Recycling Tracking Survey 2017 Behaviours, attitudes and awareness around recycling

Transcription

1 Key Findings Report Recycling Tracking Survey 2017 Behaviours, attitudes and awareness around recycling Report of the recycling tracking survey, spring 2017 Project code: BHV Research date: February March 2017 Date: September 2017

2 Behaviours, attitudes and awareness around recycling 2 WRAP s vision is a world in which resources are used sustainably. Our mission is to accelerate the move to a sustainable resource-efficient economy through re-inventing how we design, produce and sell products; rethinking how we use and consume products; and re-defining what is possible through re-use and recycling. Find out more at Document reference WRAP, 2017, Banbury, Recycling Tracking Survey 2017 Behaviours, attitudes and awareness around recycling, Prepared by WRAP Front cover photography: Recycle Now Imagery While we have taken reasonable steps to ensure this report is accurate, WRAP does not accept liability for any loss, damage, cost or expense incurred or arising from reliance on this report. Readers are responsible for assessing the accuracy and conclusions of the content of this report. Quotations and case studies have been drawn from the public domain, with permissions sought where practicable. This report does not represent endorsement of the examples used and has not been endorsed by the organisations and individuals featured within it. This material is subject to copyright. You can copy it free of charge and may use excerpts from it provided they are not used in a misleading context and you must identify the source of the material and acknowledge WRAP s copyright. You must not use this report or material from it to endorse or suggest WRAP has endorsed a commercial product or service. For more details please see WRAP s terms and conditions on our website at

3 Behaviours, attitudes and awareness around recycling 3 Contents Contents... 3 Glossary... 4 Introduction Dry Recycling Assessing recycling behaviours Recycling behaviour groups Residents recycling practices Communal recycling schemes Recycling motivation and sources of knowledge Food Waste Recycling Levels of usage Room for improvement among users Barriers to the service among non-users Attitudes to food waste recycling... 19

4 Behaviours, attitudes and awareness around recycling 4 Glossary Capture material targeted by a local recycling collection that is placed in a recycling container by the householder. Missed capture a missed opportunity by the householder to recycle a material that is targeted by a local recycling collection. Contamination in the context of this report, an umbrella term to describe both nontargeted recyclable material and non-recyclable items placed in a recycling container by the householder. Serious contamination the addition to a recycling container of waste items that cannot be recycled and cause issues for processing plants e.g. animal bedding, sanitary products, and food. Matched survey responses that have been compared to local waste and recycling services by mapping respondents postcodes on to WRAP s local authority database. This allows subjective, self-reported responses to be compared against objective information about recycling services in the local area. Able to be matched matched data analysis excludes those with communal collections, materials that are disposed of outside of the home (e.g. at a local recycling point) and where a household does not purchase a particular item and therefore has none to dispose of (further information is presented in the methodology section)

5 Behaviours, attitudes and awareness around recycling 5 Introduction The Recycling Tracker is an annual survey of UK households that gathers evidence on consumers current attitudes, knowledge and behaviour in relation to recycling. Fieldwork was undertaken online by Icaro, between the 27th January and 13th February A total of 3,239 interviews were undertaken - in England (2,172 including boosts in London and Greater Manchester), Wales (650), Scotland (207) and Northern Ireland (300). To achieve the overall UK sample the data from each of the four nations and regions were combined according to their share of the UK population giving an effective UK base 1 of 2,586. The analysis compares respondents self-reported recycling behaviour to the known kerbside service provision in their area (using respondents postcodes and a database of all UK council schemes maintained by WRAP 2 ). This enables householders behaviour, knowledge and attitudes to recycling to be understood in the context of the services they have access to. To understand recycling behaviour, questions are specifically asked about how respondents disposed of items on the last/most recent disposal occasion. Not all data can be matched. This includes those who live in areas with partial 3 collections and those with communal collections (due to variations in services across a local authority area and uncertainties regarding service provision at multiple occupancy buildings). The results give 2,490 valid, matched records. When this is weighted in line with the distribution of the UK population the effective matched base is 2,000. On graphs and tables, statistically significant differences are clearly flagged (at the 95% confidence level); if they are not flagged then any difference is not significant. Where there are differences between nations and regions these are noted using the first letter of the nation or region e.g. E= England, N= Northern Ireland etc. 1 The effective sample size is a measure of the precision of the survey once the effect of weighting is considered, i.e. although 3,239 interviews were undertaken, this is the equivalent of an un-weighted sample of 2, The database is updated annually via a survey of every council in the UK. There are margins of error associated with the survey (in addition to the consumer survey), and postcodes do not always align precisely with council boundaries. Therefore, the results are subject to small margins of error rather than being absolute. 3 Where a material is not consistently collected for recycling from all kerbside properties due to variations in the scheme across a local authority

