PUBLIC ATTITUDES TO WASTE IN SOUTH LANAKSHIRE

FINAL REPORT

October 2002 Dr N Souter & B Williams CONTENTS

Contents I

List of Tables III

List of Figures IV

1.0 Introduction 1

1.1 SWAG Description 1

1.2 National Waste Strategy 2

1.3 Glasgow and Clyde Valley Waste Strategy Area 3

2.0 Methodology Stage 1 4

2.1 Sampling 4

3.0 Summary of the Scottish Waste Awareness Group Door to Door Survey 6

3.1 Public Awarness of the Different Types of Household Waste 6

3.2 Hazardous Household Waste 6

3.3 Awareness of the Waste Hierarchy 6

3.4 Current Household Reduction Behaviour 6

3.5 Current Household Reuse Behaviour 7

3.6 Current Household Recycling Behaviour 8

3.61 Bring Systems and Civic Amenity 8

3.62 Kerbside Collection System 9

3.63 Civic amenity Sites 10

3.7 Non-Recyclers Attitudes 13

3.8 Encouragement to Recycle 14

I 3.9 Willingness to Participate in Kerbside Collection 14

3.10 Current Household Composting Behaviour 16

3.11 Non-Home Composting Attitudes 17

3.12 Encouragement to Home Compost 18

3.13 Willingness to Participate in Home Composting 18

3.14 Willingness to Participate in a Community Composting Scheme 19

3.15 Willingness to Participate in Separate Green Waste Collection Scheme 20

3.16 Awareness of Local Waste Disposal Options 20

3.17 Awareness of Cost of Domestic Waste Collection and Disposal 21

3.18 Attitudes to Charging for Waste production 22

3.19 Responsibility for Waste Minimisation 23

Appendices

Appendix 1 Location of and Distance to Respondents’ nearest Bring Site 24

Appendix 2 Location of and Distance to Respondents’ nearest Civic Amenity Site 27

II List of Tables

Table 1.0 South Sample Area 4

Table 2.0 Housing Types and Survey Numbers 5

Table 3.0 Recycling in 8

Table 4.0 Recycling via Bring Sites 9

Table 5.0 Location of nearest Bring Sites 9

Table 6.0 Distance to Bring Sites 10

Table 7.0 Frequency of use of Bring Site 10

Table 8.0 Recycling via Civic Amenity Sites 11

Table 9.0 Location of nearest Civic Amenity Site 11

Table 10.0 Distance to nearest Civic Amenity Site 12

Table 11.0 Frequency of use of Civic Amenity Site 12

Table 12.0 Reasons for not recycling 13

Table 13.0 What would encourage recycling behaviour 14

Table 14.0 Kerbside Container preference 15

Table 15.0 Composting method in South Lanarkshire 17

Table 16.0 Reasons for not composting in South Lanarkshire 17

Table 17.0 Ways identified for the public to encourage home composting 18

Table 18.0 Residents currently participating in community composting 19

Table 19.0 Residents participating in separate garden waste collection 20

Table 20.0 Perceived location of landfill site. 21

Table 21.0 Awareness of cost of waste collection and disposal 22

III List of Figures

Figure 1.0 Household Waste Reduce Behaviour 7

Figure 2.0 Household Waste Reuse Behaviour 7

Figure 3.0 Preferred Container for Kerbside Collection 15

Figure 4.0 Willingness to pay for Kerbside Scheme 16

Figure 5.0 Garden Waste Disposal Methods 16

Figure 6.0 Home Composting Container Types 18

Figure 7.0 Willingness to Pay for Home Composter 19

Figure 8.0 Responsibility for Waste Minimisation 23

IV 1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Scottish Waste Awareness Group The Scottish Waste Awareness Group (SWAG) is a -wide group whose aim is to deliver a National Campaign called “WASTE AWARE SCOTLAND” to raise public awareness of waste issues with emphasis on the domestic environment. It is closely linked to the National Waste Strategy for Scotland prepared by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) and adopted by the Scottish Executive.

The initiative has cross sector support with representatives from Local Authority Bodies, SEPA, NGO’s, Recycling Groups, Consumer Interests, Private Waste Industry, Media Interests and the Scottish Executive on its Steering Group. The Group is chaired by John Summers, Director of Keep Scotland Beautiful.

