COMMUNITY BASED SOCIAL MARKETING PAPER RECYCLING PROJECT 2007

Transcription

1 COMMUNITY BASED SOCIAL MARKETING PAPER RECYCLING PROJECT 2007 By Sue Martin Papakura District Council, Private Bag 7, Papakura. Phone INTRODUCTION In Papakura District, a weekly kerbside paper and cardboard recycling (paper recycling) collection has occurred since User pays refuse was implemented in July 2006 since refuse bag audits showed that 20% of the composition was made up of conforming recyclable materials. Whilst recycling bin participation and tonnage increased following this change (collection of glass, plastics, light steel and aluminium), the paper recycling did not. Papakura municipal refuse bag audits indicate that 14% of refuse bag composition is recyclable paper which extrapolates to 1104 tonnes per annum, 1 only 58% 2 of residents recycle paper compared to 74% of residents recycling bins regularly. Increased paper recycling would both help towards achieving Council s Waste Management Plan and support the principles in the New Zealand Waste Strategy. It was considered that the full cost of paper to landfill must include the not only the cost of landfilling it but also the opportunity cost of sale price of the materials to re-manufacturers in addition to the environmental and social externalities where less harmful effects occur to the environment and more people are employed through recycling. METHOLOGY Research was designed to achieve the following outcomes: 1: More Participation More residents participate regularly in recycling paper at the kerb 2: Correct Set-out More residents know how to set out the paper for the weekly collection correctly (largely promoting use of tied-off supermarket bags in a wind-safe manner.) 3: Comprehensive Materials Set-out More residents are able to identify the wide range of paper materials that can go in the recycling collection. These outcomes were specified by way of specific, measurable, achievable, realistic and time-bound objective criteria. A Community Based Social Marketing (CBSM) approach was selected because information on its own has been found to only change behaviour in two percent of people. Rather the CBSM approach seeks active engagement of people by way of a variety of Tools of Change that will overcome barriers to and reinforce the benefits of the desired behaviour change as cited in McKenzie Mohr. 1 Waste Not 2007 Report 2 Kerbside survey of 803 Households over 4 consecutive weeks, October

2 The timeframe of the project was from November 2006 and finished in July 2007.Partnerships with the following organisations were pursued with relevant stakeholders in order to maximise outcomes: the paper collection contractor, the paper processing company, other territorial authorities, particularly Auckland neighbours, packaging Accord / Paper Forum members. The author also spent 2 working days collecting the paper with the contractor to better understand setout qualitative issues and to influence the project design. Six stages were planned to achieve the outcomes of the project: Stage 1: Literature Search (November 2006 to February 2007) A was literature search was carried out to find relevant programmes and research which led to increased participation in kerbside paper recycling. These also took into account staff knowledge both in-house and from other councils. Stage 2: Focus Groups (February 2007) Findings from the literature search contributed to issues discussed in the two focus groups of eight people. Groups were held in evenings when a representative selection of the 2006 census was available. The key objectives of the focus groups were to: understand why people do or do not recycle paper, whether non recycling is due to a lack of knowledge, physical barriers, perceptions that it is not important or what, where paper recycling fits relative to other recycling eg glass, plastics etc, what solutions / interventions would encourage people to become regular recyclers. No Council staff attended the groups so that all feedback could be full and frank. Stage 3: Phone Survey (February / March 2007) A 300 household random phone survey was subsequently carried out. The goal of the survey was to gain further understanding of residential paper recycling behaviour and in particular the barriers and benefits of it. This would help to determine the most appropriate CBSM tools to use in the pilot. Residents were phoned till questionnaires were completed by a population sample representative of the 2006 census. The survey took ten to fifteen minutes per resident and is attached in the appendix. Stage 4: Selection of Pilot Tools of Change (March 2007) Tools of Change will be chosen from the following ways of engaging residents in paper recycling: financial incentives, reinforcing a behavioural norm, personalized message from a prominent resident, using individuals to build motivation over time, schools programmes that involve the family, work programmes that influence the home, prompts- e.g. a hook to hang a recycling plastic bag on, see if it will be necessary to give information in steps, decide how the project sustains continued change over time e.g. written commitment, norm appeals, recognition and feedback e.g. through community newspaper. 2

