects, as well as tonnage performance17. WRAP is currently compiling performance data for mixed FGW systems so that local authorities will have further information on which to compare the different options.
Collection is only one part of the equation that local authorities need to consider when setting up a food waste recycling scheme. The way in which food is collected has further implications for collection logistics (e.g. number and types of vehicle), material capture rates, service costs, and which treatment methods are suitable - in-vessel composting (IVC) or anaerobic digestion (AD) being the main choices, with some authorities opting for Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT). To support the development of anaerobic digestion, WRAP and the Environment Agency have recently developed a quality protocol which defines the minimum standards required for collecting, transporting, storing, recycling and reusing source- segregated biodegradable waste through AD processes18.
The final treatment destination for food waste (e.g. AD or in-vessel composting) will tend to shape the type of service that is provided to households - in particular whether they receive a mixed FGW or food- only collection – and this could affect participation. Experts contributing to this research urged local authorities to look at food waste collections as a whole system, from collection through to treatment, and to look at cost-benefit ratios across the whole system, not just at the collection end.
14 See, for example, Eunomia, November 2006, Kitchen waste collections: optimising container selection. Liners were also used in the WRAP food waste trials - WRAP (2008, updated 2009) Evaluation of the WRAP separate food waste collection trials. Case study – use of liners for kerbside containers and kitchen caddies. 15 This view was expressed by some of the authorities interviewed in phase 2. 16 Eunomia Dealing with Food Waste in the UK. The report provides an account of treatment options and relative costs. 17 WRAP (2008, updated 2009) Evaluation of the WRAP separate food waste collection trials. 18 WRAP and the Environment Agency (2009) Quality Protocol, Anaerobic Digestate.
March 2010 13 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections | A report for Defra
2.4 Trends in food waste collections Local authorities increasingly see kitchen waste collections as a key means of meeting their obligations on bio-degradable waste under the EC Landfill Directive, UK Waste Strategy and LATS. The number of food waste collections has grown particularly fast in the last five years as a result.
Food-only collections are being introduced at a faster rate than mixed FGW systems. In 2007, three- quarters of collections were mixed FGW; by 2009 the split between food-only and mixed FGW was nearly even with 47% of authorities offering food-only collections19.
Figure 2 – Number of authorities collecting food waste in GB (food-only and mixed FGW systems)
160 137 140
120
100 95 78 80 80 58 60 36 40 20 15 20 10
5 6 Number of authoritiesof Number 0 1990s 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 (UK) Source: Ask jennie.com (up to 2007); WRAP (2008/9)
Experts and some local authorities involved in the research suggested that future development of food waste collections may be constrained by the availability of in-vessel or anaerobic digestion (AD) treatment capacity, and this may act as a brake on the set-up of new schemes or the expansion of existing ones. WRAP is involved in programmes to support the development of new AD capacity and enhance its effectiveness.
19 WRAP (2008, updated 2009) Evaluation of the WRAP separate food waste collection trials.ibid.
March 2010 14 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections | A report for Defra
3 Collection services in the case study areas
This section provides a description of the design and set-up of food waste collections in the study areas20. Table 2 provides details on key aspects of the service. Section 3.1 then describes briefly for each area how the collection was introduced and performance data is given in section 3.2.
3.1 Brief description of the food collection service in each area The following is a description of the services in each area as they were in 2007 at the time of the survey. Some authorities were either considering changes or further roll-outs at the time and it is possible that there have been changes since.
3.1.1. Bexley Service design and development The London Borough of Bexley has been operating food and garden waste collections in different pilot areas within the borough since 2000. The service (at the time of the survey) started in May 2004 and was rolled out in stages until September 2004. The collection of meat was only added in November 2005. The scheme covers 91% of households in Bexley including a selection of flats.
After running a series of trials in order to test the most appropriate container size and collection frequency, Bexley opted for a weekly mixed FGW collection in a 140L bin as it produced the highest average weekly yield of organic waste (food and garden waste) per household in the trials. Refuse was collected in sacks.
A 7L kitchen caddy is also provided. During the trials, paper caddy liners were provided free of charge to participating households. Since the expansion of the scheme, liners are charged at 5 pence per liner and can be bought from Council offices and libraries. The Council discourages the use of starch-based liners as they are not easily distinguishable from ordinary plastic bags.
Bexley was planning several changes from March 2008: this would include a fortnightly collection of residual waste, provision of a residual waste bin (180L) and a weekly collection of dry recyclables.
Communication Introduction of the service was accompanied by letters, roadshows, instruction leaflets and newspaper adverts. As food waste was still not being captured to a high degree in 2007, Bexley focused much of its ongoing recycling communications on this topic. Communications activities under the umbrella of the ‘Scrape the plate’ campaign include an annual door stepping promotional campaign and attitudinal survey, an annual recycling guide and collection calendar, Council website features, regular adverts in free local papers and features in the Council magazine.
20 It draws on case study visits and data collection by Waste Watch and Brook Lyndhurst telephone interviews with the authorities.
March 2010 15 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections | A report for Defra
Table 2 Case study area collection scheme characteristics
Total Dry Separate Scheme No. of Residual Equivalent Urban % of HHs Collection Food Food waste Residual recyclables GW LA start HHs waste bin Weekly Caddy Density covered type frequency bin capacity frequency bin Capacity date covered capacity Waste capacity at no charge Capacity
No 222.5L plus 140L brown container 3 x 55L unlimited Urban – May Mixed FGW Bexley LB 91% 85,000 Weekly wheeled bin Weekly provided – boxes N/A capacity for 7L (free) 36 pp/ha 2004 or 50L bin no capacity (fortnightly) residual restrictions waste
240L green 2 x 55L Cambridge Urban – August Mixed FGW wheeled bin 91% 40,000 Fortnightly Fortnightly 240L boxes N/A 295L 5L (free) City Council 26 pp/ha 2004 or a 75L (fortnightly) brown sack
Fenland Mixed FGW 240L Rural – April 240L brown 7L District 100% 40,600 & Fortnightly Fortnightly 240L Wheeled bin N/A 360L 2 pp/ha 2005 wheeled bin (charged) Council cardboard (fortnightly)
No 195L plus Hackney LB 240L High urban container Compulsory unlimited (ECT July 20L blue (fortnightly) – 54% 51,000 Food-only Weekly Weekly provided – 55L box capacity for 7L (free) scheme 2005 bin upon 106 pp/ha no capacity (weekly) residual only) request restrictions waste
Taunton Urban/rural May 25L brown 55L box Deane mix - 2 100% 46,000 Food-only Weekly Fortnightly 180L Charged 170L 5L (free) 2005 bin (weekly) Council pp/ha
Weymouth 55L box & Food-only Brown 25L & Urban/rural 30L bags No small Nov w/ bin or a Portland mix - 15 79% 23,000 Weekly Fortnightly 180L (fortnightly Charged 252.5L caddy 2005 corrugated brown 120L Borough pp/ha - no limit on provided card wheeled bin Council no. of bags)
March 2010 16 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections | A report for Defra
3.1.2. Cambridge Service design and development Cambridge City Council provides a mixed FGW kerbside scheme collecting garden waste and food waste alternating every other week. Serving 40,000 out of a total of 44,000 households, the scheme covers approximately 91% of the population.
A garden waste and cardboard collection service had been in operation since 2002, but did not cover the entire authority. The current service became city-wide in August 2004 followed by the introduction of alternate weekly collections for residual waste and a ‘no-side waste’ policy in October 2005. A 240L wheeled bin is provided for the collection of the organic waste and, for those residents lacking space, a 75L sack is available.
5L kitchen caddies are provided to householders free of charge. Paper caddy liners are also available on request and can be picked up from Council offices or at roadshows and other Council events.
Communication Coinciding with the borough-wide introduction of the organic waste collections, the Council undertook a radio and press advertising campaign. Several adverts and articles were placed in local newspapers over a period of several weeks. These were accompanied with targeted bin stickers and leaflets explaining the new service, which were delivered to each household.
Ongoing recycling communication is provided mainly via a dedicated recycling newsletter, the Cambridge Matters magazine. This provides a useful platform for highlighting specific issues relating to food waste as well as alternate weekly collections.
3.1.3. Fenland Service design and development Fenland District Council provides a fortnightly mixed FGW service to all of its 40,600 households, including town centre flats, narrow access properties and more remote rural properties.
The scheme was phased in over four stages during the twelve months April 2005 to April 2006. The scheme, rolled out under the name Getting it SORTED, provides residents with an integrated three- stream kerbside collection service: residual, dry recyclables and organic waste. Residents are provided with a 240L wheeled bin for each type of waste. The new service constituted a wholesale change, particularly with the introduction of alternate weekly collections of residual waste and a ‘no-side waste’ policy.
At the start of the new scheme, no kitchen caddies or liners were provided by Fenland DC. However, following feedback from residents, via complaint letters, roadshows and comment boxes, the Council introduced a ‘starter kit’ including a lockable 7L kitchen caddy and 50 paper sack liners which can be purchased for £2.50 and replacement paper sack liners are priced at £1 for 50.
Communication Prior to and during the roll-out of the scheme, a range of communications activities were used, including roadshows, leaflet drops, press coverage and adverts in the local press and radio. Ongoing communication and promotion is in the form of information in the Council newsletter, local press
March 2010 17 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections | A report for Defra
coverage, the use of the promotional character ‘Captain Green’ and a local radio pilot scheme offering a financial incentive to participants21.
3.1.4. Hackney Service design and development In 2007, Hackney was running a number of dedicated food waste collection schemes targeted at different housing types. Approximately 57,000 out of the total 94,000 were offered a type of food waste collection. The service included in this study covered approximately 51,000 households, which are street-level properties or low-rise flats, provided with a weekly kerbside collection using a dedicated 20L food waste bin. Bones, raw meat and fish are not accepted for collection. Hackney also runs other food waste schemes/trials for flats that were excluded from this study for sampling reasons.22
This service (run by ECT Recycling) started in July 2005 and reached its current form in March 2007. In March 2007 compulsory recycling for dry recyclables was also introduced. In addition, residents living in street-level houses and low-rise flats with gardens can request a fortnightly collection of garden waste from a wheeled bin.
In addition to the 20L outdoor bin, a 7L kitchen caddy is also provided; however, as a result of cost considerations, residents on the ECT scheme are not provided with liners. In September 2007 Hackney provided a sample of 10 corn-starch bio bags to households and residents can now purchase these bags in over 20 local shops scattered across the borough.
Communication Hackney has undertaken a comprehensive communications campaign including a letter to residents explaining the changes to the services, roadshows, doorstepping, a ‘Recycling Guide’ booklet and a final leaflet accompanying delivery of the caddies and bins. Other publicity included banners on town centre lamp posts, advertising on buses, bikes, and posters at bus shelters and on advertising boards.
The borough places strong emphasis on ongoing communication and promotion, in recognition of its high population turnover (approximately 20% per annum) and its high percentage of residents from minority ethnic populations. In addressing this, Hackney has undertaken community outreach programmes specifically targeted to engage certain groups (e.g. Kurdish and Turkish, Orthodox Jewish and Muslim communities). Hackney also runs a ‘Green Champion’ scheme and places regular adverts in the Council magazine, local press and ethnic minority newspapers. The borough also seeks to actively engage residents in waste prevention.
21 Residents who had put their green bin/brown sack out for collection had the chance to win a prize of £75 supermarket vouchers by phoning the radio station. Those who had not were given a leaflet explaining the benefits of recycling and how they could participate in the prize draw if they set out their organics bin in future. However, the pilot trial did not result in any measurable impact on the kerbside collected green waste. 22 Households with these other services were excluded from the survey sample so that we could be sure that the findings relate to a single type of service not a mix of different types. The other services (e.g. communal bins provided to high rise properties) are so different from the main kerbside service that they need to be analysed separately; but a representative sample of households across the borough would yield too few of these types of household for separate analysis. Including them would simply have distorted the overall Hackney findings. The sample drawn was a representative sample of households that are provided with the main kerbside service – which was a majority of Hackney households who received a food waste collection at that time. The reasons for making this choice were discussed in detail, agreed and documented with the Defra Research Manager.
March 2010 18 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections | A report for Defra
3.1.5. Taunton Deane Service design and development Taunton Deane Borough Council offers a separate weekly collection of kitchen waste to approximately 43,000 out of the 46,000 households in the district. An estimated 3,000 properties, predominantly flats, are not covered due to a lack of storage space for bins and vehicle access restrictions. This service started in May 2005 and rolled out in different stages until May 2006.
The reasons for setting up a food waste collection largely stemmed from a composition analysis which showed that food waste is the largest category in Somerset’s bin waste (27%), so had more potential to contribute to waste diversion and recycling rates than other materials (including plastics and cardboard which are currently not collected at kerbside).23
Householders are provided with 25L bins and a 5L kitchen caddy for food waste. Somerset Waste Partnership approved compostable caddy liners can be purchased from retailers or online or via the phone24. In their communication materials, Taunton Deane Borough Council advises residents to wrap food waste in newspaper or to line kitchen caddies with newspaper. The scheme was also accompanied by the introduction of wheeled bins for residual waste and a reduction in the collection frequency of residual waste from weekly to fortnightly.
There is a long-standing history of collaborative working through the Somerset Waste Partnership (SWP) and in line with this; identical schemes were adopted in Mendip and South Somerset under the common name of SORT IT!
Communication Communication efforts around the introduction of the scheme included press releases, distribution of notification packs, roadshows, door-stepping, leaflets, newsletters and questionnaires (issued 8 to 10 weeks after the scheme’s introduction). In addition, the scheme had extensive media coverage with a weekly column in one of the local papers. Ongoing communication consists of reminder leaflets with seasonal specificity.
3.1.6. Weymouth & Portland Service design and development Approximately 23,000 houses out of a total of 29,000 are served by weekly food waste collections in Weymouth & Portland (in which corrugated card is allowed). Prior to its launch, the local authority undertook visual inspections to determine whether properties were suitable for inclusion in the service or not. This scheme started in November 2005 and all street-level houses were provided with the service by May 2007. Roll-out to the remaining approximately 6,000 flats started in September 2007.
The bins used for this scheme are wheeled bins of 120L, or 25L bins for properties which do not have sufficient outside storage space (i.e. flats). The food waste collection was introduced alongside a change to fortnightly collections of residual waste and the provision of wheeled bins. These bins restrict capacity to 180L per fortnight and a strict ‘no side-waste’ policy is enforced.
23 Mansell, David. Personal communication: e-mail, 30.11.2007. 24 SWP now simply advises use of any liner which shows the compostable logo.
March 2010 19 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections | A report for Defra
Interestingly, no pilots were undertaken prior to the roll-out of the Weymouth & Portland scheme, though it could be argued that the first phase of the roll-out acted as a trial for implementation of the second phase.
No small kitchen caddy is provided as part of the scheme. In addition, on the basis of cost considerations, the Council opted not to provide householders with liners. The cost of £0.17 and £0.65 for small and large bin liners made of paper has led to some complaints from residents and calls for the free provision of caddy liners.
Communication Communication material for the introduction of the scheme consisted of leaflets informing residents of service changes, a dedicated and trained contact centre, roadshows, articles and adverts in the local press and information packs.
In terms of ongoing communication and promotion, Weymouth & Portland Borough Council has opted for targeted doorstepping of low-performing areas.
3.2 Monitoring and performance data
3.2.1. Amount collected Data on the amount of mixed FGW or food collected were obtained from both the authorities and Waste Data Flow. Some authorities also provided participation monitoring and/or compositional data (section 3.2.2).
A comparison of overall arisings for collected household waste and its component parts is shown for the six study areas in figure 3 below. Food waste can only be shown separately where it is collected separately; ‘organic waste’ refers to food and garden waste collected together in the same bin (i.e. the mixed FGW services in Bexley, Cambridge and Fenland). In looking at the data, it needs to be remembered that both Taunton and Weymouth operate a charged garden waste collection while Hackney offers a free garden waste service upon request. Notable features are:
Total arisings (all streams) are highest in the mixed FGW areas and Hackney, and lowest in Taunton and Weymouth; The mixed FGW collection areas capture more organics, but we do not know from the aggregate data how much of this is food (see below for evidence from compositional studies); o Food captured in food-only collections ranges from 81 kg/hh/yr to 117kg/hh/yr; o Total organics collected in mixed FGW collections ranges from 231 kg/hh/yr to 280 kg/hh/yr; There is high seasonal variation in the mixed FGW collections but not in food-only collections (figure 3).
March 2010 20 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections | A report for Defra
Figure 3 Collected waste in kg/household/year (2006/7) across the case study areas
1400
1200
Organic Waste 1000 Food Waste 800 Garden Waste 600
Dry recyclable year 400 waste Residual waste 200
0
Kg of waste per household per per household per waste of Kg Bexley Cambridge Fenland Hackney Taunton Deane Weymouth and Portland
Source: project team estimate based on data provided by LAs Bexley Base: Organic waste 85,000 households and Residual waste/Dry recyclable waste 93,000 households Cambridge Base: All waste streams 44,000 households Fenland base: All waste streams 40,000 households Hackney base: Food waste 57,000 households (includes households from all three schemes in operation at the time of research) and Garden waste, Dry recyclables and Residual waste 94,000 households Taunton Deane base: All waste streams 47,954 households now1 1 Weymouth and Portland base: Food waste 16,785 households and Garden, Dry recyclable and Residual waste 29,000 households
March 2010 21 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections | A report for Defra
Figure 4 Quarterly tonnage of organics/food waste collected in study areas
7000 Bexley May 04 Cambridge Aug 04 6000 Fenland Apr 04 major inc Hackney Jul 05 in HHs 5000 Taunton May 05 covered Weymouth Nov 05
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
Source: Waste Data Flow; Waste Watch case studies NB number of HH covered not constant over life of service; large inc in Fenland, Weymouth & Taunton; smaller inc in Hackney; little chg in Bexley & Cambridge
3.2.2. Compositional and participation studies Table 3 below summarises the research, data and sources of information available for each case study area (as of 2007 when the research was conducted).
Bexley An October 2005 waste composition analysis estimated that, on average, 29% of food waste was diverted via the organic waste kerbside collection. Compositional analysis in 2007 suggested that the organics bin captured 35% of collected food waste; but food accounted for only 11% of organics collected, the rest being garden waste. The 2007 study showed food waste capture of 0.95 kg/hh/wk in the organics bin.
Participation monitoring was carried out between October 2006 and March 2007 as part of a door stepping campaign. The monitoring exercise showed a notable difference in participation and set-out rates with an average of 50% and 30% respectively in the southern areas of the borough, and 40% participation and 22% set-out in the north of the borough.
March 2010 22 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections | A report for Defra
In the south of the borough, 68% of properties are owner-occupied compared to only 48% in the north. The northern part of Bexley is characterised by more transient communities, relatively new housing estates and large established estate areas, which may affect recycling performance.
Cambridge In compositional studies carried out in November/December 2004 and May 2005, analysis of residual waste showed kitchen waste as the single largest constituent at 33%. Compositional analysis in 2007 showed that 28% of food waste was being captured in the organics bin. Capture for garden waste was 88%.
Following the introduction of alternate weekly collections, an attitudinal doorstep survey was carried out in 2005. A sample of 100 households was interviewed by the Recycling Team using a standard WRAP attitudinal survey questionnaire. Just over 50% claimed to recycle their food waste ‘every time’, with another 31% stating they recycled it ‘most times’. Unfortunately, there is no actual participation data with which to compare these claimed participation figures.
Fenland A compositional analysis carried out between February and April 2007 showed that food waste made up the largest proportion of the residual waste bin, accounting for 37% (or 115kg per household per year). By contrast, the average amount of food waste captured via the organics bin is relatively small at only 19kg per household per year. This represents a capture rate of 14% for food. Capture of garden waste was 95%.
By 2007, no formal participation monitoring of the organics collection had been undertaken.
March 2010 23 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections | A report for Defra
Table 3 Sources of information available for each case study area
Compositional and capture rate analysis Participation monitoring Customer survey
Bexley London Boroughs of Bexley and Bromley – Awareness raising Household Waste Study 2005, MEL Research, Campaign – Final report, Hyder February 2006. Consulting, June 2006.
London Boroughs of Bexley, Greenwich Door-stepping Campaign Draft and Lewisham – Waste Composition Final Report, Hyder Consulting, Analysis, ENTEC, May 2007. May 2007.
Cambridge Cambridge and Peterborough Waste Attitudinal Survey Partnership report, Household, Kerbside Residual, Recycling and Cambridge County Garden Waste Composition Study – A Council, 2005 Comparative Report, Community Recycling Services, October 2005.
RECAP kerbside waste analysis PHASE 1, Resource Futures, May 2007.
Fenland RECAP kerbside waste analysis PHASE 1, Evaluation of the Resource Futures, May 2007 households waste incentives pilot scheme, AEA Technology, July 2006.
Customer Satisfaction Survey, MORI, September 2006.
Hackney The Arisings and Composition of Household Pre-campaign participation Collected Waste in North London, AEA monitoring report for the Technology, February 2005. London Borough of Hackney, London Remade, March 2007
Taunton Waste Composition Analysis, Recycling in Partnership- Deane Somerset Waste Partnership, March Sharing the Experience, 2006. Somerset Waste Partnership, Seminar Pack 15th March 2007.
Weymouth & Weymouth & Portland Borough Phase 1 October/November Portland Council waste compositional analysis, 2006 – Results obtained May 2005 and May 2006. through direct communication with Dorset County Council. Dorset County Council: Analysis of Kerbside collected residual waste and biodegradable recycling, MEL Research, July 2006.
March 2010 24 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections | A report for Defra
Hackney Compositional analysis studies have been undertaken involving Hackney but only as part of the North London Waste Authority area and prior to the introduction of the food waste collection. They are therefore not relevant to this work.
A pre-promotional campaign and participation survey were undertaken in March 2007 for street-level and low-rise properties. This showed set-out rates for food waste collection to be around 13% over three consecutive weeks on a round of approximately 1,000 properties. Participation in the food waste collection service was recorded as 21%25.
Taunton Deane Composition analysis was undertaken across the Somerset Waste Partnership (SWP) in March 2006. This showed that 53% of food waste was being captured by the (then) new collection.
Participation monitoring indicated a participation rate of 60-70%, depending on area.
Further small-scale monitoring of approximately 100 households was carried out in low-performing areas. Despite being undertaken in low-performing areas, a set-out rate of about 70% was achieved.
Weymouth Compositional analysis in May 2006 found that 15.6% of the residual waste was food waste. No data are available for the proportion of food waste captured in the dedicated collection. A specific analysis of bio- degradable waste collections in July 2006 found high levels of contamination of the food waste collection (21%), half of which was attributable to thin card. Weymouth accepts corrugated but not thin card in the food waste collection (unlike neighbouring Dorset authorities who allow thin card) and some residents are confused by this26.
Participation monitoring was carried out in October and November 2006 in accordance with WRAP monitoring and evaluation guidelines. The round, which was identified as a low participation area, was found to have a 74% set-out rate based on the participating households setting out their food waste collection bin at least once during the monitoring period. The monitoring exercise will be repeated in October/November 2007 to determine the impact of the communication activities undertaken.
The following table summarises data from the various studies mentioned above.
25 This may be an under-estimate because there are difficulties measuring participation rates in areas with high levels of multi-occupancy – i.e. it is assumed that weekly set out at a multi-occupied property is from the same household each week, whereas more than one household could be participating on a less regular basis. 22% of Hackney‟s residents live in converted houses. 26 See also table 8 in chapter 5 which shows which materials residents think can be included in the food waste collection.
March 2010 25 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections | A report for Defra
Table 4 Monitoring and performance data for case studies Source: various studies provided by authorities (see table 3) and project team estimates from data in studies provided
Bexley Cambridge Fenland Hackney Taunton Deane Weymouth & Portland
Service Type Weekly mixed AWC mixed AWC mixed Weekly food Weekly food- Weekly food- FGW, weekly FGW FGW only, weekly only, fortnightly only, refuse refuse refuse fortnightly refuse
Participation 50% South - - 21% 60-70% - 40% North
Claimed 76% South 50% all of the - - 80% - Participation 90% North time (surveys) 31% most of the time
Set out rates 30% South - - 13% 70% 74% 22% North
Capture rate 29% - 35% - 14% - 53% -
Food waste % of 19% 33% 37% - - 16% residual
Total organic waste 4.44 kg/hh/wk 5.02 kg/hh/wk 5.38 kg/hh/wk 1.71 kg/hh/wk 3.29 kg/hh/wk 2.33 kg/hh/wk kg/hh/wk
Food waste - - - 1.55 kg/hh/wk 1.91 kg/hh/wk 2.24 kg/hh/wk kg/hh/wk
Garden waste - - - 0.16 kg/hh/wk 1.38 kg/hh/wk 0.19 kg/hh/wk kg/hh/wk
Dry recyclables 5.15 kg/hh/wk 5.03 kg/hh/wk 3.78 kg/hh/wk 2.28 kg/hh/wk 3.35 kg/hh/wk 2.35 kg/hh/wk kg/hh/wk
Residual waste 13.8 kg/hh/wk 13.88 kg/hh/wk 10.17 kg/hh/wk 13.37 kg/hh/wk 6.32 kg/hh/wk 9.37 kg/hh/wk kg/hh/wk NB: methodologies for establishing participation, set-out rates, capture rate and capture analysis vary between studies.
3.3 Perceived socio-demographic and housing variations
Phase 2 of the research involved interviewing the 32 local authorities that had established food waste collections by the end of 2006. As part of a wide ranging discussion about their services, they were asked if they perceived any differences in participation in relation to socio-demographics, housing types or ethnic minorities. The following summarises each authority’s response.
Bexley Bexley has a North - South divide, the south being wealthier with bigger houses and gardens while the north is characterised by smaller and less well-off households with smaller or no gardens. However, it is difficult to tell whether lower participation is related to housing and garden size or social class. At times the reasons for not participating may be more linked to whether the house is owned or rented by the
March 2010 26 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections | A report for Defra
occupier, as in some areas the turnover in properties is every three to four months making participation difficult to sustain.
Ethnic minorities represent around 9% of the population in Bexley. Though it cannot be said whether participation is higher or lower amongst these groups it can be stated that they are harder to reach due to language barriers. LB Bexley has done some community engagement work with the Sikh community at Guru Nanak Darbar Gurdwara – a Sikh temple of worship. This resulted in installing recycling facilities including organic waste, as the temple runs a free kitchen which is open seven days a week. Other similar initiatives have been undertaken in churches and community centres.
Cambridge Though it is thought that there is a difference in participation across the socio-demographics of the areas covered; this is largely based on anecdotal evidence. The wealthy are said to participate more and the less well off are less inclined to participate, based on observations from collection crew. Residents in terraced properties and multiple occupancy dwellings have a higher percentage of ethnic minorities (Eastern European) and transient population (students). This has meant the need for repeat communications and a response to the language barriers.
Fenland In terms of socio-demographic factors, it was stated that flats proved the most problematic. This was thought to have been due to the lack of ownership of the bin as at times four flats share a 240L bin – this can lead to abuse of the bin (e.g. contaminants being put in; bins being used for other things). In addition, terraced houses have sack based refuse collections and are reported to rarely use their organics bin.
Ethnic minorities represent a small proportion of the population – mainly migrant workers from Eastern Europe (Polish and Lithuanian). It was stated that despite representing a small proportion of population they represent a significant challenge: language barriers, contamination issues and lack of bin ownership as many live in multiple occupancy dwellings.
Hackney No socio-demographic studies have been undertaken thus far although one was planned for later in 2007. One of the issues mentioned was that Hackney is changing faster than any other borough with a 20% turnover of residents each year – meaning one in five people move every year. Another issue which was raised was that it would prove particularly difficult to monitor participation in Hackney due to the many house conversions and maisonettes where it is unclear if one flat or, say, three flats are participating in the scheme.
Though no concrete evidence has been gathered, it was suggested that those with English as a second language participate less – the reason being linked to language barriers. LB Hackney has done outreach work with the Vietnamese, Hasidic Jewish and Turkish communities residing in the borough to address both language issues and put food waste in cultural context27.
27 WRAP provides a case study of Hackney‟s outreach work with Turkish and Jewish communities - Improving participation through targeted cultural and religious communication campaigns, available at: http://www.wrap.org.uk/downloads/Case_Study_1_Improving_participation_through_targeted_cultural_and_r eligious_communication_campaigns_-_LB_of_Hackney.5a56e868.5372.pdf (downloaded February 2010)
March 2010 27 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections | A report for Defra
Taunton Deane Being a country market town, Taunton has relatively few flats. There is a narrow band of housing types which ranges between Victorian terraces to country mansions with about 5,000 council houses. It was stated that the leafy suburban affluent areas tended to have higher participation than the more deprived areas. Though there has been an increase in the number of Polish immigrant workers (which led to the translation of the information leaflet into Polish), there are no large concentrations of ethnic minorities in Taunton Deane.
Weymouth and Portland At the time of the research, the service in Weymouth was fairly new so there was little evidence or experience on which to base observations on the role of socio-demographics. The two phase roll-out began with the more deprived south of the borough then followed in the more affluent north. It was stated, however, that a council estate was one of the best performing areas.
There are no large concentrations of ethnic minorities in Weymouth and Portland so this is not relevant here.
March 2010 28 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections | A report for Defra
4 Survey context: population characteristics and profile of respondents
There are substantial differences between the six study areas, all of which have the potential to influence scheme performance and responses in the consumer surveys. This section: Describes the population characteristics of the areas; Summarises the profile of survey respondents; Presents survey findings on the non-food recycling attitudes and behaviour of respondents in order to provide context on their responses to food waste.
4.1 The case study areas The following is a brief summary of the key population characteristics of each case study area which provides important context for the survey results28.
4.1.1. Bexley Bexley is an outer London borough with some areas of social deprivation, but on the whole, a relatively prosperous and stable29 population. 78% of residents are owner occupiers and a relatively large proportion of households occupy detached (7%) or semi-detached (45%) housing. Around one in five households (22%) live in flats, which has repercussions for the design of kitchen waste collection schemes.30 The south of the borough is significantly more affluent than the north.
The age structure of residents is broadly similar to the national average, with a slightly higher proportion of people aged 35-44, but a lower proportion of young adults (15-24). Around 8% of the borough’s population is from minority ethnic groups.31
4.1.2. Cambridge Cambridge is an affluent town, with a high proportion of residents in socio-economic groups AB (33%) and C1 (30%) and a high proportion of young adults (27% of the population is aged between 20 and 29).
Many areas of the town centre are characterised by terraced housing (in which 32% of households live) and flats. Maisonettes and apartments also feature highly in the city’s housing stock (accommodating around 27% of households).32
89% of residents are classified as ‘White’ and 81% were born in the UK.33
28 NB these were the most recent data available at the time of the research in 2007. 29 Throughout the report the term “stable” is used to refer to areas with low residential mobility; “transient” is used to describe high turnover of residence. 30 http://www.bexley.gov.uk/about/census/detailedkeystats.html#ks02 31 http://www.bexley.gov.uk/about/communitystrategy/pdfs/techappendix/intro-profile.pdf 32http://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/C6D69EB7-40F5-469D-9A47- 591A59B2E37B/0/CamDistrictProfile.pdf 33 http://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/profiles/12ub.asp
March 2010 29 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections | A report for Defra
4.1.3. Fenland Fenland is a mainly rural district with a low population density. Its population is similar to the national average in terms of age. In the 2001 Census residents were predominantly White British (97%)34 but the area has since seen significant inward migration of workers from the EU accession countries35. According to official statistics, 4% of Fenland’s population is of Eastern European origin, the seventh highest of any English local authority.36
Three quarters of households (75%) live in detached or semi-detached houses and the same proportion (75%) are owner-occupiers, reflecting a relatively stable population.
When compared to both Cambridgeshire and the UK, Fenland has a relatively high proportion of its population graded as C2, D or E (i.e. manual occupations and jobless households). These groups account for 58% of the population in the district, compared to 43% in Cambridgeshire and around 49% nationally.37
4.1.4. Hackney Hackney has an ethnically diverse population which, in 2001, comprised 59% who were classified as ‘White’ (44% ‘White British’) as compared to 71% in London, and 91% in England & Wales on average. 25% are ‘Black’ or ‘Black British’, 9% are ‘Asian’ or ‘Asian British’, 4% are ‘Mixed’ and 3% are ‘Chinese’ or ‘Other’38. Hackney has very high residential turnover so this picture may have changed since 2001, but there are no recent data for ethnicity.
Hackney’s different ethnic populations are clustered in different parts of the Borough. These include distinct clusters of predominantly white residents, Black households (in the east), Asians and Orthodox Jewish communities. Turks and Kurds make up a reported 5% of the local population and are spread throughout the borough. Ethnic diversity is highest in the borough’s social housing, and lowest in privately rented and owner occupied accommodation39. Overall, two thirds (66%) of the resident population was born in the UK, while 29% were born outside Europe40.
The housing profile reflects the transient nature of the population: less than a third of dwellings are owner occupied, compared to 57% in London generally and 69% in England and Wales.41 Other aspects of Hackney’s housing are also significant for kitchen waste collections: it has a high proportion of social housing – mainly flats - and population density is very high even when compared to other London boroughs.42
Hackney has a larger proportion of its residents in socio-economic groups D and E than either London or England & Wales as a whole (39%). It also has a youthful population. There is a lower proportion of people aged 55+ (16% compared with 27% in England & Wales overall), but a high proportion of under
34http://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/43ADCBD5-72F9-4339-B44F- 48B51B7CA0D5/0/FenlandDistrictProfile.pdf 35 www.fenland.gov.uk/ccm/cms-service/stream/asset/?asset_id=347639 36 ONS, Population Trends, Autumn 2007 37http://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/43ADCBD5-72F9-4339-B44F- 48B51B7CA0D5/0/FenlandDistrictProfile.pdf 38 http://www.hackney.gov.uk/xp-boroughprofile_chapter1.pdf (page 23-24) 39 http://www.hackney.gov.uk/xp-boroughprofile_chapter1.pdf (page 24-25) 40 http://www.hackney.gov.uk/xp-boroughprofile_chapter1.pdf (page 10) 41 http://www.teamhackney.org/team_hackney_profile.pdf 42 http://www.hackney.gov.uk/xp-boroughprofile_chapter1.pdf
March 2010 30 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections | A report for Defra
15s (21%). Reflecting this, the borough has a below average level of pensioner households, and more households with dependent children than either the regional or national averages.43
4.1.5. Taunton Deane Taunton Deane is a prosperous, settled, district with small pockets of deprivation44. Its population profile is similar to the national average in terms of age (though with a slightly higher proportions of older residents) and residents are predominantly ‘White British’ (98%). 45
The district’s population is heavily concentrated in Taunton. Outside the main towns, the area is sparsely populated. Overall, owner-occupation is around 71%46 with a large proportion living in detached and semi-detached accommodation (60%)47.
4.1.6. Weymouth & Portland Weymouth & Portland is a predominantly rural district, the topography of which can pose access problems for refuse vehicles (e.g. narrow streets and steep hills in Portland).
It has a very settled, largely White British (97%) population but despite high employment levels is not a very affluent area: average weekly wages are low (less than three quarters the national average) and it also has a significantly higher proportion of older people than the national average (pensioners accounting for 27% of its population).48
Its housing is characterised by high owner-occupation rates (73% compared to a national average of 68%)49. Detached and semi-detached properties account for 46% of dwellings, while 31% of households live in terraced housing.50
4.2 Profile of respondents in the householder research The sample in each area was drawn from a demographically representative sample of those who are provided with food waste collections. This means that the sample profile was broadly similar to the picture described in section 4.1 (table 5 below). The main difference is that the sample contains a lower proportion of households in flats than in the areas generally because flatted properties are not covered by food waste collections in all of the study areas.
