Multifamily Recycling in Snohomish and King County WUTC Areas: Pilot Projects Brainstorming and Development Work Session.

Transcription

1 Multifamily Recycling in Snohomish and King County WUTC Areas: Pilot Projects Brainstorming and Development Work Session November 29, 2012

2 Why are we here? Extension project objective: Use knowledge we ve gained about strategies for improving multifamily recycling from research to develop pilot project ideas that address the specific barriers faced at potential pilot sites. Today s goal: Select 3 5 pilot project ideas from a list of strategies brainstormed by the group and based on case studies, literature review, and field research. Cascadia will develop concept briefs for selected pilot project ideas for further consideration and possible implementation in 2013.

3 Multifamily Recycling Project Process What We ve Done So Far (June October 2012) What We re Doing Now (November December 2012) What We re Working Toward (2013) Identify Innovative/Effective Strategies Case study research to identify innovative strategies Literature review to compile existing research on common challenges and proven best practices in MF recycling Collect Local Data, Conduct Initial Outreach Site visits to 50+ MF properties in UTC areas, surveys of 26 PMs to collect data on existing conditions for recycling, service gaps 26 PM phone interviews and intercept surveys with 25 residents to identify barriers and motivators to recycling Develop and Assess Pilot Project Ideas Apply case study and field research findings to develop and assess pilot project ideas Develop concept briefs for 3 5 top pilot project ideas to assess costs, feasibility, and other considerations Address Service Gaps, Engage PMs in SnoCo Analyze site data to identify service level improvements Engage PMs and assist with needed service level adjustments Prepare to Collect More Data in King Co Map property addresses with GIS software, overlay locations with demographic data to better understand MF population and select potential pilot sites Prepare field forms and survey instruments to collect critical information about existing conditions for recycling at select properties Implement and Evaluate Pilot Projects in SnoCo Choose pilot project(s) for implementation Select pilot project sites Develop implementation and evaluation plan for pilot project(s) Implement, evaluate, and document findings Collect Additional Site Data, Address Service Gaps in King Co Site visits to select properties, PM interviews to collect data on existing conditions Address service gaps, work with PMs to make service level improvements as needed

4 Why Multifamily Recycling Matters Achieving waste reduction and recycling goals depends on improving multifamily recycling: Garbage from the multifamily sector makes up 16% of all disposed MSW in King County and 13% in Snohomish County. The MF recycling rate is substantially lower than the SF recycling rate (King County MF recycling rate = 10%, SF recycling rate = 54%) MF residents account for nearly 30% of households in Snohomish County, and nearly 40% of households in King County, and this share is expected to increase by 20% in the coming years. Multifamily recycling CAN improve: Seattle s MF recycling rate has increased from 26% in 2006 to 37% in Toronto s MF recycling rate has increased from 13% in 2007 to 20% in 2012.

5 What s Being Wasted in Snohomish County? Multifamily Disposed MSW Composition Snohomish County 2009 WCS Top Ten Recyclable Components in MF Disposed Waste (by weight) Other recyclable paper Corrugated cardboard Glass bottles Other metals Newspaper Plastic bottles Tin cans Aluminum cans Textiles These recyclable components make up 32% of disposed waste (36% incl. textiles)

6 What s Being Wasted in King County? Multifamily Disposed MSW Composition King County 2011 WCS Electronics 1.1% Other Organics 16.4% Wood, Yard 7.3% Food 23.5% Other Wastes 2.9% HHW, Special 0.4% Glass 3.4% Paper 23.9% Metal 7.9% Plastic 13.2% Top Ten Recyclable Components in MF Disposed Waste (by weight) Low grade recyclable paper Corrugated cardboard Other Ferrous Newspaper High grade paper Clear glass containers PET bottles Tinned food cans Brown glass containers #3 #7 plastic containers These recyclable components make up 25% of disposed waste

7 Findings from the Field: Infrastructure Issues 50+ properties in Snohomish and N King UTC areas Most properties in the Snohomish and N King County UTC areas are located in suburban areas, on the fringe of incorporated cities, NOT in exurban or rural areas; In Snohomish, most are along the I 5 corridor The majority properties have 100+ units Every property visited had recycling service Most properties visited were missing fundamentals: Nearly half (45%) of all dumpster areas did NOT have paired recycling and garbage dumpsters Many (65%) garbage dumpsters were missing decals Most dumpster areas are outside, with no posters or other educational signage (except decals) in the area Dumpsters are often difficult to tell apart, no consistent color coding of bins Some garbage dumpsters are very large and could be challenging for residents to access Around 40% of material observed in garbage was recyclable