3 Stage 5: Delivery of Pilot Tools of Change (April 2007) A three hundred household survey sample was selected from socio-economically representative streets in the District. Pre and post pilot surveys were carried out over four consecutive weeks to project objectives to measure: participation in paper recycling, type of receptacle / presentation used for set-out, weight of paper set-out in recycling, whether set-out is wind safe, safe to collect and separate from the recycling bin. Also if these three qualitative measures were fully, partly or not of acceptable quality. In addition during one of the four weeks of survey pre and post pilot, the composition of recyclable paper was measured and weighed in both refuse and recycling set out. Stage 6: Evaluate Pilot (July 2007) Pilot results were then evaluated with a number of peers to determine if project objectives were achieved and whether the pilot tools of change are worth implementing, to one target group in the District, District wide or no implementation at all following the pilot. RESULTS Stage 1: Literature Search Results The literature research raised 47 issues for consideration from sources listed in the reference section and conversations with peers in other councils and industry. To practicably track these, an excel spreadsheet was set up to chart through every issue arising at each stage of the project so it s relevance could be reviewed throughout the subsequent stages of the project. Stage 2: Focus Group Results Two significant barriers dominated feedback at the focus groups: 1. Recycling paper must be easy i.e. residents did not want long list of conforming and nonconforming materials since this made recycling too hard 2. Recycling paper must be convenient i.e. they wanted Council to provide a wheelie bin for paper collection. In addition a wide range of information was gathered from the participants: the emotional appeal of caring for the environment is a key driver in participation, there was little knowledge of where paper goes once it is collected, existence of the collection was widely known, there was relatively little knowledge of the range of types of paper and cardboard that can or cannot be recycled, people had a variety of storage/ set-out systems that worked for them, in general they were happy with the weekly paper collection, they were surprised to find that participation District wide was only 58%, they wanted more information on recycling paper, they indicated strong preferences on what communication materials should and should not look like. Stage 3: Phone Survey Results Results related to participation in paper recycling (Outcome #1): 93% are aware there is weekly collection, 3

4 78% of participants did not know they could ring Council if collection has not occurred in order to arrange for collection, 74% are very keen on provision of a receptacle, 67% feel it is very important that Council promote paper recycling, 61% said recyclable packaging is not considered when purchasing products, 49% want feedback on what paper is recycled into, There is demand for key information on how to recycle, Single person households may recycle less. Results related to correct set-out (Outcome #2): 60 / 61% are aware box or bag is an acceptable receptacle, 21% were not aware, after prompting, that supermarket bags are acceptable receptacles, 41% aware tying bundles is desirable, 40% are either unsure or do not tie /tape their recycling plastic bag/ cardboard box. Results related to the range of recyclable materials (outcome #3): 76% want all paper materials to be "conforming", 63% feel they will increase their recycling if they have more information on what can be recycled. Target Groups Analysis of the survey included whether any particular demographic would need targeting over and above others in the pilot e.g. tenants. The survey found that those who recycle significant amounts of paper had personal values underlying their behaviour, e.g. that recycling helps the environment. There was no correlation by age, gender, income, ethnicity or home occupancy type with these serious recyclers It was therefore decided that the pilot would target the general community. Stage 4: Select Pilot Tools of Change The marketing mix listed below was implemented to a 300 household pilot based on a campaign brand developed by a graphic artist: 4

