MULTI-FAMILY RECYCLING INCENTIVE PILOT PROGRAM FINAL REPORT

Transcription

1 SEPTEMBER 8, 2017 MULTI-FAMILY RECYCLING INCENTIVE PILOT PROGRAM FINAL REPORT PREPARED FOR: THE CITY OF ANN ARBOR 301 E. HURON ST. ANN ARBOR, MI PREPARED BY: RECYCLE ANN ARBOR 2420 S. INDUSTRIAL HWY. ANN ARBOR, MI 48104

2 MULTI-FAMILY RECYCLING INCENTIVE PILOT PROGRAM TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Report Summary Interpreting Project Results and Limitations Introduction and Background Summary of Best Management Practices from other Communities Participating Pilot Communities and Pre-Program Surveys Process of Engagement and Choosing Pilot Communities Challenges of Engagement and Choosing Pilot Communities Pilot Program Demographics Future Demographics to Study Overview of Pilot Program Communities Pre-Program Community Surveys Pilot Program Methods Chosen Field Waste Assessment Surveys Structure and Implementation of Methods Results of the Field Waste Assessment Surveys Conclusions of the Field Waste Assessment Surveys Challenges of Conducting the Field Waste Assessment Surveys Recommendations for the Field Waste Assessment Surveys Indoor Recycling Bin Program Structure and Implementation of Methods Results of the Indoor Recycling Bin Program and Behavior Surveys Conclusions of the Indoor Recycling Bin Program and Behavior Surveys Challenges of Implementing the Indoor Recycling Bin Program and Behavior Surveys Recommendations for the Indoor Recycling Bin Program Rewards Program Structure and Implementation of Methods Results of the Rewards Program Conclusions of the Rewards Program Challenges of Implementing the Rewards Program Continued i

3 6.5 Recommendations for the Rewards Program Acknowledgements Appendices Appendix A: Best Management Practices Research from Multi-Family Unit Recycling Programs Appendix B: Iris Waste Diversion Specialist s Residential Pre-Program Survey Results and Iris Waste Report Appendix Appendix C: Examples of Engagement Surveys and Program Tools ii

4 MULTI-FAMILY RECYCLING INCENTIVE PILOT PROGRAM TABLE OF FIGURES Figure 1 Recycling Tonnage Chart- All Properties Figure 2 Recycling Cart Fill Rate Vs. Contamination Rate- All Properties Figure 3 Average of Trash Dumpsters Containing Recyclable Materials Figure 4 Has the Indoor Bin You Received Changed Your Recycling Behavior At All? Figure 5 Have You Been Pleased with the Size (7-gallons) of the Indoor Bin? Figure 6 Where in Your Unit Did You Place Your Indoor Bin? Figure 7 Recycling Tonnage Chart for GreenBrier Figure 8 Recycling Cart Fill Rate Vs. Contamination Rate- GreenBrier By Inspection Date iii

5 MULTI-FAMILY RECYCLING INCENTIVE PILOT PROGRAM 1. REPORT SUMMARY Recycle Ann Arbor was contracted by the City of Ann Arbor in July 2014 to conduct a 2-year pilot program centered on the need to better understand the recycling behavior and challenges of the multifamily unit sector in the City of Ann Arbor. According to the 2014 City of Ann Arbor Residential Profile, approximately half of the residential dwelling units in the City of Ann Arbor are multi-family units. 1 Challenges often stem from the transient and temporary status that tenants and staff of multi-family units have. This pilot program directly assisted the City of Ann Arbor in reaching a goal from the Ann Arbor Solid Waste Resource Plan ( ). A section of the plan details the use of pilot projects and education to identify methods to increase recycling participation of residents in multi-family communities. Specifically, Action 1 Increase recycling participation through pilots, such as introducing a recycling incentive program for multi-family dwellings. The Multi-Family Recycling Incentive Pilot Program focused on the following objectives: Research Other Multi-Family Unit (MFU) Programs for Developing Best Management Practices Work with Pilot Communities (1,000+ dwelling units) to Increase Recycling Participation o Conduct a recycling behavior survey of selected pilot communities to better understand the challenges and opportunities for recycling in this sector o Identify pilot parameters and measurement protocols Test recycling interventions (methods) at properties selected. Potential methods initially proposed: recycling rewards program, indoor bins, recycling leader volunteer program, and/or larger recycling carts Collect Program Data and Create Program Methods that are Replicable to Other Communities in Ann Arbor and throughout North America Provide Detailed Recommendations to the City of Ann Arbor and Pilot Communities The three pilot MFU communities involved in this study were: Arbor Landings Apartments, Glacier Hills Senior Living Community, and GreenBrier Apartments. The two population types chosen as the focus of this study were: Young Professionals and Senior Citizens which represented 56% 3 of Ann Arbor. 1 City of Ann Arbor Publication (2014). "Ann Arbor Residential Profile" [Online]. Available: goo.gl/qtqozi [2016, December]. 2 City of Ann Arbor Publication (2013). "Waste Less: Solid Waste Resource Plan Update " [Online]. Available: [2016, December]. 3 Calculation based on 2010 US Census Bureau data for the City of Ann Arbor s total population of 113,934 individuals. Young Professionals (defined as years in age) represented 43,369 individuals or 38.1% of the total population of Ann Arbor. Senior Citizens (defined as 55+ years in age) represented 21,063 individuals or 18.5% of the total population of Ann Arbor. These percentages equal out to 56% of the total Ann Arbor population. 1

6 Based on pre-program community surveys, indoor bins (for Arbor Landings and Glacier Hills) and a rewards program (for GreenBrier) were the interventions (methods) chosen to test for this pilot program. Follow-up behavior surveys, community engagement, recycling education, and field waste surveys were all conducted by Recycle Ann Arbor staff during the implementation phase to gauge program success and gather data. Results were analyzed based on the specific intervention programs, but also presented a sense of the overall MFU recycling behaviors at these pilot communities from the field waste surveys conducted. Results of the field waste surveys showed tonnage decreased and contamination rates were high during the pilot program. The Rewards program model did not achieve increased recycling participation at GreenBrier. However, the Indoor Bin program at Arbor Landings and Glacier Hills did show encouraging results even with a small sample size. Detailed recommendations and program alterations are outlined in the specific program sections of this report (p.12-38). Further discussion with the City of Ann Arbor is necessary to address the action plans, budget, and time required to implement the recommendations provided in this report. 1.1 INTERPRETING PROJECT RESULTS AND LIMITIATIONS: The findings of this study represent 4% of the total Ann Arbor MFU communities and only those demographics (young professionals and senior citizens) we chose to study for this particular pilot program. Within reason, these results cannot be said to represent all MFU tenants in the City of Ann Arbor, but instead offer a glimpse into the recycling behaviors of the MFU sector that was not before available and provide a framework for future efforts. It should be noted that the results of this study were limited by a small sample size and participation rate, due in part to limited MFU staff engagement and the overall transient nature of the tenants. Additionally, our program methods (interventions) were structured in such a way that the MFU community members in the three pilot communities chose what would ultimately be tested in their community. Those community members who participated in the surveys were generally recycling already, which may have biased the methods and results. It may also be that the methods chosen for this pilot program did not represent the entirety of the community leading to some programs not performing as well as anticipated. Although the results presented in this report may appear negative in nature they actually provide an opportunity to learn what didn t work in our test communities and demographics, speculate as to why it didn t work, and most importantly offer alternative program methods and recommendations for future consideration. There is still much to be learned, locally and nationally, about engaging with MFU tenants and only through additional, repeatable studies will a broader understanding be gained. Ultimately, this study affirmed that despite what we hoped for (an incentive program that would increase recycling participation), there most likely is not one solution for increasing recycling in the Ann Arbor MFU sector. Although the methods in our program did not necessarily work for the two demographics tested, and the three communities piloted, they may be more successful in other cities or even other demographics within the Ann Arbor community. The constructed methods, data collection, 2

7 and program structure presented in this report are readily available to be replicated in other communities. Despite these shortcomings, the study did provide the City of Ann Arbor detailed data sets within these MFU communities and populations that provide a starting point for future studies. Exploring options for similar projects to be conducted by University of Michigan Graduate students would be a cost effective way for the City of Ann Arbor to perform further research into recycling best practices and/or recycling behavior studies of the MFU sector. An individual s participation in a recycling program is often a combination of psychological, cultural, and economic choices; these factors should be incorporated into future studies for a more holistic look at recycling behavior. Future studies should also consider first performing a City-wide survey, 4 targeted at all MFU complexes, to gather more comprehensive information on what actually engages this population to recycle. 2. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND According to the 2014 City of Ann Arbor Residential Profile, approximately half of the residential dwelling units in the City of Ann Arbor are multi-family units. 5 A City of Ann Arbor waste sort conducted in 2012 showed that 26% of trash from this sector was composed of recyclable items, whereas the single-family home sort showed only 12%. 6 The multi-family unit (MFU) sector 7 in Ann Arbor faces recycling challenges that are not often present in the single-family home (SFH) 8 setting. Challenges often stem from the transient and temporary status that tenants and staff of MFU complexes typically have. Those challenges, and others specific to MFU recycling, are further addressed below. Recycling guidelines and access vary throughout the world, with some tenants arriving in Ann Arbor never having had the opportunity to recycle before. MFU communities are often made up of tenants varied by age, culture, and values; yet all living in one complex with shared access to solid waste systems. Based on the 2014 City of Ann Arbor Residential Profile, 17.8% of Ann Arbor s population is foreign born which can further complicate communication of recycling practices due to language and cultural barriers that may exist. Maintaining access to those recycling guidelines for a diverse and transient population is an ongoing challenge. Guidelines in multiple languages, or with universally recognized images, have to be made available on a continual basis and in multiple formats (print and digital) to reach such a varied audience. Additionally, the temporary status of MFU tenants often does not allow individuals to fully integrate into the Ann Arbor community, which can lead to apathetic feelings about participating in community programs, such as recycling. Individuals who are only in Ann Arbor for a limited period may not take the time to actively seek out information, which makes consistent and constant distribution of education 4 Due to the budget of this particular pilot program, a City-wide survey was not an option. 5 City of Ann Arbor Publication (2014). "Ann Arbor Residential Profile, p.1 (full footnote). 6 City of Ann Arbor Publication (2013). "Waste Less: Solid Waste Resource Plan Update , p.1 (full footnote). 7 Dwelling, multi-family. A building containing 3 or more dwelling units arranged either side by side or 1 above the other." City of Ann Arbor City Code Chapter 55 Zoning, 5:1-Definitions (18) [Online]. Available: goo.gl/xosxks [2016, December]. 8 Single-family dwelling. A detached building containing 1 dwelling unit." City of Ann Arbor City Code Chapter 55 Zoning, 5:1- Definitions (53) [Online]. Available: goo.gl/xosxks [2016, December]. 3