6 Behaviours, attitudes and awareness around recycling Dry Recycling 1.1 Assessing recycling behaviours The tracker assesses two key elements of recycling behaviour: missed capture (i.e. items put in the general rubbish that are accepted for recycling locally) and contamination (i.e. items put in the recycling when they are not accepted). The former indicates the scope to improve the capture of recyclables (quantity); the latter the quality. The findings highlight room for improvement in both respects: Just over half (53%) of UK households dispose of one or more items in the general rubbish that is in fact collected for recycling in their area. This is a small but statistically significant increase from 2016 (49%). Close to three quarters of UK households (76%) add one or more item to their recycling collection that is not accepted locally 4. There are significant differences across the UK nations, although all have the potential to improve. Wales has the lowest level of missed capture (40% of households could add at least one item to the recycling), compared to 53% in England and 60% in Northern Ireland. There are also differences across key variables, although once again the differences should not distract from the scope to improve across all groups. Age: The scope for improvement is highest among younger households aged they have the highest levels of missed capture (65% vs. 45% of those aged 55+) and the highest levels of contamination (83% vs. 73%). Confidence: Levels of missed capture are highest among those with less confidence about what can and can t be recycled (64% vs. 43% of those who are very confident). However, levels of contamination are no lower among those who say they are confident about all items compared to those who are not confident (indicating overconfidence among some householders). Number of items collected by the council: Missed capture increases with the number of items collected for recycling (from 39% in areas collecting 0-8 items to 53% in areas collecting 14-15); the reverse is true of contamination which is highest in areas collecting fewer items (84% vs. 71%). 4 This compares to 69% in 2016, although direct comparisons are not possible because the list of contaminants expanded in When comparing contamination using just the items asked about in both 2016 and 2017, the 2017 result actually falls to 65% - a statistically significant decrease.

7 Behaviours, attitudes and awareness around recycling 7 The most common items not captured for recycling (Figure 1) are foil (26% could have recycled this on the last disposal occasion), aerosols (20%) and plastic cleaning bottles (16%). The level of missed capture has increased for foil (from 21% in 2013), which appears to be a result of an increase in the number of local authorities that accept it (with not all residents aware and/or adapting yet). By contrast, there is less missed capture for aerosols 20% could recycle this locally, down from 24% in Figure 1 Potential to increase capture, item by item The graph shows the % of households who put items in the general rubbish when they are collected for recycling locally. Base: All those able to be matched excluding flat-block dwellers (2,000), UK, Feb 2017

8 Behaviours, attitudes and awareness around recycling 8 For contamination (Figure 2), common items include plastic bags and wrapping (29%), dirty pizza boxes (23%), toothpaste tubes (22%), Tetra Pak (17%), bubble wrap (16%) and plastic carrier bags (15%). Figure 2 Recycling of non-targeted materials and contamination, item by item The graph shows the % of households who recycled items when they are not accepted locally. Base: All those able to be matched (2,000) those in red have been classified by WRAP as serious ; whereas those in blue are classified as non-targeted recycling. UK, February 2017 To assess the reasons for missed capture and contamination, survey respondents were given a series of statements outlining potential reasons and asked how frequently each applies to them. The results (Table 1) demonstrate that the key factor for contamination recognised by just over half (51%) of UK households - relates to presuming that on-pack labels/guidance applies to their local collection. For missed capture, food residue on items and confusion about what can and can t be recycled are both prominent, identified by around one in three households. A lack of bin capacity is a barrier to both missed capture and contamination, with around one in five identifying with this as an issue for their recycling bin (leading to missed capture) and their general rubbish bin (leading to contamination).