5 Place (Distribution) Mail-out to all households in the pilot Recycling Collection Product (Media) Social Prompt Tool - a supermarket bag holder Fridge Magnet - heavy paper (110mm x110mm) message with small magnet on the back Feedback Sticker - for refuse mixed in with recycling, used over the long term Promotion (Message) Print file on holder says Recycle all paper and cardboard. Tie it securely in a plastic bag residents are encouraged to store plastic supermarket bags in this bag holder and use bags as receptacles for recycling paper and cardboard Gives main 3 campaign messages: 1. Recycle all paper and cardboard 2. Tie it securely in a plastic bag (windsafe and strong receptacle) 3.Ring the Council if your recycling has not been collected or for any other queries Sticker explains that recycling must not be contaminated with refuse and set out correctly Post Card - delivered into nearest letter box/es used over a four consecutive week period with a goal of intense direct feedback Kerbside Spot prize Gift Hamper - encourages high quality setout and comprehensive recycling. Weekly prize given over four weeks of pilot Post Card gives feedback to resident that whilst we have collected their recycling, it needs to be wind-safe; in a strong enough receptacle and not mixed in with open crate recycling (tick appropriate category/s) Delivery of a gift basket of sustainable products Promote by way of flier delivered to all pilot households Stage 5: Pilot Implementation results The outcomes need to be measured by detailed objectives and results are charted below: Objective Measures required to Achieve Outcomes Result Pre Pilot 1a. Participation: 68% of residents recycle paper at least once in 4 consecutive weeks in the 300 household pilot area by way of a participation survey after the pilot treatment in autumn b. Weight in Recycling: Increase paper tonnage by 10% from the 300 household pilot 1520Kg area by way of a participation survey after the pilot treatment in autumn c. Weight in Refuse: Decrease paper weight set-out inside refuse bags by 10 % in the kg Result Post Pilot 59% 5% 1859kg 0.86kg Objective Achieved? No (4% down) 22% up 5

6 Objective Measures required to Achieve Outcomes Household pilot area by way of a refuse bag audit after the pilot treatment in autumn a. Set-out Quality: A 30% increase in the number of house holds with safe to collect set out above the pre-pilot baseline 2b. Set-out Quality: A 30% increase in the number of house holds with Fully wind safe set above the pre-pilot baseline Result Pre Pilot Result Post Pilot 90% 90% 29% 35% Objective Achieved? Decrease of 6.5% Pre pilot results were already with in the acceptable range. 21% up 2c. Set-out Quality: A 30% increase in the number of households with set-out separate from recycling bin above the pre-pilot baseline 3. Set-out Composition: A 50% increase in the set out range of paper materials for recycling collection in the 300 household pilot area by way of a participation survey two months after the pilot treatment in autumn % 98% Pre pilot results were already with in the acceptable range. Unable to measure but audits showed obvious improvements see graph below DISCUSSION ON RESULTS Two main Barriers The main findings from the focus groups were reiterated in the phone survey. The two key messages for a campaign remained the same: residents want a receptacle provided by Council (convenience), residents want to be able to set-out all materials that seem to be paper or cardboard (ease). It is considered that there is a need for a major response to these two issues since they dominated all other information derived from residents. The ideal outcome will be for Council to provide households with a receptacle in which they can place all paper materials to overcome the two largest barriers. They would also, in general terms, overcome poor set-out issues. Regarding provision of a receptacle there is no budget for such a collection methodology so that was not considered. Regarding desire to set out any paper and cardboard materials, there was a need to discuss the risk management issues with the collection contractor in particular. The main advantages to them are that the pilot campaign would increase yield, profit and simplicity for all concerned. The only real disadvantage to them is that the collection will take longer since the yield will be increased. The contractor agreed to pilot a no non-conforming materials paper collection because less than 3.5% non-conforming materials were set out in the pre-pilot survey. The post pilot survey subsequently indicated 1% of non-conforming materials in recycling composition. 6

7 The results were also presented to the paper sorting factory and the Paper Forum of the Packaging Accord who were positive about the pilot s three messages. Objective #1 Achievement: Mixed results have occurred in that a large increase in set-out weight occurred (22%), in spite of less participation (Down 4% to 54%). It is considered that the participation declined for the following reasons: the post pilot was carried out in June 2007 when cold weather began and fires would have been lit with paper, e.g. the author did not set out any paper in June due to fire lighting. Also the annual decline in monthly tonnage from March to June was 23% over seven years, less beverage consumption occurs in the colder weather and therefore less overall participation since some houses in the pre pilot only set out beverage boxes in March. Due to the historical decrease in paper tonnage from March to June annually, it could be inferred that the increase in tonnage for the combined pilot households was in the order of a 45% increase rather than the 22% recorded. Objective #2 Achievement: The following graph shows that there was a small improvement in set out wind safety: Fully wind-safe set out has increased by 21% where as it was hoped to achieve 30%. Set-out that was completely unwind-safe however has declined from 19% to 10% which was helpful. There is still a need to reinforce the message that set-out must be fully wind safe since only 55% was semi wind-safe. Both safety to collect and separation from recycling bins qualitative measures were not large concerns before or after the pilot but still need emphasis in art work. Quality of set-out did not improve at all for these two measures which were already at 90% and 98% respectively. Generally speaking, fully wind-safe set-out is safe to collect for contractors. Ironically there was a lower percent of recycling set out using plastic bags post pilot, 41%, compared to the pre-pilot rate of 43% whereas set-out in boxes increased. This is interesting because a major feature of the campaign was to use a plastic bag and tie it. 7