The Objectives of SWAG are:

• to influence the actions individuals can take to deal with waste and the reduction of waste in the domestic environment; • to increase the level of public awareness and encourage positive actions in respect of waste generation and management; • to raise the profile of waste as an environmental priority; • to increase the level of personal ownership and responsibility for waste; • to overcome inertia and promote the 3R’s (Reduce, Reuse, Recycle) with reduction of waste featuring prominently as a strategy to tackle increasing waste arisings; • to create more understanding and recognition of the need for waste management facilities of all kinds.

Initially a baseline assessment of public attitudes and behaviour towards waste reduction, re-use and recycling across Scotland is being carried out, approximately 5,000 face to face interviews are taking place across the 11 Waste Strategy Areas. The information generated from this exercise will be used to develop promotional materials and help direct the development and implementation of pilot campaigns to change public attitudes to waste.

1 Each pilot campaign will focus on a specific waste issue and will be run concurrently with the implementation of the Area Waste Plans within selected areas. One of the essential components will be to match campaigns with ‘real’ infrastructure so that there is encouragement to make changes that can be supported and enhanced. Each campaign will comprise of three basic stages: • Before survey – to assess attitudes and behaviour towards the identified waste issue before the intervention strategy. • Campaign – Intensive localised intervention strategy run initially for a six-month period working in partnership with the key-stakeholders within the area including the Waste Strategy Area Group co-ordinator, the local authority, the local community and voluntary groups, retailers’ etc. • After Survey – to assess attitudes and behaviour towards the identified waste minimisation issue after the intervention strategy, and to appraise the effectiveness of the different campaigning methods employed.

This format will allow the monitoring of progress towards more sustainable public waste management behaviour, and to develop models of good practice for changing public attitudes to reduction, re-use and recycling. Following on from this pilot phase a rolling programme of Waste Aware Campaigns in conjunction with Area Waste strategy time-scales will be implemented across Scotland.

These campaigns will provide stakeholders with an understanding of the problem, suggest optimal solutions and provide a means for taking action. Concurrently audience perception value and needs will be considered to ensure stakeholder participation and involvement and to guide stakeholders towards making their own decisions within their local area.

1.2 National Waste Strategy The purpose of the National Waste Strategy is to provide a framework within which Scotland can reduce the amount of waste which it produces and deal with the waste that is produced in more sustainable ways. This strategy is being developed through 11 local groupings that are known as waste strategy areas. Each waste strategy area comprises of the relevant Local Authorities in each area along with Local Enterprise Companies, Waste Management Industry and other key stakeholders. Each area will produce an Area Waste Plan (SEPA, 1999).

2 1.3 Glasgow and Clyde Valley Waste Strategy Area As part of the National Waste Strategy, the Glasgow and Clyde Valley Waste Strategy Area Group has been set up to develop a waste plan for Clyde Valley. This is a partnership of the 8 neighbouring councils of East and West Dumbartonshire, North and South Lanarkshire, Inverclyde, Glasgow, East Renfrewshire and Renfrewshire.

A key element in the development of the area waste plan is consultation with key stakeholder groups, seeking views on the issues that have arisen as part of the development of future options for dealing with waste within South Lanarkshire. This process ensures that all essential stakeholders, including the public, are asked for their views on the available options or are asked for their views on how they would like to see their waste managed.

Public consultation was accomplished within South Lanarkshire using door-to-door questionnaires (300 face-to-face interviews) to assess attitudes to reduce, re-use and recycle (part of national SWAG survey)

This is a technical summary of the stages above.

3 2.0 METHODOLOGY STAGE 1 In total, researchers from SWAG (Scottish Waste Awareness Group) conducted 300 interviews among adults’ aged 18+ (this avoided complication with the Market Research Code of Conduct), on a face to face basis at respondents’ own homes throughout South Lanarkshire. All interviews took place between 10am and 8pm, weekdays.

2.1 Sampling A random sample, proportionally stratified (by area) was used in South Lanarkshire. This was devised using information from the local authority to ensure that the demographic profile of the samples matched the population distribution within the test area, as displayed in table 1.0.

Area No. of Area No. of Surveys Surveys Abington 1 Gillespie 2 Biggar 3 Hamilton 48 Blackwood 1 Hyndford Bridge 1 Blantyre 18 Kaimend 1 6 8 Braehead 1 9 19 15 12 Law 4 Carmichael 1 2 2 3 Junction 1 Libberton 1 Carstairs Village 1 1 Causewayend 1 Newbigging 1 1 1 Coulter 1 1 Covington 1 32 Crawford 2 Stonehouse 6 Douglas 3 6 69 Symington 1 1 Thankerton 1 Elvanfoot 1 6 Forth 3 Wilsontown 1 Table 1.0 The South Lanarkshire Area Survey Sample.