8 even more important for this audience. As of 2014, communication of solid waste programs in the City of Ann Arbor has shifted from print to mainly digital formats which could hinder education reaching those populations without (or limited) internet access. Staff and property managers also often have high turn-over throughout these communities, which creates challenges to getting consistent recycling messaging to all tenants. Administrative and maintenance staff are often tasked with the bulk of recycling facilitation; including education, infrastructure, billing, and addressing tenant concerns. Staff turn-over can impact MFU recycling programs running consistently throughout a community. Also, transition of property staff can lead to a loss of institutional knowledge and the relationships built between a property and the solid waste hauler. MFU staff are often viewed as the gatekeepers for allowing hauler access to a community for resident engagement and education; which can make or break a recycling program. In the City of Ann Arbor, some property management companies or corporations that manage MFU communities are entirely based out-of-state which further complicates communication, engagement attempts, and understanding of local recycling practices. Recycle Ann Arbor has also observed that recycling challenges at MFU communities can be due to insufficient solid waste infrastructure, such as the number and overall access to carts and/or dumpsters. For instance, many of the Ann Arbor MFU complexes have solid waste containers that are shared among all the tenants and may not be in a convenient location for tenant use. Shared containers also make it nearly impossible to know which individual or building may be recycling incorrectly which impedes the ability for targeted education. It has also been observed that some complexes do not have a sufficient number of solid waste receptacles for all the tenants, which leads to material overflow and waste being discarded in whichever receptacle is not full (which can lead to contamination issues). Illegal dumping by the public and maintenance staff overutilizing containers for property generated waste disposal (cardboard boxes, appliances, etc.) can also plague MFU solid waste areas; which can contribute to reduced space for tenant s items and even lead to a misrepresentation of the community s recycling patterns. These challenges are typically not present in a SFH setting since each Ann Arbor resident has their own cart and generally convenient curbside collection. Eureka Recycling, a local non-profit recycler based in Minneapolis, MN, cited their challenges in the MFU sector to be similar: high resident and management turnover, space restrictions, and diverse building size, structure, and demographics. 9 Finding ways to overcome these challenges specific to the MFU sector would offer the City of Ann Arbor an opportunity to engage a population that could increase the City s overall recycling participation rate. 2.1 SUMMARY OF BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FROM OTHER COMMUNITIES Prior to starting this pilot program, The City of Ann Arbor proposed researching other community s multi-family unit programs as a way to build off of other s success and learn what was already being 9 Eureka Recycling Publication (2014). "Best Practices in Multifamily (Apartment) Recycling Report" [Online]. Available: [2016, December]. 4

9 done in the field. Success is defined here as communities that have made substantial, sustained investment in the recycling programs that serve multi-family populations and have identified methods that they have found to be helpful in achieving recycling participation. This research was accomplished by internet searches, researching key case studies, phone calls, and s with targeted communities. It was decided to focus the research on cities and programs that were most similar to Ann Arbor either in size, culture, and/or demographics so that any useable research would be most applicable to the Ann Arbor community. The Best Management Practices from Multi-Family Unit Recycling Programs Across the United States document (Appendix A, p.41) provides detailed information (population size, MFU housing data, key engagement strategies used, etc) on six programs that Recycle Ann Arbor found to be the most successful based on our initial definition above. It is worth noting that none of the programs researched had comprehensive tonnage/participation information on their multi-family recycling programs, with services incorporated into other municipal collection activities or provided by one or more private haulers. Recycle Ann Arbor s original proposal response identified San Francisco, CA; New York City, NY; Iowa City, IA; Boulder, CO; Toronto, Canada; and Madison, WI as the cities most likely to yield the most promising information and results. However, once research began it was determined that some of these cities were not similar enough in size or culture to Ann Arbor (New York City, NY), did not have a robust MFU recycling program (Iowa City, IA), did not return requests for information (Madison, WI), or were outside of the United States (Toronto, Canada). However, our final research found the cities of Minneapolis, MN; Alameda, CA; Boulder, CO; Chicago, IL; Fort Collins, CO; and Fresno, CA most useful and applicable to the City of Ann Arbor due to their similar demographics and MFU recycling programs. These locations and their program details are provided in the Best Management Practices document of this report (Appendix A) for thorough review. There seem to be a number of common themes from the best practices research, and these highlighted communities have developed six strong pillars for action: On-going education and outreach Strong economic incentives to motivate owner and tenant behavior Individualized support for specific properties and management Clear and effective container signage Adequate indoor and outdoor recyclables storage On-site volunteers/staff engaged in making recycling successful As it is presented in this report, many of these key practices were broadly worked into our pilot program in some manner. However, not all practices were able to be implemented in our pilot communities during this program. Instead, this document is meant to be a resource for additional program practices that the City of Ann Arbor may explore for future multi-family outreach. 5

10 3. PARTICIPATING PILOT COMMUNITIES AND PRE-PROGRAM SURVEYS 3.1 PROCESS OF ENGAGEMENT AND CHOOSING PILOT COMMUNITIES To start the pilot program, from October 2014-January 2015, Recycle Ann Arbor contacted six potential property management companies and complexes to inquire regarding their interest in participating in the recycling pilot program. Initial property contact was done by , with follow-up phone calls and in-person meetings when necessary. Recycle Ann Arbor and City of Ann Arbor team brainstorm sessions were conducted between October-November to determine what demographics to highlight and how to best choose the communities to participate. The Recycle Ann Arbor team considered factors such as: past history and positive communication with properties; collection routing and survey challenges; communities that could benefit from better recycling practices; and which communities would encompass a diverse set of populations to participate. The overall goal was to include at least 1,000 dwelling units in the pilot program. In the end, three complexes agreed to fully participate which aligned with the project target of engaging 1,000 units. 3.2 CHALLENGES OF ENGAGEMENT AND CHOOSING PILOT COMMUNITIES Recruiting properties and engaging MFU staff to participate in the program was the most challenging aspect of the pilot program. Recycle Ann Arbor staff spent more time than envisioned on recruiting pilot communities to participate due to challenges with property staff turn-over, property corporate involvement, tenant privacy concerns, and property staff being overcommitted in other areas already. Careful effort was taken with each of the potential community contacts to establish relationships and trust for the study. Recycle Ann Arbor staff met with interested property managers and maintenance staff to discuss the pilot program goals, possible benefits to their community s recycling program, expectations of property staff, and time frame of the program. However, specific property restrictions to resident engagement (such as no door-to-door engagement) were not thoroughly discussed in initial conversations with the pilot communities. Recruitment for future properties should be very clear about the limitations and ability to interact with residents since this became a main challenge during the pilot program. Those three complexes that chose not to participate in the pilot program all cited lack of staff time and/or limited staff as a reason they could not commit to the 2-year pilot program. Even though Recycle Ann Arbor explained that the majority of the pilot program would be conducted by RAA staff, they still did not feel comfortable committing to any additional programs that could distract MFU staff from their property duties. Many MFU communities operate with a small staff who handles the recycling, which makes additional programs seem unattainable to property managers. One property that was contacted to participate felt that their community was already recycling well so they did not see the need for the pilot program. Another complex could not get approval from the out-of-state corporation that governed their property even though they were interested in the program. Overall, MFU staff appear to be very hesitant of outside solicitations that they feel could compromise their resident s privacy and trust. 6

11 3.3 PILOT PROGRAM DEMOGRAPHICS Realistically, this 2-year pilot program couldn t be inclusive to every population type in the City of Ann Arbor. Populations that represented 56% of Ann Arbor were chosen with the idea that piloting the program with these populations could have a long-term effect on recycling behaviors in Ann Arbor since they may be more permanent residents of the community. The two population types chosen for this project were: Young Professionals (defined as years in age) represented 43,369 individuals or 38.1% of the total population of Ann Arbor based on 113,934 individuals. o Targeted for the pilot program with these assumptions in mind: They have chosen to either stay in Ann Arbor after graduating from the University of Michigan or other educational establishment; or they have chosen to move here for a career, partner, etc. It is anticipated that they are the population that would be more likely to establish roots in the community and carry on their recycling behavior for years to come. Senior Citizens (defined as 55+ years in age) represented 21,063 individuals or 18.5% of the total population of Ann Arbor based on 113,934 individuals. o Targeted for the pilot program with these assumptions in mind: Although they are living in an apartment setting, they are probably the least transient population in this type of housing structure given that they have chosen to retire in the Ann Arbor community. For reference, the demographic information above was obtained from the 2010 US Census Bureau data. As of that time, the total Ann Arbor population was 113,934 individuals which included University of Michigan students. These two population percentages (38.1% and 18.5%) equal out to represent 56% of the total Ann Arbor population. 3.4 FUTURE DEMOGRAPHICS TO STUDY This pilot program was focused on just two demographics, the Young Professionals and the Senior Citizens, given the assumptions discussed above. Off-campus students, low income tenants, and tenants living in high-rise dwellings, were not studied during this pilot program for several reasons: These populations did not represent over half of the Ann Arbor population. Property contacts were not readily available to work with at the time of this study. There was an initial desire to avoid working with a seasonally transient population such as college students. However, the City of Ann Arbor should investigate the following demographics in future studies to gather a detailed understanding of other population and housing types in the City of Ann Arbor. The City of Ann Arbor can also consider working with condominium MFU properties, versus traditional MFU rental units, since condominiums have a better chance of being owned by Ann Arbor residents and this may present the opportunity to work with a more permanent MFU population. 7