In addition, it should be borne in mind that the majority of Black Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) respondents interviewed were Hackney residents (particularly black respondents). Differences between ‘White British’ and non ‘White British’ respondents may therefore be as much due to general differences between Hackney and the other case study areas (population density, nature of the kitchen waste scheme, other socio-demographic factors etc…), as ethnicity per se.
Compared to the national population profile, the sample has a much higher proportion of those in the 55+ age group; again, this reflects both the nature of the study areas and the types of household that are
43 http://www.hackney.gov.uk/xp-boroughprofile_chapter1.pdf 44 http://www.communityhealthprofiles.info/profiles/hp2006/lo_res/40UE-HP2006.pdf 45 http://neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination 46 http://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/profiles/40ue.asp 47 http://neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination 48 http://www.dorsetforyou.gov.uk/media/pdf/1/a/WeymouthPortland_in_Profile_leaflet.pdf 49 http://www.dorsetforyou.com/index.jsp?articleid=325768 50 http://neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination
March 2010 31 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections | A report for Defra
provided with food waste collections. Sample sizes for other age groups are nonetheless large enough to support robust findings.
In summary, the notable differences across the study areas are: The age profile in Weymouth and Taunton (to a slightly lesser extent) is skewed towards older people; Fenland and Hackney have particularly high proportions of respondents classed socially as ‘DE’; Cambridge and Taunton are the most affluent of the six areas; Hackney and Cambridge have high proportions of younger respondents; Hackney has a very ethnically diverse population and high levels of residential mobility.
March 2010 32 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections | A report for Defra
Table 5 Demographic breakdown of achieved survey sample with national population comparison
Age Tenure Housing Social Class Ethnicity (adult population 16+) type
White Owner Social Private 16-34 35-54 55+ AB C1C2 DE Flats Students British Occupied renters renters
Bexley 18% 40% 42% 1% 10% 64% 18% 91% 82% 7% 5% 1% (n=760)
Cambridge 28% 37% 35% 4% 29% 52% 19% 91% 66% 22% 11% 11% (n=776)
Fenland 21% 36% 44% 3% 11% 45% 39% 96% 76% 13% 9% 3% (n=720)
Hackney 32% 40% 28% 6% 17% 43% 36% 49% 46% 37% 13% 17% (n=698)
Taunton* 16% 36% 48% 1% 26% 48% 22% 97% 76% 15% 8% 4% (n=718)
Weymouth** 15% 33% 52% 1% 22% 55% 18% 97% 87% 9% 4% 1% (n=759) Total combined 22% 37% 41% 3% 19% 51% 25% 87% 72% 17% 8% 6% (n=4431) National 25% 28% 28% 4% 23% 49% 28% 92% 69% 18% 13% 17% average
March 2010 33 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections| A report for Defra
4.3 General attitudes towards the environment
In order to set food waste recycling in the context of broader motivations and barriers, the research explored respondents’ attitudes to the environment generally as well as other waste-related behaviours which could affect how they choose to deal with food waste (reported in sections 4.4 to 4.6).
Survey respondents were asked to say how much they agree with the statement, “I do not think we are really damaging the environment and causing climate change – it has been exaggerated”51.
Opinion of respondents in the case study areas is moderately divided. Over one in five (22%) agree with this idea while 56% disagree (35% disagree strongly).
Those likely to be more sceptical (i.e. agree with statement) are older and retired respondents (27% of those aged over 55; 28% of retirees) and those living in detached or semi-detached housing (25%). Agreement is also above average in Taunton Deane (27%), Weymouth & Portland (27%) and Bexley (28%).
Figure 5 Respondents’ views on climate change
Q.25. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements? 'I don’t think we are really damaging the environment & causing climate change – it has been exaggerated'
Strongly agree, 7% Tend to Strongly agree, 15% disagree, 34%
Case study areas: Neither agree - Agree 22% nor disagree, - Disagree 55% 18% Tend to National omnibus disagree, 21% - Agree 29% - Disagree 63%
Base: All case study area respondents (4,431); National omnibus (1,029)
Disagreement with the statement is highest among Cambridge and Hackney residents (66% and 63% respectively) where the population is on average younger. This is in accordance with previous work which found that older people tend to be more sceptical about the urgency and severity of the climate change
51 This wording was taken from earlier Brook Lyndhurst surveys (e.g. Bad Habits Hard Choices, 2004) so that we had some baseline understanding of how people generally respond. More recent surveys provide other ways of asking about concern for the environment and these are now used widely (2009 Survey of public attitudes and behaviours towards the environment)
March 2010 34 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections| A report for Defra
problem, but they are also more likely to undertake straightforward pro-environmental behaviours, such as recycling or reusing52.
4.4 Attitudes and behaviour to dry recycling Participants in the discussion groups are very enthusiastic about the concept of recycling, although they think the practicalities can be slightly tedious. This is the case across areas with different collection types and for both rural and urban districts.
“I do not like keeping it all in my kitchen, I am forever running out the back door and going, that in there and that in there.” User, Female, Cambridge
In the qualitative groups with users, the majority say they use the full extent of their Council’s recycling services (tins, bottles, glass, paper, cardboard and organics). This was backed up by the quantitative survey in which 73% said they recycle as much as they possibly can.
Qualitative group participants also call for Councils to collect more plastic items, such as margarine tubs or bleach bottles, as well as nappies. These calls are particularly strong in certain areas: notably on Taunton Deane District Council to collect plastics and cardboard. In addition, participants tend to think that plastics and packaging are more of an issue because they do not biodegrade naturally.
“It is the packaging; the plastic packaging is the biggest issue with recycling I think.” User, Female, Weymouth and Portland
“*Plastics+ because they don’t sort of like degrade or anything like that, so definitely plastic.” Non user, Female, Cambridge
Though food is mentioned spontaneously in many of the groups as an item which is recycled, packaging (e.g. plastics) is generally of more interest to respondents. The reason behind this is probably linked to the fact that plastics and packaging waste (including polystyrene and cardboard) comes in bigger quantities, is more voluminous and visible at the point of disposable, and participants feel they have less control of it.
“And yoghurt pots and things like that*…+which is what still bulks it up, so you are not really cutting down. You are recycling a certain amount but you have got excess packaging now so the green bin is going to stay full.” User, Female, Weymouth and Portland “Packaging is one of the worst things. We are of an age where we don’t buy much now because we have already got it or we don’t want it. And I am not joking there. But you buy anything these days and you could fill a black bin in a week just buying three items, with packages.” User, Male, Taunton Deane Respondents taking part in both the qualitative and quantitative research claim to be fully convinced about the benefits of recycling and committed to doing all they can in this respect.
“I think you should recycle as much as you can, anything that can be recycled should be.” User, Male, LB Hackney
52 Brook Lyndhurst (2004) Bad habits hard Choices.
March 2010 35 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections| A report for Defra
Figure 6 Level of Commitment to Recycling
Q2. Which, if any, of the following statements come closest to how you feel about recycling?
I recycle as much as I 73% possibly can
I recycle a lot, but not 19% everything that can be recycled
I do not 6% recycle much
I do not 2% recycle anything
Base: All respondents (4,431)
There are marked differences between socio-economic groups. Younger people and students, for example, tend to report lower levels of recycling: 61% of 16-34 year olds and 57% of students say they recycle as much as they possibly can, compared to 79% of those aged 55+ and 80% of retirees. Recycling rates also tend to be highest for owner-occupiers (77% saying as much as possible) and people living in households without children (76%).
March 2010 36 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections| A report for Defra
Similarly, there are differences in claimed behaviours between residents of the different case study areas. Recycling is highest in Weymouth & Portland where the population is oldest and lowest in Hackney, which has the youngest population (but also compulsory recycling).
Figure 7 Level of Commitment to Recycling by Area
Q2. Which, if any, of the following statements come closest to how you feel about recycling? % 'I recycle as much as I possibly can'
85% 76% 74% 73% 71% 65% 58%
National Weymouth & Taunton Cambridge Bexley Fenland Hackney Omnibus Portland n=718 n=776 n=760 n=720 n=698 n=1,029 n=759
Base: All those who claim to recycle as much as they can (3,237)
4.5 Home composting Home composting habits are relevant to kitchen waste recycling because of their effect on the quantity and type of materials which might be captured in the food waste collection. It may also be that respondents who are familiar with recycling organic waste at home take more easily to a very similar [recycling] system which also requires them to separate and store food waste.
“We treat the blue *food waste collection+ bin like we would treat our compost because we know it is going to turn into compost, as far as we know.” User, Female LB Hackney
March 2010 37 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections| A report for Defra
On the other hand, those who already compost part of their organic waste at home may feel they do not generate enough additional waste to warrant taking part in the collection service.
In the survey, the proportion of those claiming to compost at least part of their organic waste at home (be it in a composter, compost heap or wormery), is almost three in ten (28%). The proportion composing food waste is lower: 21% for uncooked vegetables (including peelings), for example53.
Figure 8 Home Composting – demographic differences
Q4. Can you tell me if you/your household compost any of the following items at home? % Any home composting
40%
34%
28% 29% 26%
21% 20% 21%
White White 16-34 35-54 55+ AB C1C2 DE non- British (962) (1,633)(1,835) (849) (2,271) (1,104) British (3,861) (137) Base: all respondents (4,431). Individual base sizes in brackets
53 These figures are similar to national estimates derived in research for WRAP by Julian Parfitt, one of the sounding board members (presented in the scoping phase). Parfitt‟s research suggests that around 20% of households are composting both food and garden waste.
March 2010 38 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections| A report for Defra
Figure 9 Home Composting
Q4. Can you tell me if you/your household compost any of the following items at home? % Any home composting (any food % in brackets)
Weymouth & Portland (32%) n=759 41%
Taunton n=718 36% (28%)
Hackney n=698 24% (19%)
Bexley n=760 24% (17%)
Fenland n=720 23% (14%)
Cambridge n=776 23% (18%)
Base: all respondents (4,431)
Those most likely to be home composters are older people (34% of those aged 55+), ABs (40%), those living in twos (33%) and owner occupiers (33%), painting the picture of an activity mainly carried out by people with quite settled lifestyles54.
Unsurprisingly, the level of home composting varies considerably by case study area. It is highest in Weymouth & Portland and Taunton Deane (41% and 36% respectively), these being the areas with more older residents, and that are relatively rural. They also have food-only collection services.
Fenland is also a rural area but has a low percentage of residents claiming to home compost (23%), as does Cambridge (also 23%). This may be explained by both areas having mixed FGW collections, which have been in place since 2001 in parts of these authorities, and residents choosing collections rather than home composting.
The relationship between home composting and usage of food collections is analysed in section 5.
54 This profile matches that observed by WRAP in national surveys. See Brook Lyndhurst, SMP and RRF (2009) (for Defra) WR1204 Household waste prevention evidence review: L3 m3-5 (T) attitudes and behaviours to home composting.
March 2010 39 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections| A report for Defra
4.6 Disposal of garden waste in mixed collections In three of the case study areas (Bexley, Cambridge and Fenland), food waste is collected alongside garden waste in the same collection. Respondents in these areas were asked how much of their garden waste they included, to help us identify how much the collection was being used for garden waste, and how much for food (see section 5).
Figure 10 Mixed Food and Garden Waste Collections
Q7. Thinking about garden waste, how much do you normally put in your bin collection? % put it all in
70%
51% 51%
Bexley Cambridge Fenland n=760 n=776 n=720
Base: All respondents with mixed FGW collections (2,256)
Despite rates of home composting being similar in each of these areas, Bexley residents are particularly likely to put all their garden waste in the collection (70% of them do so as compared to 51% in the other two areas).
March 2010 40 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections| A report for Defra
4.7 Bins
As outlined above, the case study authorities provide residents with different bin combinations and different total bin capacities. They also have different policies with regards to collecting side waste. In addition, participation in the dry recycling service in Hackney is compulsory. All of these variations could be expected to affect how full residents’ bins are. We also wanted to explore whether residents perceive food waste collections as a way of freeing up space in their refuse bin, especially in areas with fortnightly collection.
Survey respondents were therefore asked to describe the usual state of their ‘ordinary’ *residual+ bin before it is collected. A majority find that their bins are the right size for the amount of waste that they have. The proportion of those who have a lot of space left (15%) is similar to those who have bins which are usually overflowing (13%).
Figure 11 State of Bins
Q29. How would you describe your ordinary rubbish bin before it gets collected?
Lots of space Overflowing, 34% in left, 15% 13% households of 5 or more
Full, but can Some space close lid, 37% left, 33%
Base: All respondents (4,431)
March 2010 41 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections| A report for Defra
Overflowing bins are particularly problematic for younger respondents (23% of 16-24s), students (24%), those living in larger households (34% of households numbering five of more; 36% of households with three or more children), residents of converted flats (20%) and those in Asian ethnic groups (who in the survey were likely to be in larger than average households) (26%)55.
Figure 12 State of bins
Q29. How would you describe your ordinary rubbish bin before it gets collected?
Overflowing Full, but can close lid Some space left Lots of space left
15% 17% 13% 18% 10% 15% 18% 28% 33% 38% 37% 33% 31% 31%
43% 33% 36% 37% 33% 42% 37%
13% 11% 7% 17% 16% 15% 13% Total Bexley Cambridge Fenland Hackney Taunton Weymouth (n=760) (n=776) (n=720) (n=698) (n=718) & Portland (n=759) Base: all respondents (4,431)
There is some evidence that those who do not make full use of alternative waste channels – e.g. medium and low recyclers (18% and 17% respectively) and lapsed users of kitchen waste collections (19%) - are also more likely to have a problem with overflowing bins, but the problem is not as great as might be expected.
The proportion reporting overflowing bins is roughly consistent across the case study areas with the exception of Cambridge where it tends to be less of a problem (7%). This may be a surprise given that Cambridge operates an AWC system; however, it does have one of the largest maximum bin capacities (section 3). Residents in the areas with the smallest overall containment capacity (Taunton and Weymouth) do not seem to have problems in coping with this; notably these are also the areas with the highest participation in food recycling and in home composting (section 5).
In the qualitative work, some participants claimed to have a better notion of their waste habits since the implementation of both the food waste collection and general recycling services. They argue that these have enabled them to make more space in their residual refuse bin. “Before recycling I never had enough room in the green bin.” User, Female, LB Hackney
55 There is no significant difference in the proportion reporting overflowing bins between respondents classified as ABs (13%), C1C2s (13%) and DEs (14%).
March 2010 42 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections| A report for Defra
However, it is worth mentioning that non-users at times prefer to go to extremes rather than to participate in the food waste collection scheme; for example, by going to great lengths to compact their rubbish into their residual bin.
“So I’ve actually jumped in the bins to try and flatten the rubbish down.” Non-user, Female, Cambridge
March 2010 43 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections| A report for Defra
5 Participation in food waste collections
A central objective of the research was to explore the extent to which residents in the study areas participate in food waste collections and how participation varies across socio-demographic groups and housing types. Survey respondents (who were screened to make sure they were all eligible for food waste collections) were asked to say how often they recycle food and what sorts of food they recycle. Claimed participation was checked against monitoring data from the authorities wherever it was available. This section looks at overall levels of participation, variations across different types of household, and participation for different types of food. It combines the findings from both the qualitative and quantitative research.
5.1 Overall participation 5.1.1. Feelings about throwing food away Discussion group participants admitted to throwing away a lot of food of very many different types, regardless of whether they used the food collection or not. Foods wasted include fruit and vegetable peelings, raw vegetables, fruit, meal leftovers, food scraps, food that had gone off (e.g. mouldy bread), chicken carcasses, meat, animal bones, egg shells, tea bags, coffee, cereals, pasta, general cooked food, etc.
As this was an unprompted response to the question “thrown away” some participants included items which they home composted while others only noted food waste that went into their refuse and food waste collection bin.
The main difference between users and non users groups was that the latter seemed much less willing initially to admit to throwing away food. Without probing, the foods mentioned were usually inedible leftovers such as apple cores, banana skins, potato peelings, etc.
“Nothing, absolutely nothing, I compost everything.” (Non user, Female, Weymouth and Portland)
“I never have wasted food other than things like potato peelings or the outside of onions and stuff that you cannot actually eat. Everything else actually gets eaten.” (Non user, Female Bexley)
"My dog eats everything, even the apple cores" (Non user, Female, Hackney)
A similar reluctance to admit to wasting food was observed in Brook Lyndhurst research for WRAP, leading to the suggestion that consumers are ‘in denial’ about how much they throw away. 56
5.1.2. Claimed participation Since people routinely over-report their participation in any form of recycling, the survey included several questions which asked about participation from different angles in order to check on the consistency of
56 WRAP (2007) Understanding food waste; research summary http://www.wrap.org.uk/wrap_corporate/news/new_wrap_2.html
March 2010 44 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections| A report for Defra
respondents’ claims. Results from the different questions do indeed tally, so that we can be fairly sure that respondents were answering consistently throughout the questionnaire (even if some of these claims were consistently exaggerated).
On average across the six areas, 74% say they participate in their food waste collection. There are statistically significant differences between Hackney and all other areas (much lower) and between Taunton/Weymouth and all other areas (much higher). Notably, Taunton and Weymouth also have the highest rates of home composting, and amongst the smallest overall containment capacity.
Table 6 Claimed participation in the study areas
Claimed participation % claiming to Scheme type home LA own survey This compost survey Hackney N/A 51% Weekly food-only 24%
Fenland N/A 68% AWC mixed FGW* 23%
Bexley 76% (South) 72% Weekly mixed FGW 24% 90% (North) Cambridge 81% ‘all’ or 74% AWC mixed FGW 23% ‘most times’ Weymouth & Portland N/A 87% Weekly food-only 41%
Taunton 80% 89% Weekly food-only 36%
* garden & food waste, plus card in Fenland
The average of 74% across our six case study areas is generally higher than the typical range of 50%-70% reported in surveys from elsewhere, which were reviewed in the scoping phase of this project. Compared to case study authorities’ own surveys (where data exist) claimed participation in our survey is higher in Taunton, but lower than the rates reported by Cambridge or Bexley.
5.1.3. Actual participation Although one of the criteria for the selection of case study areas was availability of tonnage, capture or participation data, only three of the six authorities were able to provide participation monitoring information. In all three cases, the data cover selected rounds and are therefore not strictly comparable to the claimed participation from our survey which is derived from an authority-wide sample of streets/properties.
In both Bexley and Taunton, participation claimed in the survey is some 20 percentage points higher than has been recorded by the authorities through on-street monitoring, and 30 percentage points higher in Hackney. The comparable figures are as follows:
Bexley – survey 72%; monitored, 40-50% depending on area Taunton – survey 89%; monitored, 60-70% depending on round Hackney – survey 51%; monitored, 20%
March 2010 45 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections| A report for Defra
This gap is slightly higher than we would normally expect for dry recyclables (10% - 15%) but is consistent with other food waste collection surveys reviewed in the scoping work, where over-claiming was generally in the order of 20-30%. We noted in the scoping phase that social norms around not wasting food may be even stronger than the norms around recycling so that the psychological pressure to say that food is recycled when the service is available is strong.
5.1.4. Strength of participation Both the survey and the discussion groups indicate that most households either participate consistently or not at all – 53% ‘always’ recycle their food waste and 12% do it ‘most of the time’; 25% never put food out for collection.
Figure 13 Usage of Kitchen Waste Collections
Q6. Thinking about your [food waste] bin collections, which of the following most accurately applies to your household?
Put food in every time 53%
Put food in most times 12%
Put food in fairly often 3%
Occasionally put food in 5%
Put food in but not any more 3%
Never put food in 23%
Base: All respondents (4,431)
In waste surveys we normally consider actual participants to be those who claim they participate ‘always’ or ‘most of the time’. Experience has shown us that respondents saying anything else are usually reporting wishful rather than actual participation.
For the purposes of this report, respondents have been segmented into:
Frequent users (65%) – those participating ‘always’ or ‘most of the time’ Occasional users (8%) – those saying ‘fairly often’ or ‘occasionally’ Lapsed users (3%) – those who ‘have put food in but not any more’ Non-users (23%) –those who ‘never put food in’
March 2010 46 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections| A report for Defra
Reference is also made in places to ‘users’ – where frequent and occasional users are combined; and to ‘every time users’ who are those saying they put food in every collection or, in relation to specific items, ‘always’ recycle that food item.
Taunton and Weymouth have markedly higher proportions of frequent users than the other authorities, and especially of those who use the service ‘every time’ (figure 13). In both Taunton and Bexley the percentage of ‘every time’ users is similar to the actual monitored participation rates reported above (74%:60-70% in Taunton; 44%:40-50% in Bexley). It is slightly higher in Hackney (29% frequent users: 20% actual participation). Hackney is notable for having a low proportion of users overall, a higher ratio of occasional to frequent users than the other authorities and the most lapsed users (11% compared to 3% overall).
Figure 14 Usage of food waste collections across the study areas
Frequent - every Frequent - most Occasional Lapsed users Non-users 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Bexley Cambridge Fenland Hackney Taunton Weymouth n=760 n=776 n=720 n=698 n=718 & Portland n=759 Base: All respondents (4,431)
If (and we cannot validate this further) the ‘every time’ measure is, indeed, a truer indication of actual participation then Cambridge and Fenland could expect to be at around 50%, and Weymouth 65%.
The fact that frequent participation in Taunton and Weymouth is so much greater than in the other areas provides some support for the evidence reviewed in the scoping phase that weekly, food-only collections tend to out-perform mixed FGW and less frequent services in terms of the amount of food captured. These are also the authorities that offer the least overall containment capacity for waste (see section 3). Hackney, which is also a weekly, food-only collection, provides for unrestricted sack collection of residual waste. In addition to service type it is probable that demographics influence participation, as outlined later in this section.
March 2010 47 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections| A report for Defra
5.1.5. Lapsed usage Whereas previous surveys have suggested that lapsed usage can be an important reason for non- participation (e.g. the Outer West London trial57) this does not appear to be the case in our study areas – with the exception of Hackney where 11% are lapsed users. On average over the six areas, only 3% are lapsed users. Reasons for lapsing were explored both in the discussion groups and in the survey and these are reported later.
Table 7 Lapsed usage by area
Authority Scheme start date Lapsed Users % London Borough of Bexley May 2004 2% Cambridge City Council August 2004 2% Fenland District Council April 2005 1% London Borough of Hackney July 2005 11% (ECT scheme only) Taunton Deane Council May 2005 2% Weymouth & Portland Borough Council November 2005 2%
57 Reviewed in the scoping phase. ECT (undated) OWL Project: phase II final report.
March 2010 48 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections| A report for Defra
5.1.6. Relationship to recycling of dry recyclables Respondents’ commitment to food waste recycling is clearly lower than for recycling generally. Whereas a quarter say they do not use the food waste collection, only 8% admit they recycle little or nothing. Among the discussion group participants, the idea that people should recycle dry recyclables is now a normalised expectation (even if people don’t actually recycle) but this is not yet the case for food. As we noted earlier, discussion group participants were often more worried about recycling plastics than food.
There is a demonstrable link between general recycling commitment and participation in the food waste service: three-quarters of those who claim to ‘recycle as much as I can’ say they also use the food waste collection; this falls to only 10% of those who ‘don’t recycle much’.
The 25% of high recyclers who don’t use the food waste service are an obvious missed opportunity. Many of these respondents say they compost at home instead. Converting low/non recyclers to food waste collections appears to require a more general job of convincing them to recycle anything at all (see section 7 for further discussion of both issues).
Figure 15 Usage of food waste collections by general recycling commitment
100%
90%
80%
70%
60% Frequent users 50% Non 40% users
waste waste collection 30%
20%
10%
0% % who who %are frequent or non users of food High N = 3226 Medium N = 854 Low N = 255 Non N = 75 Level of recycling commitment Base: All respondents (4,431)
Relationship to home composting Across the study areas on average, 28% of respondents compost at home; but only 16% of the sample home-compost food items, most commonly uncooked fruit, vegetables and peelings. Sizeable minorities, however, also include cooked foods and meats in their home compost. Less than 1% claim to have a wormery.
March 2010 49 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections| A report for Defra
The small percentage of respondents who compost food at home commonly use both options - half of them are also frequent users of the food waste collection service, and a further 12% are occasional users.
The later analysis on motivations (Section 7) shows that some people reject the food collection service because they prefer to home compost. This is supported by the data showing that occasional and non- users of the food waste collection are much more likely to compost at home than are frequent users (40% and 34% as compared to 25%).
Figure 16 Participation in home composting
Q4. Can you tell me if you/your household compost any of the following items at home? 100% 89% 90% 80% 76% 70% 60% 50% 40% 37% 30% 26% 19% 19% 20% 10% 0%
Base: All who home compost N=1235
Those who use the food collection alongside home composting tend to use it for non-home-compostable food items. The relationship between home composting and food types put out for collection is covered further in section 5.5.4.
“The Brown bin *food waste collection bin+ I generally put meat and things in because I do not put stuff like that on the compost. Normally it is grass cuttings, vegetables and things like that in my own compost. The rest goes in the brown bin because I know it will get taken away.” Non user58, Female, Weymouth and Portland
“No not in a *home+ compost, because it (cooked food) attracts rats and everything, it starts smelling. Especially when it starts getting warm.” User, Female, Weymouth and Portland
58 As stated previously non-user groups included lapsed and low users (both in terms of frequency and types of materials).
March 2010 50 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections| A report for Defra
5.1.7. Where else food goes Respondents were asked to list (from prompted options) all the routes through which food is disposed of in their homes. Apart from home composting, food also (obviously) goes into respondents’ normal refuse bins – though only 33% on average said they put food waste in the ‘ordinary’ bin. This falls to only 17% of frequent users.
Feeding food to pets, garden birds or ducks is also a popular option. Prevalence of this behaviour was lower in the survey (7% of households) than was the impression given in some of the discussion groups where many people said they fed food to animals. We suspect that this claim is often used when people are uncomfortable admitting in public just how much they throw away. The ‘animal excuse’ occurs in all discussion groups Brook Lyndhurst does on food waste. "My dog eats everything, even the apple cores" Non user, Female, Hackney
The use of other disposal routes appears to be limited – fewer than 1% say they use an in-sink disposal unit (2% of social class AB households), and under 1% say they use the toilet or sink. The latter is surprising when compared to the focus group discussions where many people said that food items went through these channels (and in the light of more recent WRAP research59). In the focus groups, participants were prompted using pictures of ‘sloppy’ items and it may be the case that these are not front of mind as ‘food’ items when people are responding to a questionnaire survey – e.g. breakfast cereal dregs, foods with gravy, sauces etc.
“Any liquids and anything like that I wash it down the sink.” Non user, Male, Taunton Deane
“If it is like a sauce then I would flush it down the toilet because I don’t want the smell. Where else can you put it?” Non user, Female, Cambridge
“I'd put my sauces down the toilet or put them in the ordinary *bin+. I wouldn't put something runny like that in the brown bin." User, Female, Bexley
“They could go down the toilet as well. I flush a lot of food. It keeps the smells down.” Non user, Male, Bexley
59 WRAP (2009) Down the drain.
March 2010 51 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections| A report for Defra
5.2 Variations by urban density and housing type 5.2.1. Urban versus rural With the large caveat that we only have six areas (and thus data points) for analysis, there appears to be an inverse relationship between claimed participation and urban density, with participation rising as population density decreases. Fenland appears to be a significant anomaly to the overall pattern, having the lowest population density of the six study areas, but also the second lowest participation after Hackney (where population density is seventy times as great as in Fenland). As we described earlier, Fenland has a markedly higher proportion of households in social classes C2, D, E than either nearby Cambridge or nationally. As shown later, households from these social classes typically have lower participation rates
Figure 17 Usage of food waste collections by urban density (Q6)
Urban density v participation 100% Taunton 90% Weymouth 80% Cambridge 70% Fenland Bexley 60% Hackney 50%
40%
Caimed 30%
participation 20%
10%
0% 0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 120.00 Urban density pp/ha (source: ONS) (trendline excludes Fenland) Base: All respondents (4,431)
5.2.2. Housing types Most of our sample lives in houses (94%) and most (95%) have access to a garden (for storing bins). The relatively low proportion of flats reflects both the nature of the areas chosen and the fact that flats are typically excluded or only partially covered by food collections. The proportion of flats does, however, vary across the study area samples, being low (1-4%) in Bexley, Weymouth, Taunton and Fenland, but rising to 11% in Cambridge and 17% in Hackney.
Having space to store multiple bins was raised as a concern in several of the focus group discussions; in most of the study areas, households have to find room for at least three or more different and
March 2010 52 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections| A report for Defra
moderately sized bins. For those without gardens, this is often impracticable, and for those with small gardens, storage can be a deterrent to participation. Weymouth provides smaller food waste bins for those with less space and sacks are available to households in Cambridge where they cannot accommodate a 240L organics bin.
Figure 18 Usage of Food Waste Collections by Housing Type
100% 90% 80% 70% Non-users 60% Lapsed 50% users 40% Occasional
30% Frequent - 20% most Frequent - 10% every 0%
Base: All respondents (4,431)
The pattern of food waste recycling across different household types is broadly similar to that of recycling generally, both in this study and more widely. Participation is highest amongst settled owner-occupiers in larger houses and lowest in flats – and is especially low amongst those living in converted flats and private rented accommodation. (This matches work on dry recyclables in London where private renters in flats were flagged as the most problematic group60).
60 Household Waste Behaviour in London 2005, Brook Lyndhurst for the GLA, LWA & GoL, http://www.london.gov.uk/gla/publications/environment/household-waste-05.pdf
March 2010 53 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections| A report for Defra
5.3 Variations by population characteristics 5.3.1. Age Participation is highest amongst older households even though they are also more likely to compost at home. Age differences are most significant for ‘every time’ use, with a clear divide between those under and over 35. Two-fifths (43%) of 16-34 year olds are occasional or non-users, falling to 1 in 3 (32%) of those aged 35-54 or over 55 (who are more likely to be ‘every time’ users). Again, this points to settled lifestyles being a key influence on participation (as it is with recycling generally).
Figure 19 Usage of Food Waste Collections by Age (Q6)
100%
90%
80%
70% Non-users 60%
50% Lapsed users 40% Occasional
30% Frequent - 20% most Frequent - 10% every 0% Total 16-34 35-54 55+ (n=4,431) (n=962) (n=1,633) (n=1,835) Base: All respondents (4,431)
March 2010 54 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections| A report for Defra
5.3.2. Social class The impact of being settled is also reflected in the fact that students have one of the lowest participation rates, with over half (52%) being occasional or non-users. While students are more likely to live in flats than is the average for the sample, most students surveyed live in houses, either terraced or semi- detached.
‘Busyness’ of households also seems to play a part, with those employed part-time much more likely to be frequent users than other working households. The unemployed, however, participate significantly less than working households.
Figure 20 Usage of Food Waste Collections by Class and Working Status (Q6)
100%
90%
80% Non-users 70% Lapsed 60% users 50% Occasional
40% Frequent - most 30% Frequent - every 20%
10%
0% AB C1C2 DE Full time Part time Student Retired Unemployed Base: All respondents (4,431)
As is the case with age, the social class profile of participation is similar to that typically recorded for dry recyclables recycling – the unemployed and those in social class DE participate at significantly lower rates than other households. They are, however, not the only people uncommitted to food recycling and (also like other recycling) it is important not to forget the sizeable numbers of non/occasional participants in other social classes, including nearly one in three AB households.
5.3.3. Household size The research by WRAP reported in chapter 2 showed that the number of people in a household is a key a determinant of the amount of food waste produced. Households of five people, for example, create 7.6 kg of food waste in total per week compared to a national average of 5.3 kg (though large households produce less per capita than average)61.
61 WRAP (2008) The food we waste. See also WRAP (2009) Household food and drink waste in the UK. Per capita figures are given in „The food we waste‟ only for the „avoidable‟ portion of food waste (i.e. that which could have been eaten rather than all food waste including peelings, cores, egg shells etc). Each person (including children) in a household of five people creates 0.9 kg per week on average compared to 1.3 kg per capita on average across all households.
March 2010 55 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections| A report for Defra
Across the case study areas, large households (5+ people) – as well as single person households – are significantly less likely to be ‘every time’ users of food waste collections, and there are more non users in these households than average. Large households are also much younger (40% aged under 34 compared to 22% on average), a characteristic which is associated with below average participation in food waste recycling, as shown above. The vast majority (81%) of large households in the survey are households with children rather than multiple adult households (e.g. students and sharers); 42% have three or more children.
Figure 21 Usage of Food Waste Collections by Number of People in Household (Q6)
100%
90%
80%
70% Non-users
60% Lapsed users
50% Occasional
40% Frequent - most 30% Frequent - every 20%
10%
0% 1 2 3-4 5+
Base: All respondents (4,431)
5.3.4. Ethnicity Practitioners frequently flag households from minority ethnic groups in discussion about ‘hard to reach’ households. The picture for food waste recycling seems typical of the situation more generally, with significantly lower participation from all minority ethnic households than from White British households. ‘Every time’ use is particularly low amongst Black and Asian households. It is worth noting, however, that White non-British, Asian and Black households included in the survey were younger than average, so that it is difficult to separate out the influences of age/life-stage and specific cultural barriers to participation. It is similarly difficult to strip out service effects separately from ethnicity because most of the Black households in the survey live in Hackney.
March 2010 56 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections| A report for Defra
While minority ethnic groups undoubtedly experience culturally-specific barriers to participation (e.g. language), and are a significant operational consideration in some areas like Hackney, their contribution to low participation overall should not be overblown. There are still very large portions of the majority White British population who do not recycle food or are only occasional participants – of the non/occasional users in the survey sample, 80% are White British.
Figure 22 Usage of Kitchen Waste Collections by Ethnicity (Q6)
100%
90% Non-users 80%
70% Lapsed 60% users
50% Occasional
40% Frequent - 30% most
20% Frequent - every 10%
0% White British White non-British Asian Black Base: All respondents (4,431)
5.4 Recognition of materials accepted in the food waste collection We wanted to estimate how well respondents understand what can and can’t be recycled in their food waste collections, for two reasons: To identify whether lack of knowledge is a reason for gaps in the capture of targeted materials; To identify likely sources of contaminants and misunderstanding of what is accepted.
5.4.1. Materials accepted The discussion groups confirmed that, conceptually at least, people much more readily associate ‘organic’ materials (i.e. anything plant or vegetable in their view) with food waste collections than they do items such as meat or prepared foods (e.g. meals, cakes etc). Meat and bones are consistently the biggest area of confusion, especially raw meat (few would even consider fish because of its association with strong smells).
“I am not quite sure what to do with raw meat, because it is something I wouldn’t put in my compost, why would I be putting it in the other." (User, Female, Taunton Deane)
March 2010 57 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections| A report for Defra
When prompted in the groups, users and non-users alike generally identified correctly some of the less obvious ‘organic’ items as eligible for their food waste collection, but these were not necessarily front of mind. Liquid/semi-liquid items in particular are often not thought of as ‘bin’ items at all, rather as items to be disposed of down the sink or toilet.
A good portion of both participants in the user and non user groups stated that “liquid” sauces and dressings would more often than not go down the sink, drain or toilet rather than anywhere else (section 5.1.7). One user group participant admitted to placing cat litter at the bottom of his bin so as to absorb any liquids from the food waste. More usually, people are using paper or card to absorb liquid. Non user group participants were even more inclined to discard sauces or dressings down the sink, drain or toilet. They would more willingly dispose of more solid things like cereal or rice down the toilet or sink as well.