4 The range of housing types and the number of surveys carried out within each of the housing categories is outlined in Table 2.0. 64% of the households surveyed were owner occupied, 32% were Local Authority rented properties and 4% were privately rented.

Housing Type No. of Surveys Terraced 80 Semi-detached 74 Tenement flat 60 Detached 58 High-rise flat 28 Table 2.0 Housing Type and Survey Numbers within South Lanarkshire.

5 3.0 SUMMARY OF THE SCOTTISH WASTE AWARENESS GROUP DOOR-TO-DOOR SURVEY

3.1 Public Awareness of the Different Types of Waste that are normally put into the Household Bin on a Weekly Basis 7% of the sampled population stated ‘everything’ unable to specify particular waste items. 70% of recalled items arose from the kitchen waste stream, 25% from the general household stream, and the remainder (5%) from the bathroom. With respect to individual waste items, food wrappers and packaging was recalled by 77% of respondents and food waste by 70% of respondents. Other commonly recalled items included steel cans (26%), newspapers (25%) and plastic bottles (18%).

3.2 Hazardous Household Waste 81% of the respondents indicated that there was nothing within their household waste that could be classified as hazardous, 4% were unsure. The remainder (15%) identified a range of items that could be classified as hazardous; the most commonly recalled items were glass (23 people) and batteries (8 people). Other items also mentioned were aerosols, bleach/cleaning products, nappies and tins.

3.3 Awareness of the Waste Hierarchy The vast majority of the respondents (97%) had not heard of the Waste Hierarchy. Of the 3% whom indicated that they were aware of the term, none of them demonstrated they understood the concept fully, recalling reduce, reuse and recycle.

3.4 Current Household Reduction Behaviour 45% of the participants indicated that they currently practised some form of waste reduction within their own homes. The most common responses recalled are displayed in Figure 1.0. Recycling was perceived to be a method by which the public could reduce waste, and was the most commonly recalled response (79 people). 26 people noted that they gave old clothes to charity.

Of the remaining respondents 46% indicated that they did nothing and 9% were unsure.

6

30% Avoid overpackaging 25% Burn 20% Buy loose food 15% Clothes to charity 10%

Respondents Composting 5% Other 0% Reduction1 Behaviour Recycling Return bottles

Figure 1.0 Household Waste Reduction Behaviour in South Lanarkshire.

3.5 Current Household Reuse Behaviour Reuse, as a concept, was more readily understood by the public. 83% of respondents indicated that they currently practised some form of waste re-use behaviour within their own homes. The most common responses recalled are displayed in Figure 2.0.

80% Bottles 60% Boxes Clothes 40% Envelopes 20% Food/drink containers Respondents Handkerchiefs 0% Paper Reuse Practices1 Plastic bags

Figure 2.0 Household Waste Reuse Behaviour in South Lanarkshire.

Re-using plastic bags (220 people) and food/drink containers (95 people) were the most common re- use practices identified by the public.

Of the remaining respondents 13% indicated that they did nothing and 4% were unsure.

7 3.6 Current Household Recycling Behaviour 99 people (33% of the respondents) indicated that they currently practised some form of recycling within South Lanarkshire. The majority of whom currently used Local Authority bring systems (77% of the recyclers, 27% overall). Civic amenity sites were used by 23% of the recyclers (8% overall) and none of the respondents indicated that they used kerbside collection schemes.

Respondents who indicated that they recycled were then asked to estimate what proportion of their materials was recycled on a regular basis. The range of materials recycled, the number of people recycling these items, and the proportion of individual materials recycled, is detailed in Table 3.0.

Material Number of Proportion of Material People Recycled (%) Glass 72 97 Newspapers 66 97 Cans 30 92 Magazines 20 100 Organic waste* 19 97 Charity shops 10 85 Plastics 7 100 Textiles 7 90 Furniture 5 48 Oil 4 56 Cardboard 3 100 Books 2 75 Metals 2 100 Wood 2 50 * Respondents may consider composting to be organic waste recycling Table 3.0 Recycling in South Lanarkshire.