9 Behaviours, attitudes and awareness around recycling 9 Table 1: Reasons for missed capture and non-targeted recycling/contamination The table shows the % saying that each statement applies to them regularly or from time to time. Base: All (2,553) Incidence Missed capture Contamination 50% or more households I follow guidance on the packaging, so I presume everything I put in recycling is correct (51%) 30-49% There was too much food/residue on the item (33%) There are so many different types of item I m never sure what is allowed in recycling and what isn t (31%) 20-29% I m not convinced everything actually gets recycled by the council (29%) I do enough so don t tend to worry about the odd thing here and there (24%) If I don t know whether or not something is recyclable, I put it in recycling in the hope that it will be (25%) There isn t enough space in the general rubbish bin (20%) The packaging says to check locally if it can be recycled and I can t be bothered (24%) Less than 20% The recycling bin was full (21%) There s no recycling bin in that room / nearby so it went in the normal bin (17%) It all gets sorted anyway so it s up to the council / the recycling plant to take out what they don t want (19%) I didn t want to go outside / to the communal area (12%) The council collects everything in the same truck so it doesn t matter what bin I put it in (18%) It doesn t really bother me what bin I put things in, I tend not to give it much thought (15%) The survey demonstrates that, as part of the overall trend in missed capture, there is scope to increase capture of items from different rooms in the home. For example, half of UK households (50%) say aerosols from the bedroom and bathroom are sometimes or always disposed of in the general rubbish (with the data matching showing that 84% of these households are able to recycle this item kerbside).

10 Behaviours, attitudes and awareness around recycling Recycling behaviour groups Clustering recycling behaviour according to missed capture and contamination identifies six dry recycling 5 behavioural groups (Table 2). Close to one in eight households (13%) are Top Recyclers they do not put any items in the residual bin that could be recycled, nor do they put any items in the recycling that are not accepted. By contrast, the majority of households (87%) have room for improvement (to different degrees). For example, Group 2 (Minor Issues) contaminate or miss opportunities to recycle with a small number of items. By contrast, Group 6 (Multiple Issues) has higher levels of both missed capture and contamination. Table 2: Behavioural groups 1 Top Recyclers 13% Do not contaminate or miss opportunities to recycle. Use their kerbside service to its fullest potential. 2 Minor Issues 22% Get the vast majority of their recycling right, but contaminate and / or miss opportunities to recycle with 1-9% of the item types they dispose of at home. 3 Medium Issues 13% Get most of their recycling right, but contaminate and / or miss opportunities to recycle with 10-14% of the item types they dispose of at home. 4 High contamination, no missed capture 5 High missed capture, no contamination 18% Not responsible for any missed capture, but add multiple items to the recycling collection that are not accepted locally. 13% Not responsible for any contamination but add multiple items to the residual waste that are collected locally for recycling. 6 Multiple Issues 21% Responsible for both contamination and missed capture with multiple items The composition of the six groups varies according to a range of socio-demographic, service-based and attitudinal/knowledge-based variables, as follows: Age: Groups 1 (Top Recyclers) and 2 (Minor Issues) are more likely to contain older households 45% of those aged 55+ fall into these two groups (compared to 19% among 18-34s). In contrast, 18-34s are more likely to be in Group 5 (High missed capture, no contamination) and Group 6 (Multiple Issues). Rurality and deprivation: In Groups 1 and 2 there is a higher proportion of households in rural areas 6 (38% vs. 32% in urban areas) and in low deprivation areas (38% vs. 31% in areas of higher deprivation). 5 Food waste is not included in the analysis 6 Defined on a six point rural/urban and high/low deprivation classification based on ONS data.