The survey provides quantitative support for these findings - recognition that vegetable items are accepted is well above that for meat (especially uncooked) and for mushy items, such as meal leftovers.
Since the six study authorities do not all accept the same materials, recognition is shown for each area separately in table 8.
Recognition is generally highest for uncooked fruit & vegetables being 95% or above in all except Fenland (93%) and Bexley (88%) – both of which are mixed FGW schemes. It is possible that here ‘users’ are using collection only for garden waste. In Hackney, Bexley and Fenland, recognition for cooked fruit & vegetables is much lower than for uncooked, whereas there is little difference between cooked/uncooked in Cambridge, Weymouth and Taunton. Recognition for meat/fish is universally lower than for fruit & vegetables – whether cooked or uncooked – though is above 50% in all areas (including, perversely, Hackney where uncooked meat is not accepted). Cambridge appears very different from the other two mixed FGW collection areas in respect of meat, with recognition similar to the food-only collection areas where recognition for meat is 80% or higher (compared to 50% - 65% in the other two mixed FGW areas). Taunton and Weymouth record the highest recognition for meal leftovers (96% and 92%), falling to 86% in both Hackney and Cambridge and only around three-quarters of residents in Bexley or Fenland. Where paper and/or card are specifically targeted, recognition is moderately high at 60%-85% depending on area and material. Even though 28% of participants in Weymouth and Portland stated that thin cardboard could be placed in their food waste collection no problems have been reported by the processors in terms of contamination. This may be because waxed cardboard and cartons are the actual contaminants and not thin cardboard generally.
March 2010 58 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections| A report for Defra
Table 8 Recognition of what can be put in food waste collections
Q5. Can you tell me whether you think these things can be put in the food waste bin here?
Portland
Bexley Cambridge Fenland Hackney Taunton Weymouth and Users Frequent Users Non N= 760 776 720 698 718 759 3,131 720 % % % % % % % % Uncooked fruit & Vegetables 88 99 93 97 95 99 98 87 (including Un-cooked peelings) Uncooked 61 81 51 52 83 95 78 58 meat/fish Cooked fruit & 74 96 84 88 97 98 95 76 vegetables Cooked meat/fish 65 84 64 80 88 96 86 66 Cooked meal Cooked leftovers & plate 73 86 76 86 92 96 91 70 scrapings Cooking oil/liquid fats (e.g. chip 10 53 9 29 20 21 25 23 fat/ghee) Biodegradable 7 50 36 17 36 10 27 26 plastic bags Plastic carrier Bags bags/ ordinary bin 2 30 12 9 1 2 8 16 liners Paper & paper 5 62 70 9 11 22 30 35 bags Newspaper 14 70 81 10 25 45 44 38 Thin cardboard (e.g. 7 69 85 12 4 28 34 40 cereal boxes) Other wrapper Corrugated cardboard (e.g. 3 62 65 10 2 73 37 38 packaging around big electrical goods) Disposable nappies 1 31 4 6 1 2 7 12
Grass cuttings/plant 90 95 91 10 7 7 50 56 Other trimmings Pet waste and 5 37 12 7 2 4 11 14 manure Soil 3 48 23 8 1 2 15 18 Boxes shaded DARK BLUE indicate materials NOT accepted in local collection Boxes shaded RED indicate materials accepted only if they are council-approved Figures in BOLD where 10% or more think potential contaminant is accepted
March 2010 59 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections| A report for Defra
The Table above also highlights the sheer diversity of what is accepted in different schemes. We are clearly a long way yet from an established norm of what is ‘expected’ behaviour in relation to food waste, except at the very local level. The main area in which variation in service is likely to make a difference is when people move into a new area where the service differs from what people are used to (e.g. in terms of what can be put into the food collection, in which bins, and when it is collected).
Several people in the discussion groups were recent in-movers to their area and had had varied experiences of encountering the food waste service. It seems commonplace for people to find out from their neighbours what they should be doing – including sometimes that they should have a bin in the first place. Very few people call the Council for help or access information from web sites. In areas with transient populations there is therefore considerable scope for misunderstanding.
5.4.2. Potential contaminants While the literature reviewed in the scoping phase suggested that contamination overall tends to be fairly low in food waste collections, some materials can be problematic – especially plastic carrier bags. Growing use of bio-plastics by supermarkets (at checkout and in packaging) is potentially even more of a problem for food waste collections if consumers perceive these as ‘compostable’ and therefore eligible for collection. Other consumer work we have done suggests that consumers are already confused about differences between degradable and compostable plastics, and where bio-bags should be disposed of.
The survey results are perhaps worrying in terms of potential contamination (although the case study authorities reported low actual levels of contamination):
Cooking oil and bio-bags appear to be the biggest risks, especially in Cambridge where half or more of all respondents think these items can be accepted (the bio-bags issue is discussed again later in relation to caddies and liners); A large minority of respondents think pet waste and soil can be taken in Cambridge and Fenland (which have similar mixed FGW schemes), together with nappies in Cambridge.62 Thin card appears to be a particular issue in Weymouth. It was clear in the discussion group discussions here that some residents (including very keen users) do not understand why thin card is a problem when they are actively encouraged to include corrugated card.
62 One Sounding Board member suggested that confusion could arise from the marketing of liners for washable nappies as „bio-degradable‟; some disposables are similarly marketed as bio-degradable nappies.
March 2010 60 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections| A report for Defra
Looking at knowledge of contaminants overall (the percentage of respondents who made any mention of an area-specific contaminant when asked what is accepted) Cambridge, Fenland and Hackney score poorly. Here, 50% or more identified at least one incorrect item. This compares to under 20% in Taunton and Bexley. The middling results for Weymouth relate largely to the issue of card, mentioned above.
Figure 23 Incorrect contaminant knowledge
Q5. Can you tell me whether you think these things can be put in the bins here? % of respondents with inaccurate contaminant knowledge 67% 57% 51%
38%
18% 14%
Bexley Cambridge Fenland Hackney Taunton Weymouth (n=760) (n=776) (n=720) (n=698) (n=718) (n=759)
Base: All respondents (4,431)
5.5 What is being recycled in food waste collections?
5.5.1. Garden waste in mixed FGW areas Bexley, Cambridge and Fenland all offer mixed garden and food waste collections. The research reviewed in the scoping phase suggested that:
Per capita food waste capture from schemes that include (uncharged) garden waste may be lower than in food waste only schemes; There may be seasonal variations in participation for food which is related to when households have garden waste.
However, the amount of existing data is too small to be conclusive on either point, and food waste is not always identified separately in all such studies.
Across the three areas covered in our survey, claimed participation for garden waste is significantly higher in Bexley (weekly collection) than in either Cambridge or Fenland (fortnightly) (section
March 2010 61 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections| A report for Defra
Averaged across the three areas, half of users appear to be committed users for both food and garden waste. The pattern of combined usage is as follows:
50% ‘high’ users for both food and garden waste63 6% high food users and put in a ‘fair’ amount of their garden waste 8% high food users but low/non garden waste users 27% mainly use for garden waste (all/most of GW) but occasionally/never for food 10% occasional/non-users for both food and garden waste
63 „High‟ food = use collection every time + most times; „high‟ garden = all/most GW when it arises
March 2010 62 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections| A report for Defra
5.5.2. Food items put into collection The list of food items asked about in the survey was informed by our consumer survey work for WRAP on household food waste minimisation, and further probing in the 12 discussion groups for the current research. In addition to items actually collected by the six case study authorities, items asked about were those known to be the most commonly arising, and the most commonly overlooked as a ‘problem’ by consumers.
Figure 24 Foods being put into the collection
Q8. In your household, how often is it put in the food waste collection?
Always/most Hardly ever/never Peelings Cooked fruit & veg Tea bags/cofffee ground Uncooked fruit & veg Plate scrapings Rice/pasta/potatoes Food with mixed … Bread/cakes Dairy Cooked meat/fish Bones/carcasses Take-away Sauces & dressings Raw meat/fish
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Base: All current users of food waste collections (3,535)
The hierarchy of what is recycled follows fairly closely the hierarchy of what respondents recognise can be accepted in their food waste collection. The general hierarchy of frequently recycled foods runs as follows: anything fruit or vegetable; followed by cooked/prepared items that are not obviously ‘meaty’; and finally meat, take-away and runny foods at the bottom of the list
5.5.3. Variations by area There are very significant differences between the six study areas in respect of foods that are recycled frequently. Broadly speaking the authorities appear to fall into three broad groups:
March 2010 63 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections| A report for Defra
Taunton and Weymouth where participation is consistently high; Cambridge and Bexley which score high on some items (mainly fruit & veg) and moderately on others; Fenland and Hackney which have the lowest participation for most items.
More specifically:
While participation is generally highest in Taunton and Weymouth, they record much lower participation for peelings. This may be a reflection of high levels of home composting in these two areas. Notably, they are the only two areas in which participation for meat-based items is similar to that for other foods. Fenland records the lowest participation for every item except peelings; participation is especially low for meat-based items. Participation for meat-based items is significantly lower in the mixed FGW areas and Hackney, than in the food-only areas of Taunton and Weymouth. Bexley and Cambridge score higher on plate scrapings and leftovers than either Hackney or Fenland, but participation for leftovers is significantly higher in Taunton and Weymouth than any of the other areas.
Figure 25 Foods being put into the food waste collection by area always or most of the time (Q8)
100% 90% Bexley 80% Cambridge 70% 60% Fenland 50% Hackney
40% Taunton 30% Weymouth 20% 10% 0%
March 2010 64 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections| A report for Defra
Figure 26 Food being put into the food waste collection by home composting participation (Q8)
Home composters Non-home composters
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Base: All current users of food waste collections (3,535)
The Hackney discussion groups revealed a particular distaste for recycling ‘wet’ items: user group participants would happily place the dry foods in their food waste collection bin but were more hesitant about moist/wet foods.
“Because it’s (salad) just so slimy and horrible. It’s not something I like to think of as recycled.”
“Meal leftovers, you know when I’ve cooked a proper meal. Anything I’ve really cooked would go in my blue bin.” Users, Females, Hackney
5.5.4. Variations by home composting A majority of home composters (64%) also use the food waste collection in parallel. However, there are significant differences in the types of food put out for collection between users who do and don’t compost at home.
It is clear that more home composters are using the service for cooked and meat-based items than they are for peelings or fruit & vegetables – as might be expected. Some of the social class/age differences for different food items described below can be linked to higher rates of home composting of fruit & vegetables amongst older and more affluent households.
March 2010 65 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections| A report for Defra
5.5.5. Variations by household type Differences in participation between population groups for key food items are more marked for meat- based items than for fruit & vegetables. Looking specifically at those who say they recycle items ‘always’ or ‘most of the time’: The pattern of usage for peelings, and fruit & vegetables is the inverse of that for home composting – that is, higher amongst younger and less affluent households. Nonetheless, participation for these items is high across all social groups. The opposite is true of meat-based items, where affluent and older households are much more likely to recycle these items than younger or poorer households – but they too recycle meat items much less often than fruit & vegetables.
Figure 27 Foods being put into the food waste collection – selected materials by age and social class (Q8)
16-34 (n=702) 35-54 (n=1,340) 55+ (n=1,492) AB (n=701) C1C2 (n=1,851) DE (n=819)
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20% % recycling item always/most of time of always/most item recycling %
10%
0% Peelings Raw fruit & veg Cooked fruit & veg Raw meat Cooked meat
Base: All current users of food waste collections (3,535)
Bearing in mind that Asian households are much less likely than White households to use the service overall, Asian users participate in a similar fashion to White British users. For meat items, especially, there are significant differences between White British & Asian households on the one hand, and White non-British and Black households on the other. Cooked meat items (collected by all six authorities) are recycled by 60% of both White British and Asian user households, but only 45% of White non-British and 38% of Black user households. (Apparent differences for raw meat are affected by the fact that Hackney does not accept raw meat or fish).
March 2010 66 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections| A report for Defra
Figure 28 Foods being put into the food waste collection – selected materials by ethnicity (Q8)
White British (n=3,165) White non-British (n=95) Asian (n=72) Black (n=107)
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20% % recycling items always/most of time of always/most items recycling % 10%
0% Peelings Raw fruit & veg Cooked fruit & veg Raw meat Cooked meat
Base: All current users of food waste collections (3,535)
Having access to a garden (which most households in the survey do) also makes a difference to which materials are recycled, with significantly lower levels of meat recycling in households without gardens (38% participating for uncooked and 49% for cooked). Participation for fruit & vegetables is similar to those with gardens, but is higher for peelings, reflecting the impact of home composting on the materials recycled by those with gardens.
March 2010 67 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections| A report for Defra
6 In-home logistics of food waste recycling
The literature reviewed in the scoping phase suggested that ease of use was vitally important for securing participation. A potential barrier (as with dry recycling) is encouraging households into the habit of separating food waste from general waste in the kitchen. Our research was therefore designed to explore how people manage food waste in the home; their use of containers provided by local authorities; and their views on how in-home logistics affect their participation in food waste collections. The qualitative and quantitative consumer research explored:
Households’ general approach to managing their food waste (section 6.1) Whether they wrap food at all, and in what material, as an insight into possible contamination (from a processing point of view) of collected food waste (6.2) Use of temporary storage (e.g. caddies) (6.3) Use of liners for temporary storage containers (6.4)
It is important to remember that the quantitative survey asked these questions only of users. We do not have statistical data on non users’ thoughts on food waste logistics and the extent to which non users are put off by, for example, the provision of caddies or liners. Views on these matters were picked up in the qualitative discussion groups, however. The following analysis is based on the results of both the survey and discussion groups.
6.1 Initial separation – general strategies Across the combined sample, there is a broadly even split between those who put food waste straight into the collection bin (49%) and those who use some form of interim storage (42%). A further 7% use their discretion in deciding whether to use an intermediary container or not (depending on the situation – e.g. for some foods and not others).
Putting food straight into the collection bin may undermine the effectiveness of participation, especially if the bin is not easily accessible outdoors.
“We don’t *put food in the collection+ when it is pouring with rain because none of the kids want to stand outside and scrape everything straight in the bin.” Non user (lapsed), Female, Weymouth and Portland
Notably, occasional users are more likely to put their food waste straight into the food collection bin (63%, compared to 47% of frequent users), perhaps indicating that they are not forward planning and organising their food waste recycling in the same way as those who use the service on a more regular basis.
March 2010 68 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections| A report for Defra
Figure 29 Food Waste Storage
Q9. Which of the following most accurately describes what you normally do?
Put food straight into food waste collection bin 49%
Use a container or bag before transferring to food waste collection bin 42%
Both depending on situation 7%
Other 2%
Base: All current users of food waste collections (3,535)
Practicalities also certainly play their part. Almost two thirds (64%) of those living in blocks of flats at least sometimes use a temporary container for example, whereas those living in terraced housing are particularly likely to put their food straight into the collection bin (53%)64. Other socio-demographic groups in which users are more likely to put food straight into the collection bin (and not to use interim storage) are those aged under 35 (52%), social class DE households (54%), unemployed respondents (61%), and ethnic groups other than white households (68%65). There are no significant differences between households of different size.
Residents in the food-only collection areas have much smaller food waste bins than in the mixed FGW areas, such that some households keep these bins indoors (table 6.1). There is certainly evidence that, in Hackney at least, many households do not transfer food waste from their caddy to their larger blue bin (since caddies are themselves set out for collection).66
64 Sample sizes of current users living in converted flats are small (74) so have not been quoted here. 65 This is an average across „mixed‟, Asian, Black and „other‟ groups. There are statistically significant differences between each of these groups and white respondents even though sample sizes for each group are small. 66 Source: Personal communication, Julian Parfitt*, ECT** (*now of Resource Futures; ** now May Gurney).
March 2010 69 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections| A report for Defra
Table 9 – Food waste storage
Sample user base Participation Put it straight Use hard Use other Food waste per area in food waste into food container as interim bin size (unweighted) collection waste bin temporary container (reported) container
Bexley 602 72% 67% 25% 6% 140L/50L (weekly)
Cambridge 628 74% 50% 31% 17% 240L/75L sack (fortnightly)
Fenland 555 68% 53% 25% 20% 240L (fortnightly) Hackney 414 51% 67% 27% 3% 20L (weekly)
Taunton Deane 655 89% 35% 59% 4% 25L (weekly)
Weymouth & 681 87% 31% 43% 15% 120L/25L (on Portland request) (weekly)
Overall, however, there is no straightforward relationship between service style (i.e. whether it is a mixed FGW or food-only collection) and whether households use interim storage (Figure 27) Usage of interim storage by participating households is:
Highest in two of the food-only collection areas, which also have the highest participation – 63% in Taunton and 58% in Weymouth); Lowest in the London case studies – 31% in Bexley (mixed FGW) and 30% in Hackney (food-only); Undertaken by around half of users in Fenland (45%) and Cambridge (48%) – which both offer mixed FGW collections.
The following section looks in more detail at interim storage practices.
6.2 Interim storage indoors – caddies and improvised containers
To recap from section 3, caddies of 5L to 7L are provided to residents in all of the case study areas except Weymouth. They are provided free of charge in Bexley, Hackney, Cambridge and Taunton while caddies can be purchased from the council in Fenland.
6.2.1. Interim storage and participation When analysed for all survey respondents regardless of location, there is a positive correlation between caddy use and the number of ‘every time’ users, and for participation for meat in particular.
In low participation areas, however, there seems to be some ‘deadweight’ in local authorities investing in caddies given how few households overall (users plus non users) actually use them. Across the four areas
March 2010 70 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections| A report for Defra
where caddies are provided free by the council, only 20% of households covered by the food collection service appear to use them. The proportion varies from 10% in Cambridge, to 14-15% in the two London Boroughs, up to 46% in Taunton, where both overall participation and caddy use amongst users is high.
Notably, Weymouth does not provide caddies but high percentages of households participate in food waste recycling (table 6.1). Comparing participation in Taunton Deane and Weymouth & Portland we observe only a 2% point difference in the overall rate of participation (which stands at 89% in Taunton and 87% in Weymouth & Portland). Not only do participation rates seem very similar, but the use of temporary storage containers is also roughly the same in both areas (63% and 58% respectively).
Perhaps the implication here is that people who want to participate anyway will tend to use the caddy provided or devise their own interim storage but those who are less inclined to recycle food are not necessarily motivated by indoor storage being made easier. Caddies may well help engaged households to participate effectively (e.g. for meat) but they may not be enough to overcome the other reasons that non users have for not participating (see section 7).
6.2.2. Rigid containers or bags Of those who use interim storage, 76% use a rigid container (ranging from 56% in Fenland to 93% in Taunton). Caddies provided by the council are the most used option (35% of those who use interim storage) but are not the only one. Almost one in five (18%) improvise with a container they already had, and another one in five (18%) buy a container from a commercial outlet especially for this purpose (i.e. not from their council).
Figure 30 Interim storage use
Q10. Is your temporary container or bag...?
Hard container free from the council 35%
Hard container you already had 18%
Hard container bought elsewhere 18%
Plastic bag you already had 12%
Paper bag you already had 9%
Hard container bought from the council 5%
Bag provided by the council 3%
Don‟t know 1%
Base: All users of temporary storage (1,697)
Using bags as intermediate storage is less popular than using hard containers but around a quarter (23%) of those using intermediate storage choose to do so. It is a relatively popular choice for those who use intermediate storage but are only occasional users of food waste collections – 39% of these people use a bag, perhaps indicating that occasional service users have less formalised systems in place for dealing
March 2010 71 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections| A report for Defra
with their waste. A number of people in the discussion groups use a plastic carrier bag in their kitchen from which they then tip the contents into the food collection bin.
Figure 31 Interim storage use – differences across the case study areas
Q10. Is your temporary container or bag...?
Hard Containers Bags 89% 93% 81% 73% 65% 56% 43% 35% 25% 18% 11% 7%
Bexley Cambridge Fenland Hackney Taunton Weymouth & n=193 n=304 n=254 n=125 n=416 Portland n=405 Base: All users of temporary storage (1,697)
6.2.3. Variations across the study areas Weymouth & Portland: Storage improvisation is particularly high in Weymouth: of those using interim storage here, 43% reuse a container they already had (e.g. ice cream tub), 27% use a container bought from a commercial outlet and 16% reuse paper bags.
Fenland: While residents here can buy a council caddy, relatively few (14% of interim storage users) do so. The most common option is to reuse a plastic bag (35%) or to buy a hard container from a commercial outlet (33%).
Bexley: Here, only half of those adopting interim storage are using the container provided by the Council. Drawing from the discussion groups, this outcome is perhaps linked to dissatisfaction about the type of caddy provided, notably a perception of the caddy being too small. The other main options adopted in Bexley are improvising a container (11%), buying a container from a commercial source (13%) or using a plastic bag (12%).
“It *kitchen caddy+ is a joke. If you get four meals then you are not going to get four meals in this bin. It is for teabags.” Non user, Male, LB Bexley
Hackney: while less than a third of Hackney food waste recyclers use interim storage, a majority of those who do so choose the council provided caddy (77%). The other main option here is using a plastic bag (10%).
Taunton: Here, too, a majority (80%) of interim storage users choose the council caddy. Use of plastic bags is much lower than in the other areas (only 3% of interim storage users).
March 2010 72 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections| A report for Defra
Cambridge: Despite the council offering caddies free of charge, only one in five (20%) of those using interim storage choose this option; 44% use a rigid container they already had or bought from elsewhere; and 12% use plastic bags. Feedback via the discussion groups (see more below) suggested that caddies are not readily available (they have to be collected from edge of town council offices) and participants may not know they are entitled to them.
“No I didn’t know I could have one, I found one. I didn’t know I could go somewhere else and get another one.” Non user, Female, Cambridge
If a local authority’s objective is to maximise the use of caddies then the simple implication from our survey is that the caddy needs to be provided directly to the household, free of charge. Equally, it also seems possible to achieve high levels of interim storage, and participation, without providing caddies in areas which have populations that are likely to be pre-disposed to food recycling – the contrast between Fenland and Weymouth described above is interesting in this respect.
Another thing to bear in mind, however, is that the improvised alternatives to council caddies might be expected to increase the risk of contamination of the collected material – for example, in Fenland where plastic bags account for 35% of temporary storage containers used.
6.2.4. Qualitative feedback on caddies Opinions on caddies varied greatly. Some participants do not see the benefits of caddies for larger amounts of food waste as they know they will need to take it out to the bigger container eventually. Taunton residents in particular simply call for liners for their collection bin (which may be linked to the fact that their outdoor bin is relatively small, at only 25L). Having said this, others find caddies to be a handy way of storing their food waste temporarily.
Those who do use caddies tend to empty them once a day (or when they are full). The caddy tends to be placed by the sink, on the floor, on the windowsill or by the ordinary kitchen bin. There did not seem to be a general preference for location.
The main issue raised about storage containers was them not being supplied free of charge to householders in some authorities. It seems to be a particular problem amongst non-users in Weymouth & Portland and Fenland (where caddies are not provided free) who complain about not having anything in which to separate their waste and having to take their plate outside after each meal. When shown caddies, non-users in these areas state that they would be more inclined to participate in the collection scheme if the Council provided them with caddies. Some care needs to be taken in interpreting these findings, however, given the observations made above that many households are participating without the help of caddies. Other views expressed by these same people in the non user discussion groups suggest that caddies are only one part of a complex bundle of barriers that put them off recycling their food waste.
Indeed, the qualitative work also backs up the quantitative findings that people provided with caddies may not make use of them. This seems to be mainly because they do not like the idea of storing food waste in their kitchen, although some (especially non-users in urban areas) complain they have no place for storing caddies inside.
March 2010 73 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections| A report for Defra
In addition, several have their outside bins conveniently placed so they can directly scrape plates into it (e.g. through a back window or door). This relies on both having a garden and having a kitchen at the back of the house but does remove the need for caddies.
Provision of caddies Non-user group participants who live in areas which offer caddies free of charge often do not realise that this is the case (e.g. Cambridge). Additionally, participants in Cambridge found it difficult to pick up caddies from the Council as most worked full time.
“I have yet to go down and get one, I am just always working.” Non-user, Female, Cambridge
“Make-do” caddies User group participants in areas where the Council does not provide caddies have original ideas for ‘make do’ equivalents. These include large envelopes from junk mailings, cereal boxes, ice cream tubs, having a carrier bag in the house which is then tipped into the outside bin once full, and having small [regular] bins for food waste, placed alongside the residual bin but acting as a deterrent to tossing everything into it.
“We use a cereal box; any boxes we get go in there. Or, like I say, the large envelopes you get *with+ the rubbish that comes in the door, I always use those because they are ideal to put food in aren’t they, and they are recyclable.” User, Male, Weymouth & Portland
As shown in this quote, the problem here is that apparently bio-degradable ‘make do’ caddies (e.g. cereal boxes) may also be thrown into the food collection bin along with their contents. On the other hand, it genuinely appeared to be the case that people in the discussion groups empty out carrier bags that are used as interim storage, an observation backed up by feedback from the six authorities that contamination by bags is insignificant.
6.3 Wrapping of food waste put into the collection bin
In order to investigate possible sources of contamination – as well as looking at in-home behaviours that make food recycling easier – the survey asked respondents whether and how they wrap food waste before it goes into the collection bin. Many authorities advise residents to wrap food waste since it helps to keep bins clean and reduce the build up of residues, thereby reducing the risk of attracting flies67.
6.3.1. Prevalence Overall, around six in ten users (58%) do, at least sometimes, wrap the food that is then collected. Frequent users are more likely to wrap food (60%) than are occasional users (50%).
Wrapping is undertaken both by those who put food waste straight into the collection bin and those who deploy some sort of interim storage (both caddies and bags). The paths by which food goes from the plate to the collection bin are many and diverse – the survey identified eight different permutations of storage/wrapping/final recycling bin options that people are using (in addition to food waste put into the ‘ordinary’ residual bin, down the drain or used for home compost).
67 Few respondents in either the focus group or survey reported flies as an actual problem.
March 2010 74 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections| A report for Defra
Figure 32 Wrapping food in the collection bin – by area
Q13. Do you ever wrap the food which you then put in the collection bin? %yes 84% 72% 64% 58% 58%
37%
19%
Overall Bexley Cambridge Fenland Hackney Taunton Weymouth & n=602 n=628 n=555 n=414 n=655 Portland n=681
Base: All current users of food waste collections (3,535)
Figure 33 Wrapping food in the collection bin – by age and ethnicity
Q13. Do you ever wrap the food which you then put in the collection bin? %yes 66% Overall 61% 58% 55% 48%
40%
17%
16-34 35-54 55+ White White non- Black n=702 n=1340 n=1492 British British n=107 n=3165 n=95 Base: All current users of food waste collections (3,535) Asian households not shown separately as base size is too small
Across the study areas, Hackney and Bexley stand out as the areas where only a small proportion of users wrap their food waste; in the others areas between 58% and 84% do so. There is no apparent difference in wrapping behaviour between either food-only/mixed FGW or weekly/AWC collections.
March 2010 75 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections| A report for Defra
Wrapping behaviour is more prevalent among older and retired users (67% of users who are 55+; 67% of retirees) and those in small households (64% of users in households of one or two people). Owner occupiers are also more likely to wrap food (62%) than renters, especially private renters (45%); and it is more common among ‘White British’ users (61%) than other ethnic groups in the survey (32%). Users who are students or unemployed are among the least likely to wrap food, even though around half of them do (46% and 48% respectively). If local authorities wish to encourage households to wrap food, then these data provide useful insights into which households to target with education material.
Overall, it appears that household food waste logistics are highly idiosyncratic and tailored to what suits individuals best. It does seems to be the case that wrapping food helps people to participate – with those most likely to wrap also being the most likely to recycle food – but it is not the only reason why they participate.
6.3.2. Wrapping materials Newspaper is by far the most commonly used material, by 77% of those who wrap food overall. Its use is particularly widespread in Weymouth & Portland (74% of users), Cambridge (54%) and in Fenland (49%). Weymouth and Cambridge have actively encouraged the use of newspaper for wrapping food waste in their communication materials. In Hackney, by contrast, residents are discouraged from using newspaper and are asked to buy compostable liners if they wish to wrap food for collection.
Figure 34 – Food waste wrapping put into collection bin
...... Q 14 What do you wrap it in? (Multi code) .
80% Newspaper Caddy liner Paper bag Other 70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0% Bexley Cambridge Fenland Hackney Taunton Weymouth
Base: all users of food waste collections (3255)
March 2010 76 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections| A report for Defra
Taunton is the only one of the study areas where liners feature prominently as a wrapping material (for 17% of users). This most likely reflects how easy it is to purchase council approved liners here and the promotional work of the authority68. In discussion, the authority reported that its own observations suggested that most collected food is contained in caddy liners.
The use of plastic bags, which are contaminants in all areas, is not high but equally not insignificant. As a proportion of all users, those who say they use a plastic carrier or ‘ordinary’ bag is markedly higher in Fenland (12%) and Cambridge (9%)69. The problem is least apparent in Taunton (2% of users).
6.4 Use of caddy liners The availability of approved liners varies considerably between the case study areas. Whereas in Cambridge for example, residents have to go to council offices or road shows to obtain them, in areas such as Taunton Deane and Weymouth & Portland, they are available for purchase at numerous local retailers.
In most of the case study areas, householders wanting to line their bins can also use newspaper as lining material. This is not the case in Hackney, however, where residents can only use compostable liners that they have purchased at local retailers.
Table 10 Use of liners
Small caddy liners
LA Other Free or Location of Price Type liners charged supply accepted Council offices & Bexley LB Charged 5p/liner Paper sack Newspaper libraries Council offices & Cambridge City Council Free N/A Paper sack Newspaper road shows
Fenland District Council Charged 50 liners for £1 Paper sack Certain shops Newspaper
Hackney LB (ECT 10 liners for 99p Cornstarch Over 20 local Charged No scheme only) or 52 for £3.99 liners retailers 50 liners for £4.49 Mail order Cornstarch Taunton Deane Council Charged (mail order) or £4 previously and now Newspaper liners (retailer) at over 30 retailers Local retailers Weymouth & Portland Charged 17p/liner Paper sack stocked by local Newspaper Borough Council distributor
6.4.1. Prevalence Just over a third of users (36%) employ a rigid container to store their waste prior to placing it in the food waste collection bin and, of these, almost six in ten (58%), choose to line their containers. Liners are undoubtedly popular, and this is examined further in the qualitative feedback below.
68 Approximately 30 local retailers of biobags in Taunton Deane and 100 in Somerset (in 2007). Mansell, D (Somerset Waste Partnership). Food, Consumers and Resource Efficiency Conference held by the RRF, WRAP and Brook Lyndhurst on November 6th and 7th 2007. 69 The actual prevalence of plastic bags in collected waste may be much lower depending on the degree to which bins with bags in are identified and rejected by collection crews.
March 2010 77 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections| A report for Defra
As we saw above, the prevalence of caddy use varies significantly between study areas and this pattern is repeated in liner use. When averaged across all users of food waste collections then the following percentage of respondents use some sort of container with a liner or lining material:
Bexley 11% Cambridge 17% Fenland 17% Hackney 3% Taunton 47% Weymouth 21%
The rate is particularly high in Taunton, reflecting both high caddy use and the efforts made by the authority to maximise access to approved compostable bags70 and to promote their use.
In Hackney, by contrast, the vast majority of those who use rigid interim containers do not line them (84%). The fact that newspaper is not accepted as a lining material may play a role. A requirement to purchase liners may also be a factor, because the area has a higher proportion of less affluent residents than Taunton.
6.4.2. Type and origin The main source of liners is purchase by residents (45% of those who use liners). Other self-procured options include lining caddies with newspaper (20%) and reusing plastic bags (14%).
Figure 35 Origin of Liners
Q12. Is the liner you use...?
Bought yourself 45%
Newspaper 20%
Bought from council 15%
Plastic bag 14%
Other 4%
Council provided 3%
Don't know 1%
Base: All users of containers liners (742)
Only 15% of those who use liners purchase them from the council (though this amounts to only 3% of users in total because not everyone uses a caddy or liner). The council is a significant supplier of liners only in Fenland, where they are relatively cheap (see prices across the study areas in table 10 above), and 40% of those who use liners here procure them in this way (but, again, this amounts to only 7% of Fenland’s food waste service users overall).
70 At the time of the survey, SWP were promoting „approved‟ bags; they have since changed their policy to accept any bag with a compostable label in recognition that these are now more widely available in supermarkets and other shops.
March 2010 78 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections| A report for Defra
Notably, even though residents in Cambridge are able to collect liners free of charge from Council offices and road shows, fewer than one in ten (8% of liner users; 1% of all food waste collection users) say the liner that they use is provided by the Council. This confirms one of the outcomes of the qualitative research – that many Cambridge residents are either unaware that the service exists or are unable to access the Council offices when they are open.
Finally, it is also worth noting the use of plastic bags as liners for temporary containers. This amounts to only 3% of users overall – so seems to be an insignificant contamination risk - but amounts to 14% of those who choose to use a liner, suggesting that education is still needed in some situations. It is barely an issue at all in Taunton, where the campaign to promote compostable bags appears to have been highly effective, but around of quarter of those who use liners in Bexley and Cambridge say they use plastic carrier bags which suggests that a small number remain unclear about correct practice.
6.4.3. Qualitative feedback on liners – general findings71 General attitudes to liners Discussion group participants see liners as a way of keeping their bin clean and therefore making participation easy.
“I think it *having a liner+ would be easier wouldn’t it *…+ rather than cleaning them out. User, Male, LB Bexley
Non-users particularly like the idea of caddy liners as they would enable them to not make direct contact with the food. This would replicate their behaviour in dealing with ordinary refuse – and help side-step non users’ lower tolerance of ‘yuckiness’ (see section 7).
“If they gave us that *liners+, I would do it because it is solving the problem that I have. *…+ If I had these in any container I would do it because I do not have to deal with a mess.” Non-user, Female, Weymouth & Portland
Some participants were not entirely clear about what they could or could not use as liners, especially in relation to ‘bio-degradable’ bags. A few had found they had used the ‘wrong kind’ of degradable bag, for example.
“And because they *the council+ stopped me using them I just wrap the corn starch bag in newspaper so I am still getting away with using them.” User, Female, Weymouth and Portland
Echoing the quantitative findings, respondents during the qualitative research spoke of using many alternatives to ‘standard’ caddy liners: biodegradable bags with layers of newspaper, newspaper on its own, brown paper bags within plastic bags (to ensure the caddy is kept clean), and so on.
In areas where cardboard is collected as part of the food waste service, some participants tend to take part only when they have cardboard for lining their bin. This would suggest that the provision of liners would help bring them on board on a full time basis (e.g. Weymouth & Portland, and Fenland).
71 Since this research was conducted, WRAP have further investigated the use of liners through their food waste trials.
March 2010 79 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections| A report for Defra
Attitudes to specific liner options After general discussion about lining habits, respondents were shown a selection of caddy liners – paper and corn starch - and asked about their experience of using them. If they had not encountered them before, they were simply asked to give their initial impressions of what was presented to them.
Of the various liners shown, the preference is for a biodegradable cornstarch bag with handles that can be tied. What made it so popular is that it seems ideal for disposing of even runny/ liquid waste. In addition, the handles are thought to be a good idea, enabling the bag to be filled without needing to leave space for tying it up. This type of bag also mimics the use of tie-handle bags in ‘normal’ kitchen bins - which is widespread - and keeps “yucky” food waste out of sight.