Glass and newspapers were the most commonly recycled materials, by 65% and 59% of the recyclers respectively. A significant proportion of textile recycling was being done via charity shops, 10 people indicating that they used this method.

3.61 Kerbside Collection Systems None of the respondents from South Lanarkshire indicated that they were participating in a kerbside collection scheme.

3.62 Bring Systems 8 80 people indicated that they used bring systems regularly to recycle within South Lanarkshire, the majority of whom (79%) indicated that they were satisfied with these systems stating that they worked well, were handy and were easy to use. The range of materials recycled, the number of people recycling these items, and the proportion of materials recycled, is detailed in Table 4.0.

Material Number of Proportion of Material People Recycled (%) Glass 58 94 Newspapers 54 95 Cans 21 89 Magazines 17 100 Textiles 5 76 Cardboard 3 100 Plastics 3 100 Books 1 50 Table 4.0 Recycling via Bring Sites in South Lanarkshire.

Those respondents who indicated that they were dissatisfied with these systems (21%) gave reasons of them being too far away and of them always being full.

Suggested improvements to these systems included increasing the number of sites, increasing site maintenance and increasing the variety of recyclates accepted.

All respondents who were aware of bring facilities available to them (109 people) were asked where their nearest bring site was, how far they had to travel to use the site and how often they visited them. These results are detailed in Tables 5.0, 6.0 and 7.0 respectively. The full detail of the location of sites and distances travelled, in relation to where the respondents lived, is displayed in Appendix 1. Location of Sites Number of Respondents Supermarkets / Shops 43 Town name 12 Street name 11 Town centre 5 Other 11 Unable to specify a location 28 Table 5.0 Location of nearest Bring Sites.

9 39% of respondents noted that their nearest bring site was located at a supermarket or at the shops, 25% of respondents were unable to detail the location. Other locations included amenities such as leisure centres and schools.

Distance to Site Number of Respondents < 1 Mile 28 1 - 2 Miles 15 >2 - 5 Miles 8 >5 - 10 Miles 4 10 minutes of travel or less 34 >10 minutes – ½ hour of travel 7 Unable to specify a distance 14 Table 6.0 Distance to nearest Bring Sites.

39% of respondents noted that they travelled two miles or less to their nearest bring sites, and 32% noted that they travelled for ten minutes or less. 13% of respondents were unable to detail how far they had to travel to their nearest bring site.

Frequency of Use Number of Respondents Daily 1 2-3 times /week 2 Weekly 28 Fortnightly 23 Monthly 14 > Monthly 5 As needed 7 Never 29 Table 7.0 Frequency of Use of Bring Sites.

The majority of recyclers noted that they used bring sites to recycle either weekly (26% of respondents), or fortnightly (21% of respondents).

3.63 Civic Amenity Sites 24 people indicated that they used the civic amenity sites on a regular basis within South Lanarkshire. 86% of respondents indicated that they were satisfied with these systems stating that it was a good system that worked well and was easy to use. The range of materials recycled, the number of people recycling these items, and the proportion of materials recycled, is detailed in Table 8.0.

10 Those who indicated that they were dissatisfied with these systems (14%) were mainly concerned with the sites being too far away.

Suggested improvements to these systems included increasing the number of sites, therefore making them closer.

Material Number of Proportion of Material People Recycled (%) Glass 14 100 Newspapers 11 99 Cans 9 100 Furniture 5 48 Green waste 5 80 Oil 4 56 Plastics 4 100 Magazines 3 100 Metals 2 100 Textiles 2 100 Wood 2 50 Books 1 100 Cardboard 1 100 Table 8.0 Recycling via Civic amenity sites in South Lanarkshire.

All respondents who were aware of civic amenity facilities available to them (27 people) were asked where their nearest bring site was, how far they had to travel to use the site and how often they visited them. These results are detailed in Tables 9.0, 10.0 and 11.0. The full details of the location of sites and distances travelled, in relation to where the respondents lived, are displayed in Appendix 2.

Location of Sites Number of Respondents Town name* 21 Unable to specify a location 6 * Detailed in Appendix 2 Table 9.0 Location of nearest Civic Amenity Site.

The majority of respondents (78%) recalled the location of their nearest civic amenity site by the name of the town in which it is located. The remainder were unable to detail the location.