12 Suggested organizational contacts are also listed to assist the City of Ann Arbor with future engagement efforts. These organizations are listed based on past Recycle Ann Arbor collaboration. Off-campus University of Michigan students in MFU housing o Why study this population? This population affords the opportunity to study a seasonally transient set of individuals who often only live in the community for the duration of their educational years. o What local organizations exist to assist with these efforts? The University of Michigan s Beyond the Diag program The University of Michigan s Office of Campus Sustainability The Washtenaw Area Apartment Association (WA3) The University of Michigan s Office of Greek Life Low income tenants in MFU housing o Why study this population? This population is often understudied in the solid waste industry and could provide insight into lifestyle and educational challenges that may impact one s ability or desire to participate in recycling. o What local organizations exist to assist with these efforts? The City of Ann Arbor Housing Commission Avalon Housing Community Action Network (CAN) High-rise MFU tenants and downtown properties o Why study this population? The availability of high-rise and downtown properties is growing rapidly within the Ann Arbor community. Since 2000, 740 housing units have been constructed and more than 300 units are under construction in the City of Ann Arbor s downtown. 10 A high rise building model represents the ability to study challenges not often present in a traditional MFU community outside the downtown area; such as shared access to recycling provided by centrally located chutes on each building level instead of the ground floor. o What local organizations exist to assist with these efforts? The City of Ann Arbor s Downtown Development Authority (DDA) and Downtown Area Citizens Advisory Council The Washtenaw Area Apartment Association (WA3) 10 DDA Ann Arbor website: "Residential Buildings in Downtown Ann Arbor" [Online]. Available: [2016, December]. 8

13 3.5 OVERVIEW OF PILOT PROGRAM COMMUNITIES The pilot program focused on three different communities, which totaled 1,047 units (4% of the total MFU units in the City of Ann Arbor). The communities chosen had staff initially willing to participate and also interested in improving recycling for their tenants. The particular communities studied were: Arbor Landings Apartments is located on the west side of Ann Arbor at 545 Landings Boulevard and has 328 units. This community has a high population of Young Professionals and the rental fees ranged from $975-$2,115/month depending on apartment size. This community was on average at 93% occupancy during the program. Glacier Hills Senior Living Community is located on the north side of Ann Arbor at 1200 Earhart Road and has 219 units. This community was our model for Senior Citizens. Our program only included the Manor and Meadows section of the community and did not include the medical-assisted living section. Specific rental fees were not disclosed, but they do vary based on age, care needed, and the community section a resident resides in. GreenBrier Apartments is located on the north side of Ann Arbor at 3615 GreenBrier Boulevard and has 500 units. This community has a population of Young Professionals with various ethnic backgrounds. Rental fees ranged from $794-$1,084/month depending on apartment size. This community was at 95% occupancy during the program. 3.6 PRE-PROGRAM COMMUNITY SURVEYS Prior to starting any incentive programs for the pilot program, Recycle Ann Arbor felt it was important to get feedback from the residents and staff at the pilot communities about their recycling behavior. The feedback collected also would guide which incentive programs and methods were implemented in which communities. Iris Waste Diversion Specialists created the community survey based off of detailed questions and brainstorm sessions with Recycle Ann Arbor and City of Ann Arbor staff. It was important the preprogram survey questions be as inclusive as possible so that the project had a good baseline to start from regarding community recycling behavior. A voucher program was set-up online, and in print, to incentivize participation in the survey. The incentive was a $5.00 voucher to Recycle Ann Arbor s ReUse Center for residents and a free recycling roll-off rental to community management. However, it s worth mentioning that redeemed vouchers to the ReUse Center were not tracked to see if the voucher incentive actually assisted with the surveys being turned in. Additionally, none of the community management respondents chose to redeem a free recycling roll-off rental for their participation. Recycle Ann Arbor staff spent time on-site and communicating with staff at each complex to make sure surveys were being distributed effectively, turned in, and collected in a timely nature. Glacier Hills and GreenBrier requested all surveys be in paper format due to the age of tenants and lack of resident s, respectively. Arbor Landings had s for all their residents which allowed them to participate electronically. Pre-program community surveys were distributed to all three complexes on May 7, Surveys were distributed as one per unit for a total of 1,047 surveys distributed. All surveys had a close date of June 7,

14 The pre-program community surveys collected totaled 183 surveys (electronic and print) from the 1,047 distributed. This was a 17.5% response rate, 11 which Iris Waste Diversion Specialists highlighted as above the expected rate of participation for a semi-targeted population (~10% response rate). The tenant survey found the average respondent: Lives in a two-person household Is over 65 years of age or under forty- which confirms the targeted demographics Recycles on a weekly basis Has a dedicated spot inside their home for their recyclables Favors using containers, such as paper and plastic bags, for carrying recyclables to the outdoor recycling carts The complete tenant survey questions, trends, responses, and final report, City of Ann Arbor Multi- Family Recycling Incentive Project, Residential Survey Report - August 2015, can be found in Appendix B (p.47) of this report. Recycle Ann Arbor also conducted follow-up narrative surveys (See Appendix C, p.81: Follow-Up Survey to Staff and Management of Pilot Communities ) to key staff 12 and management at the pilot communities during summer This survey was designed to be completed in-person or on the phone for capturing more open ended answers regarding the recycling program and corporate sustainability goals. The staff information and comments below are included with written permission by the respondent. In total, two staff were interviewed at Glacier Hills and GreenBrier (Facilities and Administration), while three staff were interviewed at Arbor Landings (Facilities and two Administration). No quantitative data was captured during these interviews, but is instead all narrative in nature. No negative answers were given by those individuals interviewed either. Answers most relevant to enhancing the understanding of recycling practices and resident participation of these communities are included: Arbor Landings: Jolene Sarlund, Property Manager and Erika Jox-McInnes, former Administrative Assistant, both mentioned that their corporate office does work toward implementing sustainability goals within their various properties. That year (2015) they switched properties to paperless practices for tenant files, reporting, and even for maintenance work orders. Both staff mentioned that they believed incentive programs would help engage and involve residents to increase their recycling. Jolene Sarlund added, I believe that incentive programs 11 Response rate is defined for this report as the number of individuals who answered the survey divided by the number of individuals in the sample. 12 Key staff is defined for this report as those individuals in property management, administration, or maintenance roles which influenced the recycling program at their site. 10

15 will possibly allow people on the fence about recycling to get involved- it could be the extra push that they need. Arbor Landings does already include recycling guidelines in all new tenant move-in packets. They request guidelines and information directly from Recycle Ann Arbor. Glacier Hills: Chris Eubank, Administrator of Residential Services, mentioned that residents are often the ones at the community who push forward with the recycling issues and make things happen in the complex. He added that because most residents are already pro-recycling he doesn t feel that any incentive programs would really change their overall recycling participation much. GreenBrier: A current staff member of Slavik Properties and formerly GreenBrier, mentioned that Slavik Properties uses access to recycling as a selling point on their tours for prospective residents. GreenBrier does already include recycling guidelines in all tenant move-in packets, in addition to talking to all new tenants about the recycling program. Lewis Kempf, Maintenance Technician at GreenBrier mentioned that in the past any incentive program which offers a free item or service will usually get their residents to participate. Historically with such programs, he has seen a resident participation rate of 75-80%. He also added that, Ultimately, it is a personal choice for residents to recycle. It is up to us to make it easy and convenient for the residents to use. 3.7 PILOT PROGRAM METHODS CHOSEN For this pilot program, the most important element from the Iris Waste Diversion Specialist s Pre- Program Community Survey was each community s choice of incentives (methods) that would potentially increase their recycling behavior. The results of each community s pre-pilot survey determined their individual methods tested. Program methods tested in each pilot community were chosen by only those members of the MFU community who responded to the pre-program community survey (Appendix B, p.63). Those final choices by community were: Arbor Landings: Indoor Recycling Bins Glacier Hills: Indoor Recycling Bins GreenBrier: Rewards Program to Local Businesses The three sections (Field Waste Assessment Surveys, Indoor Recycling Bin Program, and Rewards Program) that follow (p.12-38) will outline each of the piloted methods with a focus on the initial structure, results, conclusions, challenges, and recommendations for each. Although not a piloted program method, 13 the Field Waste Assessment Surveys section (p.12-19) is presented first to offer an overall understanding of the recycling trends at the three MFU communities. 13 For the purposes of this report, piloted program methods are only the indoor recycling bins and rewards program. 11

16 4. FIELD WASTE ASSESMENT SURVEYS 4.1 STRUCTURE AND IMPLEMENTATION OF METHODS Recycling data was taken in the form of recycling truck weight (tonnage) and also visual field surveys of recycling carts and trash dumpsters on-site. Visual surveys were performed first, and once complete the recycling truck driver emptied the carts for an accurate weight of that complex. This weight data was used to particularly investigate the GreenBrier Rewards Program, but it also provided a limited snapshot of overall recycling trends in the three pilot communities. Field surveys documented the visualized volume percentage fill rate of each recycling cart, type and visualized amount of any contamination (materials not accepted in the curbside program) in the recycling cart, and the location of each cart in the complex. The contamination data gathered during the field surveys was a list of the types of contaminants rather than a percentage of contamination. Contamination data was recorded in this manner so further education about these wrong materials could be communicated to the properties. For this reason, the contamination rate expressed in this report represents the overall percentage of recycling carts containing any visualized amount of contamination as it pertains to a given location or as an aggregate of all locations. For instance, if 100 recycling carts were surveyed at a community and 37 of them had any form of contamination in them, then the contamination rate would be 37% for that particular survey. Additionally, trash dumpsters were visually inspected and documented for volume percentage fill rate and amount of recyclables found in the trash dumpster. For this pilot program, the reported percentage of recyclable material observed in the trash dumpsters was defined as only the single-stream recycling (paper, plastics, cardboard, etc) observed, and did not include a broader definition of materials that could be diverted for reuse, such as electronics and books. However, during our visual surveys we did record the presence of reusable items in the trash dumpster just so we could educate the staff and tenants on other local diversion options. Items that could be considered for reuse were taken out of the final analysis for calculating the percentage of recyclable material observed in the trash dumpsters. See Appendix C (p.89) for an example of the field waste assessment survey form used. Recycle Ann Arbor assigned one recycling truck and driver to service each pilot community separately, getting the actual tonnage for recyclable materials collected per complex. Once recycling collection was completed at a community, the recycling truck driver went directly to the City of Ann Arbor Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) to dump that community s recycling and got a weight ticket for that one complex. This allowed our program to have the most accurate recycling weight data throughout the pilot study. Since Recycle Ann Arbor is the contracted non-profit recycling hauler for the City of Ann Arbor it was possible to make internal routing adjustments to obtain accurate recycling weight data. This project was not able to collaborate with the City of Ann Arbor s trash hauler for similar trash weight data, which is why only visual surveys were done for the trash stream in this project. Field surveys and weight data were collected in 3-month increments: week of August 24, 2015 (baseline data); week of November 30, 2015; week of February 29, 2016; week of May 23, 2016; and the final week of August 22,