“I really like them yes, I think they are perfect. Like you said, if you have got any liquids or anything like that, runny foods, they do not break and it does not go all over the floor, and they do not make the bins smell.” User, Female, Weymouth & Portland
“That would be wonderful, you can tie it, it would be lovely.” User, Female, LB Bexley
Of the six case study areas selected, only one provides brown paper caddy liners free of charge - Cambridge. Participants in the Cambridge groups however are, by and large, not aware that they are entitled them. Furthermore, when shown the sample, the feedback they give is not entirely positive. They feel the paper liners would easily become soggy and that food waste would have a tendency to soak through them. This is very similar feedback to that given by users in Weymouth & Portland who had bought similar liners in the past. They echoed concerns about these liners’ suitability, confirming the worry over sogginess and stating that they can allow food waste to seep through and are expensive.
In other areas, users buy biodegradable liners from supermarkets and use them as liners in their caddies or as temporary storage containers (in and of themselves) for their food waste. Even when advised by councils not to place biodegradable cornstarch bags in the collection, some persist in doing so. This contamination risk is a potential consideration for local authorities in areas where liners are not supplied free of charge.
If these kinds of bags are not accepted – when they are marketed as biodegradable - then residents would like to know why, so that they do not waste money buying the wrong bags. In the light of the often negative views expressed more generally in the discussion groups about what is and is not allowed, the compostable bag issue (along with ‘compostable’ packaging) is one where there is a risk of losing public trust if contamination is not handled sensitively. Clearly, enforcement72 action should acknowledge the effort people have made and not leave them feeling upset for getting it wrong. There are clearly positive lessons to be learned here from Taunton (which, as noted earlier, has helped to make compostable liners widely available in local shops to make it easy for people to use the correct option).
There are also calls from some of those not currently using the food collection service for zip-lock type sealable caddy liners in order to ensure that there are no leakages and that (perceived) smells are contained as much as possible.
72 By „enforcement‟ the authors refer to action taken by collection crews and the local authority to prevent contamination and to implement „no side waste‟ policies where these exist – for example rejecting food waste bins that contain plastic bags which could lead to the load being rejected by compost process plants.
March 2010 80 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections| A report for Defra
A real need for liners? Some people are perfectly content using newspaper to line caddies or with washing them out; they suggest that liners, even if biodegradable, run contrary to the idea of waste minimisation and recycling.
“And if we are trying to recycle, why are we making more waste that is just unnecessary when we could just use that plastic bin?” User, Female, LB Hackney
User group participants with ‘Green’ segmentation characteristics suggest that residents be provided with caddy liners that they can wash and re-use, thereby decreasing the excess waste created.
Costs Unsurprisingly, many respondents think that councils should provide suitable liners free of charge. Views tend to differ between users (generally willing to buy liners) and non users (who tend to think they should be provided by the council). Many users are already buying liners, as the survey results demonstrated.
“You see you shouldn’t be buying them, they should be provided. All the things that are needed to make this run efficiently should be provided.” Non-user, Female, Taunton Deane
“I do not think you should have to buy them from supermarkets, I think they should have them in a corner that you can collect on the way out. I am paying £115 a month Council tax here and I think I am entitled to a couple of those.” Non-user, Male, LB Bexley
“Give us the tools for the job.” Non-user, Female, Fenland
There is confusion over the prices of compostable liners since so many different types of ‘bio-degradable’ bags are on the market. The prices mentioned by those who use these bags vary from 2 to 10 pence per bag. When asked about their willingness to pay, non-users did not seem willing to pay more than 1 pence per bag. Users seemed more willing to pay (at times as much as 5p a bag for the caddy liner) as some already use them or pay for a bin cleaning service.
“I mean they have got to be the same price or cheaper than *...+ your regular refuse bags that you line your bins with.” User, Female, LB Bexley
“It wouldn’t bother me, about 10p, 5p each are they],?” User, Female, LB Bexley
“Q: And you’re happy to pay this 65p *liner for the external bin+? F: No but at the end of the day it saves me nearly £2 to have somebody clean the bin or to go out there and clean it.” User, Female, Weymouth & Portland
March 2010 81 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections| A report for Defra
Frequency of use There is no over-arching agreement on how many caddy liners a household would need among participants. The figures put forward range from “two a day” to “three a week”, although many think that one liner a day is probably appropriate. It is recognised that the usage of caddy liners largely depends on household size and the number of children present.
“[I think] it would be very difficult for the Council to know how many starch based caddy liners to give each family.” User, Female, Taunton Deane
Those living in urban environments - and (therefore) in close proximity to others – were the most likely to think that caddy liners should be provided in sufficient quantities to allow householders to use one a day.
It is thought that collection crews could supply households with the caddy liners or that residents could be supplied at the local supermarkets when they do their regular shopping – i.e. both options which minimise inconvenience and fit easily into ‘normal’ life. The qualitative findings from Cambridge mentioned above illustrate what can happen when provision is neither obvious nor convenient. On the other hand, the qualitative findings in Taunton Deane tell the opposite story where the biodegradable caddy liners are readily available for purchase in local retailers across the borough.
From the qualitative research there was a sense that providing liners may encourage borderline non- users and very occasional users to make use of the food waste collection service on a more continuous basis. However, this group of people may not be of a substantial size as they will also need to be interested in food recycling or be a committed recycler of other materials (i.e. dry recyclables). For this niche of people provision of liners would enable them to replicate the behaviour already acquired in the disposal of their residual waste.
“If they gave us that I would do it because it is solving the problem that I have or if I had these in any container I would do it because I do not have to deal with a mess.” Non-user, Female, Weymouth & Portland
“I would put my sloppy stuff in it [bio-degradable corn starch liner with handles] then, because that would be more contained.” Non-user, Female, Cambridge
6.4.4. Qualitative feedback on liners – specific views from the study areas Bexley
Participants in the Bexley user group were split between using the caddy directly and washing it, lining the caddy with plastic carrier bags or using plastic carrier bags as an interim container and then emptying them into the outdoor bin, or wrapping their food waste in newspaper prior to disposing of it.
Both users and non-user participants agreed that the preferred liner was the bio-degradable corn-starch liner with handles. One of the key differences between non-user and users is their willingness to pay for liners and the amount of liners needed. Participants of the non-user groups thought the bio-degradable liners should be provided free of charge from the council and that they should receive at least one a day. In addition, across both groups having a liner that could be tied was thought to be a good idea in terms of containing any smells. As shown in chapter 7, fear of smells among non users is much greater than the
March 2010 82 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections| A report for Defra
actual prevalence of smells reported by users, which suggests that providing non users with liners could be a means of allaying such fears.
Cambridge By and large user group participants in Cambridge were not aware that free paper liners were available from the council. Those that used the caddy did not necessarily line the caddy and those that used the outdoor food waste bin directly tended to wrap food waste in newspaper in the first instance. Use of the caddy or direct use of outdoor bin depended on where the external bin was situated and how much space was available around the household.
The bio-degradable corn starch liners with handles were those preferred by both groups – even though the majority had not come across them before. Non-user group participants thought they would consume more than user group participants since non-users thought they would need two a day to deal with the food waste they have.
“But if you put your stuff in there (bio-degradable corn starch liner) and it is going to break down really quick, then I would put everything in it sloppy wise.” Non-user, Male, Cambridge
Fenland User group participants in Fenland had a mixture of different habits when it came to liners. Some tended to use newspaper or the paper bags purchased from the council on their own while others used a caddy or a “make-do” caddy (e.g. ice cream tub) without any liners or with some newspaper or kitchen roll and others used a plastic carrier bag which they then emptied in the outdoor bin. Those that used the paper bags complained that they did not fit well into the caddy and stated that they had to use one a day.
“I just use the free newspapers.” User, Male, Fenland
“Well I wash the little caddy every time.” User, Female, Fenland
The preferred liner was the bio-degradable corn starch liner with handles enabling it to be tightly tied, both amongst users and non-users. Non-user group participants were more vocal about the benefits that such liners would bring. In addition, non-users were adamant that the liners should be provided free of charge. While non users suggested that liners would help them to participate, many other reasons were mentioned for not recycling food and it is possible that providing liners would not be enough to secure the participation of non users.
Hackney User group participants in Hackney tended not to line their caddy as they simply washed it out and a few used bio-degradable liners purchased privately at supermarkets. User group participants stated that even with liners they still needed to rinse their caddy out so at times they did not see the added benefits of liners. Participants thought that even if caddy liners were made available for purchase by the council few were willing to pay besides those that already do. In their view, provision of liners would not necessarily entice people to participate more in the scheme.
March 2010 83 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections| A report for Defra
“If we are trying to save the environment we should be trying to make less waste, which means not using bin liners, definitely not.” User, Female, Hackney
“Really I just think that you do not need the bags. It can just go in the bin. It is recyclable but why not just use the bin and wash it out and it is the cost of them.” Non-user, Male, Hackney
In terms of preference, both user and non-user group participants opted for the corn-starch bio- degradable liners with handles. Non-user group participants were more sceptical about the liners being strong enough to withstand the weight and moisture of food waste. In addition, non-user group participants were even less inclined to pay for the bio-degradable liners.
Taunton Deane In Taunton Deane, user group participants were split into those using newspaper to wrap food and those purchasing bio-degradable liners approved by the council at one of the local shops or from the council directly. Those using liners felt they went through a lot of liners in a week, usually two a week, and some complained that when full the liners became too heavy and burst. Though user group participants did find the liners expensive some also did not think it feasible for the council to provide liners free of charge both in terms of cost and quantity (i.e. specific requirements for different households).
“There is only two of us at home so really the cost of a couple of bags is negligible, but if you had a biggish family and you were getting rid of a lot of those corn sacks they are not cheap.” User, Male, Taunton Deane
Again participants in both groups aired a preference for the bio-degradable corn starch bags with handles; again the main difference being the willingness to pay for the liners and the amount of liners required amongst non-users.
“And it immediately says buying the caddy liners *referring to a communication leaflet shown], you see you shouldn’t be buying them, they should be provided.” Non-user, Female, Taunton Deane
Weymouth and Portland In Weymouth and Portland a few participants used biodegradable bags which they had purchased from local supermarkets – though a couple had been asked not to use them by the council since to the collection crew and neighbours they may appear to be ordinary plastic bags. The rest of the user group participants either used a caddy directly without lining it or wrapped their food waste in newspaper and placed it directly in the outdoor bin, while a couple of participants lined the outdoor bin with paper liners.
“They said *the council+, the letter stated that although they realised I was using biodegradable bags, the fact that they could look like plastic bags to neighbours, it is quite possible that neighbours will be thinking I am getting away with sending my waste in plastic bags, why aren’t they.” User, Female, Weymouth and Portland
March 2010 84 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections| A report for Defra
Both user and non-user group participants preferred the (compostable) corn starch biodegradable liner with handles and thought that one liner a day would be the preferred frequency. The only difference is that non-users were less likely to be willing to pay for such liners. As in other areas, both groups complained about the paper liner not being sturdy enough and letting moisture seep through.
More information on service aspects of using corn starch liners (including costs) is available in the evaluation of the WRAP food waste collection trials73.
73 WRAP (2008, updated 2009) Evaluation of the WRAP separate food waste collection trials.
March 2010 85 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections| A report for Defra
7 Motivations and barriers
This section looks at public understanding of why food waste is recycled (section 7.1), underlying attitudes towards recycling food waste (7.2), the reasons people give for participating in kitchen waste collections (7.3) and the barriers reported by occasional, lapsed and non-users of the service (7.4). This is followed with suggestions made by survey respondents for improving the service and encouraging others to participate (7.5).
7.1 Understanding of why Councils collect food waste
According to some social psychological theories, having an understanding of a problem and wanting to make a difference can encourage people to take action74.
This aspect was explored in the discussion groups but not in the survey because the topic is more amenable to qualitative investigation. During group discussions respondents were asked why they think Councils want to collect food waste, what they think happens to the material collected, and whether any of this knowledge is motivating.
Poor knowledge about why food waste is a problem The reason given most often as to why Councils are collecting food waste is diversion of waste away from landfill. There is general perception – both among users and non users of food waste collections – that landfill space is running out and runs the risk of spoiling the countryside. Concerns were generally about lack of space in landfill rather than wider environmental impacts such as greenhouse gases or climate change.
“Definitely landfills, they are ruining lovely countryside and lovely land. We are only an island and there is only so much landfill that you can do, the same as like with the composting, digging up good land, peat bogs and things like that. We have to be responsible.” User, Female, LB Bexley
“Because they are running out of holes to put it in I suppose.” User, Male, Weymouth & Portland
"Because landfill is in short supply now isn’t it? Landfills get full and it’s a sensible thing to do, why waste it? Everything is going to run out one day isn’t it?" User, Male, Fenland
Despite this recognition however, there is still a feeling that the public needs to be better informed. Many did not seem to know why they are being asked to collect their food waste; they only appeared to have a vague notion that it was ‘better for the environment’. In particular, people often find it hard to understand why food should be recycled because it is obviously biodegradable, whereas materials such
74 A wide range of research on motivations for pro-environmental behaviour can be found in Defra‟s sustainable consumption and production evidence base at http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/business/scp/evidence/theme3/sustain-consump.htm See also Jackson, T. (2005) Motivating Sustainable Consumption; Darnton, A. (2008) Practical Guide: An overview of behaviour change models and their uses; and Brook Lyndhurst research for the Defra Waste and Resources Evidence Programme (e.g. WR1204 and WR0117 at http://randd.defra.gov.uk/).
March 2010 86 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections| A report for Defra
as plastic are typically seen to represent a bigger environmental threat. (This perception was also observed in qualitative research for WRAP for Love Food Hate Waste75).
“What is the difference *between+ putting all this food waste (and what have you) in the landfill - which is going to rot down anyway - and sticking it in a flaming great pile to rot. What is the difference? I cannot see any difference.” Non-user, Male, Taunton Deane
“It is biodegradable anyway isn’t it, food waste. What the gulls and the birds don’t eat, it will go down to nothing anyway. It is the other plastic rubbish that I think is the biggest problem.” Non-user, Male, Weymouth & Portland
Very few people in the discussion groups mentioned methane or carbon impacts of landfill, or have any knowledge of the potency of food waste to contribute to greenhouse gas emissions.
To make compost Many users, and some non-users, are aware of the fact that their food waste is collected in order to be turned into compost. Some are also familiar with the fact that the compost can be purchased or collected for their own use and even that certain boroughs use the compost in local landscaping, parks and gardens. Generally, participants are not familiar with the process the food waste goes through in order to become compost or that it often involves high tech facilities (such as anaerobic digestion plants). The fact that renewable energy can be generated from composting processes is virtually unknown to group participants.
“I have heard it gets sent away and goes, I do not know, there is something they do with it, and then it gets recycled and it comes back and they use it in parks and gardens as compost. It comes back as a proper compost.” User, Male, LB Bexley
“If we can make it into fertiliser or compost then it has got a purpose, is it not?” Non-user, Male, Cambridge
In addition, some still think that food collected from households is used to feed pigs; no-one seems to know about the strict health regulations (i.e. ABPR) that apply to the treatment of household food waste. Some cannot understand how meat and bones can become compost.
However, a small minority of user group participants mentioned that producing compost from food waste is an environmental benefit in and of itself. “It is an environmental thing.” User, Male, Weymouth & Portland
Impressions that councils save or make money Those with slightly more cynical views (especially in the non user groups) argue that the main intention of local authorities in collecting food waste is simply to meet targets or save money, without any benefit to the public. Participants suggested that by introducing fortnightly collections and selling the end-product the council was saving money. Few (users and non users) understand the actual costs involved in waste treatment, why councils have to reduce waste going to landfill or the consequences for local tax payers of
75 WRAP Understanding Food Waste: research summary (2007). http://www.wrap.org.uk/downloads/FoodWasteResearchSummaryFINALADP29_3__07.e13ad703.3659.pdf
March 2010 87 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections| A report for Defra
missing targets. Many who express these kinds of opinion do not believe what they are told about what happens to the waste and myths are numerous.
“*…I think] they are sending it to landfills in other countries. They are not recycling it.” Non-user, Male, Weymouth & Portland
“I thought it was *an environmental benefit+ but I have read that it is not and it goes to landfill or 90% of it goes to landfill.” Non-user, Female, Weymouth & Portland
“They are doing it to meet government targets I presume.” Non-user, Female, Weymouth & Portland
"They get money from the composting companies for the raw materials because they sell the compost then so the council makes money." User, Male, Fenland
Even among those who do believe that food waste is composted, they may assume that it is principally a money saving measure: in their view, councils are able to save money by using food-derived compost rather than having to purchase compost from elsewhere.
Lack of knowledge of end use The degree of knowledge of the end use product derived from food waste varies greatly. Users tend to be more attuned to the benefits of collecting food waste but only a handful of respondents across all the discussion groups had a deeper knowledge of the treatment process or the wider environmental impacts of letting food waste go to landfill. Many – service users and particularly non users - do not know why Councils collect food waste or what the end product is.
“And they are using it for something but we do not know how they process it to get it to what they were using it for.” User, Female, Taunton Deane
Understanding as a motivating factor Many people in our discussion groups seem to be participating in food recycling despite their lack of knowledge of why it is a valuable thing to be doing, or what processes are involved. Among users there is a qualitative sense that all recycling, including food, is good for the environment but with little real understanding of what the environmental benefits are. Many non users have quite cynical views about councils’ motives for establishing collection schemes, a feature that has been noted before among low and medium recyclers in studies of dry recycling76. While these feelings may not always be picked up in quantitative surveys, they are, in fact, widespread and probably contribute to a general sense of lethargy towards food recycling among non users.
76 For example, Household Waste Behaviour in London, Phase 2, Brook Lyndhurst and RRF (2004) pg 8.
March 2010 88 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections| A report for Defra
7.2 Underlying attitudes towards food recycling
Underlying feelings about issues or services are often important drivers of behaviour but may not necessarily be picked up when people are asked directly why they do or don’t participate. This is because some factors are not always salient or ‘front of mind’ to respondents while other, more deep-seated values or feelings, may be involved in shaping any individual’s willingness to take action (see sources in footnote 67 above for further discussion and insights on drivers of behaviour).
In order to provide some context to what people say when they are asked directly about the reasons for participating in food waste collections, the survey was also designed to elicit opinions on some of these underlying feelings. The questions here were informed by feelings expressed in the discussion groups and by potential drivers flagged in behavioural change research. They are broadly concerned with:
Beliefs about the value of food waste recycling Perceptions about using the service: o how easy it is to recycle food; and o whether other people are thought to be using the service - because social norms are known to play a part in recycling participation77; Perceptions of potential difficulties that could deter participation.
The questions in this section were all asked as prompted statements to which respondents were asked to say how much they agreed or disagreed78.
77 A wide range of academics and practitioners have commented on the possibility of descriptive social norms (what we see happening around us) influencing recycling behaviour. Academic studies of recycling often use the theory of planned behaviour, in which social norms are one of the key components of the theoretical model. See for example, Nigbur, D., Lyons, E., and Uzzell, D. (forthcoming) Attitudes, norms, identity and environmental behaviour: Using an expanded theory of planned behaviour to predict participation in a kerbside recycling programme. British Journal of Social Psychology. 78 It is important to bear in mind that these kinds of question generally produce higher percentages who appear to endorse a view than when questions are asked without prompting. They provide robust data on relative differences between groups because everyone has had an opportunity to express an opinion about the same question.
March 2010 89 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections| A report for Defra
7.2.1. Beliefs about the value of food waste recycling As with recycling generally, respondents seem convinced of the benefits of recycling household food waste even though – as we saw above – they may have an incomplete or incorrect understanding of what these benefits are.
During most of the qualitative discussions, participants mention food recycling without being prompted - treating it as just another recyclable item rather than a completely separate category. Notably, only one in ten (10%) in the survey state they do not see why they should recycle food. The percentage is higher in the two urban authorities, Bexley and Hackney (17%).
Figure 36 Attitudes - should we recycle food waste?
Q25. Can you tell me the extent to which you agree or disagree? I don't see why I should recycle food waste 40
17 10 17 0 6 5 4
69 66 40 76 78 % Disagree 89 89
% Agree % Agree/Disagree % 80
120 Bexley Cambridge Fenland Hackney Taunton Weymouth N=760 N=776 N=720 N=698 N=718 & Portland N=759 Base: All respondents (4,431)
The figure is also higher amongst certain groups, notably students (17%), renters (13%) and households in converted flats (15%); non-White respondents (19% of Asians, 21% of Black respondents); and, unsurprisingly, those who do not attribute much importance to recycling generally (30%), and those who do not use the food waste collection service in their area (25%).
When presented with the idea that “the environmental benefits of recycling food waste are important to me”, a large majority of respondents agree (78%) - almost half, strongly (46%) (table 11).
Agreement levels are particularly high amongst well educated/affluent respondents (82% of ABs), those living in detached or semi-detached housing (82%), Taunton Deane and Weymouth & Portland residents (85% and 84% respectively), and those who think that the use of kitchen waste collection services is high in their areas (89%).
March 2010 90 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections| A report for Defra
Environmental benefits seem to be far more important to users than non users. Significantly fewer non users (50%) than frequent users (88%) agree that the environmental benefits matter to them and a large proportion of non users (29%) have no opinion one way or the other.
Table 11 Beliefs about the value of food waste recycling
Q25. To what extent do you agree or Overall Frequent Occasional Lapsed Non users disagree with the following users users Users statements? (% agree/disagree)79 N=4,431 N=3,131 N=404 N=158 N=720
‘I don’t see why I should recycle food % agree 10 4 12 15 25 waste’ % disagree 78 89 71 63 49
‘The environmental benefits of % agree 78 88 78 61 50 recycling food are important to me’ % disagree 7 4 6 7 18
7.2.2. Perception about using the service
Ease of use Overall, kitchen waste collections are thought to be easy to use (78% of respondents agree with this statement). However, there are noticeable differences across the case study areas: whereas 92% of those in Taunton Deane and 88% of those in Weymouth & Portland agree, this is only the case for 55% of those in Hackney.
In the case of Hackney, looking at the qualitative work, this appears to be as much about personal lifestyles and preferences as much as the actual quality of the service provided. Users generally have very few complaints, either in Hackney or elsewhere.
It’s like people don’t have time. You get up early to go to work, you come home and you’re tired and you don’t even think about it at all. That’s the least of your worries; you’ve got more important things going on in your life than that." Non-user, Male, LB Hackney
"They should come out more times a week maybe, it is a bit more encouraging than the same rubbish bin out there for a week. Even in your normal bin it doesn’t smell very nice." Non-user, Female, LB Hackney
The demographic breakdown of attitudes on this issue is very much in line with the demographic profile of the areas: older people and those in living in detached or semi-detached housing are more likely to agree (82% and 84% respectively) and to agree strongly (56% and 57% respectively) that the service is straightforward, whereas non ‘White British’ residents are more likely to disagree (19% of Asian respondents; 20% of Black respondents).
79 In each case, all or nearly all of the other respondents said “neither agree nor disagree”; between 0% and 2% (depending on category) said they had no opinion.
March 2010 91 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections| A report for Defra
Figure 37 Reported ease of using the food waste recycling collection
Q25. Can you tell me the extent to which you agree or disagree? 'The council's food waste collection service is easy to use' 100
60 % Disagree 92 88 80 73 77 % Agree 54
20 % Agree/Disagree %
7 3 5 8 9 16 20 Bexley Cambridge Fenland Hackney Taunton Weymouth N=760 N=776 N=720 N=698 N=718 & Portland N=759 Base: All respondents (4,431)
Of particular note, reactions to this statement echo general attitudes to recycling:
85% of those who recycle a lot agree that the food collection is easy to use; but those who recycle little or nothing, and those who think the food collection is not widely used in their area, are more likely to disagree that the service is easy to use (22% and 38% respectively compared to 8% overall).
The correlation between general attitudes to recycling and use of the food waste collection (noted in section 5) feeds through into differences between users and non users in their perception of ease of use (table 12). In the discussion groups we found that users were generally very happy with the service and had experienced few, if any, problems and the quantitative research confirms this impression.
Table 12 Reported ease of use by users and non users of food waste collections
Q25. To what extent do you agree or Frequent users Occasional users Lapsed Users Non users disagree with the following statements? N=3,131 N=404 N=158 N=720 (% Agree)
‘The Council’s food waste collection 92% 77% 47% 42% service is easy to use’
This analysis raises an important question about the extent to which perceptions of food waste recycling are shaped by general attitudes towards recycling rather than being shaped by the experience of using the food collection (as if often claimed).
March 2010 92 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections| A report for Defra
Perceptions about how many other people are recycling their food waste Past research80 has found that people are more likely to adopt behaviours which they see as ‘normal’ (i.e. seen to be practised by the majority of people81), even if they do not do so consciously. Respondents were therefore asked how much they agree with the statement: “lots of people in this street/area use the food waste collection service”.
Around one in five (19% overall; 34% of non users) do not feel they can say whether other people recycle food waste, which is interesting in itself. Perhaps they have never thought about other people’s behaviour or they genuinely do not know what their neighbours do.
Over six in ten (63%), however, do agree that kitchen waste collections are well used in their area – and the figure is considerably higher amongst service users, three quarters (74%) of whom agree and only 3% disagree. Fewer than one in three (30%) non users agree that lots of people in their street or area recycle food waste.
Owner occupiers (67%), retirees (67%), and those in Taunton Deane (81%) and Weymouth & Portland (79%) are also likely to agree – all groups who are more likely to say they recycle as much as they can and are more likely to use kitchen waste collections.
The socio-demographic groups least likely to agree – and therefore less likely to be aware of or see other people participating – are DE households (57%), those aged 16-24 (54%), students (51%), unemployed respondents (52%), those in flats (51% in blocks; 41% in house conversions), Asian and Black households (47% and 40%) and renters (53%). These are also the groups that report the lowest participation in food recycling.
It seems clear therefore that there is an association between perceiving a behaviour to be widely practised and taking part in it oneself, although this research cannot directly prove causality. What is evident is that people living in areas of high participation are aware that others also recycle food; and that food waste recycling is least visible to the social groups that participate the least.
“Yes it would because it would create a debate and then you’d get the peer pressure...” User, Male, Weymouth and Portland
“But don’t you think it also snowballs because if you get a road where they do nothing you know the rest of the town won’t do anything. But I mean on the whole Weymouth is very, very good.” User, Female, Weymouth and Portland
7.2.3. Perceptions about potential difficulties Two specific concerns often arise in public debate and surveys about food waste collections and these were evident in our discussion groups: perceptions that separating food waste could be unpleasant, and the risk of bins attracting maggots and vermin.82 Respondents to the survey were prompted directly
80 See, for example, Professor Tim Jackson‟s work for the SDRN or Brook Lyndhurst for Defra, Triggering Widespread Adoption of Sustainable Behaviour http://www.defra.gov.uk/science/project_data/DocumentLibrary/SD14006/SD14006_3804_INF.pdf 81 This is referred to as a „descriptive norm‟ – i.e. what we see around us, as opposed to norms that are personal and internalised. 82 These features were identified as potential engagement issues in the literature and surveys included in the scoping work for this research but little data was available that could identify the incidence or otherwise of such problems.
March 2010 93 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections| A report for Defra
about these issues so that differences between different groups could be identified and the need for support and education pinpointed.
Perceptions about unpleasantness - the ‘yuck’ factor Although there is broad agreement that kitchen waste collection services are easy to use, there is less agreement on whether “separating food waste for collection is unpleasant and smelly”. There is a broadly even split between those who agree (43%) and those who disagree (44%).
The pattern of response is similar to that for disagreement that the service is easy to use. The perception that separating food waste is unpleasant is highest amongst low recyclers (78%), non users (60%) and lapsed users (70%).
Table 13 Perceptions that separating food waste for collection is unpleasant and smelly
Q25. To what extent do you agree or Frequent users Occasional users Lapsed Users Non users disagree with the following statements? N=3,131 N=404 (% Agree) N=158 N=720
‘Separating food waste is unpleasant and 34% 51% 70% 60% smelly’
On the other hand, a majority (53%) of frequent users (i.e. those with the most experience) disagree that food waste recycling is unpleasant and smelly; only one in four of them (23%) agrees strongly that it is. Very few users in the discussion groups had experienced such problems in practice but it was equally clear that the fear of smells and maggots was a deterrent to non-users - even if they had never experienced the service. Users either do not experience problems or are generally less bothered by ‘yuck’.
The pattern across mixed FGW and food-only collections does not show a definitive difference between collection styles or, indeed, collection frequency. Agreement that separation is unpleasant is highest in weekly, food-only Hackney (52%) and mixed FGW, fortnightly Fenland (50%) and is lowest in Taunton (31%) and Weymouth (31%), both of which are weekly food-only collections. Socio-demographics have a stronger association with perceptions of ‘yuckiness’ than do service styles.
Reflecting the socio-demographic pattern of participation, groups that are more inclined to think that separating food waste is unpleasant are: younger people (54% of 16-34s), DE households (48%), those unemployed/seeking work (57%) and non ‘White British’ respondents (58% Asian, 59% Black), those in larger households (52% in households of five people or more), and Fenland (50%) and Hackney residents (52%).
A now familiar pattern also applies to housing situations. Those living in semi-detached/ detached housing are a little less likely to perceive food recycling as unpleasant than those in flats or terraced housing, but the differences are perhaps less stark than might be expected83. The same is true of owner- occupiers, they being less likely to agree it is unpleasant than renters84. Perhaps surprisingly, there is no significant difference between those who do and do not have access to a garden85.
83 40% agree, compared with 50% of those living in blocks of flats, 51% of those living in flats within houses and 46% of those in terraced housing. 84 40% agree that separating food waste for collection is unpleasant and smelly, compared to 51% of social renters and 52% of private renters. 85 42% of those with garden access agree, compared to 47% of those without.
March 2010 94 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections| A report for Defra
Perceptions about the risk of attracting maggots and vermin Again, this is an issue that has received a great deal of press attention, and was voiced as a deterrent in the discussion groups with non users, but which few users mention as a noticeable problem.
Agreement with the statement, “I’m worried that storing food waste in a separate bin will attract maggots and vermin” displays a very similar profile to agreement with the idea that separating food waste is unpleasant and smelly. Those with low or no commitment to recycling (74% and 63% respectively) and non- and lapsed users of kitchen waste collection (60% and 75% respectively) are particularly likely to feel this way. Overall, opinion is divided: 45% agree and 43% disagree that storing food waste in a separate bin will attract vermin.
Table 14 Perceptions about risks from maggots and vermin – users and non users of food collections
Q25. To what extent do you agree or Frequent users Occasional users Lapsed Users Non users disagree with the following statements? N=3,131 N=404 (% Agree) N=158 N=720
‘I’m worried that storing food waste in a 37% 54% 75% 60% separate bin will attract maggots and vermin’
Concern about this issue is again lowest in Taunton and Weymouth (34% and 33%) and highest in the urban study areas, Hackney (50%) and Bexley (55%). It is also significantly higher in the mixed FGW/fortnightly collection areas of Cambridge (48%) and Fenland (49%) than it is in weekly collected, food-only collection in Taunton and Weymouth.
Reflecting the distribution of food collection users and non users across socio-demographic groups, younger respondents (52% aged 16-34), DEs (50%), those who are unemployed or seeking work (53%) and those belonging to ethnic minority groups (e.g. 62% of Black respondents86) are all more likely to be worried about maggots and vermin than their counterparts. The same can be said of those living in larger households (50% in households of 3-4 people, 54% in households of five or more and 61% of households where there are three or more children).
86 Sample sizes for other ethnic groups are too small in and of themselves for the differences recorded to be significant. The proportions are: White non-British 50%, Mixed 58%, Asian 52% and Other 54% compared to 43% of White British.
March 2010 95 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections| A report for Defra
Figure 38 Worry about the perception that food waste bins could attract maggots and vermin
Q25. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements? – I agree that I’m worried that storing food waste in a separate bin will attract maggots and vermin Q25. 3 or more children in household n=197 61%
Black n=183 61%
+5 people in household n=415 54%
Unemployed / Seeking Work n=201 53%
16 - 34 n=962 52%
3 - 4 people in household n=1540 50%
DE n=1104 50%
Overall 45%
Base: All respondents (4,431)
Although garden access seems to make little difference to views on the matter87, housing situation does. Those living in blocks of flats are more likely to perceive that separate food waste storage will attract maggots and vermin (57% compared to 45% of those in semi-detached or detached housing). Similarly, private and social renters are more likely to perceive a risk of maggots and vermin (53% and 49% respectively, compared to 43% of owner occupiers). Some of these fears may be related to lack of clear ‘ownership’ or responsibility for bins in shared properties, which a few people raised in discussion and has been noted in Italian research on food waste collections with respect to contamination88.
During the qualitative phase of the research, residents of flats and terraced properties, in particular, complained about having to drag the outside bin through their house; specific concern was raised for the elderly and disabled. There was a split amongst participants about the usefulness of having the food waste bin near the kitchen door and its possible drawbacks largely in terms of smell. This was prominent mainly in the non-user groups therefore it is hard to determine to what degree these are actual or perceived issues.
“I haven’t got room in where they park the cars to keep four wheelie bins. You know, for people in flats and things this has not been thought through, it just hasn’t.” Non-user, Female, Taunton Deane
“When I lived in Old Bexley I had a meter on the side of the house so the recycle bins stayed in it. So when I was in the kitchen I opened the back door and yes it was easy to do it but now I live in a terraced house
87 45% of those with access to a garden agree that they were worried that storing food waste in a separate bin would attract maggots and vermin, compared to 46% of those who do not have access to a garden). 88 Favoino, E. Sound board discussions.
March 2010 96 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections| A report for Defra
the kitchen is at the back, the compost bin is at the front and I stopped using it for the simple reason that I have got no water at the front now so it Is not easy for me to clean it out and I do not really want to drag the compost bin through the middle of my house to clean it. So yes there are loads of reasons, which in a different environment it is not easy to use. It is how your property is set up.” Non-user, Male, LB Bexley
“Smell, I think the smell and yes it permeates, you can have it wherever you have got it, if it is not far from your house, it permeates. It comes in the window you know you can smell it.” Non-user, Female, Taunton Deane
Drawing from the qualitative work it is possible to conclude that the major difference between users and non-users is that users tend to come across as enthusiastic and committed while non-users may be enthusiastic but are more easily put off by their own pre-conceptions about what it would be like to separate food waste. For example, some non users initially mentioned maggots or smells as a reason for not recycling food but it became clear through further discussion that it was generally the thought of this possibility rather than actual experience of food recycling which put them off.
Some non users also seem more tolerant of the thought of dirt and smells in their ordinary refuse bins than they would be in a separate food waste bin.
Drawing from both the qualitative and quantitative research, the demographic profile of those who seem most comfortable with separating and storing food is similar to those who are most committed to recycling generally. It is a group of people who are more likely to be older, middle class and White British – perhaps the demographic characteristics that might be associated with tolerant attitudes towards things that might make others squeamish89. There may also be a certain sense in older generations that it is acceptable to ‘put up’ with moderate inconvenience in order to do what is expected or good for the country or the environment.
I compost everything that is not cooked. It’s only cooked waste *that goes in the brown bin+ and *I’m+ probably the oldest person here so I was 6 when the war finished and we didn’t waste food. Leftover potatoes made cottage pie." User, Male, Taunton Deane
“The council collected it for feeding pigs for food in the war effort. And anybody who put as much of a handful of food in there a week was wasteful, you put little in there but bones and things. So it has been in my psyche not to waste food, I don’t even have to think about it.” User, Male, Taunton Deane
Perceptions about ‘yuck’ in the study areas compared to the national picture The national omnibus data allow a comparison of attitudes towards food waste recycling nationally with those in the case study areas. These data seem to support the argument that those who have actual experience of food waste collections are less likely to find the idea of them unpleasant.