11 Distance to Site Number of Respondents 1 - 2 Miles 7 >2 - 5 Miles 2 >5 - 10 Miles 2 10 minutes of travel or less 3 >10 minutes – ½ hour of travel 1 Unable to specify distance 11 Other 1 Table 10.0 Distance to nearest Civic Amenity Sites.

26% of respondents noted that they travelled two miles or less to their nearest civic amenity site, 41% of respondents were unable to detail the distance to their nearest civic amenity sites.

Frequency of Use Number of Respondents 2-3 times /week 1 Weekly 9 Fortnightly 5 Monthly 3 As needed 6 Never 3 Table 11.0 Frequency of Use of Civic Amenity Sites.

The majority of civic amenity users noted that they visited their nearest site either weekly (33%), as needed (22%) or fortnightly (19%).

12 3.7 Non-Recyclers Attitudes Within South Lanarkshire 67% of the participants (201 people) indicated that they were not recycling. The public outlined a whole range of reasons for not recycling, the most common responses are summarised in Table 12.0.

Reasons For Not Recycling % of Non-Recyclers Don’t know where facilities are 40 Travel too far 21 No transport 9 Not sure 9 Too much trouble 9 Not interested 4 Too much time 3 Not enough store room 2 Don’t care 1 Don’t know how 1 No difference 1 Table 12.0 Reasons for Not Recycling in South Lanarkshire.

The most frequent responses were that people did not know where facilities were and that they had to travel too far.

13 3.8 Encouragement to Recycle Both the recyclers (99 people) and non-recyclers (201 people) were then asked what would encourage them to recycle or recycle more. The results are summarised in Table 13.0.

Encouragement to Recycle Number of Respondents Non-recyclers Recyclers Total Kerbside collection 86 43 129 More bring systems 46 23 69 Don’t know 43 19 62 Nothing 21 8 29 Provide containers 16 4 20 Ability to recycle more materials 1 13 14 More information on where you can recycle 12 2 14 Charge for waste weight 8 3 11 Information on what can be recycled 6 2 8 Information on benefits 4 0 4 Financial incentive 2 0 2 Financial penalty 1 0 1 More reliable 0 1 1 Table 13.0 What Would Encourage Recycling Behaviour in South Lanarkshire.

The most commonly recalled incentives to recycle were the provision of kerbside collection schemes (43%) and more local bring systems (23%). However, 29 people (10%) of the participants indicated that nothing would persuade them to recycle (more) and a further 62 people (21%) were unsure as to what might encourage recycling behaviour. Two non-recyclers noted that a financial incentive might encourage them to recycle, one person was unsure as to what form that should take, the other wanted a cash payment.

3.9 Willingness to Participate in Kerbside The majority of the public interviewed (80%) indicated that they would be willing to participate in a kerbside collection scheme. 14% were not interested and the remainder was unsure. With respect to the choice of container for a kerbside initiative within South Lanarkshire 43% of respondents selected a wheeled bin, as detailed in Figure 3.0. A recycling sac, box and compartmentalised box were other commonly favoured containers.

14 50%

40% Bin 30% Box 20% Compartment box Recycling sac Respondents 10% Sur v iv al bag 0% Preferred1 Container Wheel bin Figure 3.0 Preferred Container for Kerbside Collection.

The preferred kerbside containers according to respondents’ housing types are displayed in Table 14.0.

Container Type Number of Respondents Detached Semi- Terrace Tenement High-rise Total detached flat flat

Wheelie bin 24 34 27 17 0 102 Recycling sac 8 7 7 11 17 50 Box 8 7 17 7 0 39 Compartmentalised box 15 5 8 7 2 37 Bin 0 3 4 1 1 9 Survival bag 0 1 1 1 2 5 Table 14.0 Kerbside Container Preference according to Housing Type.

83% of those respondents who selected a wheeled bin, and 79% of those who selected a box or compartmentalised box, resided in single occupancy accommodation. 56% of those respondents who selected a recycling sac resided in a flat.

Of the respondents who noted that they would be willing to participate in a kerbside collection, 12% (29 people) indicated that they would be willing to pay a small charge for the service. How much they were willing to pay for such systems per week varied considerably as outlined in Figure 4.0. The majority of these (77%) indicated they would be willing to pay £2 per week or less.

15 10% 13% <£1 54% £1-£2 23% >£2-£5 Don't Know

Figure 4.0 Willingness to Pay for Kerbside Collection Scheme.