17 4.2 RESULTS OF THE FIELD WASTE ASSESMENT SURVEYS An analysis of the tonnage data indicates that the weight of recycled materials is on a slight downward trend for each of the complexes. Arbor Landings: Decreasing at a rate of tons per measurement Glacier Hills: Decreasing at 0.16 tons per measurement GreenBrier: Decreasing at tons per measurement While there might be a slight overall downward trend in the weight of recyclables (in tons), as depicted in Figure 1 (p.14), it does not necessarily mean that there is a decrease in recycling participation rates. In addition, the variation of weight for each property between measurements is statistically relatively low, except for Glacier Hills 2.4 ton outlier on November 30, This variance occurred as a result of an unknown procedural error since the visual assessment on the ground that day did not show a significant material/weight increase. An average of 104 outdoor recycling carts were visually inspected at Arbor Landings during the pilot period. The average fill rate was 56% with 37% contamination. Glacier Hills had the lowest number of outdoor recycling carts visually inspected with an average of 26.2 inspected per visit. Participants at Glacier Hills maintained an average 67% fill rate and 12% contamination rate throughout the pilot. GreenBrier had an average of 51.4 outdoor recycling carts visually inspected with an average fill rate of 47% and contamination rate of 52%. The variation in average carts inspected is solely due to the number of recycling carts a community had on-site during the survey dates. 14 Fill rates did not appear to be affected by season. Figure 2 (p.14) visually represents this field survey data collected from all properties. Based on the data collected from the visual inspection of trash dumpsters, recyclable material 15 observed in the trash dumpsters represented an average of 3% of the discards in the trash dumpsters at Arbor Landings, 15% at GreenBrier, and 1% at Glacier Hills (Figure 3, p.14). Recyclable material made up an average of 3% of the total number of trash dumpsters. On August 26, 2016 we could not obtain trash information at Arbor Landings due to the trash dumpsters being emptied before our arrival. Recycle Ann Arbor worked with each property to determine their trash service day to avoid this issue, but on this particular survey week the trash hauler emptied the dumpster on a day we were not aware of. In all other instances we did not encounter any issues of empty trash dumpsters before our arrival. 14 The number of recycling carts a community has was determined by Recycle Ann Arbor based on previous experience with that community and the number deemed appropriate for the community size and capacity needs. 15 The reported percentage of recyclable material observed in the trash dumpsters was defined as only the single-stream recycling (paper, plastics, cardboard, etc) observed, and did not include a broader definition of materials that could be diverted for reuse, such as electronics and books. 13

18 FIGURE 1 RECYCLING TONNAGE CHART- ALL PROPERTIES Complex Baseline Tonnage (8/24/15) #1 Tonnage (11/30/15) #2 Tonnage (2/29/16) #3 Tonnage (5/23/16) #4 (Final) Tonnage (8/22/16) GreenBrier Glacier Hills Arbor Landings FIGURE 2 RECYCLING CART FILL RATE VS. CONTAMINATION RATE ALL PROPERTIES Recycling Cart Fill Rate vs. Contamination Rate All Properties 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Arbor Landings Glacier Hills Greenbrier Recycling Carts Filled % 56% 67% 47% Contamination Rate % 37% 12% 52% FIGURE 3 AVERAGE OF TRASH DUMPSTERS CONTAINING RECYCLABLE MATERIALS 14

19 4.3 CONCLUSIONS OF THE FIELD WASTE ASSESMENT SURVEYS As mentioned in the Methods section, tonnage data was used to primarily investigate the GreenBrier Rewards Program, and did not interpret the results of the Indoor Bin program. Field survey data and tonnage data were not used to gauge the success of the indoor bin program since there would be no definitive way to know which recycling cart (or trash area) residents with the indoor bins were actually using on-site. Due to this, the recycling tonnage and visual waste surveys should be interpreted cautiously and not used exclusively to measure the overall success of the interventions tested in this pilot program. For the purposes of this report, the results of the field waste surveys are provided to show a limited snapshot of overall recycling trends and educational opportunities for the pilot communities. Overall, the recycling tonnage trended downward (Figure 1, p.14) and contamination rates were relatively high (Figure 2, p.14) during the study. Although tonnage trended down and contamination rates were up, we do not feel it can definitively be contributed to any one factor, or program method, just based off our one-year of data collection (5 survey dates). 16 Future studies and ongoing, frequent waste surveys of these specific communities would allow us to see if these recycling trends continue and offer a more definitive picture of recycling habits. It is also highly possible that the dates we surveyed could have coincided with instances when recycling or trash was present at a higher or lower rate than normal in the community. To get a more accurate view of the community s overall waste streams, future studies should conduct visual waste audits more frequently (on a weekly basis if possible) and partner closely with the both trash and recycling haulers to allow for tonnage data of both waste streams to be captured. Hypothetical explanations are provided below based on what we know about the community s demographics and challenges that may have contributed to some of these trends. Figure 2 (p.14) highlighted that overall contamination rates 17 were lower than the fill rates at Arbor Landings and Glacier Hills- the two communities with indoor bins as their intervention. When residents picked up an indoor bin they also received recycling guidelines which may have contributed to keeping contamination lower in these two communities. Additionally, the residents at Glacier Hills have lived in the City of Ann Arbor longer than traditional MFU tenants (Graph 3 in Appendix C, p.62). This long-term recycling knowledge of Ann Arbor could also contribute to the lower contamination rate in this community. The recycling contamination rate was highest at GreenBrier despite the community also receiving reminder recycling guidelines during engagement of the Rewards Program. However, it was noted from the pre-program community survey that GreenBrier residents did have a mix of ethnicities on-site that were not present at the other two pilot communities. Over 50% of Greenbrier respondents indicated a 16 Due to the need to re-structure recycling routes and limited field staff, this pilot program was unable to increase the frequency of surveys. 17 The contamination rate expressed in this report represents the overall percentage of recycling carts containing any visualized amount of contamination as it pertains to a given location or as an aggregate of all locations. 15

20 language other than English as the primary language spoken at home. A diversity of languages was identified and included Chinese, French, German, Gujarati, Japanese, Korean, Mandarin, Persian, Portuguese, and Teluga (Appendix C, p.62). These language barriers could have contributed to a lack of understanding since recycling guidelines were only available in English, Chinese, and Spanish during this pilot program. Guidelines in more foreign languages, or with universally recognized images, should be made available to communities that have such needs to assist with communication and cultural barriers. Based on the data collected from the visual inspection of trash dumpsters, recyclable material 18 observed in the trash dumpsters represented an average of 3% of the discards in the trash dumpsters at Arbor Landings, 15% at GreenBrier and 1% at Glacier Hills (Figure 3, p.14). It is promising that the average percentage of single-stream recyclable material observed in the trash dumpsters was relatively low, but as mentioned, this percentage did not include those items that were observed as being able to be reused, donated, or recycled at a drop-off station, rather than land filled. Since the focus of the study was on recycling behavior, specific data on the percentage of reusable items is not made available for this report as it has no true benefit to the analysis of the program results. Overall, the lack of visual inspection data available for Arbor Landings on August 26, 2016 and the inability to obtain trash tonnage data, limit the conclusions we can draw from the visual trash surveys. Although recycling guidelines were provided to all tenants at the pilot communities during their method interventions, the field survey data and contamination rates clearly identify the need for increased and frequent education about unacceptable materials due to high resident turn-over. Confirmation of the temporary status of MFU tenants within our pilot communities was indicated in the pre-program survey data that showed most resided in their community less than 2 years when surveyed (Graph 3 in Appendix C, p.62). Property staff at MFU communities currently are the responsible parties for distributing recycling guidelines frequently and to all tenants. A City of Ann Arbor ordinance focused on multi-family unit recycling education 19 currently exists (but is not enforced) that requires property managers to provide all new tenants with recycling guidelines and annual recycling reminders to their community. However, based on our field observations, we predict education of residents is not occurring as often as necessary or guidelines may not be provided to the tenant in their required language. Since retention of staff is a challenge throughout MFU communities, Recycle Ann Arbor recommends community-wide outdoor 18 The reported percentage of recyclable material observed in the trash dumpsters was defined as only the single-stream recycling (paper, plastics, cardboard, etc) observed, and did not include a broader definition of materials that could be diverted for reuse, such as electronics and books. 19 Multi-family containers. (f) Upon lease signing, property managers must provide new residents with recycling educational materials and show them where recycling containers are located at rental properties. Property managers must also provide annual reminders to all tenants about recycling. Recycling educational materials are available free of charge by contacting the city's recycling contractor, Recycle Ann Arbor, at or info@recyceannarbor.org." City of Ann Arbor City Code Chapter 26 Solid Waste Management, 2:5 Solid Waste Containers (3) multi-family containers, (f); [Online]. Available: [2016, December]. 16

21 recycling signage as a way to avoid reliance on property staff for recycling education. Although signage is a recommendation, it is recognized that the City does not currently have the legal right to place signs, or request signs be placed by property owners or MFU staff on private property, and will not be able to implement this recommendation at this time. 4.4 CHALLENGES OF CONDUCTING THE FIELD WASTE ASSESMENT SURVEYS Inability to survey communities more frequently (weekly, bi-weekly, monthly, etc) due to project time frame, budget, realistic re-routing capabilities, and limited Recycle Ann Arbor staff o Fixed schedule of visual cart surveys having to be conducted in the early morning before any waste haulers emptied material Inability to partner with City of Ann Arbor s trash hauler to obtain tonnage data and accurate pick-up schedules for the trash at each complex Potential privacy concerns by residents and maintenance staff that observe field staff performing visual and hands-on cart surveys Limitations of visual field surveys and documentation methods o Although documentation methods were standardized and field staff trained, there still exists a variability in judgment between field staff in documenting their perception of contamination and cart fill rates o Visual surveys only offer the ability to document contents that can be seen easily in recycling carts and dumpsters; as opposed to a full waste sort o Choosing to document contamination data as a list of the types of any contaminants, rather than a percentage of contamination, did not allow for any flexibility or acceptable percentage of contamination in carts during the study Inability to know which buildings or tenants are using which solid waste containers on-site since they are shared among all the tenants Unknown illegal dumping at MFUs could also skew results if the waste documented is actually not tenant generated 4.5 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE FIELD WASTE ASSESMENT SURVEYS The visual field waste surveys offered insight into the overall recycling habits of the three MFU communities. The results from these field waste surveys highlighted the need for increased recycling education of MFU residents, as well as MFU staff. Although contamination rates were relatively high throughout the pilot communities, ample opportunities exist that could assist with decreasing contamination rates and increasing recycling participation. These recommendations below are not specific to the Indoor Bin or Rewards Program, 20 but instead offer insight into conducting field waste surveys and implementing outdoor educational signage at collection points to decrease contamination. Although signage is a recommendation, it is recognized that the City does not currently have the legal right to place signs, or request signs be placed by property owners or MFU staff on private property, and 20 Recommendations for those two specific program sections will be discussed on p.26 and p