11 Behaviours, attitudes and awareness around recycling 11 Time living in area: There is a higher proportion of Groups 1 and 2 who have lived in the same area for 10 years or more (40% vs. 19% of those living in the area for less than two years). UK nation/region: There are relatively few differences across the UK nations/regions. Notable exceptions include a higher proportion of households in both Wales (25%) and Greater Manchester (27%) who are in Group 4 (High contamination, no missed capture), compared to England (19%). The size of Group 6 is larger in London and Greater Manchester. Recycling outlook: A more positive recycling outlook (i.e. those associating with the statement I want to be a really good recycler and I take the trouble to ensure that I m doing everything right) equates to a higher proportion of households in the top two groups (43% vs. 9% who opt for Recycling is good in principle but for various reasons I don t really do it as much as I ought to). That said, the data shows that 57% of those who self-identify as highly committed fall outside of the top two performing groups, showing room for improvement even where positive motivations and values are in place. Sources of knowledge and information receipt: Households in Group 1 obtain much of their recycling information from council leaflets crediting this source with over half of their knowledge (5.2 points out of 10). This compares to 2.9 points among those in Group 6. Among those who have received and read information about what the council wants them to recycle, 45% are in the top two groups (vs. 19% among those who say that they have not received any information about recycling in the past year). Residual waste capacity and collection frequency: Almost half (48%) of those in areas with an average weekly capacity equivalent to 70-90L fall into the top two groups - compared to those with 120L (34%), L (40%) and 240L (28%). In terms of frequency, more households in Groups 1 and 2 are in areas with a fortnightly collection (37% vs. 30% in areas with a weekly collection). Comprehensiveness of local recycling collections: In areas that collect items almost half (48%) of households are in the top 2 groups vs. 20% in areas collecting 0-8 items. However, there is also an increase in the proportion of households in Group 5 (High Missed Capture, No Contamination) highlighting the need for households in these areas to be reminded of the full range of materials collected. The size of Group 4 increases where fewer (0-8) items are collected (41% vs. 7% in areas collecting items), indicating households in these areas are trying to recycle more items than the collection accepts.

12 Behaviours, attitudes and awareness around recycling Residents recycling practices The tracker looked at what set out practices are being followed by residents 7. The results show: The majority of households consistently remove any absorbent pads from the bottom of plastic trays and put these in the general rubbish (62% say they do this all the time ). A similar proportion (60%) say they always empty and rinse items. Fewer always squash plastic bottles (42%) or remove packing tape from cardboard boxes (39%). The least common practice is putting metal lids and caps back on glass containers (28%). A higher proportion of households in Wales say they consistently follow all of the set out practices compared to England; whereas households in London and Greater Manchester are the least likely to follow it. 1.4 Communal recycling schemes Given that they are excluded from the formal data matching process (and therefore the behavioural groups), residents with communal recycling collections are asked a separate set of questions. Ratings of the service provision highlight a number of issues (Figure 3). For example, the overall cleanliness of the bin areas is given an average score of 6.3 out of 10, while specific issues include overflowing general rubbish bins (with 44% saying this happens all or most of the time), overflowing recycling bins (41%) and a lack of consideration among fellow residents (39% report that others using the communal bins take no or little care). The results also demonstrate the potential for contamination of communal recycling bins with plastic bags 26% say that they take the recycling down in plastic bags that they put inside the recycling bin with the recycling. A similar proportion (24%) say they also use plastic bags but empty them out rather than put in the recycling, while one in three (33%) say they use a re-usable bag/box. 7 While it is not possible to know if respondents are being asked to follow this set out guidance by their local authority, and therefore are correct or incorrect in following or not following it, the guidance is considered to represent best practice.

13 Behaviours, attitudes and awareness around recycling 13 Figure 3 Communal collection ratings Q9new. Please rate the following on a scale from Base: Those with a communal recycling collection (207). UK, Feb Recycling motivation and sources of knowledge Respondents described their outlook on recycling by selecting one of four statements that best describes them: Almost half (48%) select the statement I want to be a really good recycler and I take the trouble to ensure that I m doing everything right, There is a clear age gradient with 60% of those aged 55+ saying they want to be a good recycler, compared to 34% of 18-24s. One in three (36%) select Recycling is a good thing, but I don t spend too much time worrying about it the same things go in every week and I feel like I m doing my bit. Turning to the reasons why households say they recycle, respondents were asked to attribute 10 points across a range of motivations (with more points reflecting more important reasons). The two primary reasons each attributed 3.1 points each is to do my bit for the environment and the council provides the service so I am doing what I am supposed to. This is followed by habit (1.5 points) and I like the idea of new things being made from old (1.0 points). To assess how households have acquired their knowledge about recycling, respondents were given a list of six information sources and again given 10 points to allocate. The most prominent source of information is a council leaflet (3.4 points out of 10), followed by what it says on the recycling box/bag/bin (1.9), what it says on the product packaging (1.6) and the council website (1.5). What friends/neighbours/family say (0.7) and trial and