8 Set-Out and Frequency Patterns Of Desired Behaviour: Households of serious recyclers could be regarded as those who set out paper most weeks or who set out a large weight of materials over the survey period. Data from kerbside survey indicates that there is no pattern associated with serious recycling households with regard to choice of receptacle, frequency of set-out or wind safety of set-out. Those setting out the larger total weight may set it out in similar proportions each week or once in the four weeks in a large receptacle. The survey did not have the capacity to cross reference set out data with number of household occupants or any household materials flows of paper so the efficiency of recycling can not be known. Objective #3 Achievement: The table below indicates the nature of the composition of refuse that accumulated to a 6.5% reduction of paper in refuse, mainly a post pilot decline in newspapers, mass media and other printed material (office related papers). Conversely the table below indicates that composition of recycling paper post-pilot increased in the same materials types that decreased post pilot in refuse. The increase of non-recyclable paper in refuse also supports the project objectives. 8

9 Objective #3 needed to be measured by individual household audit, which was not possible given the resourcing of the project, so therefore cannot be directly reported. The underlying reason for this objective was to increase quantity collected which has been fully achieved and was made easier for residents since they were asked to recycle all paper and cardboard rather that a list of conforming materials. The pilot outcomes indicate that any District-wide implementation is appropriate and needs to focus on three main messages: recycle all paper and cardboard, set-out must be wind-safe e.g. well tied / taped (a box is also an acceptable receptacle as well as a plastic bag), contact Council if there are any concerns. CONCLUSION The project found that there were two major barriers to overcome: that all paper materials must be acceptable for the collection, (recycling must be easy) and that Council must provide a receptacle for the collection (recycling must be convenient). Other major outcomes were: an increase of 22% by weight of paper set-out follwing a promotion to recycle campaign, the increase occurred when the tonnage traditionally declines by 23%; therefore a possible increase of 45% in set-out weight, a reduction of paper in refuse of 6.5% by weight, a 21% increase in fully wind safe set-out and a halving of completely unsafe set-out), non-recyclable paper and non-paper was only one percent by weight of composition in recycling after the campaign, a high standard of quality of set out relating to safety to collect and separate paper setout form the recycling bin The pilot has been considered successful and worthwhile implementing District wide with some adjustments. 9

10 Appendix Papakura Paper Recycling Phone Survey Questionnaire February 2007 TELEPHONE HOUSEHOLDS AS INSTRUCTED QA QB Good morning/afternoon/evening. I'm Xxx from Research Solutions, the market research company. Papakura District Council has asked us to conduct a survey of Papakura households about rubbish and recycling. We have selected your phone number at random. The person I need to interview is the male / female head of house. Who would that be? (RECORD NAME ON SAMPLING SHEET). May I speak to him/her please? QC REINTRODUCE IF NEEDBE My questions will take about 8 to 10 minutes. Is now convenient or when would be a better time to call back? Now Call Back RECORD DAY: TIME: Q1 Q2 Thinking firstly about the weekly rubbish and recycling collection, on average, about how many red bags would you put out to be collected each week. RECORD NUMBER (IF HALF A BAG RECORD AS 0.5 ETC, ONE AND A HALF BAGS AS 1.5 ETC. IF DON T USE CIRCLE ACCORDINGLY) NO OF BAGS: No bags use wheelie bin No bags dispose some other way Thinking just about recycling paper and cardboard, do you feel recycling paper and cardboard will make a big difference, some difference or very little difference to the environment overall? (CIRCLE ONE ONLY) Big difference Some difference Very little difference Not sure Q3 Are you aware there is a weekly recycling collection for paper and cardboard that collection is also on your normal rubbish day? (CIRCLE ONE ONLY) Yes aware No not aware SKIP TO Q8 Q4 Some people put paper and cardboard out for collection every week, others every few weeks and others hardly ever, if at all. About how often, if at all, do you put paper or cardboard out for collection? Would it be (READ OUT ALL OPTIONS BEFORE CIRCLING ONE ONLY) 10