Both nationally and across the study areas a large majority of respondents are convinced that the environmental benefits of food waste recycling are important (72% of the national sample agree with the
89 For example, Brook Lyndhurst research on lifestyles and waste composition found literature that suggested that there is a growing hygiene obsession among younger generations which is rarer among wartime and immediate post-war generations. See Brook Lyndhurst (2007) Lifestyle Scenarios: the Futures for Waste Composition. Defra WREP project WR0104, Paper 1.
March 2010 97 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections| A report for Defra
statement compared to 78% in the case study areas overall). Those with actual experience are, however, more inclined to think they should be recycling food: only 10% in the study areas say they don’t see why they should recycle food, compared to 20% nationally90.
Residents in the study areas are also less worried about the practicalities of food waste collections – including perceptions about ‘yuck’ and the risk of attracting flies or vermin.
Fewer than half (45%) worry that storing food waste in a separate bin will attract maggots and vermin for example, compared to almost two thirds (64%) nationally 43% of respondents in case study areas agree that separating food waste can be unpleasant and smelly, compared to 62% nationally.
As well as overall concern about these issues being lower in the case study areas, the strength of concern is also lower. Both for statements that bins would attract maggots and vermin and separating food waste being unpleasant and smelly, the proportion of those strongly agreeing in the study areas is around half what it is nationally. In the case study areas 23% and 16% respectively strongly agree that they are worried that food collection bins attract maggots and vermin and that separating food waste is unpleasant and smelly. These figures are 46% and 37% nationally.
These data seem to confirm that the reality of kitchen waste collections is not what many initially fear. But this is not to say that fears about smells or vermin should be discounted. Even in the study areas, around two in five agree that these aspects are or could be a worry and non users are especially sensitive to such perceptions, even if these perceptions are not grounded in real experience.
7.3 Motivations for participation Respondents were routed through the questionnaire according to their claimed level of participation in the food waste service to then be asked about motivations and barriers. Questions on motivations and barriers were asked unprompted, then coded by the interviewer according to a common coding framework on the questionnaire, so that we could compare between different types of user. The coding framework was devised by Brook Lyndhurst drawing on our experience in other surveys and the key factors identified in the scoping work for this study. Survey results are presented here for all users – first frequent, then occasional and finally lapsed users – then followed by insights from the qualitative research.
7.3.1. Frequent users For frequent users of kitchen waste collection services, the most persuasive (unprompted) argument to participate regularly is that it is better for the environment. This is consistent with a high proportion of frequent users (61%) disagreeing that we’re “not really damaging the environment and causing climate change – it’s been exaggerated” (as compared with only 41% of non users disagreeing with this statement).
Environmental considerations seem to have particular resonance for residents in Bexley, (63% of whom mention them), but less so in Taunton (28%). We understand that Bexley has promoted the environmental benefits of food waste recycling in its communications material, which may explain part of
90 At the time of the survey in 2007 around 11% of UK households were covered by food waste collections; all respondents in the survey in the study areas were covered by food collections.
March 2010 98 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections| A report for Defra
the difference between these two areas; there is also a suggestion that environmental considerations may carry a little less sway with older respondents (more prevalent in Taunton Deane) 91.
Figure 39 Reasons for participation amongst frequent service users
Q15. Food is almost always put in the food collection in this household. What's persuaded you to do this? - Top 5 mentions
Better for the environment 44%
Is what we‟re expected to do 34%
I/ we like to do our bit/help out 22%
Easy to do 20%
Worry about food going to landfill 13%
Base: All frequent users (3,131)
Around a third (34%) of frequent users are persuaded by the idea that it is simply what they are supposed to do. This is particularly true of older and retired frequent users (40% respectively), those in socio- demographic groups DE (41%), and residents in Hackney (45%), Taunton Deane (45%) and Weymouth & Portland (45%). It is not such an important motivator in other areas however – in Cambridge only one in five lists it as a reason (21%), and in Bexley the figure is as low as 16%.
‘Doing our bit to help out’ is also a commonly mentioned reason for taking part, particularly in Fenland (31%) and in Hackney (30%); ‘ease of use of the collection service’ meanwhile, is particularly cited by those in Bexley (36%), and to a lesser extent those in Cambridge (29%) - although this may say as much about the mindset of residents in these areas as about the services offered to them.
Other than the differences listed above (notably age-related differences in using the service because it’s what’s expected and because of environmental concerns), there seem to be few differences in what motivates those in different socio-demographic groups to be frequent users.
There is some indication that frequent users who are black may be more encouraged by a wish “to do their bit”92, that social renters may be less motivated by environmental concerns - particularly concerns about food going to landfill93 - that private renters and older respondents particularly like the idea of
91 45% of frequent users aged 55 or over listed environmental considerations as having persuaded them to try the service, compared to 52% of those aged 16-34 and 51% of those aged 35-54. 92 38% say this, as compared to 22% of frequent users overall, but only 77 of those interviewed were frequent users who were black. 93 Environmental concerns overall are mentioned by 44% of those living in socially rented accommodation, as compared to 50% of those living in owner-occupation, and landfill in particular is mentioned by 8% and 14% respectively.
March 2010 99 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections| A report for Defra
food being composted94 and that older respondents are less prompted by a need to make more space in their residual bin95. However, these differences are all small.
Figure 40 Reasons for participation amongst frequent users
Q15. Food is almost always put in the food waste collection in this household. What's persuaded you to do this? Bexley n=513 Cambridge n=580 Fenland n=486 Hackney n=333 63% Taunton n=600 Weymouth & Portland n=619
48% 46% 45%45% 42% 42% 44% 37% 36% 31% 28% 30% 29% 21% 21% 21% 20% 16% 16% 16% 16% 13%
4%
Better for the Is what we‟re expected I/ we like to do our Easy to do environment to do bit/help out
Base: All frequent users (3,131)
94 14% of private renters mention this, compared to 9% of those in socially rented accommodation and 11% of those in owner occupation, and 14% of those aged 55+ compared to 9% of 16-34s and 10% of 35-54s. 95 10% of those aged 55 or over mention space, as compared to 18% of those both between 16 and 34 and 35 to 54.
March 2010 100 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections| A report for Defra
7.3.2. Occasional users The reasons which persuade occasional users to use kitchen waste collections are similar to those carrying weight with frequent users. Primary among them is the environment, which again seems particularly important for those living in Bexley (49%), and less so for those in Taunton (13%).
Figure 41 Reasons for participation among occasional users
Q17. What are the main reasons why you do use the collection? - Mentions over 10%
Better for the environment 34% Is what we‟re expected to do 20% Other 14% Easy to do 13%
Over half of Cambridge's Means more space in residual bin 13% 48 occasional users mentioned space I/ we like to do our bit 12% Don‟t like waste 12% There‟s no reason not to 11%
Base: All occasional users (404)
One in five say they use the collection because it is expected of them, and this seems to be more frequently mentioned by those in socio-demographic groups DE (32%) and Taunton residents (35%).
Ease of use (mentioned by 13% overall), again seems to carry particular sway amongst residents in Cambridge and Bexley. Interestingly, space also seems to be a motivator for Cambridge residents – it is mentioned by over half of the 48 occasional users interviewed. Because there are so few respondents claiming to use collections on an occasional basis however, base sizes are small when broken down by socio-demographics and caution must therefore be taken in generalising these results.
March 2010 101 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections| A report for Defra
7.3.3. Lapsed users There are even fewer lapsed users in the survey (158) and the results for this group should be treated with more caution than for other users. Results for lapsed users cannot be broken down by area or socio- demographics for this reason.
For lapsed users, it is the environment (30%) and the general expectation on them to take part (29%) which initially prompts the greatest proportion to try the food waste collection. Other reasons given are that respondents wanted to do their bit (15%), feel they shouldn’t waste (13%), and that it is an easy thing to do (12%).
Figure 42 Reasons for participation amongst lapsed users
Q22. What persuaded you to try food waste collection? Mentions of 10% and over
Better for the environment 30%
What we're expected to do 29%
I like to do my bit 15%
We shouldn't waste 13%
Easy to do 12%
Match the council's efforts 10%
Base: All lapsed users (158)
March 2010 102 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections| A report for Defra
7.3.4. Comparison of motivations between different levels of user The reasons for participating given by frequent, occasional and lapsed users are broadly similar in scope. The main difference between the groups is in the proportion of respondents which state each reason, with a generally stronger response from frequent users. In particular, more frequent users are motivated by the environment, social convention (it’s what we’re supposed to do), wanting to contribute, finding it easy and being worried about landfill, than other types of user.
Table 15 Differences in Service Perception
Q25. To what extent do you agree or Frequent users Occasional users Lapsed Users disagree with the following statements? N=3,131 N=404 N=158 (% Agree)
Better for the environment 44% 30% 34%
What we’re expected to do 34% 29% 20%
I like to do my bit 22% 15% 12%
Easy to do 19% 12% 13%
Worry about landfill 13% 4% 6%
7.3.5. Qualitative insights on motivations The survey results back up the views that were expressed in the discussion groups.
Just another form of recycling Users mentioned a whole range of factors which might prompt them – and/or others - to make use of the food collection service. No one reason seemed particularly dominant though, and in many ways, the service seemed simply to be treated as an extension of other forms of recycling. Some users stated that one of the reasons for them participating was due to the fact that it was provided, so why not make use of it.
“The letter was very clear and it said compost all cooked and uncooked food… so I compost it *in the food waste collection bin+. So I can’t imagine why *people do not participate+ unless it is… that they either don’t understand what they need to do, you know they haven’t read the literature, or they don’t care enough about the environment or they are lazy.” User, Female, Taunton-Deane
“The service is there, it is provided, it is quick and it is prompt.” User, Female, LB Hackney
Food waste collections were associated with all the benefits linked to recycling in general: waste minimisation, environmental benefits, etc… However, it is noticeable that amongst users and non-users alike, despite the fact that recycling food waste is associated with being good for environment, there is a certain amount of confusion about why exactly it is so beneficial.
March 2010 103 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections| A report for Defra
It’s expected of us One aspect that is apparent from both the qualitative and the quantitative strands of the research is that for many users, the fact that the service is provided in itself provokes participation.
We did it because we were told to, and to be honest there isn’t an awful lot to it. I mean I am aware of the environmental reasons, but if the council tells me to do something, generally I do it. User, Female, Taunton Deane
In addition, users claimed that the provision of the food waste service made them gradually adopt a routine and change their habits.
“In the beginning there was a bit of resentment because you were being told to do it, but then you realised well it is a good thing and just carry on doing it.” User, Male, Weymouth and Portland
Feel good factor Many participants mentioned the ‘feel good factor’ they get from contributing towards the greater good. They seem keen on the idea that ‘every little bit does help’ and certain participants, particularly service users, state the importance of ‘playing their part’ and ‘doing their bit’, especially for the benefit of future generations.
“I explained to her, ‘Look if you say no then the next person there might say no as well but if you say yes even one person contributing each week is relevant. You are relevant and you are important and you are contributing. And if we all think that then we cannot make any difference, our world will not be there for our great grandchildren let’s face it’.” User, Female, LB Hackney
7.4 Barriers to participation Occasional, lapsed and non users, were all asked what stops them from making (full) use of their collection service.
7.4.1. Overview – differences between different levels of user Answers were coded at a detailed level then grouped together under common themes, which are shown in figure 41
The general pattern is similar for occasional and non users alike.
Around three in ten (27% and 33% respectively) talk about ‘yuck’ (actual and perceived factors like not wanting to deal with food which has gone off; it attracting flies, maggots and vermin; it being difficult to separate etc…); A similar proportion talk about food being used in other ways (29% and 31% respectively), including for home compost; and Around one in five (20% and 23% respectively) feel they don’t waste enough food to make participation worthwhile.
March 2010 104 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections| A report for Defra
Figure 43 Reasons for non-participation (unprompted, multicode)
Q18. What are the reasons why you do not use the food waste collection the rest of the time? (Occasional) Q23. Why have you stopped putting food waste in the collection? (Lapsed) Q20. What are the reasons why you or your household does not use the food waste collection? (non-users) 27% Yuck factors 58% 33% 29% Food used in other ways 12% 31% 20% Occasional (n=404) Don't waste enough food 9% 23% Lapsed (n=158) 16% Non-users (n=720) Effort 14% 17% 12% Collection-related 29% 9% 6% Information 2% 8% 7% Domestic logistics 10% 3%
The pattern of answers from lapsed users however is quite different. ‘Yuck factors’ still dominate, but here more than half (58%) mention the problem. Almost three in ten however (29%) mention issues related to the collections, with 13% saying that they have to wait too long for bins to be collected and 11% saying that their bins were stolen. It seems clear therefore that the perceived barriers for those claiming to be lapsed users are fundamentally different to those occasional and non users. However, some care needs to be applied to interpretation of the results for lapsed users because more than half of them in the overall sample were from Hackney and the results maybe biased by specific service factors in Hackney at the time of the survey.
March 2010 105 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections| A report for Defra
7.4.2. Occasional users For roughly a quarter of occasional users – 23% - the answer is simply that their remaining food waste is used for home composting. Unsurprisingly, this answer tends to be more commonly given by the groups who are more likely to compost their food waste at home such as older respondents (35% of 55+), those in AB social groups (41%) and those living in Taunton (45%) and Weymouth (52%).96
Figure 44 Reasons for non-participation amongst occasional service users
Q18. What are the reasons why you do not use the food waste collection the rest of the time? - Top 5 mentions (multicode)
Prefer to compost my food waste 23% at home Don't waste enough to make it 20% worthwhile Some foods attract flies/ maggots/ 18% vermin
Other 13%
Some foods make bin smell 13%
Base: All occasional users (404)
A significant minority however (20%), feel they just do not waste enough food to make participation worthwhile, and this may be an area where good communications have the potential to increase participation rates. Although the number of occasional users in all socio-demographic groups is small, this seems to be a particularly frequent response amongst older and retired respondents97, DEs98, those living on their own99 or without children100.
The issue of foods attracting flies, maggots or vermin is listed by almost one in five occasional users (18%) as a deterrent from participating more regularly. In line with the findings in section 7.3 on age differences in squeamishness, this seems to be less of a bother to older people than to younger people (9% of those over 55+ mention it compared to 24% of 16-34s and 25% of 35-54s). It does, however, seem to be a particular problem in Cambridge, where it is mentioned by over half the 48 occasional users. Notably, this issue is raised much less frequently when people are asked for a spontaneous response than when they are prompted (as in section 7.3).
During the qualitative research, top of mind issues mentioned by user group participants deterring them from using the food collection service to its full extent included the fear of passers by dumping
96 N.B. Base sizes for these groups are small 97 26% of those aged 55 or over, compared to 18% of 34-54s and 14% of 16-34s; 32% of those who are retired, compared to 13% of those working full time 98 30% compared to 18% of ABs and 15% of C1C2s 99 21 out of 55 occasional users living by themselves give this response (i.e. 38%), compared to 24% of those living in two person households and 12% of those living in 3-4 person households. 100 26% of those living without children compared to 10% living with one or two children
March 2010 106 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections| A report for Defra
contaminants in their bins, simply not producing enough food waste to warrant using the service on occasion, some items of food waste being considered too smelly (some participants prefer to wrap these tightly and place them in the refuse bin) and bins not being collected because they are too full or contain contaminants.
It is interesting to note that when the user groups are asked why others choose not to participate they claim it is mainly a question of laziness, as this exchange in the Taunton focus group illustrates.
W: I think some of it is laziness, can’t be bothered, and I think some of it is a lack of knowledge as well. W: It’s laziness. M: Can’t be bothered. Focus group discussion, Taunton Deane
Users appear to be able to deal with the issue of smells through wrapping food tightly in newspaper or biodegradable liners and washing both caddy and bin regularly using a hosepipe when necessary. However, smells and dirt prove a much bigger issue for non-users and this is examined in more detail below.
7.4.3. Lapsed users
Lapsed users were the smallest group in the survey, accounting for just 3% of the overall sample (158 as compared to 3,535 occasional and frequent users) and most of these (91 out of 158) live in Hackney. While it does not seem common for people to start food waste recycling then stop, for those who do a huge range of factors is responsible. On the whole these reasons tend to be practical and associated with a certain ‘yuck’ element – whether experienced in practice or perceived.
First and foremost, the elements responsible for putting off lapsed users are the reported smell, ‘messiness & yuckiness’ of kitchen waste collections and a worry about bins attracting maggots, flies and vermin. Each of these factors is mentioned by roughly a third of people who say they are lapsed users (37%, 32% and 30% respectively).
Lapsed users also mention the wait between collections (13%), and the fact that they do not like cleaning bins (13%), separating food and getting their hands dirty (12%), or handling gone off food (10%).
There seems to be little significant variation in attitudes between the study areas, although the small bases for each area make it difficult to be sure. One apparent exception is that 12 of the 15 lapsed users in Cambridge mention yuck factors as a reason for stopping101. This echoes the experience of occasional users there who cite maggots, flies and vermin as one of the main reasons for not participating more regularly, as well as Cambridge being the area with the highest proportion of non users who also report this as a barrier.
101 But NB the difference from other areas is not statistically significant.
March 2010 107 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections| A report for Defra
Figure 45 Reasons reported for lapsed use
Q23. Why have you stopped putting food waste in the collection? – Mentions of 10% and over
The smell 37%
Messy / yucky 32%
Maggots/flies/vermin 30%
Other 14%
Didn't like cleaning bins 13%
Too long between collections 13%
Didn't like getting my hands dirty 12%
Bin was stolen 12%
Home compost 10%
Didn't want to handle gone off food 10%
Base: All lapsed users (158)
7.4.4. Non-users The reasons given by non-users for not participating are broadly similar to those given by occasional users as the reasons which stop them from using the collection more regularly.
Just under a quarter (23%) feel that they do not waste enough food to make participation worthwhile; a similar proportion (22%) prefer to compost their waste; 18% are deterred by a perception that their bins would be messy or dirty; and 15% express a worry about maggots, flies and vermin.
One notable difference between non-users and occasional users is that non-users are more worried about messy and yucky bins. Almost one in five (18%) mention this, whereas it is not explicitly mentioned by any occasional users as a factor stopping them from using the service more often (though occasional users have similar levels of worry about smells and pests).
Overall, there appears to be no consistent relationship between collection frequency or mixed FGW collection versus food-only provision on the one hand, and fears about ‘yuck’ factors on the other. Notably, non-users in Cambridge and Fenland (which have similar types of collection) appear to have very different perceptions about ‘yuck’ and flies when asked spontaneously for their reasons for not participating. The very low levels of worry in Fenland may reflect its largely rural character while
March 2010 108 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections| A report for Defra
Cambridge is both more urban and has a higher proportion of young non-users (under 34) who may be less tolerant to messiness and ‘yuck’. Low levels of concern about ‘yuck’ in Taunton and Weymouth may also be related to their relatively older demographic profiles, as well as the types of service provided.
Figure 46 Reasons for non-participation amongst non-users
Q20. What are the reasons why you or your household does not use the food waste collection? Bexley n=141 Cambridge n=133 Fenland n=152 Hackney n=186 Taunton n=48 Weymouth & Portland n=60
53% 53% 51%
37% 33% 31% 25% 25% 25% 23% 21% 20% 18% 17% 13% 11% 11% 8% 9% 4% 2% 2% 0% 1%
Don't waste enough Prefer to compost Messy/yucky bins Worried about flies
Base: All non users (720)
Not producing enough food waste to make participation worthwhile is most often mentioned by older and retired respondents as well as people living on their own (36%, 40% and 38% respectively of those in each of these groups) as the reason for not participating in the collection. Amongst the case study areas, this is a particular issue in Fenland where over half of non-users mention it (53%). Given that the ‘every bit helps’ mentality is so prevalent amongst users, it does seem that there is scope for encouraging those who do not produce very much food waste to use the collection.
As we have seen already, those opting to compost their food waste tend to be older, in the AB social group and own their own homes, and this is also the profile of those non-users who justify not using the food waste collection because of their composting. This group makes up over half of non-users in both Taunton Deane (51%) and Weymouth & Portland (53%).
Looking at the detail of what is composted at home, however, it seems that many people do not compost items which can be composted commercially (e.g. meat and bones). This would suggest that non-users who cite composting as the reason for not taking part could be encouraged to put (albeit smaller) quantities of food waste in the collection.
7.4.5. Qualitative insights on barriers Top-of-mind collection issues voiced by non users102 in the group discussions cover similar ground to those mentioned by users. Non users do tend to dwell more on the problem of coming into contact with the food, however.
102 Discussion groups included lapsed and occasional users as well as non-users.
March 2010 109 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections| A report for Defra
Broadly speaking, three types of barrier can be identified from the qualitative research:
lifestyle (e.g. fitting food recycling into everyday thinking and routines); behavioural and perceptual (e.g. unwillingness to come into contact with the food waste); and logistical (e.g. separating waste and dealing with bins).
Lifestyle barriers The lifestyle barriers include simply not being bothered, having different priorities, not having enough time, food waste recycling not being seen as important, participation in the scheme not being compulsory and the fact that there is nothing in it for them.
"Well that’s just food and it is all rubbish, I’ve ate it and I’ve chucked it in the bin. That’s the way I look at it and [I] do all the cardboard and plastics, stuff like that." Non-user, Male, LB Hackney103
Behavioural and perceptual barriers The behavioural barriers include negative perceptions (generally not based on actual experience) relating to smells, ‘yuck’ and mess factors, adverse weather conditions, hygiene, flies, maggots, vermin and other animals (e.g. foxes) getting in the bins and seasonal factors (e.g. such as bins being too smelly in the summer months). A good proportion of the reasons given by non-users for not using the food waste collection system appeared to be related to perception (e.g. hearsay or media stories) rather than personal experience of using the collection service.
Perceptions that bins will smell is a big deterrent to non users and some feel this would be especially bad during the summer months. Much of this perception seems to be driven by what happens in any case to their ‘normal’ refuse bins.
“Smell, I think, the smell, and yes, it permeates, *…+ wherever you have got it, if it is not far from your house, it permeates. It comes in the window you know, you can smell it.” Non-user, Female, Taunton Deane
“I take the lid off them and it literally knocks you across the kitchen.” Non-user, Female, Taunton Deane
“I have my bins in my back garden it is close to the kitchen, so in the summer when I open the window the smell is horrible.” Non-user, Male, Fenland
“The smell attracts all the animals; that is what worries me.” Non-user, Female, Fenland
In order to control odours many non users dispose of smelly, runny food waste down the toilet or sink.
103 Recycling is compulsory for dry recyclables but not for food in Hackney.
March 2010 110 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections| A report for Defra
Whereas users tend to only apply concerns regarding health, hygiene, and yuck/ mess to certain types of food waste (such as raw meat and sauces), non-users feel that these barriers apply across the board. The hygiene barrier is cited especially by non-users with children:
“We do not use that *kitchen caddy+ in the kitchen because the little one is into it and starts messing around with the food and it is just not hygienic.” Non-user, Male, Taunton Deane
Non-users tend to have especially strong views that food waste recycling is a yucky and messy business which they would simply prefer not deal with. Some suggest using newspaper to overcome the mess but many do not agree that wrapping food waste in newspaper solves the issue as the newspaper simply becomes soggy and the food waste soaks through it. There is a general sense that non-users have much lower tolerance to being in contact with waste food than do users and would simply prefer keeping it out of sight (and out of mind) in their residual bins.
“They *maggots+ might be in the green bin *residual bin+ but you cannot see them because they will be inside the carrier bags.” Non-user, Female, Fenland
Q: “Wouldn’t you say that *the risk of maggots+ also applies to your black bin though, the vermin and the smell?” “But at least that is sealed you know...” Non-user, Female, Taunton Deane
Non users are put off more by the idea of maggots than rats – but it is worth emphasising again that discussions in the user groups rarely touched on problems with vermin or flies. Both maggots and vermin seem to be a particular worry among non users in Cambridge and, to a lesser extent, in Fenland where food waste is collected with garden waste.
Logistical barriers The operational concerns amongst non-users include kitchen storage issues, cleaning the caddy and bin, bins provided being too small (frequently stated in Hackney) and reported collection issues with crew (e.g. bin left in the wrong place or with food waste remains at the bottom).
“By the time I get home at night it *the organic waste collection bin+ is miles up the road. To be honest with you it’s the collection people who have stopped me doing it and their attitude towards it.” Non-user, Male, LB Bexley
Bin and caddy cleaning was of particular concern for both users and non-users but seems to be more of an actual deterrent to non users, who tend to be less willing to put time into managing their household’s recycling. Various dissatisfactions were mentioned here: the logistics of having to clean your own bin, the time it takes to do it, the state that the bins are in, councils not providing bin cleaning services and the price they charge when they do provide them.
“If they want us to recycle then they should have some kind of system where they can spray out the bin the minute they empty it.” Non-user, Female, Bexley
March 2010 111 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections| A report for Defra
“You have got to get a hose pipe and wash them out all the time. That is time consuming again.” Non-user, Male, Weymouth & Portland
“If you haven’t got a garden that makes it a big problem, but because they are so deep you can’t, if you haven’t got a powerful hose or whatever then no they are not actually that easy to clean.” User, Female, Cambridge
“I don’t like washing my dishes at the best of time but having to clean the inside of that out is just disgusting.” Non-user, Male, Hackney
“It is disgusting that you have to pay for it *bin cleaning+.” Non-user, Female, Fenland
Some also say they are not confident about what items they should be recycling and like to ‘play safe’.
“No, well I stick to the real basics, glass, paper, I know that they will take those and that is what I am prepared to do, because I do not want to find bits of rubbish left that I haven’t quite, you know, done the right things.” Non-user, Female, Taunton Deane
The following quote encapsulates the fundamental issue for non-users - that many of them find food recycling just a bit too overwhelming:
“I don’t do the brown bin *food waste collection bin]. I started doing it and I had a container in my kitchen and because I did not want to get the brown bin filthy it was a case of filling up the small container and then getting the newspaper out and putting the newspaper on the floor or on the work top, wrapping it all up and I could not stand the smell in my bin. *…+ I need something different because I just cannot stand the smell and the mess.” Non-user, Female, Weymouth & Portland
7.5 Suggestions for enhancing participation – unprompted responses Those who said they do not make full use of the food collection service during the quantitative survey were asked to come up, spontaneously, with suggestions of what might persuade them to make better use of it (section 7.5.). Suggestions for improvements were also covered in the discussion groups and a series of prompted suggestions were made near to the end of the survey interview (section 7.6).
7.5.1. Overview of suggestions from non, lapsed and occasional users The overriding impression is that many are not able to see what might encourage them to make better use of kitchen waste collections. In fact, the most common answer is that “nothing” could persuade occasional, lapsed or non users to participate or participate more fully (39% overall) and a further 9% “don’t know”. Where suggestions are made, there is no clear consensus on what might be done.
March 2010 112 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections| A report for Defra
Figure 47 Encouraging participation
Q19. What would persuade you to put the rest of your food waste in the collection? (Occasional) Q24. What would persuade you to start using the collection again? (Lapsed) Q21. What would persuade you to start using the collection? (Non-users)
Non users Lapsed users Occasional users Overall N=720 N=158^ N=404 N=1281
Nothing 41% 18% 43% 39%
Practical help (e.g. bin cleaning) 8% 42% 18% 13%
Collections (e.g. more frequent/weekly) 9% 33% 16% 13%
Incentives (e.g. council tax reductions) 9% 16% 8% 9%
Don’t know 12% 6% 10% 11%
Information 11% 6% 6% 9%
^ NB 91 of the 158 lapsed users were from Hackney
The following sections look in more detail at the suggestions made by different kinds of low or non participating respondents.
7.5.2. Engaging non users Persuading non-users to use the food collection service will undoubtedly be a difficult task. Overall, four in ten (41%) say spontaneously that nothing could persuade them to use it, a figure which is even higher in Weymouth & Portland and Taunton Deane (79% and 73% respectively). These last two are areas where claimed participation is already high and it may be the case that only the most disinterested households are left as non-users. The Weymouth & Portland non-user group suggests this is a strong possibility, with many saying they are just too lazy to participate.
“No I have just never bothered using it. It is too much hassle.”
“I do not see why I should do the council’s job. It is up to them to segregate it.” Males, Non-users, Weymouth and Portland
March 2010 113 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections| A report for Defra
Figure 48 Suggestions made to engage non users
Q21. What, if anything, would persuade you to use the food waste collection service? - Top 4 answers
Nothing 41%
Don't know 12% Taunton: 73% (n=63) Weymouth & Portland: Clearer information on what 8% 79% (n=79) can be recycled
Reduction in council tax 7%
Base: All non-users (720)
Even among those who might be persuaded, the results provide no over-riding impressions of what arguments or strategies might carry most resonance. The top mentions are for clearer information (by 8%), reducing council tax for those who participate (7%), providing a bin cleaning service (6%) and making participation compulsory (6%).
In terms of the practical changes that could be made to services, relatively few respondents mention aspects that could be improved. Notably, only 4% spontaneously mention more frequent collection – and around half of these are from Hackney where collection is already weekly. Similarly, only 2% spontaneously mention provision of caddy liners (even though this was a popular suggestion in the discussion groups once the participants had seen the liners). Apart from incentives or compulsory recycling (7% and 6% respectively), the most common service related suggestion was offering a bin cleaning service (6%)
The picture for Cambridge is slightly different to the other case study areas. In Cambridge, 23% argue that a reduction in council tax would make the difference, 21% that they would be persuaded by receiving compost in return (which some in the discussion groups thought used to be the case here) and 13% that they would need a bin cleaning service.
Non-users in both Cambridge and Bexley are also more likely to feel that compulsion would persuade them – 14% and 10% respectively mention either making food recycling compulsory, giving fines for not recycling, or both.
Looking across socio-demographic groups, older and more affluent non users are most likely to say that nothing would persuade them to recycle food (55% of those aged 55+ and 53% of ABs) whereas younger people and C1C2s seem more amenable (26% of 16-34s and 35% of C1C2s say ‘nothing’). Younger respondents are slightly more likely to mention compulsion than other groups (9% of 16-34s), as well as
March 2010 114 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections| A report for Defra
information (17% of 16-34s). Those aged 36-64 are the most likely to favour incentives (13%). There are no notable differences between housing types.
While there is an overall positive correlation between commitment to dry recycling and participation in food waste recycling, a sizeable portion (51%) of the non users in the survey were high recyclers. High recyclers who do not use the food waste collection are more likely than average to say there is nothing that could persuade them to recycle food, and as likely as non recyclers (50% and 51% respectively) to say this. However, their reasons for not participating for food are very different:
the most common reasons for high recyclers are that they compost food at home and/or feed it to pets (43%) or think they do not have enough (26%); non recyclers are put off by ‘yuck’ (59%), it being too much effort (32%) and collection frequency (18%).
Those most amenable to change appear to be occasional and low recyclers. Low recyclers104 mention compulsory food recycling (13%) and/or incentives (30%) much more often than other groups, as well a bin cleaning service (13%).
Messaging to overcome these barriers therefore needs to be tailored very differently to each group of non user: for high recyclers that food waste recycling complements home composting and it can take a wider range of materials (e.g. meat and scraps); and for non recyclers messages that engage them in the idea of recycling at all. Those who already recycle a bit may simply need much more encouragement and positive feedback, as well as advice on keeping bins clean.
104 N=161
March 2010 115 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections| A report for Defra
7.5.3. Engaging lapsed users It seems that it would be easier to persuade lapsed users to give food waste recycling another try than it would be to persuade non-users to start using it. Fewer than 1 in 5 say that they could not be persuaded (compared to 2 in 5 non-users).
Reflecting the fact that what discourages lapsed users from using kitchen waste collections tends to be practical factors associated with the ‘yuck’ element of dealing with food waste, the service that would most persuade lapsed users to start using the collection again would be bin cleaning. This is mentioned by a third (32%) of lapsed users overall, and 9 out of 14 in Cambridge.
Other things that might persuade lapsed users to start using the service are a more frequent collection (mentioned by 18%), reduction in council tax (14%), and the provision of ‘powder’ (i.e. bokashi) or something to stop the smell (10%)105.
Given the small number of respondents who described themselves as lapsed users it is not possible to look at differences across the case study areas or different socio-demographic groups.
Figure 49 Suggestions made by lapsed users to encourage them to start food recycling again
Q24. What, if anything, would persuade you to start using the collection service again? – Mentions of 10% and over
Bin cleaning service 32%
Nothing 18%
More frequent collection 18%
Reduction in council tax 14%
Other 10%
Provision of 'powder' 10%
Base: All lapsed users (158)
7.5.4. Engaging occasional users As many occasional users (43%) as non-users (41%) feel that nothing could persuade them to put the rest of their food waste in the council’s collection. Of these, over half are people who compost at least some of their waste (they account for 56% of those saying ‘nothing’). It seems that many composters who are using the food collection for material they do not want to compost at home do not feel there is anything else to put into the food collection (as noted above for non users).
105 Though we cannot be entirely sure which answers would have been coded to this statement – e.g. whether suggestions as vague as „something to stop the smell‟ would be coded here.
March 2010 116 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections| A report for Defra
Although base sizes are small, occasional users in Weymouth & Portland and to a lesser extent in Fenland and Taunton Deane, seem particularly likely to feel that nothing would persuade them to use the food waste service the rest of the time. These areas have the highest reported rates of home composting of the study areas.
Of the factors that might persuade more regular participation, the most commonly mentioned are bin cleaning (by 11%), and more frequent collections (by 10%). Again, these seem to be particularly popular in Cambridge, as does the provision of something like bokashi.
Figure 50 Suggestions to encourage more regular participation by occasional users
Q19. What, if anything, would persuade you to put the rest of your food waste in the collection? – Top 5 mentions
Nothing 43%
Bin cleaning service 11%
Don‟t know 10%
More frequent food waste 10% collection
Reduction in council tax or 7% rebate
Base: All occasional users (404)
7.5.5. Improvements suggested by frequent users Frequent users were asked how they feel the service they are offered could be improved. Overall, more than half of frequent users (52%) feel that no improvements could be made, but this figure hides considerable disparities between the different case study areas. In Hackney and Cambridge for example, the proportion who do not feel service improvements could be made is lower (around a third), while in Taunton and Weymouth & Portland it is higher (around two thirds) (table 16).
Relatively high proportions of older and retired respondents (61% of those aged 55+; 64% of retirees) think the service could not be improved. Independently of this project, there is considerable research showing that older people tend to be more satisfied with services106 but as we have seen, they also seem to be less put off by the ‘yuck’ factor of kitchen waste collections (see section 7.2.3).
106 See p. 28/29 of http://www.ipsos-mori.com/publications/rd/satisfaction-and-expectations.pdf or p13 or http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/upload/assets/www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/strategy/satisfaction.pdf, quoting Public Opinion and the National Health Service: Patterns and Perspectives in Consumer Satisfaction, Ken Judge and Michael Soloman, Journal of Social Policy 22, 3, pp. 299-327, 1993.
March 2010 117 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections| A report for Defra
Service satisfaction also seems high amongst single person households (62% of whom do not think their service could be improved), and it may be that the kitchen waste collections are easier to manage when smaller quantities of waste are generated.