22 will not be able to implement this recommendation at this time. Recommendations are made based on the field data analyzed, observations made from on-site engagement events, and best management practices from other communities (Appendix A). Further discussion will be necessary with the City of Ann Arbor to address the action plans, budget, and time required to implement any recommendations the City of Ann Arbor is interested in pursuing further. Conducting Future Field Waste Assessment Surveys and Data Collection: These recommendations are provided to enhance future field waste data collection. These recommendations rely on the City of Ann Arbor s Solid Waste haulers, City of Ann Arbor Solid Waste staff, or other contracted organizations to conduct field waste surveys. Although visual field waste surveys have limitations, we do recommend them as the simplest way to gather waste data. The City of Ann Arbor should conduct visual waste audits more frequently (on a weekly to biweekly basis) to gather a more accurate and detailed view of a community s waste streams. o Visual waste audits should also incorporate an acceptable percentage of observed contamination in carts. The City of Ann Arbor should partner closely with all waste haulers (recycling, trash, and compost) to gather accurate community tonnage data in addition to visual waste survey data. The City of Ann Arbor should consider incorporating periodic waste sorts 21 of select MFU communities to truly assess the materials being disposed of in this population. Outdoor Educational Signage at Collection Points to Decrease Contamination: These recommendations are provided as a way to minimize reliance on property staff and ordinance enforcement. These recommendations are mostly impartial to MFU staff and resident turn-over, but do rely more on implementation and maintenance by the City of Ann Arbor s Solid Waste haulers, City of Ann Arbor Solid Waste staff, or other contracted organizations. In some cases MFU staff may need to be consulted for site access or coordination, but their involvement in actual implementation or up-keep is minimal. Although signage is a recommendation, it is recognized that the City does not currently have the legal right to place signs, or request signs be placed by property owners or MFU staff on private property, and will not be able to implement this recommendation at this time. The City of Ann Arbor should make sure clear, concise signage is placed on all solid waste outdoor receptacle containers and within dumpster corral areas. This will assist tenants with understanding where their waste goes and help to limit contamination at the source of generation. The majority of communities referenced in our Best Management Practices (Appendix A) rely on outdoor and indoor signage to educate. Based on our experience, the advantages of outdoor signage at collection points are: 21 Physically sorting and documenting all materials found in the waste streams (recycling, trash, and compost) generated at a particular MFU community 18

23 Educational signage placed on City of Ann Arbor owned collection receptacles does not require property staff approval or implementation in any way. Although up-keep is necessary, outdoor signage is often more permanent and does not require property staff to update anything when new tenants move in. Outdoor signage is visible to all users of the complex s waste receptacles. The City of Ann Arbor should continue to use cart lid educational labels, but research into a label that is more weather-resistant 22 should be considered for the Ann Arbor climate. The City of Ann Arbor could consider piloting the use of large, vinyl outdoor signs affixed to dumpster corral walls (when applicable to the property structure), that act as a sizable visual reminder of solid waste guidelines. This would require the approval of property staff. The City of Ann Arbor should include more foreign languages, or signage with universally recognized images, when updating educational signage at collection points. Costs associated with the outdoor labels and signage should be examined based on the current companies the City of Ann Arbor works with for their recycling labels and print materials. Partnerships with the local Washtenaw Area Apartment Association (WA3) could be explored to assist with sharing costs of these materials or opportunities for co-branding. The City of Ann Arbor should require current solid waste (trash, recycling, and compost) haulers and field staff to periodically check that all educational labels on waste receptacles are up-todate, clear, and not weathered. Field checks (or updates) of outdoor signage could be done during current routing and assignments and by current City of Ann Arbor and contracted Solid Waste drivers and/or Field staff; which does not add an additional cost to the City of Ann Arbor. 22 During field surveys, it was observed that many recycling cart lid labels were extremely weathered or off completely. 19

24 5. INDOOR RECYCLING BIN PROGRAM 5.1 STRUCTURE AND IMPLEMENTATION OF METHODS In August 2015, Recycle Ann Arbor staff went on-site to Arbor Landings and Glacier Hills to measure and photograph model apartment units to see which recycling indoor bin size and shape would best fit inside the units of both communities. To keep the pilot methods consistent between both communities with indoor bins, Recycle Ann Arbor chose to pilot the same indoor bin size and shape. Based off measurements of all size units, it was determined that a 7-gallon blue indoor bin would be sufficient for both complexes. An example of the measurement photos, as well as the indoor bin tested, is presented in Appendix C (p.82). One-hundred indoor bins were purchased online from ULINE for the initial distribution events in 2015, with an additional 125 bins purchased for 2016 events. Of the 225 total indoor bins purchased, 106 indoor bins were distributed during the pilot. Recycle Ann Arbor worked closely with both complexes to be ready for an early October 2015 launch of the indoor bin program. Engagement flyers and s were created and sent to residents two weeks prior to the event being hosted on-site. Events were hosted based on the best time and day for resident engagement according to the property contact. Arbor Landings initial indoor bin event was hosted on October 8, 2015 with a second event hosted on April 20, 2016 due to the popularity of the first event. Both were in the 5-7pm time frame. Glacier Hills chose to host only one indoor bin event which was in the 1:30-4:00pm time frame on October 9, At the indoor bin distribution events, participants were given a 7-gallon recycling bin complete with a How to Use Your Indoor Bin guide (Appendix C, p. 83). Recycle Ann Arbor staff also labeled the bottom of each bin with a unique number and had each resident provide their name, address, , and sign an agreement (Appendix C, p. 84) before taking the bin. The agreement stipulated that the indoor bin would stay in their unit upon them moving so that the next resident could also participate in the program. They also agreed to participate in a survey ( or paper) every 3-months during the course of the program to track their indoor bin use and recycling behavior. The indoor bin behavior survey was given to all participants as a way to gather information solely on the participants recycling behavior as it pertains to using an indoor bin; specifically the use of an indoor bin to assist with their ability to recycle material from inside their unit to the outside carts. As mentioned previously, all individuals who took an indoor bin signed an agreement to participate in follow-up behavior surveys aimed at learning more about their recycling behavior. Surveys were done electronically via SurveyMonkey for all Arbor Landings residents, while Glacier Hills residents required paper copies. Surveys were kept open for one week. An example of the survey titled Indoor Bin Behavior Follow-Up Survey is presented in Appendix C, p. 85. To keep survey time frames consistent throughout the pilot, indoor bin behavior surveys were given to residents during the same time the onsite field waste survey checks were conducted by Recycle Ann Arbor field staff. However, field survey data and tonnage data were not used to gauge the success of the indoor bin program since there would be no definitive way to know which recycling cart (or trash area) resident s with the indoor bins were actually using on-site. Recycle Ann Arbor has observed that individuals use whichever waste area is most convenient and open to them. The follow-up behavior surveys were a direct way to accurately gauge 20

25 each tenant s actual participation and use of the indoor bin. 5.2 RESULTS OF THE INDOOR RECYCLING BIN PROGRAM AND BEHAVIOR SURVEYS Fifty-nine residents at Arbor Landings took indoor bins at the initial October 2015 event, while 19 residents took indoor bins at the second distribution event held in April In total, 78 residents had indoor bins during the pilot program at Arbor Landings. Twenty-eight residents at Glacier Hills took indoor bins at the October 2015 event. Glacier Hills staff only allowed Recycle Ann Arbor to host one distribution event. Based on the indoor bins distributed, the Indoor Recycling Bin Follow-up Behavior Survey was provided to the 78 Arbor Landings residents and 28 Glacier Hills residents that participated during the span of the program. The indoor bin behavior survey was given to all participants as a way to gather information solely on the participants recycling behavior as it pertains to using an indoor bin; specifically the use of an indoor bin to assist with their ability to recycle material from inside their unit to the outside carts. While most respondents indicated the indoor bins have changed their recycling behavior (Figure 4, p.22), they were not specifically asked if their behavior change was positive or negative. It should be noted that these residents represent a small sample of the population at each property and low survey response rates result in a sample size margin of error for Arbor Landings of 15.43% and 27.57% for Glacier Hills. From the survey responses to the question Were you recycling at your complex before you received the indoor bin?, 14 of 129 Arbor Landings respondents and 8 of 48 Glacier Hills respondents indicated they were not recycling before receiving the indoor bin. The data shows that 11% of Arbor Landings and 17% of Glacier Hills responders converted from non-recyclers to recyclers based on their survey responses. Although the survey response rate was low, the responses from the behavior survey data show that an increase in recycling participation can be gained by providing an indoor collection container. Additionally, the responses to the follow up behavior survey clearly show overall satisfaction with the use of the indoor recycling bins. As shown in Figure 5 (p.22), the survey data clearly indicates satisfaction with the 7-gallon collection bin among all pilot participants, with almost no indication by the senior population of Glacier Hills residents for an alternate size. Although Arbor Landings residents were pleased with having access to an indoor bin to assist them with recycling, 38% of Arbor Landings residents indicated the indoor recycling bin was actually too small to meet their recycling needs. The dissatisfaction with the size of the indoor recycling bin can be hypothesized to correlate with the high population of the young professional demographic (aged 20-34) at Arbor Landings. Recycle Ann Arbor has observed that many in this age group often generate large amounts of cardboard from the increased convenience of online shopping. Additionally, some survey comments from the Arbor Landings community actually point to their desire to be able to place cardboard into an indoor storage bin. Noteworthy comments from the follow-up behavior surveys at both communities indicated a bin with a handle would make carrying the materials to the outside containers easier; and a taller bin would increase capacity without increasing the amount of floor space. It is important to note that the voluntary nature of using the indoor bin creates a high participation bias; the majority of residents who picked up the bins were already recycling. Their participation in the pilot 21