11 Most weeks SKIP TO Q7 About once every couple of weeks CONTINUE ON Q5 About once a month CONTINUE ON Q5 About once every few months SKIP TO Q6 Less often SKIP TO Q6 Never SKIP TO Q6 Q5 What main things stop you putting paper or cardboard out for collection each week? (CIRCLE OR RECORD ALL MENTIONED PROBING FOR ANY OTHER THINGS. DO NOT READ LIST) Lack of time, too busy Too lazy, can t be bothered every week Don t collect enough to make it worthwhile Prefer to wait until the container / carton / bag is full Prefer to wait until the pile is big enough to warrant the effort Difficult to find a container to use Easier, prefer to put some in the rubbish Hard to get other household members to do it Recycle some of it somewhere else, some other way Collection can be unreliable, sometimes not picked up Don t actually believe it is recycled, just goes to tip anyway Don t believe it helps environment, no value, no benefit Some other reason RECORD WHAT All skip to Q7 Q6 What main things stop you putting paper or cardboard out for collection? (CIRCLE OR RECORD ALL MENTIONED PROBING FOR ANY OTHER THINGS. DO NOT READ LIST) Lack of time, too busy with other things, other priorities Too lazy, can t be bothered Don t collect enough to make it worthwhile Difficult to find a container to use Haven t got anywhere to store it, not enough space to store it Prefer / find it easier to put it in the rubbish bin Too untidy keeping it in the house Can t get other household members to recycle Don t know what can and can t be put out Don t know how you are supposed to put it out Recycle it some other way, give to school, compost etc Don t actually believe it is recycled, just goes to tip anyway Don t believe it helps environment, no value, no benefit Collection can be unreliable, sometimes not picked up

12 Some other reason RECORD WHAT Q7 Did you know that if you have put your paper out for collection by 7am and it does not get collected that day, you can ring the Council and they will arrange for it to be collected within 24 hours? (CIRCLE ONE ONLY) Yes - did know No did not know Not sure Q8 There is a wide range of different types of paper and cardboard some of which can be recycled and some which cannot at this stage. I m going to read out a list of different types. For each one I read out please tell me whether you think it can or cannot be recycled. (READ OUT ONE AT A TIME CIRCLING ONE ONLY FOR EACH AS YOU GO. KEEP R FOCUSED ON WHAT THEY THINK NOT WHAT THEY DO) Yes can No can t Not sure a Newspapers b Glossy magazines c Junk mail or circulars printed mainly in black and white d Highly coloured junk mail or circulars e Paper that you have used in your computer printer f Eftpos and till receipts g Milk cartons h Egg cartons i Pizza boxes j Small packets such as toothpaste or tissue boxes k Boxes that contained frozen food l Mid size cartons such as small appliance or toy boxes m Large corrugated cartons such as large appliance boxes n Wet paper or cardboard o Envelopes p Gift or wrapping paper 12 3 Q9 I m going to read out that list again. This time can you tell me what your household usually does with that type of paper. The options are put it in the rubbish, burn it, put it out for recycling, give it to someone else to use or something else. If you don t get a particular item very often just tell me what you would do if you did have it. (READ OUT ONE AT A TIME CIRCLING ONE ONLY FOR EACH AS YOU GO. IF SOMETHING ELSE PROBE FOR WHAT AND RECORD. IF SOMEONE SHREDS ASK WHAT HAPPENS TO THE SHREDDINGS) 12