14 Behaviours, attitudes and awareness around recycling 14 error (0.5) are credited with less influence overall but are notably more likely to be used by 18-34s. Recycling attitudes and behaviours do not vary significantly according to where householders do their grocery shopping.

15 Behaviours, attitudes and awareness around recycling Food Waste Recycling 2.1 Levels of usage Respondents answers about how they dispose of food waste have been matched with local service provision, as per dry recycling 8. For the UK as a whole, almost one in three (29%) households recycle their food waste and do so correctly, that is they are served by a local collection and use it (Figure 4). A further 38% correctly use the residual bin (i.e. because no food waste collection is provided locally), while 13% compost it. By contrast, one in seven (14%) are non-users that is, living in an area where a service is provided but they don t use it. This comprises 5% who are lapsed users (i.e. they used the service previously, but have stopped) and 9% who have never used it. Furthermore, a small minority (5%) say they recycle food waste even though they live in an area where no service is provided (i.e. potentially representing contamination of the dry recycling collection). The results highlight pronounced differences across the UK nations and regions: The proportion of food recyclers is highest in Wales (74%) and lowest in England (25%). There is also a particularly notable difference between London (22%) and Greater Manchester (69%). This largely reflects service provision with 42% of households in England and 38% in London not served with a food waste collection, whereas all of Greater Manchester receives a service. The proportion of lapsed and non-users with a service is highest in Greater Manchester (26%) and Northern Ireland (20%) and lowest in Wales and England (15% and 14%, respectively). 8 For the purposes of data matching, a respondent who lives in an area where the local authority provides a food waste collection to % of kerbside properties is considered to have a service. This means that there is a small potential for error (i.e. a respondent does not have a service even though one is provided to the majority of other households in that area). Respondents living in areas which offer a partial kerbside collection (i.e. to 1-84% of households) are excluded from the analysis because there is too much uncertainty. Those with communal collections are excluded, as per dry recycling.

16 Behaviours, attitudes and awareness around recycling 16 Figure 4 Food waste disposal routes The graph shows the profile of food waste users, based on their responses to Q18 and Q19. Q18. Please indicate how your household last disposed of food waste? Q19. Have you ever used your council s food waste collection service? Base: Those who produce food waste (bases below in brackets). UK, Feb 2017 Turning to key variables: Age is a key influence with older households more likely to be correct users (36% of those aged 55+ vs. 21% of 18-34s). By contrast, 18-34s are more likely to be lapsed users (11% vs. 1% of those aged 55+) and non-users with a service (14% vs. 5%). Length of time living in the area also has an impact, with those living less than 2 years in the area more likely to be lapsed users (17% vs. 3% of those living in the area more than 10 years) and non-users with a service (15% vs. 9%). Being a food waste recycler is associated with being a more effective recycler. For example, food waste recyclers are more likely to fall into the top two dry recycling groups - Top Recyclers and Minor Issues (40% vs. 21% of non-users with a food recycling service). Turning to how food recyclers line their caddy, over three quarters (76%) use a liner bag split evenly between those provided with a free liner by their council (38%) and those who purchase their own (38%). A further 6% use newspaper, 5% a plastic bag, 7% nothing and 4% say they don t have a caddy in the kitchen. There has been no change since There is a pronounced difference across the UK nations and regions, with 78% of households in Wales and 62% in Greater Manchester provided with free liners (compared to 26% in England and 29% in London). The use of purchased liners is higher in England and London, as is the use of newspaper and plastic bags.