26 # of Respondents tested the indoor bin as an enhancement to their current recycling behavior. To better confirm that indoor recycling bins do increase recycling participation, a larger sample size of individuals and those noted as non-recyclers, should be tested for further replicable studies. FIGURE 4 HAS THE INDOOR BIN YOU RECEIVED CHANGED YOUR RECYCLING BEHAVIOR AT ALL? Indoor Recycling Bin Follow Up Survey Question Has the Indoor Bin You Received Changed Your Recycling Behavior at All? Arbor Landings - Autumn 2015 Arbor Landings - Winter 2016 Arbor Landings - Spring 2016 Arbor Landings - Summer 2016 Glacier Hills - Autumn 2015 Glacier Hills - Winter 2016 Glacier Hills - Spring 2016 Glacier Hills - Summer 2016 YES NO FIGURE 5 HAVE YOU BEEN PLEASED WITH THE SIZE (7-GALLONS) OF THE INDOOR BIN? 22

27 The majority of Arbor Landings residents consistently placed the indoor recycling bin next to the trash can while Glacier Hills residents preferred to collect recyclables in the pantry (Figure 6). Other areas that were frequently noted in the survey by residents of both properties for bin placement were the entryway/entryway closet and the laundry area. FIGURE 6 WHERE IN YOUR UNIT DID YOU PLACE YOUR INDOOR BIN? 5.3 CONCLUSIONS OF THE INDOOR RECYCLING BIN PROGRAM AND BEHAVIOR SURVEYS Although the survey response rate was low, the results from the follow-up behavior surveys show that an increase in recycling participation can be gained by providing an indoor collection container. It should be noted again that these residents represent a small sample of the population at each property and low survey response rates result in a sample size margin of error for Arbor Landings of 15.43% and 27.57% for Glacier Hills. However, 14 of 129 Arbor Landings respondents and 8 of 48 Glacier Hills respondents indicated they were not recycling before receiving the indoor bin. The data shows that 11% of Arbor Landings and 17% of Glacier Hills responders converted from non-recyclers to recyclers based on their survey responses. Field survey data and tonnage data were not used to gauge the success of the indoor bin program since there would be no definitive way to know which recycling cart (or trash area) resident s with the indoor bins were actually using on-site. The follow-up behavior surveys were a direct way to accurately gauge each tenant s actual participation and use of the indoor bin. During the pilot, continued use of the indoor recycling bin did not achieve 100% participation at either multi-family property for contrasting reasons. Arbor Landings residents who indicated they were no longer using the indoor recycling bin noted they had moved or were using their own container even after taking one of the pilot containers. This may have been due to the fact that Arbor Landings residents 23

28 were not completely satisfied with the size of their bin. Glacier Hills residents also indicated the use of their own collection container to recycle; however those who stopped using the bin cited it was too large or they didn t generate enough material to bother with. While not statistically significant in this survey, it is worth noting that both properties had new residents who were not using the indoor bin because there was not one in their unit to use. Even though initial participating residents signed an agreement to keep the bin in their unit upon moving, this did not seem to occur in every instance. This shows the need for management to include the recycling bin on the check-in/move-out inspection list to ensure the recycling participation of incoming residents. In the Results section (Figure 5, p.22), the survey data clearly indicates general satisfaction with the 7- gallon collection bin among all pilot participants, with almost no indication by the senior population of Glacier Hills residents for an alternate size. Although Arbor Landings residents were pleased with having access to an indoor bin to assist them with recycling, 38% of Arbor Landings residents indicated the indoor recycling bin was actually too small to meet their recycling needs. Some survey comments from the Arbor Landings community actually point to their desire to be able to place cardboard into an indoor storage bin. The fact that Arbor Landings actually wanted a larger indoor recycling bin presents a positive problem since it shows that residents are generating too much recycling material to fit into the piloted 7-gallon bin. The results from the indoor bin behavior surveys led to the conclusion that it might be necessary to provide more detailed questions on pre-program surveys regarding recycling capacity and the actual recycling needs of the resident. One recycle bin size and shape was selected to test in order to keep the results consistent among pilot communities. Realistically though, the results show that there will never be a one size fits all recycling bin for every community and individual. For future studies, it is worth testing the use of multiple size and shape options while first taking into consideration the demographics, recycling needs, and overall unit sizes of pilot communities before piloting indoor bins. The data presented in Figure 6 (p.23) can shape future studies about what size limitations may exist in MFU units and offer insight into bin sizes and shapes to pilot. As mentioned in the Results, the voluntary nature of selecting to attend an indoor bin distribution event created a high participation bias; the majority of residents who picked up the bins were already recycling or perhaps interested in sustainability. The implementation of the indoor bin program at these communities was at the mercy and discretion of the property staff. Recycle Ann Arbor staff were confined to these restrictions, which included the inability to go door-to-door to solicit and speak with potential non-recyclers about getting an indoor bin due to privacy concerns of their residents. Finding opportunities to engage non-recyclers is vital to the overall success of growing recycling participation at MFU communities. Such engagement opportunities could include: a community wide cook-out and move-in events. Hosting outreach events at a MFU community does require the permission from property staff, but their involvement after that is often minimal. Recycle Ann Arbor has found events are more successful and less of a burden to property staff if they are hosted during an event already prescheduled in the community. Outreach events also remove the barrier of privacy issues (door-to-door engagement) that many property managers are sensitive to. Additionally, hosting a recycling outreach 24

29 table during a pre-scheduled event allows for the best chances of engagement with non-recyclers since the event is not sustainability-focused. Outreach events are typically hosted in the evening hours or weekends to offer a better opportunity of community individuals attending, so this should be considered by City staff. Working with the community manager to make sure every unit is required to have an indoor bin would also allow for future studies to incorporate non-recyclers into the study. Additionally, for this program, the participation and engagement of the residents was very dependent on the property staff. For instance, Arbor Landings chose to host two indoor bin distribution events given the interest of the residents at their property. This community also engaged with residents and Recycle Ann Arbor staff before, during, and after the events to make sure the program was progressing. Arbor Landings staff was also willing to distribute additional indoor bins within their office for those residents who couldn t attend the scheduled events. On the other hand, Glacier Hills was receptive to the program at the beginning, but their interest and involvement waned after their first community event. Glacier Hill s management only allowed Recycle Ann Arbor to conduct one indoor bin distribution event even though additional events and workshops were proposed to staff. It is worth noting that during this period of time Glacier Hills had lost a key staff member assigned to our program coordination, which may have caused an unexpected burden on remaining staff. 23 The ability to host additional indoor bin distribution events and recycling re-engagement workshops may have led to a higher participation rate, increased sample size, and provided a more conclusive picture of community participation. 5.4 CHALLENGES OF IMPLEMENTING THE INDOOR RECYCLING BIN PROGRAM AND BEHAVIOR SURVEYS Property staff commitment and turn-over rates (only an issue at Glacier Hills) o Interest for the program waned as committed staff left the property o Multiple indoor bin distribution events and educational workshops were not allowed Limitations on tenant engagement due to privacy concerns from property staff o The inability to go door-to-door to solicit potential non-recyclers into participating and create more general awareness of the program A feeling of distrust from tenants (Glacier Hills) that materials in the recycling carts are actually being recycled by City of Ann Arbor and/or maintenance staff Tenant interest, participation, and turn-over rates o A small sample size of individuals actually participated in the program o Majority of tenants who picked up the indoor bins were already recyclers o The inability to truly engage non-recyclers in the program o Signing a participation agreement for the indoor bin use/survey feedback was not enough to have tenants leave the bin in their unit or respond to the surveys 23 As of February 2017, Recycle Ann Arbor is working with new, engaged staff at the Glacier Hills community to introduce increased recycling efforts in the cafeteria and wider campus area as requested by residents. 25

30 Indoor bin behavior surveys o Some s given for follow-up surveys at Arbor Landings were invalid which meant staff had to resort to distributing paper survey copies to these tenants o All surveys distributed at Glacier Hills were paper copies which had to be distributed and collected by property staff due to privacy concerns and lack of s o Not all participants who took an indoor bin and signed the agreement actually responded to the program follow-up survey requests Selecting an indoor recycling bin for the program that would be satisfactory for every participant in the study 5.5 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE INDOOR RECYCLING BIN PROGRAM Overall, despite a small sample size, the results of the indoor bin behavior surveys show that providing indoor bins to MFU units along with recycling education can enhance recycling participation and is worth further research at other MFU communities within Ann Arbor. Based on our experience, an indoor recycling bin can provide a tangible (visual) reminder in their home to participate in the recycling program. Given the small sample size of this study, Recycle Ann Arbor recommends the City of Ann Arbor should focus their initial efforts on wider community surveys or public forums to select MFU communities before proceeding with additional pilot programs of indoor bins specifically. Additional research into other communities may also be warranted to see their program models and funding sources for indoor bin programs before going forward. The Best Management Practices research (Appendix A) conducted for this pilot program did show that Minneapolis, MN provides recycling totes for MFU residents. No information on program success or funding was available however. The recycling program in Fresno, CA provides a bag to their MFU tenants that according to Republic Services, makes it convenient for residents to collect and carry jars, bottles, cans, paper and other recyclables. 24 Based on Recycle Ann Arbor s experience with the equally transient commercial recycling sector, past distribution of free indoor cardboard collector boxes (30 gallons) assisted commercial tenants and staff to get their recyclables from the inside of their business to the centrally located outside areas; similar to the set-up of a MFU community. Recommendations were made based on the results of the pre-program community surveys, field data analyzed, observations made from on-site engagement events, and best management practices from other communities (Appendix A). Further discussion will be necessary with the City of Ann Arbor to address the action plans, budget, and time required to implement any recommendations the City of Ann Arbor is interested in pursuing further. 24 Republic Services website: Alameda County-Apartments and Condos" [Online]. Available: [2017, February]. 26