13 Rubbish Burn Recycle Give it away a Newspapers b Glossy magazines c Junk mail or circulars printed mainly in black and white d Highly coloured junk mail or circulars e Paper that you have used in your computer printer f Eftpos and till receipts g Milk cartons h Egg cartons i Pizza boxes j Small packets such as toothpaste or tissue boxes k Boxes that contained frozen food l Mid size cartons such as small appliance or toy boxes m Large corrugated cartons such as large appliance boxes n Wet paper or cardboard o Envelopes p Gift or wrapping paper Something else RECORD WHAT Q10 You can put your paper and cardboard out for collection in several different ways. What ways are you aware of? (CIRCLE OR RECORD ALL MENTIONED IN GRID BELOW CLARIFYING IF NEED BE THAT WE ARE ASKING ABOUT HOW TO SET IT OUT ON THE VERGE) Q10 CIRCLE MENTIONED ALL Q11 PROMPTED AWARENESS Yes No Put it out in a carton or box Put it out in a supermarket bag Tie it up using string, twine or tape Other RECORD WHAT XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX Q11 CHECK Q10 IN GRID. FOR EACH ONE NOT CIRCLED, IE R DID NOT MENTION, ASK And did you know you could (READ OUT WAY AND CIRCLE ONE ONLY IN GRID ABOVE) 13

14 Q12 If you were using a supermarket bag to put your paper out would you tend to tie the top of the bag or leave it open? (CIRCLE ONE ONLY) Tie top Leave open Not sure Q13 If you were using a carton would you tend to put a lid on it or tape the top down, put a weight on top of the paper or leave it open? (CIRCLE ONE ONLY) Put a lid on it / tape over Put weight on paper Leave open Not sure Q14 Given that the bag or carton that you put the paper out in usually gets taken away as well, how easy is it, or would it be, for you to organise a container ready for the next time? Is it very easy, fairly easy, fairly hard or very hard? (CIRCLE ONE ONLY) Very easy Fairly easy Fairly hard Very hard Not sure Q15 When buying products some people take into account whether the packaging can be recycled or not when deciding what product to buy, others don t. How much influence is the type of packaging around a product in your decision as to whether to buy it or not. Would it usually be a big influence, a small influence or not really an influence at all? (CIRCLE ONE ONLY) Big influence Small influence Not an influence at all Not sure Q16 Some people feel it is important for Council to encourage people to recycle more paper and cardboard, others don t. How important do you feel it is? Would you say it is (READ OUT ALL OPTIONS BEFORE CIRCLING ONE ONLY) Very important CONTINUE ON Q17 Fairly important CONTINUE ON Q17 Not that important CONTINUE ON Q17 DO NOT READ OUT Not sure SKIP TO Q18 Q17 And why do you feel that way? ( RECORD FULLY WITH PROBING) Q18 People have suggested a number of different ways that could help make it easier for people to recycle more paper and cardboard. For each idea that I read out please tell me whether that would be very likely, fairly likely or not that likely to encourage your household to recycle 14

15 more paper and cardboard? (READ OUT A TO G IN TURN CIRCLING ONE ONLY FOR EACH AS YOU GO) a Provide information on what types of paper and cardboard can and cannot be recycled b Suggest ways that you could store paper in your home waiting for the weekly collection c Provide reminder stickers to help household members remember to recycle paper d Provide a container, such as a bin, to store and put the paper out for collection in e Provide advice on how to put the paper out for collection f Provide information on what happens to recycled paper and the types of products it is turned into g Accept all types of paper and cardboard in the collection Very likely Fairly likely Not that likely Not sure Q19 Have you any other suggestions as to ways that would make it easier for households like yours to recycle more paper and cardboard (RECORD FULLY WITH PROBING) Q20 Thinking about the red rubbish bags, how interested would you be in being able to buy a half sized bag for about 85 cents? Would you be very interested, fairly interested, not that interested or not at all interested? (CIRCLE ONE ONLY. IF R ASKS A HALF SIZE BAG WOULD BE 35 LITRES, FULL SIZE IS 70 LITRES AND COSTS $1.30) Very int Fairly int Not that int Not at all int Not sure Q21 Finally, just a quick few questions about you to help us understand the results. I'm going to read out some age groups, please tell me to stop when I reach yours? (READ OUT AND CIRCLE ONE ONLY WHEN TOLD TO STOP) 15 to to to to to DO NOT READ OUT REFUSED 7 Q22 CIRCLE Man Woman