3.10 Current Household Composting Behaviour 80% of the public surveyed in South Lanarkshire (240 people) had a garden. The majority of whom indicated that they disposed of their organic kitchen waste directly to their wheeled bin (84%). 10% currently compost their organic kitchen waste within this area.

With respect to garden waste within South Lanarkshire, a variety of disposal methods were used, these are summarised in Figure 5.0. Bin bags 50% Burn 40% Compost (home) Council collect green scheme 30% Council gardener 20% Don’t know

Respondents 10% Dump for green waste 0% No waste Disposal1 Options Other Private gardener Wheeled bin

Figure 5.0 Garden Waste Disposal Methods in South Lanarkshire.

The majority of people dispose of their green waste directly into their wheelie bin (44%). Currently 24% also composted their garden waste at home within South Lanarkshire, 10% indicated they used a council green waste collection.

Overall, 58 respondents indicated that they composted at home within South Lanarkshire, of which 74% compost all year round. The most popular choice of composters are shown in Table 15.0.

16 Method of Composting No of Respondents Compost heap 32 Compost bin 28 Dig into ground 1 Digestor 1 Table 15.0 Composting Method in South Lanarkshire.

93% of the composters indicated that they were satisfied with the systems they were using. They specified that the main benefits of composting were that it worked well, was cheap, easy to use and was useful. Of those who were not satisfied, reasons given were that the composting process was too slow and was untidy.

Overall when asked how the composting process individuals used could be improved and what problems (if any) had been encountered, very few responses were recorded. One improvement indicated that provision of a composter would aid the process. Problems noted were that the composting process was very slow and that it smelled.

3.11 Non-Home Composting Attitudes 182 people (76% of the sampled population with gardens) within South Lanarkshire were not composting at home. The main reasons for this behaviour are given in Table 16.0.

Reason for Not Composting No of Respondents Not enough waste 47 Too much trouble 30 No use for compost 22 Not interested 20 Council does gardening 18 Never considered it 18 No space 13 Takes too much time 12 Not sure 9 Don’t garden/not a gardener 7 Compost smells 6 Too old/disabled 6 Vermin concerns 3 Don’t know how 2 No facilities 2 No incentives 1 Too expensive 1 Table 16.0 Reasons for Not Composting in South Lanarkshire. 17 The main reasons identified for not composting were not having enough organic waste with which to compost, it being too much trouble and having no use for compost.

3.12 Encouragement to Home Compost Of the 240 households with gardens within South Lanarkshire, both the composters and the non- composters were asked what would encourage them to compost or compost more. Their responses are summarised in Table 17.0.

Ways to Encourage Home % of Respondents Composting Composters Non-composters Total

Nothing 20 65 85 Don’t know 3 7 10 Free composter 1 2 3 Information on benefits 0 1 1 More information on how 0 1 1 Table 17.0 Ways Identified by the Public in South Lanarkshire to Encourage Home Composting

The majority of people (84%) indicated that nothing would engage them in further home composting behaviour, a further 10% were unsure as to what might.

3.13 Willingness to Participate in Home Composting Scheme Of the 240 households with gardens within South Lanarkshire, 6% indicated that they would be willing to participate in a home composting scheme and 24% noted that they already do. When shown the composting show card the preferred choices for home composting systems are detailed in Figure 6.0. 35% Compost heap 30% 25% Digestor 20% New Zealand box 15% No preference 10%

Respondents Other 5% Round plastic 0% Tumbler Composter1 Type Wormery

Figure 6.0 Home Composting Container Type. 18 A compost heap (23 people), New Zealand box (19 people) and round plastic tub (18 people) were the most preferred composters.

12% of these respondents indicated that they would be willing to pay a small charge for a home composter. How much they were willing to pay for such systems varied considerably as outlined in Figure 7.0. The majority of these (63%) indicated they would be willing to pay £10 or less.

13% 37% <£5 25% £5 -£10 25% >£10-£15 Don't Know

Figure 7.0 Willingness to Pay for Home Composter Unit

3.14 Willingness to Participate in a Community Composting Scheme The majority of people surveyed (77%) did not wish to participate in a community-composting scheme. However, 12% of the sampled population (with gardens) within South Lanarkshire indicated they would be willing to participate in a community-composting scheme and 6% stated that they already did. The remainder was unsure.

The location of those 14 respondents who indicated that they already participated in community composting is detailed in Table 18.0.