31 Survey Select MFU Communities and Tenants Regarding an Indoor Bin Program This recommendation relies heavily on City of Ann Arbor Solid Waste staff or other contracted organizations for the survey creation, implementation, data analysis, and cost of mailings. Rather than give communities the option to choose their incentive program, as was done in this pilot program, communities would be surveyed on their overall interest and need specifically for an indoor recycling bin. The City of Ann Arbor should conduct a survey of select MFU communities focused just on the Indoor Bin program if there is interest to pursue this particular program. Select communities could be those with known contamination issues or demographics that the City of Ann Arbor hopes to reach. Demographic information, recycling bin size and shape information, and their overall waste needs (capacity, material generation, etc) could be surveyed and analyzed for each community. Gathering this information prior to implementing an indoor bin may assist with the success of the program since the community is weighing in on what their preferred indoor bin, size, and shape are. Recycle Ann Arbor does not feel it can provide accurate, detailed costs on this recommendation since further discussion with the City of Ann Arbor would be necessary. The costs of implementing a survey of this size would be dependent on the consultant hired, survey structure, MFU communities chosen, and what information the City of Ann Arbor ultimately wanted to gather. However, the pre-program community survey of this pilot program to only 1,047 units cost approximately $7,500 (at a $75/hour rate). 25 This cost reflects the time spent by Iris Waste Diversion Specialists on survey creation, data analysis, and creating a final report. 26 Recycle Ann Arbor recommends this survey be conducted by mail for a better chance at reaching the majority of MFU tenants, in addition to avoiding any property staff coordination or permission for distribution. Resident turn-over is also not an issue with mailed surveys, since they can be addressed to Current Resident and any tenant occupying that unit would be able to respond. Respondents could be directed to a recommended online survey form to capture their responses and to limit paper survey collection. The City of Ann Arbor would need to consider if the advantages of a mail distribution outweigh the printing and postage costs associated with it. 27 If the City of Ann Arbor is interested in pursuing this type of MFU survey, further discussion would be necessary for detailing its structure, overall implementation, and additional budget considerations. Distribution of Indoor Recycling Bins to Select MFU Communities and Tenants 25 The pre-program community survey was conducted by Iris Waste Diversion Specialists. 26 Recycle Ann Arbor staff and interns took on all survey site coordination, property staff communication, and survey response data entry from all print surveys which is not included in this cost estimate. 27 Recycle Ann Arbor does not feel it can provide accurate, detailed costs on printing and postage costs since it is dependent on survey size and structure. 27

32 These recommendations require reliance on property staff. Depending on the property, MFU staff may only need to be consulted for site access or coordination, and their involvement on up-keep is minimal. These recommendations rely heavily on implementation by City of Ann Arbor Solid Waste staff or other contracted organizations. A. Distribution to All Units within a MFU Community (preferred) The City of Ann Arbor should use the information gathered from the recommended community targeted MFU surveys (p.27) to determine what communities will be piloted and what size bin will be most relevant to that population. The City of Ann Arbor should work with the community manager to make sure every unit is required to have an indoor bin. This would allow for the study to incorporate non-recyclers and gather a more comprehensive study of an entire community or demographic. Recycle Ann Arbor recommends that any indoor bin distribution programs, continue to provide program outreach, monitoring (surveys), tracking, and education (recycling guidelines). o The City of Ann Arbor should use a similar structure as was implemented in this pilot program for other City of Ann Arbor Indoor Bin Distribution events and monitoring programs (p. 20). The City of Ann Arbor should consider these costs for any indoor bin distribution and monitoring program: o Indoor recycling bins 28 for each unit of a piloted MFU community 3 gallon- $6.00 each based on quantities of 6 or more 7 gallon - $7.00 each based on quantities of 6 or more 10 gallon - $13.00 each based on quantities of 6 or more o Printed recycling guidelines to accompany each indoor bin. Based on the cost in this pilot program, printing is approximately 5 cents per page. o Follow-up surveys during the program to gauge indoor bin success and use. Gathering survey responses digitally is preferred and would save on printing and distribution costs. If needed, printing costs would be minimal at around 5 cents per page. Costs would vary for survey analysis based on staff contracted and distribution. o If current City of Ann Arbor Solid Waste staff cannot coordinate such a program, consideration for hiring an Outreach Assistant or Intern should be explored. According to a City of Ann Arbor staff member, an Outreach Assistant I in a similar field (City of Ann Arbor Parks and Recreation Department) is currently hired in at $11.72/hour under a 10-month seasonal, temporary structure. A similar staff member could be hired for the Solid Waste Department, or shared with the 28 Multiple vendors exist for purchasing indoor bins. Recycle Ann Arbor is quoting prices from ULINE.com. Indoor bins for this pilot program were purchased from this vendor. Quotes do not include shipping fees and vary based on quantity. 28

33 Sustainability Department, at 25 hours a week to assist with this program. [annual staff cost ~ $12,000] To save staffing costs, the City of Ann Arbor could chose to partner with the University of Michigan and Eastern Michigan University s work-study programs to hire students to assist with community outreach efforts. Recycle Ann Arbor recommends that the City of Ann Arbor cover the full costs of indoor bins for initial distribution programs until additional successful Ann Arbor MFU community models are developed to entice other properties to participate. Along with distribution, the City of Ann Arbor could work with property staff to request that they require the indoor bin to be incorporated into rental agreements and the resident s security deposits. This model may prove useful in retention of most of the bins for future residents; as well as ensuring the investment (cost per bin) by the City of Ann Arbor doesn t go to waste. As programs prove successful in other Ann Arbor MFU properties, the City of Ann Arbor could work with additional properties to see the feasibility of the property covering some of the costs of the indoor bins. To save on program costs, the City of Ann Arbor should also consider their options for grants that could fund an indoor bin distribution program in select MFU communities. o Recycle Ann Arbor suggests researching grant programs with the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation, Keep America Beautiful, and the State of Michigan s Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) Pollution Prevention Grant program. B. Indoor Bin Distribution Events (alternate) If the City of Ann Arbor cannot distribute bins to every unit, then the City of Ann Arbor should consider hosting indoor bin distribution events at the community. However, to avoid only recyclers participating in such an event, the distribution should be hosted during an event already pre-scheduled in the community, such as a move-in event or community cook-out. Hosting a recycling outreach table during a pre-scheduled event allows for the best chances of engagement with non-recyclers since the event is not sustainability-focused. Engagement events are typically hosted in the evening hours or weekends to offer a better opportunity of community individuals attending, so this should be considered for City staff schedules. o If current City of Ann Arbor Solid Waste staff cannot coordinate and attend such indoor bin distribution events, consideration for hiring an Outreach Assistant or Intern should again be explored. The cost considerations in the previous section, Distribution to All Units in a MFU Community (preferred) (p.28) also apply for this recommendation. Recycle Ann Arbor recommends that the City of Ann Arbor use a similar structure as was implemented in this pilot program for other City of Ann Arbor Indoor Bin Distribution events and monitoring programs (p.20). 29

34 Ordinance Additions for Mandatory Participation in an Indoor Bin Program If the City of Ann Arbor is interested in requiring indoor bins in every unit of a MFU community, then options for editing the existing City of Ann Arbor MFU ordinance 29 should be explored with City of Ann Arbor Community Standards, City Council, and the Environmental Commission. As it is written currently, the ordinance focuses on requiring property managers to provide only recycling education to their managed MFU community. Creating additional language in this existing ordinance that specifies an action to require indoor bins along with educational material would provide a way for the City of Ann Arbor to require property managers to comply with this program. The City of Ann Arbor should consider that ordinance enforcement would assist with the barrier of staff involvement and turn-over. Enforcing this augmented ordinance would make providing indoor bins and recycling education simply a requirement of managing a MFU community and eventually lead to such programs becoming standard practice in City of Ann Arbor MFU communities. Property Staff Engagement for Mandatory Participation in an Indoor Bin Program The City of Ann Arbor should strengthen their involvement with the Washtenaw Area Apartment Association (WA3) 30 and utilize the WA3 as a resource for connecting with property managers and staff at Ann Arbor MFU communities. According to the WA3, 105 members (out of 164 total members) of the WA3 are property managers or leasing agencies based in Ann Arbor, MI. Partnering with this organization affords the City of Ann Arbor central access to property manager contacts, in addition to the vast experience and knowledge the WA3 has with working with these MFU communities and personnel. o If the City of Ann Arbor chooses to pursue an indoor bin program, the WA3 would be an invaluable resource for communicating this program to all Ann Arbor property managers. o The WA3 could potentially assist the City of Ann Arbor with the barrier of staff turn-over at properties; since the WA3 could continue to be the link to leasing agencies for that property despite engaged staff leaving. 29 Multi-family containers. (f) Upon lease signing, property managers must provide new residents with recycling educational materials and show them where recycling containers are located at rental properties. Property managers must also provide annual reminders to all tenants about recycling. Recycling educational materials are available free of charge by contacting the city's recycling contractor, Recycle Ann Arbor, at or info@recyceannarbor.org." City of Ann Arbor City Code Chapter 26 Solid Waste Management, 2:5 Solid Waste Containers (3) multi-family containers, (f); [Online]. Available: [2016, December]. 30 As of this report date, there is significant interest by the WA3 to become more involved in aspects of the recommendations offered for this pilot program. 30

35 6. REWARDS PROGRAM 6.1 STRUCTURE AND IMPLEMENTATION OF METHODS Since the Rewards program needed to encompass an entire multi-family unit community, it was decided that the program would be based on the recycling tonnage for the entire complex. It simply was not possible to gauge which buildings or individuals may be using which recycling or trash receptacles, since it was observed that individuals using whichever waste area was most convenient and open to them. Recycle Ann Arbor structured the Rewards program as: a 10% increase (based on every 3-month complex weigh-ins) in recycling behavior from the baseline weight data at Greenbrier would yield $10 coupons/gift cards for tenants at a local establishment. Although the GreenBrier community chose a Rewards Program to Local Businesses as their incentive, it wasn t yet clear what local business option may increase their recycling behavior. In September 2015, a follow-up survey (Appendix C, p.86) went out to all five-hundred residents of the community to determine what local restaurants and businesses they would most like a coupon or reward to. Thirteen businesses were selected by Recycle Ann Arbor to include in the survey and were chosen based on their proximity to GreenBrier and their perceived appeal to a broad audience. Businesses such as Kroger, McDonalds, No Thai!, and Cottage Inn Pizza were included as options. A write-in option was also present on the survey. A full listing of the businesses included on the survey can be found in Appendix C, p.86. Forty-six residents out of the five-hundred surveyed (9% of the individuals) turned in the follow-up survey for the Rewards Program selection. The survey allowed for check all that apply responses, with Kroger being selected thirty-eight times and ultimately being the first choice for an incentive that would potentially increase their recycling behavior. The second choice was No Thai! with seventeen responses and the third choice was McDonalds with thirteen responses. A write-in option was also present on the survey with Busch s Supermarket being written in on eight surveys. Since Kroger was selected as the top incentive for the GreenBrier community, Recycle Ann Arbor approached the Kroger store closest to the GreenBrier community to see their interest in participating as the Rewards sponsor for this program. As part of Kroger s corporate sustainability goals, they felt this program would be a good community fit and generously agreed to donate $10 gift cards toward every unit if the goal was met. Initial engagement flyers (Appendix C, p.87) were handed out door-to-door to let GreenBrier residents know about the Rewards program structure, as well as encouraging them to work together as a complex to get toward the goal. Once Kroger had officially signed on to the project, another door-to-door engagement event was coordinated- this time handing out reusable tote bags (see photo in Appendix C, p.88) supplied by Kroger. Our contact at Kroger felt tote bags would be a good reminder of the Rewards program, but also allow Kroger to give the community a reward even if they did not reach their goal of 31