16 Q23 How many people, including children, usually live in your household? (CIRCLE ONE ONLY) Q24 Which ethnic group or groups you consider you belong to? (CIRCLE OR RECORD) Asian / Chinese / Taiwanese / Korean European / New Zealander / English Indian Maori Pacific People (any) Other RECORD Q25 Which of these best describes your total household income, before tax? Is it (READ OUT ALL OPTIONS BEFORE CIRCLING ONE ONLY) Less than $20, Between $20,000 and $35, Between $35,000 and $50, Between $50,000 and $70, Between $70,000 and $100, More than $100, DO NOT READ OUT Refused Q26 Do you own the home you live in or any another residential property in Papakura? (CIRCLE ONE ONLY) Owner Tenant Q27 Q28 Q29 Q30 Do you have a no circular or no junk mail sign on your letter box? (CIRCLE ONE ONLY) Yes No No letter box / Post Box only Do you regularly buy or subscribe to a daily newspaper? (CIRCLE ONE ONLY) Yes No We need to ensure that we have spoken to a good cross section of people right across the district. Can you tell me the name of the street or road that you live in? (RECORD CAREFULLY ASKING RESPONDENT TO SPELL IT IF AT ALL UNSURE) Thank you very much for your help. May I just have your name in case my supervisor wishes to check anything. Your first name is all we need. RECORD NAME : PHONE : Q31 Thank you for your help. Certification: I hereby certify that this is a true and correct record of an interview conducted by me according to the instructions that I was given and according to the Market Research Society Code of Practice. 16

17 NAME : SIGNED: Acknowledgements: I wish to thank Aaron Thorburn who was a Waste Reduction Officer with Council during the research for his hard work in assistance with surveying, auditing and meeting the project deadlines. Also thanks to my Director- David Cox, the contractor - Streetsmart Limited, the post collection processor-albrite Industries and members of the Packaging Council and Paper Forum. Their valuable feedback for the project that has contributed to District-wide implementation of the pilot in September REFERENCES Barr S and Ford N.J and Gilg AW. (2003, August), Attitudes towards recycling household waste in Exeter, Devon: Quantitative and qualitative approaches. Local Environment, Vol 8. Carfax Publishing. Available: ards+recycling+household+waste+in+exeter,+...%22+%26hl%3den%26lr%3d%26cr%3d countrynz%26oi%3dscholarr (Accessed : 2006, December 4) Bryce W J and Day Rachel (1997) Commitment approach to motivating community recycling, Journal of Consumer Affairs. Available: (Accessed 2006,December 4) Cameron L D ( 2002) Document #: Warmer Bulletin, January 2002 Environment Waikato Technical Report 2002/13 (2002) Promoting Positive Environmental Behaviours through Community Interventions, a Case Study of Waste Minimisation, Available: (Accessed 2006, December 18) Greater London Authority (2001) An Assembly investigation into barriers to greater recycling in London, Available: (Accessed 2007, January 17) McKenzie-Mohr M and Smith W. (1999) Fostering Sustainable Behaviour: An Introduction to Community Based Social Marketing. (2 nd Ed.) New Society, Gabriola Island, British Columbia, Canada. 17

18 Menzies S (Date not printed) Can social marketing provide a model to address New Zealand s major environmental problems?, Available: (Accessed 2006 December 4) Schultz P (1998). Changing Behaviour with normative feedback interventions: A field experiment on kerbside recycling. Basic and Applied Social Psychology. Available: Open Polytechnic of New Zealand electronic library. Stone L (2002) CAE Resource Stewardship/Waste Minimisation Project Phase 1 Report: Assessment of Waste Minimisation Activities in New Zealand. Report prepared for the Ministry for the Environment, New Zealand. Waste Not Consulting (2007) Paper Composition of Bagged Refuse. Report Prepared for Papakura District Council. 18