Table 16 Suggestions for service improvements made by frequent service users
Q16. How could the food waste Bexley Cambridge Fenland Hackney Taunton Weymouth & collection service you receive be N=446 N=530 N=425 N=280 N=575 Portland improved, if at all? (spontaneous) N=589
Could not be improved 65% 33% 41% 32% 63% 67%
Weekly food waste collection 3% 36% 27% 9% 2% 2%
Provision of free liners 7% 3% 2% 15% 9% 7%
Free bin cleaning 8% 13% 1% 13% 2% 3%
Weekly residual collection 1% 3% 26% 3% 5% 2%
Council tax reduction 2% 3% 1% 10% 1% 15
Large outdoor bins 8% 3% 2% 9% 2% 1%
Of the improvements suggested by frequent users, significant proportions of respondents in two areas with AWC suggested weekly collections (36% in Cambridge and 27% in Fenland). The fact that this request was particularly common in Cambridge may also reflect the concerns that occasional, lapsed and non users in Cambridge voiced with regards to the ‘yuck’ factors noted earlier. Indeed, 13% of Cambridge users (spontaneously) request a free bin cleaning service.
The other case study areas in which users are more likely to request free bin cleaning services are Hackney (13%) and Bexley (8%). It is noticeable that these are the most densely populated of the study areas, and it seems logical that there is a greater need for bin cleaning in areas where bins cannot be stored away from human contact (or neighbours), especially since households may have less space to clean bins.
7.5.6. Qualitative feedback on suggestions for increasing participation This section sketches out suggestions for improvement that were mentioned in the discussion groups. Overall, the non-user groups are much more vocal when asked how the local service could be improved. The following information is insightful to local authorities but it comes with the caveat that it is derived mainly from the opinions of non-users (and therefore a risk that some of the comments are driven by a desire to shift blame from the non-users to the Council). Users were generally very happy with the services provided.
Many of the themes expressed here often also come up in discussion about dry recycling services and point to the fact that it is service quality and presentation that matters to participation as much as anything specific to food waste.
March 2010 118 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections| A report for Defra
Incentives to recycle food One general feeling that is commonplace amongst non-users is that in sorting their waste they are doing part of the council’s job107. They therefore feel they ought to be remunerated in some fashion (e.g. through a rebate in their Council tax). Incidentally, this contrasts strongly with the ‘world-view’ of users where a sense of “it’s what we should be doing anyway” is a key reason for participating.
Replacing lost bins Non-users complained about operational issues, particularly about lost or stolen bins. Some non users had not found bins or caddies provided when they moved into their homes and this may be an issue in areas with high residential turnover (e.g. inner cities and student areas).
Bin cleaning One solution put forward by non users is for the Council to provide a monthly bin cleaning service at no extra charge. There was little reflection on who would bear the costs of this or, indeed, any other incentive that involved extra costs or rebates.
“If they want us to recycle then they should have some kind of system where they can spray out the bin the minute they empty it.” Non-user, Female, LB Bexley Logistics Participants also do not like having to drag the bin through their house. There is a call, particularly from those living in terraced housing, for the council to collect from the back of the house. A few also mentioned the difficulty of cleaning large wheeled bins if they are kept at the front of a terraced house but the hose pipe is in the garden at the back. Bin size may be an issue for terraced properties in this respect – but a few participants said they did not even like carrying caddies or (for some) liners through the house.
Liners Provision of liners can be seen as helping to keep bins clean. Some of the participants are even willing to pay for the liners: they said the money saved from not having to clean the bins could be used for the liners themselves. For these users, ease of obtaining liners and knowing which ones to buy may be more important than cost.
Collection frequency This was raised mainly in Cambridge and Fenland which have fortnightly collection of both food waste (mixed with garden waste) and residual waste. It seems to be the food element that is the key concern as this was not a significant concern in other areas where food is collected weekly and refuse fortnightly. Both users and non-users in Cambridge feel that weekly collection of food waste would encourage higher participation in the scheme, as did non users in Fenland.
“If they emptied them once a week and came and cleaned them out once a week then I would put anything in there but not the way it is” Non-user, Female, Fenland
107 This has also been noted in previous Brook Lyndhurst research on dry recycling. Household waste behaviour in London (2004), Brook Lyndhurst and the RRF.
March 2010 119 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections| A report for Defra
In line with the survey results, Hackney participants also mention a desire for more than weekly collections in the summer. They feel that any cost and additional emissions could be offset by a less frequent collection during the winter.
“I think in the summer it should be collected more... When you have got heat on food, whether it is in a plastic container, it is not air tight because it keeps getting opened and you have your bin outside. In the summer I think it should be collected more. In the winter you can get away with it once a week or once a fortnight, but not in the summer.” User, Female, LB Hackney
"They should come out more times a week maybe, it is a bit more encouraging than the same rubbish bin out there for a week. Even in your normal bin it does not smell very nice." Non-user, Female, LB Hackney
The desire for more frequent food waste collection in areas where it is already weekly is particularly strong in built-up urban areas, where residents live in close proximity to neighbours.108
Clear information on what can be placed in the food waste bin In addition, both users and non-users would like more information on what exactly can be placed in the food waste collection bin. In Weymouth there was some confusion as to what type of card and/or cardboard can be placed in the food waste collection bin e.g. what is the difference between corrugated and thin packaging cardboard? Most participants like the yes/no style of leaflet or bin sticker preferably with pictures.
Design of bins Taunton users mention the design of their bins which make them easy to use and are perceived to prevent problems arising. Many really like the fact that the bin has a lockable lid as this is seen to keep rodents out and the maggots in.
Collection encourages food waste reduction User group respondents expressed positive benefits regarding the fact that the service enables them to realise how much food is being wasted and encourages them to think twice about throwing food away109.
"...the whole recycling thing has made us really conscious of how much we did throw away and now I don’t shop in the same way. So I don’t say oh we will shop on a Wednesday. I shop when the fridge is empty and it means for like three nights we have really weird food.” User, Female, Taunton-Deane
Providing a comprehensive recycling service Food waste is not always the highest priority for residents and there is often more interest in recycling materials such as plastic, which are often perceived to be more damaging to the environment than food and a bigger nuisance in the home. This ties back to the finding that many people do not understand why food waste needs to be recycled.
108 Average temperatures in Inner London (and other conurbations) are also generally higher than outside the conurbation because of the urban heating effect. 109 This has also been noted in WRAP‟s food waste trials and is currently being investigated in Somerset Waste Partnership in response to an apparent overall drop in food waste arisings.
March 2010 120 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections| A report for Defra
“The thing is, if they want to do this recycling, recycle plastic and cardboard as well. If they want us to go to that extreme of recycling food waste, then I think that the cardboard and the plastic should have come way before that.” Non-user, Female, Taunton Deane
Other participants in the qualitative research suggest that the food waste service they receive needs to be more comprehensive, including caddies and liners where these are not provided and, for non users in areas where food is collected fortnightly, more frequent collections.
Access to a uniform service A common complaint in consumer research on dry recycling is that waste services are not uniform. Perhaps predictably, this was also voiced in the discussion groups, particularly in Weymouth & Portland where the topography makes it difficult to provide the same services to all households.
“You are on about recycling and there is half the island that does not get collected.” Non-user, Male, Weymouth & Portland
When participants in this group heard that caddies and liners were provided in other authorities, they immediately thought that it would make sense for people to be provided with this same service across the board.
Mix with garden waste A few non-users in food-only Weymouth and in Taunton suggested they would like the food waste to be mixed with their garden waste because this would be the same as what they do when they home compost. Instead of charging for garden waste collections, they suggest, food could be added and the whole bin collected at no charge. They believe this would in turn increase participation in the scheme. Notably, however, users in these areas did not make this suggestion and are perfectly happy with a separate food collection. This suggestion cannot be generalised to other areas and is probably specific to the kind of areas where a principal reason for non participation is home composting instead.
“I was saying put the food waste in the green garden bin, we won’t charge you the £20, you can put your bottles and newspapers in the green caddy and you put your, the rest of your household rubbish in the black bin, we will collect it once a week, everyone is happy days.” Non-user, Male, Taunton Deane
7.6 Suggestions for enhancing participation – reactions to prompted statements
The quantitative survey tested a number of specific suggestions for increasing participation that were suggested during a role play exercise at the end of each of the discussion groups. Participants in the groups were split into pairs and one person in each pair was asked to play the role of a resolute non-user of kitchen waste collections while the other was asked to play a local council officer having to win them over. In essence, this was an exercise in exploring the factors that might stop people taking part in collections and how these can be overcome. The ideas suggested in discussion groups that were taken forward into the quantitative research were concerned with:
Incentives to recycle more – financial incentives and compulsory food recycling Service design aspects:
March 2010 121 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections| A report for Defra
o More frequent food waste collections o Providing a bin cleaning service o Providing free liners or bags for indoor food containers/ caddies Providing more specific information on how to use the service
Quantitative survey respondents were then asked how effective they thought each would be as a way of encouraging people to use the food collection and recycle more food (NB they were not asked which ones they would most like to see put in place although it is likely that some people took this into account when answering). Results are presented first as an overview comparing different suggestions then for each statement in more detail.
It is important to bear in mind that these aspects were suggested by participants in the research project. Inclusion in the research does not indicate that any of the suggestions from participants are under consideration as policy options for England.
7.6.1. Overview Of the statements tested, the one thought likely to be the most effective was a reward in the form of a council tax rebate. Opinion is divided (though marginally positive) that making food waste compulsory would be an effective stimulus to participation (50% effective; 44% not effective) but tax rebates are reckoned to be the most effective of all – by 84% of respondents.
Figure 51 Encouraging use of food collections – reaction to prompted suggestions
Q26. How effective, if at all, do you think the following...would be?
% Very effective % Fairly effective % Not very effective % Not at all effective More information on how to use the 32 39 14 11 scheme
Council tax reductions for recycling 56 28 8 6
Making food waste recycling 24 26 18 26 compulsory & giving fines
Providing free liners for indoor caddies 44 32 13 8
Providing a bin cleaning service 34 34 16 13
Collecting food waste more frequently 29 33 19 15
Baseline: All respondents (4,431)
This pattern is perhaps not surprising given that a tax rebate was one of the most common suggestions made in the discussion groups. The results for compulsory food recycling match conversations in the discussion groups less well since some non users, at least, were adamant that making recycling compulsory would be the only reason they would start recycling food.
Of the other service-related options, providing liners is thought to be more effective than other options (such as bin cleaning or more frequent collections) though this has to be set against the very low proportion of non users who mentioned liners spontaneously (in section 7.5). Again, the idea of receiving
March 2010 122 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections| A report for Defra
free liners was very popular in the discussion groups when participants had seen some examples, in particular because liners help to allay fears over smells and yuckiness.
On balance, respondents think that more frequent collections, bin cleaning and information would probably be effective although only a third or less think they would be “very effective”, compared to 44% who think this for liners.
Improvements in communications seem not to generate as high a degree of enthusiasm as some of the other measures proposed, but, equally, only 11% see the suggestion of providing more information as ‘not at all effective’. The overall message here is that although communications are seen as a help, many do not see them as the trigger to, in and of themselves, prompt participation in food collection services.
For certain statements there is significant difference between the views of residents in the different case study areas. In many cases these correspond to differences in provision (e.g. in relation to collection frequencies), and they are explored further in the more detailed sections that follow.
Table 17 Encouraging use of food collections – reaction to prompted suggestions in study areas
Q26. How effective, if at all, do you Bexley Cambridge Fenland Hackney Taunton Weymouth & think the following...would be? N=446 N=530 N=425 N=280 N=575 Portland % saying very effective N=589
Reducing council tax or giving a 65% 58% 55% 45% 58% 55% council tax rebate for those who recycle
Providing free liners or bags for 45% 37% 37% 38% 58% 49% indoor food containers/caddy
Providing a bin cleaning service 43% 45% 33% 34% 22% 25%
Providing more information on how 31% 50% 31%` 33% 24% 22% to use the scheme
Collecting food waste more 30% 40% 38% 32% 18% 14% frequently
Making food waste recycling 28% 32% 21% 19% 25% 16% compulsory & giving fines to those who don’t do it
The views of different types of user also vary substantially. Lapsed users in particular seem to differ from the other groups – above all in their enthusiasm towards initiatives related to ‘yuck’, such as providing a bin cleaning service, collecting waste more frequently and providing free liners or bags for indoor food containers. Again it should be remembered that lapsed users were only 3% of the sample overall and more than half were in Hackney, so that care needs to be taken in generalising their experience to lapsed users more widely.
March 2010 123 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections| A report for Defra
Table 18 Encouraging use of food collections – reaction to prompted suggestions by level service use
Q26. The following have been suggested as a way Non users Lapsed users Occasional Frequent users of encouraging people to use the food collection N=720 n=158 users N=3131 service here and recycle more food. How effective, n=404 if at all, do you think the following would be? (% saying very/fairly effective) Reducing council tax or giving a council tax rebate 75% 82% 82% 85% for those who recycle
Providing free liners or bags for indoor food 66% 86% 79% 78% containers/caddy
Providing a bin cleaning service 65% 87% 72% 67%
Providing more information on how to use the 69% 76% 73%` 71% scheme
Collecting food waste more frequently 63% 81% 69% 59%
Making food waste recycling compulsory & giving 41% 51% 46% 53% fines to those who don’t do it
7.6.2. Incentives Providing council tax rebates Over four in five (82%) think providing council tax rebates would help encourage service use, over half (56%) believing that it would be very effective. This suggestion gets the seal of approval from respondents across case study areas and across social class and ethnic groups110.
Older and retired respondents are less likely than other groups to think this option would be effective (77% of respondents over 55+ compared to 85% of under 35s). On balance, however the opinion in even these groups is positive.
There are no significant differences between those living in flats or houses, though private renters are more likely, on balance, to think that a rebate would be effective than either social renters or owner occupiers (a net balance of +81%, +64% and +68% respectively).
Of the various suggestions, the idea of a tax rebate was thought to have the highest potential for effectiveness by non users even though they are the group that is most likely to think it would be ineffective (18% of non users compared to 11% of frequent users). Those who don’t recycle are similarly more sceptical than those with a stronger commitment to recycling (24% of non recyclers disagree) though a majority nonetheless think it would be effective (72%).
The survey results confirm the support expressed in the discussion groups for the idea of a tax reward for food recycling to motivate higher participation.
110 There are no significant differences in the views of respondents from different ethnics groups on this matter, and differences in the views of respondents from different socio-economic groups are small: 81% of ABs, 84% of C1C2s and 78% of DEs say reducing council tax or giving a council tax rebate for those who recycle would be effective.
March 2010 124 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections| A report for Defra
“Yes but there are a lot of people out there that if there’s nothing in it for them they won’t do it.” User, Female, Weymouth & Portland
“I go back to my point, all stick no carrot of any description.” Non-user, Female, Taunton Deane
Participants voiced possible issues with the practicalities of monitoring such an initiative, for example when looking at larger households with children compared to single occupancy households.
One idea of how to get around these problems is to have the collection crew keep a running log of those who participate. Respondents suggested participation should not be based on quantity, rather whether you participate frequently and correctly (i.e. that you had made a fair attempt to do what was expected). In addition, it was thought that home composting should be counted as recycling food waste too. There is an underlying sense in what people propose that any system of reward has to be seen to be fair towards anyone who is genuinely making an effort (however great or little they achieve) and to exclude those who can’t be bothered.
“This is where it needs to be stated though, it is not on the amount you recycle it’s the fact that you do it regularly.” User, Female, Weymouth & Portland
“I am paying the same *council tax+ as someone who uses just one bin and there is no penalty. I have to pull out two wheelie bins and some plastic boxes in the morning before I go to work on a Wednesday while some people just drive past their one bin.” Non-user, Male, LB Bexley
The suggested reduction in the Council tax was approximately 10%, although with further discussion, participants stated that even one, two or five percent would be a start! This is a familiar feature of discussion groups on waste issues and underlines just how little residents know about the actual costs of waste services. Neither are the practicalities of establishing a rebate system fully understood but group participants did come up with alternative ways of providing an incentive such as vouchers and prize draws.
Making food waste recycling compulsory and imposing fines As outlined above in the introduction to section 7.6, making food waste recycling compulsory was suggested by participants in focus groups as a possible means of encouraging higher participation in food waste collections. This idea was tested further in the quantitative survey to establish the extent to which this view is held generally in the case study areas.
“Making food waste recycling compulsory and giving fines to those who do not do it” attracts the most divided opinion of the suggestions presented to respondents: only half (50%) feel it would be effective (compared to 82% who think a council tax reduction would work). Some non users have very strong negative views on the subject.
“It is not 1984 but 2007 but the government is watching everything that you do. You mustn’t do this and you mustn’t do that and you will be fined if you do that and it is just too much.” Non-user, Female, Fenland
March 2010 125 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections| A report for Defra
Despite the initial unpopularity of the concept where it was discussed in the qualitative groups, many non-users did eventually admit that fines might get them into taking part.
Those living in Cambridge are more likely to think this measure could be effective than those living elsewhere (61%), perhaps due to the city’s comparatively liberal & affluent profile. Having said this however, looking at respondents overall, those in socio-economic groups AB are no more likely than those in groups DE to think that making food waste recycling compulsory would be effective.
Older people are more sceptical that it would be effective than younger people (43% of those aged 55+ compared to 56% of 16-34s and 54% of 35-54s). There is again some difference between the perceptions of different ethnic groups – Black and Asian respondents for example are more likely to view the idea as ineffective than respondents overall (54% and 53% respectively, compared to 44% for White British).
In common with dry recyclables surveys where we have asked similar questions111, those who already recycle food waste are more likely to endorse compulsion than are non-users. However, this still amounts to only half of frequent users (53% say it would be effective, compared to 41% of non-users). Twice as many frequent users than non users agree strongly that compulsory recycling would be effective (28% versus 15%).
7.6.3. Service improvements
Providing free liners or bags for indoor containers Although the lack of liners and bags tended not to be mentioned spontaneously as a barrier to participation at the outset of the discussion groups, respondents were put off by a number of issues which they later commented might be overcome if liners or bags were provided (e.g. caddy cleaning, smells, hygiene worries, mess etc...). Indeed, as noted above, liners and bags were very well received when participants were shown examples.
In the quantitative work, providing free liners or bags for indoor containers is again seen as an initiative which could work and could work well. Over three quarters think that doing this would either be effective or extremely effective, and strong endorsement comes from lapsed users, who tend to be particularly concerned about the ‘yuckiness’ of dealing with food waste (86% of this group feel the idea would be fairly or very effective).
The provision of free liners is also popular amongst minority ethnic respondents (83% of ‘White, non- British’, 88% of ‘Asian’ and 97% of ‘Black’ respondents think it would be effective), as well as low recyclers (85%) and Hackney residents (90%). Non-users are less keen; nevertheless, two thirds (66%) think it would be a fairly or very effective measure.
Households in Taunton and Weymouth - where caddy use is highest anyway and liner use well established in Taunton – are especially likely to think this measure would be very effective (table 18 above).
111 E.g. Household Waste Behaviour in London (2005), Brook Lyndhurst for the Greater London Authority, London Waste Action and Government Office for London.
March 2010 126 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections| A report for Defra
Providing a bin cleaning service Two thirds of respondents (68%) consider that providing a bin cleaning service free of charge could be effective in enhancing participation.
It is most endorsed by those whose accommodation might be more cramped or not provide them with the ability of being able to clean bins themselves without resorting to using baths or kitchen sinks (85% of those living in blocks of flats, 83% in converted flats, 78% with no garden access, 79% of social renters, 78% of private renters, and 78% of those living in households of five people or more).
Younger respondents and lapsed users – both shown to be particularly concerned about ‘yuck’ factors elsewhere in the research - also feel that bin cleaning would be effective (80% of 16-34 year olds and 87% of lapsed users hold this view).
Additionally, there are differences between ‘White British’ respondents and other ethnic groups (66% of the former think it might be effective, compared to 87% of Asian and 91% of Black respondents). Broadly speaking, the groups which are less likely to participate are more likely to think that bin cleaning would be effective, reflecting the relatively greater concerns about mess and dirt among non users than users reported in sections 7.2 and 7.4 above.
Again, these differences reflect themselves in the overall feedback from the case study areas.
Figure 52 Providing bin cleaning to encourage participation
Q26. How effective, if at all, do you think the following...would be? Providing a bin cleaning service
Effective: 100 85% of those in blocks of flats 87% of lapsed users
60 83 87 67 59 65 % Disagree 20 45 % Agree 15 13 29
% Agree/Disagree % 32 20 35 46
60 Bexley N=760 Cambridge Fenland Hackney Taunton Weymouth & N=776 N=720 N=698 N=718 Portland N=759 Base: All respondents (4,431)
Endorsement is highest amongst those living in Hackney (a densely populated area with higher proportions of younger and non ‘White British’ residents than others included in the study), and Cambridge (which again has high proportions of younger residents, has an AWC system in place and for which particular concerns have been raised about pests and messy bins): 86% and 83% respectively in these areas think it would be effective. Notably in Fenland, which has an almost identical service to Cambridge including fortnightly food collection, far fewer think that bin cleaning would be effective (59%), which reflects the lack of concern about ‘yuck’ factors here that was noted earlier.
March 2010 127 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections| A report for Defra
Collecting food waste more frequently As with providing bin caddy liners, one of the main groups likely to consider ‘collecting food waste more frequently’ to be an effective way of enhancing participation is those most likely to be worried about the ‘yuck’ factor - younger respondents, students, lapsed users and low recyclers (73% of those aged 16-34, 73% of students, 80% of low recyclers and 81% of lapsed users compared to 62% overall).
Another group is those living in densely populated accommodation (81% of those living in blocks of flats, 80% of those living in flats which are in houses and 77% of private renters112). Again, there are also differences between ‘White British’ respondents and those from other ethnic groups (59% of the former think it might be effective, compared to 81% of Asian and 89% of Black respondents).
There appear to be no consistent differences on this measure between weekly or fortnightly collection areas, although it is considered least effective where participation is already high and food is collected weekly (in Taunton and Weymouth). The data again suggest that Hackney residents want food waste collected more often than weekly; and also again show a significant difference between Cambridge and Fenland which both have fortnightly food collections.
Figure 53 Changing the frequency of collections to encourage participation
Q26. How effective, if at all, do you think the following...would be? Collecting food waste more frequently 120 Effective: 81% of those in blocks of flats 80% of those in flats within houses 80
40 85 84 58 59 40 43 % Disagree 0 % Agree 12 13 35
% Agree/Disagree % 38 50 52 40
80 Bexley Cambridge Fenland Hackney Taunton Weymouth N=760 N=776 N=720 N=698 N=718 & Portland N=759 Base: All respondents (4,431)
In the discussion groups, those on fortnightly alternate collection between organic and refuse do mention that a weekly organic collection would encourage them to recycle more food waste.
“If you want us to use the green bins *organic bin+ more often, especially if that is food waste and things like that, then that should be an every week kind of collection, especially during the summer.” Non-user, Female, Cambridge
112 The figure for social renters is 72%
March 2010 128 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections| A report for Defra
7.6.4. Communications – providing information on how to participate Feedback in the qualitative research was that people like to have very specific instructions on how to use the food waste collection, particularly regarding the types of food that can be recycled. Although we have not seen particularly strong calls for additional information elsewhere in this research, when prompted, seven in ten (71%) feel that providing more information on how to use the scheme would be effective in increasing participation in kitchen waste schemes, with little variation according to user type113.
This measure seems to have particular appeal to groups which could be deemed as more ‘transient’, and therefore more likely not to have been reached by the full extent of council communications (for example, 81% of those aged 16-34, 79% of those living in flats, and 79% of renters feel that it would be effective). It also carries particular resonance with ethnic minority groups (e.g. 89% of Asian and 90% of Black respondents also feel it would be very or fairly effective).
Reflective of the differences outlined above, the idea is also popular in case study areas that have the highest proportion of young people (i.e. Cambridge) and of ethnic minority groups (85% in Hackney).
“That it takes up quite a lot of your time, so it would be useful if we actually knew why on earth we were spending this extra time.” User, Female, Taunton Deane
In addition, it was suggested that if the councils were to publicise the end use, more residents would be more inclined to participate in the scheme – but this is probably of more interest to users than non users.
“People are more inclined to do it if they can see the results.” User, Female, Hackney LB
113 The figures range from 69% for non-users to 76% for lapsed users.
March 2010 129 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections| A report for Defra
8 Response to communications
The research explored how residents had heard about food waste recycling and their reactions to the communications material used to promote the service in their area. The case study authorities kindly provided communication materials for us to use as stimulus in the discussion groups. This section looks first at reactions to the communications used locally (section 8.1) then at requirements for further information (8.2). Survey results are combined with feedback from the discussion groups throughout.
8.1 Awareness and reaction to communications
8.1.1. Awareness of the food waste collection Each local authority handled its launch communications differently, but door-to-door leafleting was the most commonly recalled means of being made aware of the new service in all areas other than Hackney114. The proportion mentioning this ranged from seven in ten respondents in Weymouth & Portland and six in ten in Taunton Deane, to around four in ten in Cambridge, Hackney and Bexley (38%, 41% and 43% respectively)115.
Figure 54 Awareness of the food collection service
Q27. How were you made aware about the food waste collection service in this area?
Information leaflet through my 51% letterbox
Information leaflet with my new Weymouth & 17% bin Portland: 70% Cambridge:38%
Given a new bin 16% Hackney: 43% Letter from the council 11%
Base: All respondents (4,431)
Door-to-door leafleting is particularly recalled by older and retired respondents (56% respectively), as well as those working part time (56%), and living in detached or semi-detached housing (55%). This is perhaps reflective of those who take the time to read unsolicited mail, as well as likely differences in residential turnover between different housing types. While 53% of owner occupiers recall leaflets through their doors, this falls to only 36% of private renters. In several discussion groups, recent in-
114 Respondents were spontaneously asked about how they had been made aware of the food waste collection service in their area (i.e. they were not prompted and were not given a list of options to choose from). 115 The figure for Fenland is 53%
March 2010 130 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections| A report for Defra
movers had not seen any communications and some were not even aware that a food waste bin should be provided at the property because it had been removed by the previous occupier.
Non users and low recyclers are less likely to recall door-to-door leafleting – 35% and 22% respectively say that this is how they had been made aware of their local scheme. This compares with 57% of users. The low percentage of non users who recall promotion of the food waste service is clearly not helpful to getting over positive messages about food recycling. Hackney had addressed this possibility head-on by promoting food waste recycling on street banners, bus backs and even cyclists wearing special promotional jackets. Being given information leaflets with a new bin or simply receiving a new bin were avenues identified by around one in six (17% and 16% respectively) as having been responsible for making them conscious of their local scheme. The former was more commonly mentioned by Fenland residents (21%), while the latter was particularly mentioned by those living in Hackney (43% of whom were made aware of the scheme in this way).
The fact that so many Hackney residents were unaware of the scheme until they were given a bin may be seen as evidence that early communications were not as effective as they might have been here. However, the nature of the Hackney housing stock and socio-demographics may also have played a part because Hackney has higher proportions of the type of household that were more likely across the whole sample to have reported they only saw communications when their new bins were delivered. This underlines the importance of local authorities developing communications that will attract the attention of potentially ‘hard to reach’ groups116.
Overall, recall of communications is highest in the high participation areas of Taunton and Weymouth as well as in Bexley, which had been promoting food collection through its “scrape the plate” promotion. Only 4%-5% in these areas could not recall how they heard about the food waste collections, compared to 10% in Hackney, 13% in Fenland and 17% percent in Cambridge.
The means of communicating with residents were explored more fully during the qualitative research; findings are outlined below, along with a brief area-specific summary of the quantitative findings.
8.1.2. Recall of communications in each study area
London Borough of Bexley 43% of Bexley respondents were made aware of their local scheme via leaflets delivered to their door (well below the average); over a quarter (27%) by leaflets provided with their new bin (higher than average); 15% with the arrival of the bin itself and 12% through a letter from the council.117
The qualitative findings broadly concur with this overall picture, suggesting that current communications activities under the umbrella of the ‘Scrape the plate’ campaign have not achieved wide recall. (However, this has to be set against the survey results showing that material recognition amongst Bexley respondents is the most accurate of any of the six areas).
Hearing about the service Bexley group participants, particularly service users, heard about the service mainly via leaflets being delivered to their door. A small minority had come across information in the local papers and some
116 See case studies developed from the WRAP food waste collection trials at: http://www.wrap.org.uk/local_authorities/research_guidance/food_waste/separate_food_waste.html (accessed 03/03/10). 117 Multiple responses were allowed so that percentages do not sum to 100%.
March 2010 131 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections| A report for Defra
mentioned hearing about the service through speaking to a neighbour or ‘doing what their neighbour does’ and word of mouth.
Awareness of communication materials Though some users mentioned seeing general information in the local press, discussion group participants had not seen the specific “Get it sorted for 2006” and “Scrape the plate” advertisements in the local papers. In addition, a few had seen the “Bexley Recycling Guide 2007” but did not mention other communication materials they had received which covered similar information. Only a few users had seen the “Brown bin collection” sticker.
Table 19 Recall of communication about food waste collections (unprompted)
Q27. How were you made aware Weymouth Bexley Cambridge Fenland Hackney Taunton about the food waste collection & Portland N=760 N=776 N=720 N=698 N=718 service in this area? N=759
Information leaflet through my door 43% 38% 53% 41% 60% 70%
Information leaflet left with my new 27% 12% 21% 18% 8% 14% bin
Given a new bin 15% 14% 5% 43% 7% 14%
Letter from the council 12% 13% 5% 10% 18% 9%
Information in council 6% 8% 4% 10% 5% 7% magazine/newspaper
Adverts in the local press 6% 3% 5% 1% 10% 13%
Talking to neighbours/friends 3% 9% 5% 1% 6% 5%
Stickers put on my/our bin 1% 16% 2% 1% * 2%
Someone coming to the door to tell 2% 1% * 12% 2% 1% me about it
Adverts on local radio * 1% 4% 1% 1% 4%
Information stands at 1% * * * 3% 5% market/shopping centre/fair etc.
Posters in local area/on buses etc. * 1% * 1% 1% 1%
Cambridge The most widespread way that Cambridge residents were made aware of the local food collection service was from leaflets being delivered to their door (38%). There was less dominance by any one form of communication in Cambridge, however: 16% were made aware through bin stickers (much higher than in other areas), 14% by being given a new bin, 12% through the information leaflets that were given with these new bins, 9% by talking to friends or neighbours and 8% through the Council magazine.
Again, this broadly matches the qualitative findings, and suggests that no one aspect of the Council’s very broad campaign (which incorporated radio and press advertising, articles being placed in local newspapers, targeted bin stickers and leaflets explaining the new service) reached all residents.
March 2010 132 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections| A report for Defra
Hearing about the service Group participants had heard about the service from a range of sources. Users had mainly heard about it through the information provided with new bins when they were delivered at the start of the scheme, the stickers on the inside of the lids explaining what can be put in and the leaflets that the Council had sent households about the scheme.
Awareness of communication materials Participants in both the user and non-user discussion groups were unaware of any local press coverage relating to the collection, other than general complaints about AWC.
Users had not seen the orange “What goes in your bins & boxes” check list, but spoke about another leaflet containing the same information, which they had received with the delivery of their bin. This may because there had been no reason why they should have received the more recent check list.
Several stated that they were influenced by the communication literature they had already seen in Cambridge and after having been shown additional communication materials during the groups, claimed they could see themselves recycling more of their food waste.
Though they were not shown the ‘Cambridge Matters’ magazine during the groups, several participants – both users and non-users - mentioned it as the source of information on what items can be placed in the collection. Overall, around half of non-users in the discussion groups had seen communication materials.
Fenland District Council Over half of Fenland respondents (53%) were made aware of the kitchen waste collection through an information leaflet delivered to their door; a further one in five (21%) received leaflets with their new bins. Other initiatives such as adverts in the local press (5%), letters from the Council (5%), adverts on local radio (4%) and information in the Council magazine (4%) reached smaller numbers.
It appears that several aspects of the Council’s campaign – notably the road shows, press coverage and adverts in local press and radio, failed to achieve widespread recognition. Similarly, neither ‘Captain Green’ nor the local radio pilot scheme, which offered a financial incentive to participants, were mentioned in the survey. However, direct provision of information leaflets to householders appears to have been successful.
Hearing about the service Both users and non-users in the group discussions had become aware of the service through leaflets being delivered to their door. Non users did not recall seeing a large amount of local press coverage on the collection; however, users and non users alike did mention being made aware of service details through word of mouth and from what was put on the bins.
Awareness of communication materials The majority of respondents from both discussion groups were familiar with all the Council “Getting it Sorted!” campaign communication materials shown.
London Borough of Hackney As highlighted above, Hackney respondents were most frequently made aware of their local food waste scheme by receiving new bins (43%). Many mentioned several sources of information though, and, as elsewhere, receiving an information leaflet through the letterbox was commonplace (41%). One in five (18%) became aware of the service when they received information leaflets with their new bins, and
March 2010 133 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections| A report for Defra
Hackney’s door stepping campaign also achieved recognition – 12% of those interviewed were made aware of the scheme through this route. Additionally, one in ten mentioned receiving a letter from the Council and mentioned seeing an article in the Council newsletter.
Various elements of Hackney’s comprehensive communications campaign have received recognition: in particular, the letter to residents explaining the changes to services and the final leaflet accompanying the delivery of caddies and bins are well recalled (but this may reflect the fact that the service is fairly new). Other aspects of the campaign (such as the roadshows, ‘Recycling Guide’ booklet, banners, bus advertising, and posters) have not achieved the same level of penetration.
Hearing about the service Participants in the group discussions had heard about the service from an array of sources, which is indicative of the numerous channels of communications used by LB Hackney. For example, users found out about the scheme through their neighbours, via ‘Hackney Today’, through other free local newspapers, via the internet, by seeing other residents with blue bins, via leaflets put through their letterboxes or by seeing posters displayed across the borough. Some non-users had seen the lamppost banners advertising the recycling service generally but had not seen printed material about recycling or the food waste collection. Non-users did not display much interest or enthusiasm for detailed written information.
Awareness of communication materials Users were more familiar with the communication materials presented during the groups than non-users. Most had seen them before, particularly the posters displayed around the borough. Non-user participants tended to be less aware of the materials especially the posters on the bikes, although some claimed to have seen the bus billboards but not to have taken any notice.
"Strange thing is, I’ve looked at this sign but I never realised it was about recycling food." Non-user, Male, LB Hackney
Taunton Deane In Taunton Deane, as in most of the other case study areas, the most recognised way of being communicated to about the new kitchen waste collection service was through a leaflet delivered to the door (60%). Other forms of communication were also successful in reaching residents however, most notably the letter sent out by the Council, which 18% of residents remember receiving. 10% mention having seen adverts in the local press, 8% were made aware of the scheme through the information leaflet included with the new bin and 7% by having received a new bin. The qualitative findings broadly reflect these findings and we can conclude that communication efforts around the introduction of the scheme were, broadly speaking, successful. Neither the road shows, door-stepping nor weekly newspaper column had widespread recall though.
Hearing about the service During the group discussions, users mainly mentioned hearing about the service through leaflets and letters posted to their homes. Others had seen adverts and information in the local paper (‘The Gazette’) as well as stalls at road shows and flower shows.
"We were bombarded." User, Female, Taunton Deane
March 2010 134 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections| A report for Defra
Non users principally stated that they had learned about the service by one day finding the kitchen waste bins on their doorstep with the accompanying communication materials and service information.
Awareness of communication materials The majority of participants in both groups had seen the communication materials. Slightly fewer participants in both groups recognised the collection schedule calendar, compared to the other communication materials. In the non user group, participants had not seen the survey which accompanied the newsletter.