8 Findings from the Field: Recycling Knowledge 26 property managers interviewed in Snohomish and N King UTC areas, 3 in Renton 26 residents surveyed in Snohomish and N King UTC areas, 20 in Renton PMs questioned (N=29) Residents surveyed (N=40) Most residents could correctly identify recyclable items when asked to identify what is recyclable in their building s program. Confusing items were: Plastic forks (8 out of 18 said yes ) Slightly soiled peanut butter jar (7 out of 18 said no ) Television (7 out of 18 were unsure) How well do your residents recycle? No clear trend. How much do residents recycle? 55% recycle most or all of the time 28% recycle some of the time 15% rarely/never recycle or thought building did not have recycling Residents understanding/ memory of recycling may be outdated or from other locations. Main sources are: Flyers handed out by PMs Previous residence/city School Parents Just look for the little recycle thing on the bottom. That tells you if it is recyclable or not. Renton focus group participant

9 Findings from the Field: Barriers to Recycling 26 property managers interviewed in Snohomish and N King UTC areas, 3 in Renton 26 residents surveyed in Snohomish and N King UTC areas, 20 in Renton Biggest barriers to recycling identified by PMs Unsure of what or how to recycle Recycling location is not convenient Bins are too small or full, or not enough No room in unit to store recyclables No time/too much effort Biggest barriers to recycling identified by residents Other problems Recycling dumpsters are not convenient Not sure what items are recyclable No time/too much effort Illegal dumping, many unlocked bins Move in/move out is an area of particular problems for PM Infrastructure is difficult to access (e.g. dumpsters are too big or blocked) It can be hard to differentiate which is garbage and which dumpster is recycling. And there seems to be a hesitancy of residents to touch the dumpster lids when they are down. Renton property manager

10 Findings from the Field: Strategy Preferences 26 property managers interviewed in Snohomish and N King UTC areas, 3 in Renton 26 residents surveyed in Snohomish and N King UTC areas, 20 in Renton PMs and residents were asked to select the strategy they thought would make residents most likely to recycle (or recycle more) from a list of options. (Strategies ranked 1 received the most responses.) STRATEGY PMs UTC Residents More convenient dumpsters 1 Free tote bag 1 2 Mandate 3 Educational materials 2 4 Financial incentives 4 Seeing neighbors recycle 3 Training/workshop

11 Key Findings of Field Research Based on the site visits, it appears that many of the best practice basics of recycling (e.g., dumpster pairing, color coding, annual educational mailing, etc.) are not in place. PMs are NOT necessarily successful at communicating with residents; reaching residents may require alternative approaches beyond PM engagement. The average resident is still confused, especially around the recyclability of plastics and the relevance of RICs. Paper is the largest material category in disposed waste, but when residents think about recycling, paper is not the first thing that comes to mind.

12 Desired Outcome and Target Behavior What is the outcome we are trying to achieve? Increase the quantity of recyclable material that is placed in the recycling bin? Increase the quality of recyclable material collected (i.e. reduce contamination)? Increase the number of residents who participate in recycling? What behavior is associated with the desired outcome? Non divisible (e.g., separating recyclables from garbage vs. recycling ) End state (e.g., placing recyclables in correct collection bin, not just separating at home) Who will carry out the behavior? Who is the target audience for the pilot? Both active recyclers and non recyclers? People who bring material to the bin vs. all who separate in unit English speakers only or multilingual?

13 Barriers to Target Behavior Target Behavior: EXAMPLES: Confused or unsure of what to recycle Barriers What are possible barriers to the behavior for the target audience(s)? Recycling dumpster location is not convenient Recycling dumpsters are too small or full or scarce Difficult to distinguish recycling and garbage dumpsters Recycling dumpsters are difficult to access No room within units to store recyclables No time/too much effort

14 Feasibility Assessment For each strategy (focusing on ones aligned with highly rated barriers): Any major reservations? Any prior experience with this type of strategy? Political considerations? Are implementation costs a concern? Does this fit with UTC regulatory requirements? Are there likely operational challenges to implementing? Do you think this could be feasibly implemented? Would this really have a measurable effect on the target behavior?