Location Number of Respondents East Kilbride 5 Strathaven 2 Blantyre 1 Cambuslang 1 Carluke 1 Douglas 1 Kirkmuirhill 1 Larkhall 1 Law 1 Table 18.0 Location of respondents presently participating in Community Composting

19 3.15 Willingness to Participate in a Separate Green Waste Collection System (uplift by Local Authority) 27% of the sampled population (with gardens) within South Lanarkshire indicated they would be willing to participate in a separate green waste collection and 11% noted that they already did.

The location of those 24 respondents who indicated that they already participated in a separate green waste collection is detailed in Table 19.0.

Location Number of Respondents East Kilbride 5 Cambuslang 4 Hamilton 3 Lanark 2 Abington 1 Blantyre 1 Carluke 1 Carstairs Village 1 Elsrickle 1 Forth 1 Hyndford Bridge 1 Lesmahagow 1 Libberton 1 Rutherglen 1 Table 19.0 Location of respondents presently participating in a separate green waste collection

Of the 91 respondents who noted that they would be willing to participate, or presently participated, in a separate green waste collection 3 people indicated that they would be willing to pay a small charge. Two people were willing to pay less than five pounds per year and one person was willing to pay more than £15 per year.

3.16 Awareness of Local Waste Disposal Facilities 48% of the respondents indicated that they were aware of what happened to the domestic waste collected in their area, the majority of whom identified landfill (92%). However, when asked to identify where these facilities were only 63% of these respondents indicated that they knew. 36 separate locations were listed, the most commonly recalled responses are displayed in Table 20.0.

20 Location Number of Respondents Carluke 18 Cathkin 14 Hamilton 9 Muttonhole Rd 6 Glasgow 4 Greengairs 4 Polmadie 4 Lanark Area 3 Carmyle 2 East Kilbride 2 Newmains 2 Strathaven Rd 2 Table 20.0 Perceived Location of Landfill Sites.

Carluke and Cathkin were the most commonly recalled locations, mentioned by 20% and 15% of respondents respectively.

The perceived advantages and disadvantages of landfill were then explored. The advantages were vague, 58% of people did not answer, did not know or stated there were no advantages. Of the remainder, 9 people stated there was no alternative and 8 people stated that it was cheap and easy. 69% of people identified disadvantages associated with landfill; these included environmental concerns, a lack of space, vermin, smells and a lack of recycling.

When asked what improvements could be made to landfills 77% of respondents had no answer. 15% of respondents suggested that recycling should be encouraged prior to disposal and 4% mentioned incineration.

3.17 Awareness of Cost of Domestic Waste Collection and Disposal 79% of the public surveyed were unable to comment, and indicated that they had no idea what it cost for the weekly collection and disposal of their household domestic waste. 31 people (10% of those interviewed) believed that the cost was greater than £10 per week per household. These results are summarised in Table 21.0.

21 Cost per Week Number of People Less than £1 5 £1-1.99 4 £2-2.99 7 £3-4.99 10 £5-10 7 More than £10 31 Don’t Know 236 Table 21.0 Awareness of Cost of Waste Collection and Disposal

3.18 Waste Charging The majority of the public (67%) believed that households should not be charged for the amount of waste they produced. However, 12% agreed with this principle, the remainder was unsure.

When asked what the advantages of such a charging scheme might be the majority of respondents (83%) gave no comment, were unsure or stated there were no advantages. The main reasons given for the acceptance of such a scheme were that it would: • increase recycling (14 people); • be a fairer system (12 people); • reduce waste (7 people).

When asked what the disadvantages of such a charging scheme might be 27% of respondents gave no comment, were unsure or stated that there were no advantages. The main reasons given for rejecting such a scheme were: • already pay via taxes (92 people); • would penalise large families/lower incomes (63 people); • would encourage fly tipping (10 people).

22 3.19 Responsibility for Waste Minimisation A range of responses were outlined by the public as to who should be responsible for waste minimisation. The Local Authority (132 people) and everybody (118 people) were the most common answers recorded, as displayed in Figure 8.0.

50% Consumers 40% Don’t know 30% Everybody 20% Government Local Authority Respondents 10% 0% Manufacturers Responsibility1 for Public Waste Minimisation Retailers Waste producers Figure 8.0 Responsibility for Waste Minimisation.