The bulk of the participants in both groups felt well informed regarding service provision and what food waste items could be placed in the collection. Users had responded positively to the communications material and were following the guidance provided. The non user group participants appeared less convinced by the communications material.
Weymouth & Portland Borough Council The vast majority of residents in Weymouth & Portland were made aware of the collection scheme when their homes were leafleted (70%) in what seems to have been an extremely effective campaign. Other forms of communication also seem to have been reasonably effective, notably adverts in the local press (mentioned by 13%). As elsewhere however, roadshow and doorstepping initiatives are not recalled by substantial proportions of residents.
14% mentioned the delivery of their new bin prompting their awareness, and the same proportion spoke about the leaflet given out with the new bin. The feedback from the group discussions paints a very similar picture.
Hearing about the service The majority of participants from both groups had heard about the food waste service through a letter from the Council and the information delivered with the bins when the scheme was introduced. Others had heard about the scheme through articles which had appeared in the local press and in the Council’s newsletter.
“They wrote a letter to us, didn’t they? And then they said they were introducing the wheelie bins.” Non-user, Female, Weymouth & Portland
“They just dumped the bins on your doorstep.” Non-user, Male, Weymouth & Portland
Awareness of communication materials Most participants, both users and non-users, had seen the guide which was delivered with the wheeled bins and a slightly smaller proportion had also seen the bin stickers. Some had come across the collection dates calendar and the ‘bin not collected tag’.
March 2010 135 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections| A report for Defra
8.2 Desire for more information 8.2.1. Survey data Survey respondents were presented with a list of the kinds of information that could be included in communications and asked which one or two items they would like to know more about, if any.
Almost half (47%) of those aware of kitchen waste services in their local area feel they have enough information and do not want to know more. This figure is particularly high in Bexley and Fenland, where almost two thirds (64% and 66% respectively) do not want any more information. The proportion is much lower in Hackney (28%), amongst students (32%), those living in converted flats (31%), private renters (36%) and lapsed users (and 31%)118. Notably, nearly half (49%) of non users say they do not want any more information, which supports the earlier argument that disinterest is as much a barrier for this group as are practical issues.
Of those who do want to know more, requests are for a mix of practical and general information. Around one in six mention wanting more information on what can and cannot be put in the collection (16%), what the food waste gets made into (15%) and where it goes (14%).
The last two items are of much more interest to users than non users, as is the difference that recycling food waste makes to local recycling rates and how much goes into landfill (mentioned by 12% of users). Lapsed users also have some interest in knowing where food waste goes when it is collected (16%). Developing these aspects would therefore seem to be more about reinforcing the ‘feel good’ factor for existing users rather than as a hook for engaging new participants.
The profile of those who want to know more about what can and cannot be put into the collection is strikingly similar to the profile of non users. Younger respondents (23% of those aged 16-34 and 26% of students), non ‘White British’ (25% of White non-British; 27% of Asians) and private renters (25%) are all more likely than their counterparts to want practical information (or at least say they do). On the whole, these are also people who might not be fully settled into an area, or especially engaged with the idea of food recycling.
Those who generally recycle little or nothing, or are non- or lapsed users of kitchen waste collection services, are also more likely to ask for information on collection times (24%, 23%, 13% and 19% respectively).
For lapsed users, where to go to source caddy liners is also a particular issue (mentioned by 20%), reinforcing the impression that liners can help tackle the ‘yuck’ factor which put some people off using the service altogether after they initially try it. Occasional users, more than others, would like advice on what they can use to wrap food waste (14%).
118 Compared to 48% of frequent users, 38% of occasional users and 49% of non users.
March 2010 136 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections| A report for Defra
Table 20 Information desired – selected items (prompted)
Q28. Which one or two of the following would you Non users Lapsed users Occasional Frequent users like to know more about? (prompted) N=720 n=158 users N=3131 n=404
What food items can and can’t be put in the 13% 19% 8% 5% collection bin
Information on collection days/times 20% 22% 24% 14%
Where I can get liners for my indoor food container 7% 20% 11% 8%
What I can/can’t use to wrap food waste 7% 17% 14% 8%
Where the food waste goes when it is collected 8% 6% 13%` 16%
What the food waste gets made into 11% 9% 12% 16%
What difference recycling food waste makes to the 8% 5% 12% 11% local recycling rate/the amount going to landfill
There are also some interesting differences across the study areas. The call for more information on what foods can and can’t be recycled is greater in the areas that were identified in section 5 as having the highest levels of incorrect knowledge about which materials are accepted – Cambridge, Hackney and Fenland (table 21).
The other major difference is between the mixed FGW areas and the food-only authorities regarding the extent to which residents want to know what happens to the food collected, what it is made into and what difference it makes. On all three aspects the call for information is much greater in the food-only areas than in the mixed FGW areas. Perhaps it is more obvious in the mixed FGW areas that food waste is made into compost because it is mixed with what are conventionally seen as compost materials (i.e. garden waste); however this is entirely speculative and cannot be proved from this research.
“I have heard it gets sent away and goes, I don’t know there is something they do with it, and then it gets recycled and it comes back and they use it in parks and gardens as compost. It comes back as a proper compost.” Male, User, LB Bexley
March 2010 137 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections| A report for Defra
Table 21 Information desired – selected items (prompted)
Q28. Which one or two of the Weymouth Bexley Cambridge Fenland Hackney Taunton following would you like to know & Portland N=760 N=776 N=720 N=698 N=718 more about? (prompted) N=759
What food items can and can’t be put 12% 23% 17% 20% 15% 9% in the collection bin
Where the food waste goes when it is 4% 9% 4% 19% 25% 22% collected
What the food waste gets made into 6% 11% 5% 18% 27% 21% What difference recycling food waste makes to the local recycling rate/the 5% 10% 3% 16% 16% 13% amount going to landfill
8.2.2. Qualitative insight The qualitative research examined information gaps in more depth and provides further insight into what is of interest to current and potential scheme participants – whether or not they initially realise that these are things that interest them.
Knowledge and information on which foods are collected Both users and non-users voiced confusion over whether certain types of food waste could be placed in the food waste collection bin (e.g. raw meat and bones, or cooked food in Cambridge), and this is certainly a potential area for future communications to deal with. For most people in the discussion groups, however, lack of knowledge and information about the food waste service was not felt to be a key reason for not participating.
Another area of confusion related to correct identification of biodegradable (compostable) bags. Some non-users assumed that all plastic carrier bags were biodegradable and therefore suitable for the food waste collection bin.
Provision of information about food waste collection schemes was thought to be an issue for residents whose first language is not English, were new to an area and/or were transient (e.g. students). Fenland has had a recent influx of migrants from the EU accession countries and it is notable that participants in both the Fenland groups made a strong case for the provision of more knowledge and information to the foreign communities in the local area (although the two Polish participants were comfortable with the communications material and thought that translation was not necessarily needed).119
Lack of knowledge of end use A significant minority of users and many non-users did not know why the Council was collecting food waste. “Well it is like mushrooms, isn’t it really, well yes, you are kept in the dark and fed, you know.” User, Male, Weymouth & Portland
119 The opinions of the long-time residents in Fenland need to be set in the context of the wider social impacts in the region arising from the current scale of immigration from Eastern Europe).
March 2010 138 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections| A report for Defra
“I am not entirely sure why it benefits us to be honest.” Non-user, Male, LB Bexley
In addition, these participants did not know what their food waste became as an end product.
“They are using it for something but we do not know how they process it to get it to what they were using it for.” User, Female, Taunton Deane
Some participants in both user and non user groups (more so in non user groups) were sceptical and dubious of the councils’ intentions and actions. These participants thought the food waste was sent to landfill regardless, if not in the UK then abroad, while a smaller proportion thought it was used in farming.
Most participants had never really thought about the end use of the food waste prior to being asked the question during the groups but were keen to have more information on what their food waste became. Taunton Deane users, for example, suggested running articles in ‘the Gazette’ or in other local newspapers on this matter.
Overall, users are interested in receiving more information, especially since they invest both time and effort in sorting their waste. They want to know that what they are doing is worthwhile (but, as we said above, this aspect is of much less interest to non-users).
In addition, it is suggested that if the Councils were to publicise the end use, more residents would be inclined to participate in the scheme.
“People are more inclined to do it if they can see the results.” User, Female, LB Hackney
Innovative ways of publicising end-use Those participants who agreed that Councils should do more to publicise the end use of collected food waste, came up with some innovative ways of publicising this and communicating it to the wider public.
It was suggested that a recycling centre (geared particularly at children) be opened so that residents can see what happens to food waste. Participants also thought that publicity should not only be limited to leaflets, local press and internet - TV should be used as a channel of communication. (This tends to be a usual fall-back position when discussion groups participants are talking about waste issues which simply reflects their expectation that any issue of importance should be on TV; there is a sense that if it isn’t on TV then it is not important enough to think about).
Another suggestion was a cartoon for kids and/or a short film for adults illustrating where the depots are and what happens to the food waste as it is turned into compost (i.e. feature-style editorial rather than direct information).
March 2010 139 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections| A report for Defra
“I think what would be good is if on the internet, because a lot of people use the internet, if there was a video so you can see what is going on instead of having to read everything. So if you could physically see what they are doing.” User, Female, LB Hackney
“A film for adults and a cartoon for kids but showing the actual recycling depots and highlighting where they are.” User, Male, LB Hackney
March 2010 140 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections| A report for Defra
9 Conclusions and implications
This research has produced new and unique evidence on the consumer response to food waste collections. Where possible, insights on public attitudes and behaviours have been linked to actual scheme performance data to indicate where action could be taken to enhance participation. Reflecting the main objectives of the work, the conclusions that follow relate to:
Participation and food waste capture Variations in participation and attitudes across socio-demographic groups and housing types The effect of service factors on behaviour The role of communications
9.1 Conclusions 9.1.1. Participation and food waste capture The research has shown that well-run food waste collections can generate high levels of participation; they can capture ~20%-50% of available food waste; and can be widely supported by residents. The highest performing schemes in our study are capturing around 90-100 kg/hh/yr of food waste.
Participation is generally stronger for home compostable materials (fruit & vegetables) than for meat, meal scraps and runny foods. The loss of such materials from collections seems to be more about reluctance or forgetfulness than lack of knowledge that such items can be recycled. Several reasons contribute here: the identity that ‘organic’ or ‘compostable’ material has in individuals’ minds (i.e. fruit & vegetables); reluctance to have contact with more ‘messy’ foods; and believing that food waste collections offer nothing extra than if foods are home composted.
Barriers experienced by lapsed and non-users are in many cases both practical (e.g. lack of space) and related to personal norms about two important things – the personal value of recycling, and squeamishness about ‘rubbish’. Non-users’ fears about separating food from ‘normal’ waste are a big emotional hurdle to overcome and they can easily overwhelm people where their interest in recycling is low anyway. This combination of squeamishness and low interest is often at the heart of feelings that recycling food is not worthwhile. The requirement here is to build a stronger social norm specifically around food waste recycling, and to continue to demonstrate to the public why recycling in general is necessary.
Another group that needs to be persuaded are those who think that they do not create enough food waste, or think they compost as much as is possible at home. They may need a different kind of advice from generally disinterested non-users because they may already be committed to recycling for other materials. Help here may need to include targeted reminders for the materials that are routinely ‘missing’ from collections; and perhaps also the offer of smaller food bins in areas which currently only provide wheeled bins which people may feel aren’t worth getting dirty for the small amount of food they could put in.
More generally, non-users find it hard to identify what would encourage them to start recycling food. Some sort of ‘pay-back’ is the only option mentioned by more than a few (e.g. bio-liners or local tax rebate). Caution needs to be exercised in interpreting this apparent desire for reward, however, because it is hard for people to say to researchers that the only thing that will motivate them is the opposite – i.e.
March 2010 141 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections| A report for Defra
compulsion or charging. Some non-users reluctantly volunteered that this would, ultimately, be the only thing that would motivate them. Providing financial rewards for food waste recycling may anyway introduce perverse incentives that deter home composting of food or undermine efforts on prevention, which would clearly not be desirable.
9.1.2. Variations across socio-demographic groups and housing types The distribution of barriers to food waste recycling across social groups is broadly similar to that routinely observed for dry recycling. The research has shown that maximising participation will be hardest in urban areas, places which have large numbers of young people or minority ethnic households, amongst those living in low-rise and conversion flats, and in neighbourhoods with high residential turnover. Maintaining good participation in areas of private rented properties appears particularly challenging.
The research has shown that households living in terraced houses tend to have a stronger experience of ‘yuck’ and ‘hassle’ around food waste recycling than those in larger homes. This experience is often related to a lack of side access, having small gardens at front, or having to carry food waste through the house. These households may need extra help or reassurance about dealing with such deterrents (e.g. caddies and liners, support on bin cleaning).
The study cannot be conclusive about the best way to provide food recycling to high rise flats and more research focusing specifically on this issue is required. Similarly, more detailed exploration of differences within the broad heading of ‘minority ethnic households’ is required to be able to separate out effects such as age (e.g. younger or older Asian) or differences between different cultures (e.g. Black African or Black Caribbean).
9.1.3. Effect of service factors on behaviour The study supports the emerging evidence that food-only systems capture more food waste per household than mixed FGW services. Moreover, the effectiveness of food-only systems appears to be maximised where food waste is collected weekly and residual waste fortnightly120, and overall bin capacity for all streams is restricted (e.g. through a no side-waste policy). More evidence is still required, however, which compares mixed FGW and food-only systems in like-for-like settings (e.g. urban systems, areas with a less ‘settled’ socio-demographic structure than Taunton and Weymouth).
The study also indicates that a majority of households happily cope with AWC of residual waste, especially where food waste is collected weekly. Alternate weekly collection of residual waste appears to provide a good incentive to recycle food.
Households who use a caddy or wrap their food waste before recycling are less likely to have concerns about ‘yuck’ factors, which introduces the question of whether caddies and liners should be provided free of charge. Even in areas where these are provided, usage rates – when averaged over the whole household population rather than just participants – does not appear to justify universal provision.
However, there are two aspects which support a case for caddy provision; first, a link was noted between caddy use and commitment to food recycling; and second, those who might be described as ‘marginal’ participants are more sensitive to fears about dirty bins and smells. The latter group could need more help to participate than committed users who may be more inclined to improvise their own interim storage. Caddies also act as visible reminders to recycle food.
120 Confirmed subsequently in the WRAP food waste trials which post-dates our research. WRAP (2008, updated 2009) Evaluation of the WRAP separate food waste collection trials.
March 2010 142 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections| A report for Defra
As regards liners, the experience of Taunton in particular suggests that liners do not have to be provided automatically as long as residents can obtain them easily from town centre shops. The WRAP trials provide additional evidence on the use of liners121.
9.1.4. Communications Authorities covered in the study appear to be doing a good job on communications, having learned a great deal from their experience on dry recycling. Residents’ recognition of which materials are collected is high and contamination levels are low. A key to success in the study areas has been the clear guidance issued to households on which food types or other materials (e.g. newspaper) can and cannot be placed in the food waste collection bin (to avoid the wrong materials going to the treatment facility).
Poor material recognition appears not to be a significant barrier to participation, and is certainly less important to non-users than their underlying fears about mess, smells and maggots. Since this fear is often not backed up with balanced evidence or first-hand experience, communications content needs to help residents make more informed judgements on this issue. Signposting households to practical help with bin cleaning – perhaps backed up with introductory ‘money-off’ promotions - may also be worth exploring.
Working with local media to supply them with robust and balanced facts should help to prevent other communication work being undone by scare stories based on anecdotal evidence from a handful of households. Examples from the case study areas and local authority interviews show that relationships with the media can be positive.
To increase capture, the research also demonstrates a case for more intensive promotion on meat, meal scraps and runny foods at local level, especially in mixed FGW collection areas and where home composting rates are high. In relation to meat or scraps it may therefore be worth giving some everyday kinds of examples (e.g. we want your chicken bones, pizza crusts, the take-away you bought too much of etc) backed up by pictures.
The Weymouth example - where there is some confusion about types of card that can be placed in the food waste bin – also shows how important it is to communicate in terms and language that make sense to consumers (many, for example, may think of all types of card as the same thing).
A more strategic issue, and potentially one that needs to be tackled through national level communications, is the current lack of a social norm for recycling or minimising food waste.122 The topic is relatively new to consumers and they have few reference points about what they are supposed to do. Should they be recycling it? Composting it at home? Reducing the amount they make in the first place? Thinking about it at all? Significant problems are that:
Consumers do not know that food is one of the biggest contributors to municipal waste in the UK; Food waste is at least as important as packaging in terms of its impact; and
121 WRAP, ibid. 122 WRAP‟s new Love Food Hate Waste campaign is tackling the prevention angle but figures have not yet been released on its early impact.
March 2010 143 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections| A report for Defra
They are largely unaware of how it is dealt with once it leaves their home (myths include feeding pigs or sending straight to landfill).123
Almost none know that centralised composting may involve a high tech process, that this needs specialised buildings and equipment, and that it may involve the useful recovery of energy. Frequent users seem to be interested in knowing more about this aspect.
Fortunately, this research has demonstrated that many users are participating simply because they feel it is expected of them as part of the council’s overall waste package. However, lack of interest or weak belief in the benefits of food recycling can also be a key barrier for non-users. The challenge for the future is how to join up the various initiatives being developed currently to divert/reduce food waste to ensure that consumers receive seamless rather than confusing messages, and can identify with a strong call to action on food waste.
9.2 Implications and ideas for further work The research has generated a great deal of detailed information about specific participation issues for different kinds of participants. Instead of repeating them all here, the final sections focus on generic implications for local services and communications, then on the implications for Defra’s waste evidence programme and food waste strategy.
9.2.1. Local food waste collection services Questions about the optimum design of food collection systems cannot be answered definitively by this research because that was not its purpose. Authorities need to take into account not only the evidence gathered here but also other research that has focused on the cost-benefit profile of different systems and other aspects of performance. Based strictly on the evidence presented in this report, a number of comments can nevertheless be made:
Service style – authorities should not dismiss alternate weekly residual collection out of hand, even if there is initial public opposition, because this research supports the emerging case that food-only systems with weekly food/alternate weekly residual collection achieve the best performance. The public’s vocal fears should be treated with respect but the views of the silent majority need to be heard too. The evidence gathered here shows that food waste collections can achieve high levels of public support once introduced, especially where food waste is collected weekly, even if residual waste is collected fortnightly.
Intensive monitoring/enforcement in the first few weeks – was a key tip proffered by collection authorities who advised that behaviour needs to be steered early on before ‘bad habits’ become entrenched – e.g. using plastic bags as liners. This can be achieved through rejecting bins with significant contamination in the early weeks, supported by informal doorstep feedback and advice to households in areas with high contamination.
Caddies and liners – extrapolating from the research findings, it may be more worthwhile to spend funds on ensuring widespread and easy access to retail outlets for approved liners than to provide free liners to every household. Accessibility is key to ensuring good usage, so authorities should take a consumer- focused approach in deciding which channels to use for supply of either caddies or liners (e.g. are retail
123 Each of these dimensions has been logged in this current research and/or Brook Lyndhurst work for WRAP.
March 2010 144 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections| A report for Defra
channels - including on-line ordering - accessible to working households, people who live in remote rural areas, those on low incomes, and so on?).
9.2.2. Local communications Many of the implications arising from the research apply to communications124.
Seamless advice on food waste recycling, home composting and prevention - there is clearly a risk that different food waste initiatives could lead to confusion. The public needs clarity especially about the complementarity of home composting and food waste collection, as well as continuing encouragement to recycle food items that cannot be composted at home.
Bin stickers - these are effective at communicating ‘do’s and don’ts’ but may get lost (e.g. in high mobility residential areas), unstuck or faded. Local authorities should budget for replacement bin stickers at reasonable intervals. ‘Transient’ areas should be targeted for regular bin-availability checks.
Targeting missing foods – once services are up and running, householders need specific reminders about meat, scraps and mushy foods. Using everyday language for specifically targeted items may help, as could promotions around seasonal food or festivals.
Consumer-friendly language – could also be used to support the idea that food recycling is simply an extension of what people already do to ‘help out’. On the basis of the research, the team feels strongly that the term “food recycling” is preferable to “food composting” or “kitchen waste” because both terms are interpreted ambiguously. “Kitchen waste” may deflect attention to packaging, because this is more prominent in consumers’ minds; “composting” runs the risk of being rejected by people who do not identify with the image of home composting. The fact that recycled food is composted is of interest to consumers but this can be communicated effectively without it being the lead idea.
Translation – most authorities who engage with non-English speakers are well practised in translation. Even so, warnings were offered that authorities need to make sure that equivalent words exist in other languages, and that the meaning carries from one language to another. This isn’t always the case. Similarly, pictorial images need to reflect and appeal to the diversity of local residents’ ethnic and cultural backgrounds125.
Minority ethnic households – local authorities have a great deal of experience in reaching such audiences which they will build upon in tackling food waste. Since food is generally such an important part of cultural identity in all cultures, community outreach work to unpick specific issues or barriers may be required. It is worth mentioning here that many community-based organisations and faith groups are working on sustainable food issues, or supplying food in communal settings, and local authorities should consider whether to work with them on food waste issues.
Migrants from Eastern Europe – this group is singled out simply because local authorities have less experience of communicating with households from these areas, not because they cause particular issues for service delivery. It would be useful to facilitate the sharing of best practice in this area as it develops, as has already been done for other major ethnic groups. There is a role here for consolidation of the evidence and case studies from local authorities’ experience.
124 See also WRAP‟s communications case study, developed from the evidence from its food waste trials. http://www.wrap.org.uk/downloads/Case_study_D_-_communications_FINAL_29_09_08.dfb41129.6405.pdf 125 Luton, for example, has used Bollywood styling on its posters to reach Asian audiences. These images are shown in WRAP‟s food waste trial evaluation report.
March 2010 145 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections| A report for Defra
Dealing with fear – two types of action are indicated: advice centred on wrapping food and simple actions to prevent dirt, flies or maggots; signposting, for example to suppliers of approved liners or bin washing. Providing an enquiry line during the early weeks of a new scheme can also help126.
Feedback – this supports residents who need reassurance that there is a purpose to food recycling beyond it simply being what the council would like to happen. Demonstrating how much extra food recycling adds to the overall recycling total is potentially powerful information.
Transience & areas of high residential mobility – authorities which have large numbers of ‘transient’ households may need to devote extra spending to communications, to enable them to run programmes such as regular bin-availability checks and doorstepping campaigns. Private landlords should perhaps be consulted on the best ways of ensuring that their tenants receive recycling advice when they move in (e.g. like tenant handbooks in social housing).
9.2.3. Defra Many issues raised in the research have implications for food waste research, strategy and policy. Three central ones are flagged here:
Data Defra-sponsored initiatives (Waste Data Flow, WREP, and WRAP research) have contributed greatly to the data base on food waste but some fundamental gaps and flaws remain. In particular, it is difficult to assess the relative merits of different food collection systems – for example, food-only or mixed FGW, and optimum collection frequency. Areas which need attention are:
Consistent, robust data on the food fraction in mixed FGW systems and how this varies seasonally; Estimates of household numbers (in WDF and more generally) which are crucial where time series data on kg/hh are being derived; The comparability and quality of existing compositional studies and reconciling these with data in WDF. Especially with respect to capture rates, comparisons between studies are compromised because the effect of socio-demographics or seasonality cannot usually be stripped out; Analysis frameworks and definitions used in compositional studies which may make it difficult to identify the food fraction, and certainly different kinds of foods; Data on caddy and liner usage and its impact (though the WRAP trials add to the evidence base here); also cost-benefit ratios and estimates of deadweight and wastage.
Suggestions for future work flowing from these observations are:
On–going monitoring and consolidated analysis of the relative performance of different styles of food waste collection systems. Such data would support the many local authorities who will be introducing food waste collections in the next few years, helping them to make efficient choices
126 As outlined under “Key Barriers” above, these problems are rarely reported by people who actually use the collection; fears are greater among those who have never used the service; and the data show that fears tend to be linked to wider feelings about dirt, mess and the effort needed to recycle. The WRAP trials showed a similar pattern.
March 2010 146 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections| A report for Defra
suited to their areas. Consolidated and timely performance data would also be of value to researchers and would avoid the risk of duplication of research effort. Further research may be worthwhile on actual participation monitoring and capture rate analysis in the authorities covered in this study, to be conducted on a consistent basis, in order to further substantiate the conclusions we have made on collection style and frequency. It may be worthwhile to extend such a study to other areas to allow for paired analysis of mixed FGW versus food-only systems in like-for-like demographic settings. The purpose of such a study would be to provide large-scale evidence that can end the on-going debate about which system is better from a tonnes recovered point of view, mixed FGW or food-only schemes, and at what collection frequency. We recognise that such a study would be costly. Capture studies often do not identify the food waste fraction separately, or provide any detailed information on different food types. WRAP has developed a food waste classification system for compositional studies which can identify what types of food are available to target for recycling or are ‘missing’ from collections127. Guidance on using WRAP’s classification could usefully be disseminated to local authorities in order to support best practice in identifying what is available for collection.
There are also some areas which have yet to be researched in depth because food waste collections in the UK are too new. Suggestions for further evidence gathering work are:
The relative performance of different systems in high rise blocks and public attitudes of residents; More specialised research on minority ethnic households which recognises the diversity of experience within and between groups that tend to be lumped together in more general surveys. A series of qualitative case studies on individual ethnic groups, which could include Eastern European migrants128, is one way forward.
Support to local authorities In addition to the decision-making support for local authorities outlined above in relation to data, there is one further recommendation arising from the research: local authorities with high concentrations of the kinds of ‘hard to reach’ residents identified in the research will require additional support to achieve reasonable or good rates of participation in food waste collection. Inner cities especially may need extra support because of both the nature of their housing stock, the characteristics of residents, and residential mobility.
This reality may mean extra expenditure on, for example, providing liners or communications and outreach, or other activities that the authorities devise themselves. Whether or how to support extra financial demands of this kind needs further consideration, including the potential waste and carbon benefits of helping non-participants to engage with food recycling.
Communicating about food waste National leadership is required on:
Establishing the case with the public that they need to adopt much more environmentally sustainable behaviour on food waste;
127 WRAP (2008) The Food We Waste. 128 As above, this group is singled out simply because local authorities have less experience of communicating with households from these areas, not because they cause particular issues for service delivery.
March 2010 147 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections| A report for Defra
Providing guidance on how potentially competing messages on prevention, home composting and recycling food should be presented as a package, and how the public should prioritise their behaviour. The messages emerging in the public domain need to be joined-up because the public generally has little grasp of the waste hierarchy; Ensuring that the best available evidence on the merits of different collection systems is disseminated as widely as possible, including to the public, so that all stakeholders can make informed choices suited to their local area. For example, evidence about the benefits of fortnightly refuse collections for enhancing participation in food waste recycling need to be communicated widely so as to support the local authorities who choose to operate that kind of system129.
Continuing national level communications work is therefore needed to support the development of a social norm about sustainable food behaviour (in all its guises); and the public needs to hear positive messages about food waste recycling if the benefits of collections are to be fully realised.
129 See, for example, evaluation of the WRAP food waste collection trials. WRAP (2008, updated 2009) Evaluation of the WRAP separate food waste collection trials
March 2010 148 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections| A report for Defra
10 Annex 1: Sounding Board
Individuals from the following organisations (during 2006/7 when the study was conducted) were represented on the Sounding Board.
Biffa - Island Waste (isle of Wight) Wamtech Environment Agency Waste and Resources Action Programme Scuola Agraria del Parco di Monza, Italy Recycling Action Yorkshire Waste Watch Somerset Waste Partnership Canterbury City Council Community Composting Network Management Incentive Through Investment Equity Cambridge Recycling Services Ealing Community Transport Group (ECT Group) East Hampshire County Council Rainbow Wilson Associate – Horticultural Product Consultants Hyder Consulting Defra Open University Preston City Council Resource Recovery Forum (Chair of the Sounding Board) Open University Brook Lyndhurst
March 2010 149 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections| A report for Defra
11 Annex 2: Local authorities interviewed
1 Braintree District Council 2 Cambridge City Council 3 City and Council of Swansea 4 Dacorum Borough Council 5 Derbyshire Dales District Council 6 Fenland District Council 7 Isle of Wight Council 8 London Borough of Bexley 9 London Borough of Brent 10 London Borough of Ealing 11 London Borough of Hackney 12 London Borough of Harrow 13 London Borough of Islington 14 London Borough of Lambeth 15 London Borough of Lewisham 16 London Borough of Richmond upon Thames 17 Mendip District Council (SWP) 18 Milton Keynes Borough Council 19 Newcastle-upon-Tyne City Council 20 North Lincolnshire Council 21 Perth and Kinross 22 Preston City Council 23 South Derbyshire District Council 24 South Shropshire District Council 25 South Somerset District Council (SWP) 26 St Albans District Council 27 St Edmundsbury Borough Council 28 Suffolk Coastal District Council 29 Taunton Deane Borough Council (SWP) 30 Teignbridge District Council 31 Weymouth and Portland Borough Council 32 Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council
March 2010 150 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections| A report for Defra
12 Annex 3: Survey topline results
Topline Results for combined Main Stage and Booster Survey
Results are based on 4,431 face-to-face interviews: 3,136 interviews during the main stage and 1,295 during the booster stage. Respondents in both waves were pre-screened for access to/awareness of the food waste collection service. (This was done to ensure that survey resources were only spent on those who knew they could recycle food waste from home and not those who were unaware they were covered by the service or were not covered). Additionally, respondents in the booster stage were pre-screened for use of the food waste collection service (either current or lapsed use). Fieldwork for the main stage was conducted between the 11th August – 6th September 2007 and for the booster stage between the 7th and 24th September 2007. Where the base is „all respondents‟, data have been weighted to reflect the overall incidence of users and non-users in the main stage survey. Where results do not sum to 100%, this may be due to weighting, multiple responses, computer rounding or the exclusion of don‟t knows/not stated. An asterisk (*) represents a value of less than one half of one percent, but not zero. A hyphen (-) means that there were no responses for that particular category. These findings are provided for information only to Defra and Defra‟s appointed Project Manager for this study. They have been prepared by Brook Lyndhurst as part of a contract placed by Defra Waste Evidence Branch to investigate participation in kitchen waste collection schemes, but the findings do not necessarily reflect the views of the Department. Findings are incomplete and will be combined with further analysis. These findings must not be quoted or circulated without prior permission from the project team and the Defra PM.