17 Behaviours, attitudes and awareness around recycling Room for improvement among users Food waste recyclers were asked whether they put any food items in the general rubbish. Just over half (52%) say that none of the items listed ever go in the general rubbish, while the remaining 48% select one or more items that do. The most commonly cited items are: Tea bags/coffee grounds (20%); Unopened food still in the packaging (19%); Bones (18%); and Egg shells (18%). Overall, among those users who say that items still go in the general rubbish, the average number of items cited is 3.5. There has been no change since Drawing on these findings, food waste recyclers were grouped according to how many food items they put in the general rubbish at least some of the time: High say they put none or just one food item in the general rubbish (68% of food waste recyclers overall); Medium say they put 2-3 food items in the general rubbish (15% of food waste recyclers overall); Low say they put 4+ food items in the general rubbish (17% of food waste recyclers overall). There are some significant differences by key variables: UK nation/region: Four in five (80%) of current food waste recyclers in Wales are high users, compared to 65% in England, 64% in Greater Manchester and 59% in London. Therefore, those in Wales are more likely to use the service and - when they do are more likely to be high users. Age: The majority (79%) of current food waste recyclers aged 55+ are high users, compared to 52% of 18-34s. Therefore, older age groups are more likely to use the service and when they do are more likely to be high users. Dry recycling behaviour groups: The majority (81%) of current food waste recyclers in Group 1 (Top Recyclers) are high users, compared to 59% of those in Group 6 (Multiple Issues). This once again supports the link between being an effective recycler and being an effective food waste recycler.

18 Behaviours, attitudes and awareness around recycling Barriers to the service among non-users Non-users who are aware of the food waste service that is provided locally were asked to identify the reasons they do not use it, and then the main reason (Figure 5). The main reasons include it would be too messy or smelly (15%), don t produce much/enough to bother (15%), and don t have a bin/caddy (9%). Concerns about hygiene and flies/foxes/vermin are also prominent within the top four reasons cited. Q21. What are the main reasons why you don t use the food waste collection in your area? Please select 1 main reason and up to 3 other reasons MULTI Base: Those who don t use the food waste collection, but think they have one (305). UK, Feb 2017 Time series comparisons show a decrease in the proportion of non-users citing flies / foxes / vermin as their main barrier (from 13% on 2016 down to 7% now).

19 Behaviours, attitudes and awareness around recycling Attitudes to food waste recycling Households with a local food recycling collection service (including both users and nonusers of the service) were asked to place themselves on a 0-10 scale across several different aspects of the service. The results demonstrate a number of positive changes over recent years: Understanding of the reasons why food waste recycling is important has increased - now achieving an average score of 7.0 out of 10 (where 10 = understand completely), compared to 6.4 in Knowledge of what happens to the food waste after it is collected has improved to 5.6 (where 10 = understand completely), compared to 4.6 in However, it remains low (aligning with findings from the Recycle Now refresh testing that demonstrated that, while the end process of dry recycling is clearer, the process for food recycling is not). Perceptions of how unpleasant it is to use the food waste collection service have improved now achieving a score of 6.7 out of 10 (where 10 = not unpleasant at all), compared to 5.9 in Overall feelings towards the food recycling service have improved achieving a rating of 7.1 out of 10 (where 10 = I think it is excellent ), compared to 6.5 in There has been no change in how much effort is required to use the service - which scores 4.6 (where 10 = it requires a huge amount of effort), compared to 4.4 in Likewise, there has been no change in perceptions of how much food waste is required to make using the service worthwhile which scores 4.2 (where 0 = worth it even with a small amount), compared to 4.2 in A consistent feature of the scores across all of these aspects is that they are poorer among non-users when compared to users. For example, those who have never used the service give a score of 5.7 for their understanding of the reasons why food waste recycling is important, compared to 6.5 among lapsed users and 7.5 among users. By contrast, lapsed users give the most negative score (6.2) for how much effort is required to use the service, compared to 5.7 among those who have never used the service and 3.7 among users. However, there have been some positive attitudinal shifts among non-users in recent years. For example, this group now shows more understanding of the reasons why food waste recycling is important (from 4.6 in 2015 to 5.7 now) and more understanding of what happens post-collection (from 2.8 to 4.6) although in both instances there is significant scope for further improvements. No change has been seen, however, in perceptions about service-based barriers, such as how much effort is required and how unpleasant it is to use.

20