23 Appendix 1 Location of and Distance to Respondents’ nearest Bring Site

Area Location of Nearest Bring Distance to Nearest Bring Biggar Tesco 10 Miles Biggar 1/2 Mile Blackwood Larkhall 3 Miles Blantyre - 10 Minutes - 10 Minutes Wilson Street 10 Minutes - 2 Miles Bothwell By Shops 30 Minutes - 2 Miles - 2 Miles Braehead - 7 Miles Brownside Safeway - Cambuslang Asda - - 1/2 Mile Down The Road 2 Minutes Safeway - - 1/2 Mile Safeway 30 Minutes walk Safeway 5 Minutes by car - 1 Mile - 1/2Mile Safeway - Carluke Town Centre 1/2 Mile Town Centre 10 Minutes - 1/2 Mile Town Centre 1 Mile At Shops 5 - 10 Minutes Carmichael Lanark 7 Miles Carnwath High Street(bottles), Lanark(paper) 200 Yards, 8 Miles Local Hall 50 Yards Causewayend Biggar 1.5 Miles Douglas Work 1/2 Hour

24 Area Location of Nearest Bring Distance to Nearest Bring East Kilbride Asda 5 Minutes by car - 1/2 Hour Walk - 5 Miles College Milton - Safeway - - 1/2 Mile Shopping Centres 2 Miles Shopping Centres 1/2 Mile - 2 Minutes Walk Foot of Towerblock - - 100 Metres Shopping Centres - Elsrickle Biggar 3 Miles Forth Forth Main Street 200 Yards Forth Main Street 200 Yards High Street 100 Yards Gilespie Douglas 2.5 Miles Hamilton Safeway 10 Minutes Walk Safeway 1 Mile Safeway 5 Minutes by Car Safeway 20 Minutes Walk Safeway - - 5 Minutes by Car Safeway 10 Minutes Walk Safeway 10 Minutes Safeway 5 Minutes Walk Safeway 10 Minutes Sainsburys 1 Mile Kwik Save 5 Minutes Mill Road 5 Minutes Walk Safeway 1/2 Hour Safeway 1/2 Mile Sainsburys 1/2 Mile Asda 10 Minutes Walk Asda 2 Miles Bus Stop 15 Minutes Walk Safeway 1/2 Mile Kaimend - 1 Mile

25 Area Location of Nearest Bring Distance to Nearest Bring Kirkmuirhill - 2 Miles Thornton Road 10 Minutes Walk Leisure Dome 1/4 Mile Leisure Dome 5 Minutes Walk Leisure Dome 5 Minutes Walk - 5 Minutes Walk Lanark - 10 Minutes - 5 Minutes Walk - 10 Minutes Tesco 1 Mile Tesco 1/2 Mile Larkhall Somerfield 5 Minutes Simpsons 5 Minutes Hamilton 3 Miles All Supermarkets - Law Station Road 150 Yards - 1/2 Mile At Cross 10 Minutes Station Road 5 Minutes Walk Leadhills Post Office in Village 1/2 Mile Lesmahagow Town Centre 1/2 MIle New Lanark - 1 Mile Newbigging Lanark 8 Miles Ravenstruther Tesco 4 Miles Rutherglen Safeway - Safeway - Safeway 2 Minutes Asda - Safeway 5 - 10 Minutes Stonehouse Strathaven 4 Miles Strathaven Hamilton Road 1.5 Miles In Town 1/2 Mile At Shops - Symington Biggar 3 Miles Thankerton School 200 Yards Uddingston - 3/4 Mile - 5 Minutes - 5 Minutes Wilsontown Forth Main Street 800 Yards

26 Appendix 2 Location of and Distance to Respondents’ nearest Civic Amenity Site

Area Location of Nearest Civic Distance to Nearest Amenity Site Civic Amenity Site Blantyre - 5 - 10 minutes Birkenshaw 1/2 hour drive Cambuslang Richmond Park 5 minutes - 5 minutes walk East Kilbride - A good drive - 1. 5 miles College Milton - Cathkin - College Milton - College Milton - Bushy Lomins - - About 1.5 miles College Milton - College Milton - College Milton - Hamilton Larkhall A few miles Kirkmuirhill Larkhall, 10 miles Larkhall South of Larkhall 2 miles Birkenshaw - Rutherglen - 1 mile College Milton 7 – 10 miles College Milton - College Milton - Stonehouse Larkhall 4 miles Strathaven Hamilton Road 2 miles Hamilton Road 1.5 miles Hamilton Road 1.5 miles

27 28