March 2010 151 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections| A report for Defra
Section 1
All respondents (Base: 4,431)
Q1a. Does the council provide a recycling collection from your home for the following (regardless of whether they are actually recycled in your household or not). PROMPTED Food waste 98% Paper 96% Tins and/or cans 94% Garden waste 81% Plastics (any plastic items) 79% Glass 78% Card and/or cardboard 77% Don‟t know *
All respondents in booster wave (Base: 1,295)
Q1b. And in your household, are the following recycled using the council’s collection? PROMPTED Food waste 95% Paper 94% Tins and/or cans 89% Plastics (any plastic items) 77% Glass 76% Card and/or cardboard 75% Garden waste 66% Don‟t know -
All booster respondents who do not currently recycle food waste (Base: 68 – Lapsed users)
Q1c. Have you ever recycled food waste in this household while you’ve been living here? Yes 100% No -
All respondents (Base: 4,431)
Q2. Which, if any, of the following statements come closest to how you feel about recycling? PROMPTED I recycle as much as I possibly can 73% I recycle a lot, but not everything that can be recycled 19% I do not recycle much 6% I do not recycle anything 2%
March 2010 152 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections| A report for Defra
Q3. How is food waste disposed of in your home? How else? SPONTANEOUS Overall Bexley Cambridge Fenland Hackney Taunton Weymouth (n=4431) (n=760) (n=776) (n=720) (n=698) (n=718) & Portland (n=759) Food waste collection by the council 74% 69% 72% 71% 56% 88% 88% „Ordinary‟ refuse bin 33% 42% 45% 43% 51% 5% 11% Home compost bin 16% 7% 17% 14% 10% 21% 29% Feed to pets/ animals 7% 3% 8% 14% 1% 8% 7% In-sink disposal unit 1% 1% - 1% 1% 1% 1% In-home wormery * * - * 1% 1% 1% Down the toilet/sink * * * * * * 1%
Q4. Can you tell me if you/your household compost any of the following items at home in a home composter, compost heap or wormery? PROMPTED None - don‟t have home composter 71% Garden waste 25% Uncooked fruit & vegetables (including peelings) 21% Cooked fruit & vegetables 10% Cooked meal leftovers & plate scrapings 7% Cooked meat/fish 5% Uncooked meat/fish 5% Don‟t know 1%
Section 2: Material Recognition and Usage of Food Waste Collection
All respondents (Base: 4,431) Q5. Can you tell me whether you think these things can be put in the brown/green/blue bins here? (Colour asked according to local service provision) PROMPTED Uncooked fruit & vegetables (including peelings) 95% Cooked fruit & vegetables 89% Cooked meal leftovers & plate scrapings 85% Cooked meat/fish 80% Uncooked meat/fish 71% Grass cuttings/plant trimmings 51% Newspaper 41% Corrugated cardboard (e.g. packaging around big electrical goods) 36% Thin cardboard (e.g. cereal boxes) 34% Paper & paper bags 30% Biodegradable plastic bags 26% Cooking oil/liquid fats (e.g. chip fat/ghee) 24% Soil 15% Pet waste and manure 11% Plastic carrier bags/ ordinary bin liners 9% Disposable nappies 8%
March 2010 153 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections| A report for Defra
Q5. Can you tell me whether you think these things can be put in the brown/green/blue bins here? (Colour asked according to local service provision) PROMPTED Overall Bexley Cambridge Fenland Hackney Taunton Weymouth & n=4431 n=760 n=776 n=720 n=698 n=718 Portland n=759 Uncooked fruit & vegetables 95% 88% 99% 93% 97% 95% 99% (including peelings) Cooked fruit & vegetables 89% 74% 96% 84% 88% 97% 98% Cooked meal leftovers & 85% 73% 86% 76% 86% 92% 96% plate scrapings Cooked meat/fish 80% 65% 84% 64% 80% 88% 96% Uncooked meat/fish 71% 61% 81% 51% 52% 83% 95% Grass cuttings/plant 51% 90% 95% 91% 10% 7% 7% trimmings Newspaper 41% 14% 70% 81% 10% 25% 45% Corrugated cardboard (e.g. packaging around big 36% 3% 62% 65% 10% 2% 73% electrical goods) Thin cardboard (e.g. cereal 34% 7% 69% 85% 12% 4% 28% boxes) Paper & paper bags 30% 5% 62% 70% 9% 11% 22% Biodegradable plastic bags 26% 7% 50% 36% 17% 36% 10% Cooking oil/liquid fats (e.g. 24% 10% 53% 9% 29% 20% 21% chip fat/ghee) Soil 15% 3% 48% 23% 8% 1% 2% Pet waste and manure 11% 5% 37% 12% 7% 2% 4% Plastic carrier bags/ ordinary 9% 2% 30% 12% 9% 1% 2% bin liners Disposable nappies 8% 1% 31% 4% 6% 1% 2%
Q6. Thinking about your bin collection, which of the following most accurately applies to your household? PROMPTED Never put food waste in the collection 23% Have put food waste in the collection in the past but don‟t do it any more 3% Occasionally put food waste in the collection 5% Put food waste in the collection fairly often, but miss some collections 3% Put food waste in the collection most times it is collected 12% Put food waste in the collection every time it is collected 53%
March 2010 154 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections| A report for Defra
Q6. Thinking about your bin collection, which of the following most accurately applies to your household? PROMPTED Overall Bexley Cambridge Fenland Hackney Taunton Weymouth & n=4431 n=760 n=776 n=720 n=698 n=718 Portland n=759 Never put food waste in the 23% 26% 24% 31% 38% 10% 11% collection Have put food waste in the collection in the past but 3% 2% 2% 1% 11% 2% 2% don‟t do it any more Occasionally put food waste 5% 7% 4% 6% 6% 4% 6% in the collection Put food waste in the collection fairly often, but 3% 4% 2% 3% 4% 3% 2% miss some collections Put food waste in the collection most times it is 12% 18% 12% 10% 12% 7% 14% collected Put food waste in the collection every time it is 53% 44% 57% 50% 29% 74% 65% collected
Bexley, Cambridge & Fenland respondents (Base: 2,256)
Q7. And thinking about garden waste, if you have any, how much of it do you normally put in your brown/green/blue bin collection? (Colour asked according to local service provision) PROMPTED Never put garden waste in the collection 5% Put a small proportion of it in 9% Put a fair proportion of it in 10% Put most of it in 14% Put all of it in 58% Don‟t have garden waste 4% Don‟t know *
March 2010 155 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections| A report for Defra
Section 3: Recycling Food Waste
Those who put food in the collection (code 3 – 6 at Q6) (Base: 3,535 - Users only)
Q8. In your household, if and when you have this type of food, how often is it put in the brown/green/blue bin collection? (Colour asked according to local service provision) PROMPTED Most of the Some of Hardly Don‟t have Always Never time the time ever food item Fruit & Veg Peelings 69% 11% 8% 4% 8% * Cooked fruit and vegetables 62% 14% 11% 5% 7% 1% Uncooked fruit and vegetables 61% 13% 12% 6% 9% * Meat & Fish Bones/ carcasses 48% 9% 8% 4% 27% 4% Cooked meat/ fish 48% 10% 11% 7% 21% 3% Raw meat/ fish 42% 7% 7% 9% 31% 4% Leftovers Plate scrapings (food left on plate 60% 12% 10% 5% 12% 1% after the meal) Rice/ pasta/ potatoes 56% 14% 11% 5% 11% 1% Food with mixed ingredients (e.g. 52% 11% 10% 7% 17% 2% leftover stew, homemade curry) Leftover takeaway 44% 9% 10% 8% 18% 12% Sauces and dressings 43% 9% 10% 8% 26% 4% Other Tea bags/ coffee grounds 64% 11% 8% 3% 13% 1% Bread/ cakes 52% 11% 11% 7% 18% 1% Dairy foods (e.g. cheese, yogurt) 48% 11% 9% 8% 21% 2%
Q9. Which of the following most accurately describes what you normally do? PROMPTED Overall Bexley Cambridge Fenland Hackney Taunton Weymouth (n=3535) (n=602) (n=628) (n=555) (n=414) (n=655) & Portland (n=681) Put it straight into food 49% 68% 50% 53% 69% 35% 31% waste collection bin Keep it temporarily in another container or bag before transferring 42% 27% 37% 36% 28% 58% 55% to food waste collection bin Both depending on 7% 5% 12% 10% 3% 6% 5% situation Other 2% * * 1% * 1% 9% Don‟t know * - 1% * * - -
March 2010 156 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections| A report for Defra
Those who use a temporary container or bag (code 2 or 3 at Q9) (Base: 1697)
Q10. Is your temporary container or bag...? PROMPTED A hard container - provided by the council free of charge 35% A hard container - bought from somewhere else (e.g. a hardware store) 18% A hard container - you already had (e.g. an ice cream tub) 18% A hard container - you bought from the council 5% A plastic bag - that you already had 12% A paper bag – that you already had 9% A bag - provided by the council 3% Don‟t know 1%
Those who have a temporary hard container (code 1 – 4 at Q10) (Base: 1,276)
Q11. Do you put a liner or bag in the temporary container? Overall Bexley Cambridge Fenland Hackney Taunton Weymouth & (n=1276) (n=153) (n=195) (n=141) (n=110) (n=384) Portland (n=293) Yes 58% 44% 57% 66% 16% 81% 49% No 41% 55% 43% 33% 84% 19% 51% Don‟t know * 1% - 1% - - -
Those who line their temporary hard container (code 1 at Q11) (Base: 742)
Q12. Is the liner you use …? PROMPTED One that you bought yourself especially for this purpose 45% Newspaper 20% One that you bought from the Council 15% A plastic bag you already had around the home 14% One that was provided free of charge by the Council 3% Other 4% Don‟t know 1%
Those who put food in the collection (code 3 – 6 at Q6) (Base: 3,535)
Q13. Do you ever wrap the food you put in the food waste collection in any kind of wrapper, bag or box which you then put in the collection bin? Yes 58% No 41% Don‟t know *
March 2010 157 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections| A report for Defra
Those who wrap their food (code 1 at Q13) (Base: 2,045)
Q14. What do you wrap it in? SPONTANEOUS Newspaper 77% Biodegradable paper bag 8% Plastic carrier bag 7% Biodegradable plastic bag (e.g. Cornstarch bag) 7% Ordinary bin bag/ bin liner 3% Other cardboard (e.g. cereal boxes, etc...) 2% Caddy liner 2% Corrugated cardboard 1% Other 2% Don‟t know *
March 2010 158 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections| A report for Defra
Section 4: Understanding Participation
Those who always or most times put food in the food collection (code 5 or 6 at Q6) (Base: 3,131)
Q15. You’ve said that food is almost always put in the food waste collection in this household. What’s persuaded you to do this? SPONTANEOUS Overall Bexley Cambridge Fenland Hackney Taunton Weymouth & n=3131 n=513 n=580 n=486 n=333 n=600 Portland n=619 Personal 58% 39% 51% 60% 69% 65% 68% Is what we‟re supposed to do/ council expects people to 34% 16% 21% 37% 45% 45% 44% do it I/ we like to do our bit/help 22% 16% 21% 31% 30% 16% 21% out Feel I should match the effort the Council is making 10% 5% 7% 5% 14% 14% 17% by providing service Don‟t like waste/ we 8% 8% 6% 12% 10% 8% 6% shouldn‟t waste Makes me/ us feel less guilty 3% 2% 3% 2% 7% 2% 1% Environment 49% 67% 49% 49% 48% 36% 45% Better for the environment 44% 63% 42% 46% 48% 28% 42% Worry about food going to landfill/ worry about landfill 13% 16% 11% 16% 6% 13% 11% space running out Worry about the methane/ gases produced when food 2% 3% 1% 1% 4% 2% 2% goes to landfill Practicalities 20% 36% 29% 13% 16% 20% 4% Easy to do 20% 36% 29% 13% 16% 20% 4% Space 14% 14% 24% 22% 10% 10% 5% Means I/ we have more space in my normal/ residual 12% 13% 22% 16% 10% 8% 4% bin My bin overflows otherwise 5% 2% 3% 16% 2% 3% 1% Compost 11% 9% 16% 7% 6% 15% 11% Like to think of my/ our food 11% 8% 16% 7% 6% 15% 10% being composted Like getting the compost 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% back Social 4% 4% 6% 1% 7% 5% 3% It‟s what neighbours/ friends/ people in this area 4% 4% 6% 1% 7% 5% 3% do
March 2010 159 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections| A report for Defra
Other 19% 15% 25% 9% 22% 27% 18% There‟s no reason not to 10% 7% 23% 5% 7% 13% 4% Other 9% 7% 2% 3% 15% 15% 14% Don’t know * 1% - 1% - 1% *
Q16. How could the food waste collection service you receive be improved, if at all? SPONTANEOUS Collections 18% Weekly food waste collection 13% Weekly „residual‟/ ordinary bin collection 7% Joint food waste collection with garden waste 1% Doorstep collection (e.g. from flat rather than from kerbside or communal area) 1% Practical help 13% Provision of free liners 7% Free bin cleaning service 6% Provision of “powder” to stop the smell (e.g. bokoshi) 3% Bins 5% Larger outdoor bins 4% Free kitchen caddy 2% Other 14% Give people a reduction/rebate in Council tax for recycling 2% Enforcement/ making it compulsory 2% Better information/ guidance on what can and can‟t be recycled 1% Council should give feedback on how well we‟re doing/what difference it‟s making 1% Other 9% Could not be improved 52% Don’t know 7%
March 2010 160 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections| A report for Defra
Those who sometimes put food in the food collection (code 3 or 4 at Q6) (Base: 404 – All occasional users)
Q17. You said that food is sometimes put in the food waste collection in this household. What do you think are the main reasons why you do use the collection? SPONTANEOUS Personal 43% Is what we‟re supposed to do/ council expects people to do it 20% Don‟t like waste/ we shouldn‟t waste 12% I/ we like to do our bit/help out 12% Makes me/ us feel less guilty 6% Feel I should match the effort the Council is making by providing service 6% Environment 39% Better for the environment 34% Worry about food going to landfill/ worry about landfill space running out 6% Worry about the methane/ gases produced when food goes to landfill 3% Space 16% Means I/ we have more space in my normal/ residual bin 13% My bin overflows otherwise 4% Practicalities 13% Easy to do 13% Compost 12% Like to think of my/ our food being composted 8% Like getting the compost back 6% Social 4% It‟s what neighbours/ friends/ people in this area do 4% Other 25% There‟s no reason not to 11% Other 14% Don’t know 2%
March 2010 161 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections| A report for Defra
Q18. And what are the reasons why you do not use the food waste collection the rest of the time? Why else? SPONTANEOUS Food used in other ways 29% Prefer to compost some/ all my food waste at home 23% Use it to feed pets/ animals 9% ‘Yuck’ 27% Some foods attract flies/ maggots/ vermin 18% Some foods make bin smell 13% Prefer to put food in with other rubbish/ get it out of the way as quickly as possible 4% Don‟t want to deal with food which has gone off 4% Some foods unpleasant to separate/ don‟t like getting my hands dirty 2% Effort 16% Forget/just never think about it 11% Too time consuming/ I‟m too busy 3% Too lazy/ can‟t be bothered 2% The hassle 2% Not a priority/not worth the effort 1% Too far to go to put bin out (e.g. in flats) 1% Collections 12% Too long until the next collection (smells/ vermin etc...)/ it‟s not collected every week 9% Can‟t always make collection day/sometimes away from home 2% Don't always get the right bin/ my/our bin returned 2% Can‟t always make collection time 1% Bin was stolen 1% Logistics of recycling 7% Some foods are difficult to recycle (e.g. liquids, sauces etc...) 4% Some food can‟t be recycled 3% Not allowed to wrap food up 1% Seasonality/ weather 6% If weather warm - smell/ maggots etc... 5% If weather bad - don‟t want to put waste out 2% In Winter not enough to put out (no garden waste) 1% Information 6% Not always sure about what can be recycled 5% Worried about contaminating the rest of the bin by not putting the right things in 2% Unsure/ confused about collection days * Other 34% Don't waste enough food/ not enough to make it worthwhile 20% Some people in my household don‟t bother recycling food 3% Other 13% Don’t know 5%
March 2010 162 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections| A report for Defra
Q19. What, if anything, would persuade you to put the rest of your food waste in the collection? What else? SPONTANEOUS Practical help 18% Bin cleaning service 11% Provision of “powder” to stop the smell (e.g. bokoshi) 6% Provision of free liners/ bag for indoor food container (e.g. caddy) 5% Provision of free liners for outside bin 2% Collections 16% More frequent/ weekly food waste collection 10% More frequent/ weekly ordinary/residual bin collection 4% More complete service provided by council in terms of items collected (e.g. plastic bottles or 2% white goods) Changing collection day 1% Changing collection time 1% Joint food waste collection with garden waste 1% Having bin returned 1% Doorstep collection (e.g. from flat rather than from kerbside or communal area) * Incentives 8% Reduction in council tax or rebate for recycling 7% Getting compost in return 1% Information 6% Clearer information on what can be recycled (bin stickers, etc...) 3% Council should give feedback on how well we‟re doing/what difference it‟s making 2% Clearer information on collection days 1% Knowing what the end product was 1% Bins 6% Larger outdoor bins 3% Free kitchen caddy 2% Smaller capacity in 'ordinary'/ residual bin 2% Enforcement 3% Enforcement/ making it compulsory 2% Fines for not recycling it 1% Social * If more neighbours/ friends/ people in this area did it * Other 6% Nothing 43% Don’t know 10%
March 2010 163 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections| A report for Defra
Those who never put food in the food collection (code 1 at Q6) (Base: 720 – All non users)
Q20. What are the reasons why you or your household does not use the food waste collection? Why else? SPONTANEOUS ‘Yuck’ 33% Bins are messy/ yucky/ dirty 18% Worried about maggots/ flies/ vermin 15% The smell 12% Don't like cleaning bins 9% Don‟t want to deal with food which has gone off 6% Some foods unpleasant to separate/ don‟t like getting my hands dirty 6% Prefer to put in with other rubbish/ get it out of the way as quickly as possible 5% Bin doesn‟t get cleaned/ too expensive to get bin cleaned 2% Food used in other ways 31% Prefer to compost some/ all my food waste at home 22% Use food to feed pets/ animals 13% Effort 17% Easier to put it in ordinary/ residual bin 8% Too lazy/ can‟t be bothered 4% Forget/just never think about it 3% Not a priority/not worth the effort 2% The hassle 2% Too time consuming/ I‟m too busy 2% Too far to go to put bin out (e.g. in flats) 1% Collections 9% Too long between collections/ not collected every week 4% No bin here when I moved in 3% Bin was stolen 1% Bin needs to be put out too early 1% Collection day not convenient 1% Worried about someone else's bin being returned instead of mine/ ours * Information 8% Not sure about what can be recycled 8% Unsure/ confused about collection days 1% Logistics of recycling 3% Not allowed to wrap food up 1% Nowhere to store bin/no space 1% Social 2% No point as people in my household wouldn‟t bother 1% Not the kind of thing people do around here/ neighbours don't do it * Worried about arguments in the home * Other 36% Don‟t waste enough food/ not enough to make it worthwhile 23% Don‟t see the point 1%
March 2010 164 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections| A report for Defra
Not my/our responsibility/ council should sort waste 1% Other 14% Don’t know 3%
Q21. What, if anything, would persuade you to use the food waste collection service? What else? SPONTANEOUS Information 11% Clearer information on what can be recycled (bin stickers, etc...) 8% If someone from council came round and explained what I/we had to do 2% Clearer information on collection days 2% Knowing what the end product was 1% Council should give feedback on how well we‟re doing/what difference it‟s making 1% Incentives 9% Reduction in council tax or rebate for participation 7% Getting compost in return 5% Collections 9% More frequent/ weekly food waste collection 4% More frequent/ weekly ordinary/residual bin collection 3% Having bin returned 2% Changing collection day 1% Changing collection time 1% Joint food waste collection with garden waste 1% More complete service provided by council in terms of items collected (e.g. plastic bottles or 1% white goods) Doorstep collection (e.g. from flat rather than from kerbside or communal area) 1% Practical help 8% Bin cleaning service 6% Provision of “powder” to stop the smell (e.g. bokoshi) 2% Provision of free liners for indoor food container (e.g. caddy) 2% Provision of free liners for outside bin 2% Enforcement 7% Enforcement/ making it compulsory 6% Fines for not recycling 3% Bins 5% Larger outdoor bins 3% Free kitchen caddy 2% Smaller capacity in 'ordinary'/ residual bin 1% Social * If more neighbours/ friends/ people in this area did it * Other 8% Nothing 41% Don’t know 12%
March 2010 165 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections| A report for Defra
Those used to put food in the food collection but no longer do so (code 2 at Q6) (Base: 158)
Q22. You’ve said that food was once put in the food waste collection in this household. What persuaded you to try? SPONTANEOUS Personal 53% Is what we‟re supposed to do/ council expects people to do it 29% I/ we like to do our bit 15% Don‟t like waste/ we shouldn‟t waste 13% Feel I should match the effort the Council is making by providing service 10% Made me/ us feel less guilty 5% Environment 33% Better for the environment 30% Worry about food going to landfill/ worry about landfill space running out 5% Space 12% Meant I/ we had more space in my normal/ residual bin 8% My bin overflowed otherwise 3% Practicalities 12% Easy to do 12% Social 8% Neighbours/ friends doing it 8% Compost 7% Liked to think of my/ our food being composted 6% Liked getting the compost back 1% Other 17% There was no reason not to 8% Other 9% Don’t know 2%
March 2010 166 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections| A report for Defra
Q23. Why have you stopped putting food waste in the collection? Why else? SPONTANEOUS ‘Yuck’ 58% The smell 37% Bin was messy/ yucky/ dirty 32% Got maggots/ flies/ vermin 30% Didn't like cleaning bins 13% Some foods unpleasant to separate/ don‟t like getting my hands dirty 12% Didn't want to deal with food which has gone off 10% Prefer to put in with other rubbish/ get it out of the way as quickly as possible 8% Bin didn't get cleaned/ too expensive to get bin cleaned 5% Collections 29% Too long between collections/ not collected every week 13% Bin was stolen 12% Bin was rejected/ kept being left by collectors 5% Bin needed to be put out too early 1% Collection day not convenient 1% Someone else‟s bin returned instead of mine/ ours 1% Effort 14% Easier to put it in ordinary/ residual bin 6% Too lazy/ couldn't be bothered 5% Too time consuming/ I‟m too busy 2% The hassle 2% Wasn't a priority/not worth the effort 1% Food used in other ways 12% Prefer to compost some/ all my food waste at home 10% Now use it to feed pets/ animals 3% Logistics of recycling 10% Wasn't allowed to wrap food up 8% Nowhere to store bin/ no space 2% Social & neighbours 4% Neighbours complained about my bin (e.g. smells, flies) 2% No point as people in my household didn't bother 1% Not the kind of thing people do around her/ neighbours don‟t do it 1% Information 2% Wasn‟t sure about what can be recycled 1% Unsure/ confused about collection days 1% Other 24% Didn't waste enough food/ not enough to make it worthwhile 9% Council didn‟t deal with my complaint/ query very well 3% Other 14% Don’t know 1%
March 2010 167 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections| A report for Defra
Q24. What, if anything, would persuade you to start using the collection service again? What else? SPONTANEOUS Practical help 42% Bin cleaning service 32% Provision of “powder” to stop the smell (e.g. bokoshi) 10% Provision of free liners for indoor food container (e.g. caddy) 9% Provision of free liners for outside bin 8% Collections 33% More frequent/ weekly food waste collection 18% Having bin returned 8% More frequent/ weekly ordinary/residual bin collection 6% Changing collection day 2% Joint food waste collection with garden waste 2% Doorstep collection (e.g. from flat rather than from kerbside or communal area) 2% Changing collection time 1% Incentives 16% Reduction in council tax or rebate for recycling 14% Getting compost in return 3% Information 6% Clearer information on what can be recycled (bin stickers, etc...) 4% Clearer information on collection days/ calendar of collection days 2% Knowing what the end product was 1% Enforcement 5% Enforcement/ making it compulsory 4% Fines for not recycling it 2% Bins 5% Larger outdoor bins 3% Free kitchen caddy 3% Smaller capacity „ordinary/residual‟ bin 1% Other 10% Nothing 18% Don’t know 6%
March 2010 168 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections| A report for Defra
Section 5: General Attitudes
All respondents (Base: 4,431)
Q25. People make the following statements about food waste and environmental issues. Can you tell me the extent to which you agree or disagree with each one? PROMPTED Neither Strongly Tend to Tend to Strongly Don‟t agree nor agree agree disagree disagree know disagree The council‟s food waste 49% 28% 11% 5% 2% 4% collection service is easy to use The environmental benefits of recycling food waste are 46% 32% 14% 6% 1% 1% important to me Lots of people in this street/area use the food waste collection 35% 28% 12% 4% 1% 19% service I‟m worried that storing food waste in a separate bin will 23% 22% 11% 23% 20% 1% attract maggots and vermin (e.g. rats & foxes) Separating food waste for collection is unpleasant and 16% 27% 12% 23% 21% 1% smelly I don‟t think we are really damaging the environment & 7% 15% 18% 21% 34% 5% causing climate change – it has been exaggerated I don‟t see why I should recycle 3% 7% 12% 28% 50% 1% food waste
March 2010 169 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections| A report for Defra
Q25. People make the following statements about food waste and environmental issues. Can you tell me the extent to which you agree or disagree with each one? Option D - I‟m worried that storing food waste in a separate bin will attract maggots and vermin (e.g. rats & foxes) PROMPTED Overall Bexley Cambridge Fenland Hackney Taunton Weymouth n=4431 n=760 n=776 n=720 n=698 n=718 & Portland n=759 Strongly Agree 23% 34% 27% 28% 17% 18% 13% Tend to agree 22% 21% 21% 22% 33% 16% 20% Neither agree nor 11% 7% 15% 7% 15% 12% 10% disagree Tend to disagree 23% 19% 15% 26% 27% 23% 29% Strongly disagree 20% 18% 22% 17% 7% 30% 26% Don‟t know 1% * * 1% 1% 1% 2%
Q25. People make the following statements about food waste and environmental issues. Can you tell me the extent to which you agree or disagree with each one? Option F - Separating food waste for collection is unpleasant and smelly PROMPTED Overall Bexley Cambridge Fenland Hackney Taunton Weymouth n=4431 n=760 n=776 n=720 n=698 n=718 & Portland n=759 Strongly Agree 16% 21% 17% 23% 15% 12% 9% Tend to agree 27% 27% 28% 28% 37% 19% 22% Neither agree nor 12% 13% 12% 13% 13% 16% 9% disagree Tend to disagree 23% 20% 20% 19% 26% 21% 33% Strongly disagree 21% 18% 23% 17% 8% 30% 25% Don‟t know 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 2%
March 2010 170 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections| A report for Defra
Q26. The following have been suggested as ways of encouraging people to use the food collection service here and recycle more food. How effective, if at all, do you think the following would be? PROMPTED Very Fairly Not very Not at all Don‟t effective effective effective effective know Reducing council Overall (n=4431) 56% 26% 8% 6% 5% tax or giving a Bexley (n=760) 65% 20% 8% 5% 1% council tax rebate Cambridge (n=776) 58% 27% 6% 4% 4% for those who Fenland (n=720) 55% 19% 9% 7% 10% recycle Hackney (n=698) 45% 39% 7% 7% 2% Taunton (n=718) 58% 22% 8% 6% 6% Weymouth & Portland 55% 28% 7% 5% 5% (n=759) Providing free Overall (n=4431) 44% 32% 13% 8% 4% liners or bags for Bexley (n=760) 45% 26% 12% 14% 3% indoor food Cambridge (n=776) 37% 39% 16% 6% 1% containers/caddy Fenland (n=720) 37% 19% 23% 13% 9% Hackney (n=698) 38% 52% 7% 2% 1% Taunton (n=718) 58% 23% 7% 6% 6% Weymouth & Portland 49% 31% 10% 7% 3% (n=759) Providing a bin Overall (n=4431) 34% 34% 16% 13% 4% cleaning service Bexley (n=760) 43% 24% 13% 19% 2% Cambridge (n=776) 45% 38% 11% 4% 2% Fenland (n=720) 33% 26% 19% 16% 6% Hackney (n=698) 34% 53% 10% 3% 1% Taunton (n=718) 22% 23% 24% 22% 8% Weymouth & Portland 25% 40% 18% 11% 6% (n=759) Providing more Overall (n=4431) 32% 39% 14% 11% 4% information on Bexley (n=760) 31% 32% 15% 20% 2% how to use the Cambridge (n=776) 50% 36% 11% 1% 2% scheme Fenland (n=720) 31% 45% 10% 7% 7% Hackney (n=698) 33% 52% 9% 4% 2% Taunton (n=718) 24% 34% 19% 18% 5% Weymouth & Portland 22% 34% 23% 16% 5% (n=759) Collecting food Overall (n=4431) 29% 33% 19% 15% 5% waste more Bexley (n=760) 30% 28% 16% 22% 5% frequently Cambridge (n=776) 40% 45% 10% 2% 2% Fenland (n=720) 38% 21% 22% 13% 6% Hackney (n=698) 32% 52% 11% 2% 3% Taunton (n=718) 18% 22% 26% 24% 9% Weymouth & Portland (n=759) 14% 29% 27% 25% 5%
March 2010 171 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections| A report for Defra
Making food Overall (n=4431) 24% 26% 18% 26% 6% waste recycling Bexley (n=760) 28% 26% 18% 25% 4% compulsory & Cambridge (n=776) 32% 29% 19% 17% 4% giving fines to Fenland (n=720) 21% 22% 14% 29% 15% those who don’t Hackney (n=698) 19% 29% 17% 32% 3% do it Taunton (n=718) 25% 22% 19% 27% 7% Weymouth & Portland 16% 28% 19% 29% 7% (n=759)
March 2010 172 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections| A report for Defra
Section 6: Information about the Food Waste Collection
All respondents (Base: 4,431)
Q27. How were you made aware about the food waste collection service in this area? How else? SPONTANEOUS Information leaflet through my letterbox 51% Information leaflet left with my new bin 17% Given a new bin 16% Letter from the council 11% Information in council magazine/ newspaper 7% Adverts in the local press 6% Talking to neighbours/ friends 5% Stickers put on my/ our bin 4% Someone coming to the door to tell me/ us about it 3% Adverts on local radio 2% Information stands at market/ shopping centres/ road shows/ fairs etc... 1% Posters in local area/on buses etc 1% Other 5% Don't know 9%
Q28. Just thinking about the food waste collection service, which one or two of the following, if any, would you like to know more about? PROMPTED What food items can and can‟t be put in the food waste collection 16% What the food waste gets made into 15% Where the food waste goes when it is collected 14% What difference recycling food waste makes to the local recycling rate/ to the amount going to landfill 10% What I can and can‟t use to wrap my food waste 8% Information on collection days/times 8% Where I can get liners for my indoor food container (e.g. caddy) 8% Why it‟s worthwhile for the council to collect food waste 7% Other 2% None 47%
Section 7: Bin Capacity
All respondents (Base: 4,431)
Q29. How would you describe your ordinary rubbish bin before it gets collected? Would you say... PROMPTED It‟s usually overflowing 13% It‟s usually full, but I can close the lid 37% There‟s usually some space left 33% There‟s usually a lot of space left 15% Don‟t know 1%
March 2010 173 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections| A report for Defra
13 Annex 4: summary of topic guide
Two versions of the topic guide were used, one for users of the food waste collection and one for non users. The following is a summary of the topics covered in the detailed topic guides. Where questions were asked only of users or non users this is indicated in the section titles.
ALL: Warm up: recycling services and general feelings about recycling To establish how participants feel about recycling generally; and whether food recycling is mentioned spontaneously Knowledge of recycling services for different materials Feelings about what is provided and how the service operates
ALL: Food waste arisings and disposal routes To establish what foods people dispose of and through which channels (e.g. ordinary bin, food waste collection, home composting, pets etc.). Stimulus material and exercises used to prompt discussion. Which foods are thrown away? Which bins are used? How do people decide which kinds of food go into which bins? Do people home compost? Initial feedback on whether people use the food waste collection
USERS ONLY: How people use the food waste collection Detailed discussion of the ways in which people use the food waste collection, including photos of individual food types to stimulate discussion. Recognition of which food types can go into the collection Perceptions of foods that are ‘easy’ or ‘difficult’ to recycle Foods that people do not want to recycle Knowledge/perception of contamination issues (i.e. putting materials in the food waste bin that should go in other bins e.g. plastics) How people store food waste at home, their experiences of storing food waste, and whether storage considerations affect which foods they choose to recycle Feedback on food waste containers provided by the council – likes and dislikes Thoughts about caddy liners and reported usage – what is provided; other examples
NON USERS ONLY: Reasons for not using the food waste collection or lapsed use Have people ever tried it? If so, why did they stop? Why haven’t people tried it? What specific reasons are given for not using the food waste collection? Thoughts about: o Inconvenience o Knowledge o Bins and storing food waste o How the service operates, what sorts of containers are provided, collection arrangements
March 2010 174 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections| A report for Defra
ALL: Understanding of the purpose of food waste collections and knowledge of end uses To explore whether knowing why food waste is collected and what the compost is used for affects interest and participation in food waste recycling. Why do people think that councils collect food waste? Are people interested in what happens to food waste after it is collected? Why? Do people know that it is made into compost? Are they interested in knowing?
USERS ONLY: Experience of using the food waste collection service To explore experiences, likes and dislikes about the food waste service. What has been people’s general experience? Which aspects do they like? Are there any aspects that they don’t like or think could be improved?
NON USERS ONLY: Knowledge of the food waste collection service To explore whether non users are aware of how the food waste collection operates, which foods they could recycle, and whether they would be interested in food recycling.
(As for users above) recognition of which food types can go into the collection Feelings about recycling different food types and whether people could be engaged in recycling all/some foods Whether provision of caddies and/or liners would encourage participation Other things that could be done to increase interest in participating in food recycling
ALL: Communications To explore whether people have seen local communications materials, what information they think is essential and what more they would like to know. For non users, to assess whether lack of information is a barrier to participation. Awareness of leaflets and other communications material shown o Likes o Dislikes Recall of local press coverage (if any) How well informed people feel, what else they would like to know
ALL: role play in pairs. One person pretends to be a council officer trying to encourage people to use the food waste collection more; the other person is a resident making suggestions to the council of how to increase participation. Suggestions shared and discussed with the group. What would encourage people to use the collection more (either start participating or recycle more types of food)?
March 2010 175 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections| A report for Defra
14 Annex 5: Bibliography
AEA Technology for EB Nationwide (shanks first fund), (2004) Variations in the composition of household collected waste. ACR+ (2005) Managing Biodegradable Household Waste: What prospects for European Local Authorities? Caroline Saintmard, ACR+ (September 2005) Amlinger, F (Kompost Entwicklung und Beratung, Austria), Favoino, E., Ricci, M. (Scuola Agraria del Parco di Monza), Hogg, D., (Eunomia Consulting) (2005) Handbook for the management of biowaste, manual for Slovak municipalities and LRAs, Twinning Light project, PHARE Twinning light project, Brook Lyndhurst for Defra Waste and Resources R&D, WRT296 (2006) Establishing the behaviour change evidence base to inform community based waste prevention and recycling. Brook Lyndhurst for the Resource Recovery Forum (RRF), (2000-4) Household waste behaviour in London, Phase 1 and 2 reports. Brook Lyndhurst for the Greater London Authority (GLA), Government Office for London (GoL) and London Waste Action (LWA), (March 2006) Household waste behaviour in London 2005. http://www.london.gov.uk/gla/publications/environment/household-waste-05.pdf Brook Lyndhurst for Defra WREP, (2006) Lifestyle scenarios & waste composition, Phase 1 Working Paper EEA (2002) Biodegradable municipal waste management in Europe, Part 1 : Strategies and instruments, EEA, January 2002. Eunomia for Devon County Council, (undated) Current practice in the collection of organic wastes. Eunomia for WRAP, (2008) Food waste collection: Update to WRAP biowaste cost benefit study. http://www.wrap.org.uk/downloads/Update_to_Biowaste_CBA_Report.a89035ba.6164 Eunomia (Hogg, D., Barth, J., Schleiss, K. and Favoino, E.), (March 2007) Dealing with food waste in the UK. Eunomia (November 2006) Kitchen waste collections: Optimising container selection. Eunomia (2007) Managing biowaste from households in the UK: Applying life cycle thinking in the framework of cost benefit analysis. Favoino (2003) Composting, the trends and drivers in Europe, European Waste Management Review, Issue 1, 2003 Favoino, E. Scuola Agraria del Parco di Monza, Italy (2004) Biodegradable polymers and the optimisation of models for source separation and the composting of municipal solid waste, EnviroNews, Vol 14, Number 6, pp 1-8. Gillet, M (2003) Gestion des déchets organiques - Résultats statistiques des collectes sélectives et expériences pilotes, présentation de Mme, Adjointe de l’Inspecteur général, Office wallon des déchets, BEST, 13 November 2003. Hyder Consulting for London Borough of Bexley, (May 2007), Doorstepping campaign Draft Final Report. International Conference on the Repercussion of UE Policy in Organic Waste Management and its Consequences for the Southern European Countries”, ISR-CER, Barcelona, 25 November 2003. Lancashire County Council, Lancashire Environmental Fund and Preston City Council(June 2006), Kitchen waste composting trial: Annual Report. London Borough of Richmond (2005), ’Feedback from food waste surveys’. http://www.richmond.gov.uk/home/environment/rubbish_waste_and_recycling/ecyclingnews_events_and_in
March 2010 176 Enhancing participation in kitchen waste collections| A report for Defra
formation/feedback_from_recycling_consultation/fedback_from_the_food_waste_kerbside_recycling_collecti on.htm Luckin, D. (2003) Ethnicity, waste generation and waste-related behaviour. Department of Geography and Environmental Science, University of Bradford. Maslen Environmental for SITA Trust, (2005) Integrated composting programme Final Report Chapter 8 “Organic waste container design – London Borough of Bexley”, pp. 114-126. http://www.cre.ie/docs/UKIntegratedCompostingProgramme2005Report.pdf Network Recycling (2003) Study of kerbside collection options for organic waste, Phase 2, Final Report. New Zealand Environment Ministry (2005), Options for Kerbside Collection of Household Organic Wastes. Organic Resource Agency (ORA) for ECT Group (2004) Recycling organics trial in West London (OWL), Phase II Final Report. Organic Resource Agency (ORA) for Milton Keynes Council, (2007) Pilot food waste collection trials in Milton Keynes 2005-2006. http://www.miltonkeynes.gov.uk/recycling/documents/MKC_Final_Report_no appendices_V1_12.01.07_JP.pdf Organic Resource Agency (ORA) for Waste Recycling Environmental Ltd on behalf of London Remade Ltd (2004) Recycling organics trial in West London (OWL), Phase 1 Final Report. http://www.o-r-a.co.uk/pdf/OWL_Phase_1_Final_Report.pdf Preston City Council (June 2006) Kitchen waste composting trial, Annual Report. Scottish Executive (2005) Public attitudes to the environment in Scotland, http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2005/01/20589/50853 Thomas, C (The Open University) and MORI Social Research Institute (2004) Public attitudes and behaviour in Western Riverside. University of Southampton and Greenfinch Ltd (undated) Biodigestion of kitchen waste. URS-NZ (2004) Regional Options for Food Waste Composting - Market Issues Prepared for Organic Waste Working Group Manukau City Council, NZ. WRAP and the Environment Agency (2009) Quality protocol, anaerobic digestate. WRAP (2008/9) Case study food waste collection trials – communications. http://www.wrap.org.uk/downloads/Case_study_D__communications_FINAL_2_09_08.234aca58.6405.pdf WRAP (June 2009) Evaluation of the WRAP separate food waste trials, Final Report updated .http://www.wrap.org.uk/downloads/Evaluation_of_the_WRAP_FW_Collection_Trials_Update_June_2009.c6 165e24.7271.pdf WRAP Press Release, ‘New WRAP Research Reveals Extent of Food Waste in the UK’, March 16th 2007. http://www.wrap.org.uk/wrap_corporate/news/new_wrap_2.html WRAP Rotate (November 2006) Food waste collection guidance. WRAP (2008) The food we waste. WRAP (2007) Understanding food waste, Research Summary. http://www.wrap.org.uk/downloads/FoodWasteResearchSummaryFINALADP293__07.2c13ccec.3659.pdf
March 2010 177