36 receiving a gift card at the end of the program. It should be noted that door-to-door engagement campaigns were restricted by GreenBrier staff and no actual discussion with residents was performed. GreenBrier staff only allowed Recycle Ann Arbor staff to leave flyers and tote bags at the door of the resident but not knock on doors for further discussion with residents. GreenBrier staff mentioned that apartment inspections had just been conducted and they felt the residents had enough intrusions, which is why Recycle Ann Arbor was restricted from actual doorto-door discussions with residents. 6.2 RESULTS OF THE REWARDS PROGRAM Resident surveys were not conducted at GreenBrier during the Rewards Program implementation phase, therefore the quantitative measurements used to show the impacts of the reward program on recycling participation is the tonnage report for Greenbrier (Figure 7) and the recycling cart inspection data for this community (Figure 8). Data in Figure 7 is represented in tons. FIGURE 7 RECYCLING TONNAGE CHART FOR GREENBRIER Complex Baseline Tonnage (8/24/15) #1 Tonnage (11/30/15) #2 Tonnage (2/29/16) #3 Tonnage (5/23/16) #4 (Final) Tonnage (8/22/16) GreenBrier FIGURE 8 RECYCLING CART FILL RATE VS. CONTAMINATION RATE GREENBRIER BY INSPECTION DATE 32

37 When recycling cart contamination is analyzed with the fill rate, as shown in Figure 8, it becomes evident that the fill rate remains somewhat consistent; however contamination steadily increased at the time of the first three inspections. The contamination data gathered during the field surveys was a list of the types of contaminants rather than a percentage of contamination. Contamination data was recorded in this manner so further education about these wrong materials could be communicated to the properties. For this reason, the contamination rate expressed in this report represents the overall percentage of recycling carts containing any visualized amount of contamination as it pertains to a given location or as an aggregate of all locations. For instance, if 100 recycling carts were surveyed at a community and 37 of them had any form of contamination in them, then the contamination rate would be 37% for that particular survey. As can be seen, a significant decrease in contamination from 71% at the March 2016 inspection to 29% at the May 2016 inspection occurs. Contamination trended upward again by the August 2016 inspection (51%) to 6% higher than the baseline inspection in August 2015 (45%). Overall, the GreenBrier community did not increase their baseline tonnage by 10% to reach the goal of the Kroger reward in this program. 6.3 CONCLUSIONS OF THE REWARDS PROGRAM Although GreenBrier residents identified a Kroger coupon or gift card as a reward that would motivate them to recycle, it was not enough to reach the goal of increasing their recycling tonnage by 10% from their baseline tonnage. Based on the past challenges of the RecycleBank reward program for singlefamily home recycling participants in Ann Arbor, Recycle Ann Arbor knew there could be additional challenges in implementing a MFU (community-based) rewards program. Given that the GreenBrier community chose it as their incentive for increasing recycling participation, it was worth testing, despite the outcome. It is worth considering that the Kroger reward may not be what would motivate the entire community to recycle and that is a reason the program did not reach its goal. Ultimately, forty-six residents out of the five-hundred surveyed determined that the entire Greenbrier community s Rewards Program motivator should be Kroger. Those who responded to this survey represented only 9% of the GreenBrier community. Some of those respondents who chose Kroger as a motivator also could have left the community prior to the program starting which left more tenants motivated by the incentives not piloted. Since personal preferences are variable, it s difficult to determine what one incentive would satisfy the majority of residents in a community. Future reward-based programs may want to explore the idea of rewards with a more universal appeal, such as cash or Visa gift cards. In the Eureka Recycling Multi-Family Recycling Report, 31 a recycling expert referenced exploring cash as a motivator for recycling. Additional discussions with property staff could also determine the feasibility for incentives to 31 Eureka Recycling Publication (2014). "Best Practices in Multifamily (Apartment) Recycling Report" [Online], p.4 (full footnote) 33

38 be focused on discounts on rent or utilities which would most likely appeal to the majority of MFU tenants. Despite our engagement efforts for the Rewards Program, results actually showed that tonnage trended downward (Figure 7, p.32) during the study, while contamination steadily increased (Figure 8, p.32) at the time of the first three inspections. A significant decrease in contamination, from 71% at the March 2016 inspection to 29% at the May 2016 inspection may have been due in small part to the reengagement Kroger tote bag door-to-door distribution that was conducted in late March/early April. The Kroger tote bag was a visual reminder of the Rewards Program but also presented each tenant with a refresher recycling guidelines sheet. As mentioned previously, the door-to-door engagement campaigns were restricted by GreenBrier staff and did not allow for Recycle Ann Arbor staff to actually talk with any GreenBrier residents. If Recycle Ann Arbor staff were able to talk with the residents this may have helped in their understanding, and participation, of the Rewards Program at their site. In our experience, many MFU tenants have very specific questions about the recycling program that are not simply answered by leaving a guidelines flyer or referencing a website. Being able to discuss the program and recycling practices with the tenants may have assisted with decreasing contamination at this community and could have led to a different outcome of the Rewards Program. Any additional efforts made into Rewards program should implement a face-to-face or discussion component for the MFU tenants. If site privacy (door-to-door) is an ongoing issue at the MFU property, efforts should be made to at least host an outreach event. Overall, the effectiveness of using a rewards program to motivate participation in a community-wide recycling program is difficult to definitively determine with the data provided. The nature of the community-based reward method tested at GreenBrier makes it challenging to assess behavior change based on recycling cart fill rates and tonnage alone. Although tonnage decreased and contamination increased, it is not possible to definitively know whether or not tenants actually participated in the Rewards program or what exactly contributed to these field waste observations. Questions remain such as; Did a lack of understanding of the Rewards program and recycling in general contribute to the high contamination observed? Was the community as a whole just not motivated by the Kroger reward? Supplementing the tonnage and fill rate data with a participant survey along the way (similar to the model of the indoor bin behavior survey) could have provided answers to these questions and more conclusive results in this pilot program. Even though the Rewards program did not have a successful outcome at GreenBrier, it did showcase a success in the ability to work with a large corporation on a sustainably-focused project. The agreement by Kroger corporate headquarters to participate in the pilot program with a possible $5,000 donation 32 and their donation of Kroger reusable tote bags show promising partnership possibilities for the City of Ann Arbor on similar projects. 32 Kroger agreed to donate $10 gift cards for all 500 units if the goal was met. 34

39 6.4 CHALLENGES OF IMPLEMENTING THE REWARDS PROGRAM Structuring a Rewards program that encompasses and measures an entire MFU community s participation based on tonnage data alone. o The inability to know which buildings or individuals may be using which recycling or trash receptacles, led to the program being structured on recycling tonnage for the entire complex; however this data alone did not allow us to definitively tell whether or not tenants actually participated in the Rewards program. o Inability to gather community tonnage data more frequently (weekly, bi-weekly, monthly, etc) due to project time frame, budget, realistic re-routing capabilities, and limited Recycle Ann Arbor staff. o Inability to partner with City of Ann Arbor s trash hauler to obtain tonnage data and accurate pick-up schedules for the trash at this complex. Selecting a business for the program incentive o Business choices were limited to those in close proximity to the complex and of assumed mass appeal to varied individuals. o Only 9% of the GreenBrier tenants responded to a follow-up survey that choose Kroger as the incentive for the entire community. Inability to know if the business selected (Kroger) was a meaningful reward for all GreenBrier tenants. Property staff involvement and commitment o Interest for the program waned as committed staff had other responsibilities. o Only one GreenBrier staff member was able to assist with the entire pilot program. o Site staff had to distribute all paper program surveys due to the community lacking access to resident s addresses. o Inability to know if site staff actually distributed and turned in all completed surveys to Recycle Ann Arbor staff as instructed. o Site staff had to be responsible for initial distribution of all engagement flyers due to privacy concerns of Recycle Ann Arbor staff accessing apartment hallways. Limitations on tenant engagement o The inability to go door-to-door to discuss the program with residents due to privacy concerns from property staff limited the program s awareness and understanding. o No property staff interest in Recycle Ann Arbor hosting any on-site outreach events for promotion of the Rewards Program. 6.5 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE REWARDS PROGRAM Recycle Ann Arbor recommends that the City of Ann Arbor explore other reward-based programs for the MFU sector before giving up on the concept. We do understand there may be hesitation to move forward with another Rewards program since this piloted model at GreenBrier did not lead to increased recycling participation and neither did the past Ann Arbor RecycleBank program at single-family homes. However, Recycle Ann Arbor recommends the City of Ann Arbor objectively consider a few points before relinquishing the idea of researching another reward-based program for MFU tenants: 35

40 A reward-based recycling program has now only been conducted twice 33 in the 40 years that recycling has existed in the City of Ann Arbor. RecycleBank was not tested in the MFU sector and only was available to single-family home residents; its success (or lack of) cannot be compared to that of the MFU community. The GreenBrier Rewards Program for this pilot program was just one constructed reward model and represented only one Ann Arbor MFU community. Other models and incentive choices may work better in other Ann Arbor MFU communities. Based on past negative experiences, the City of Ann Arbor should conduct additional research into the Ann Arbor community to see if a rewards-program model is even of interest to the population or if there are other motivators to why they would (or wouldn t) participate in recycling programs. Recommendations were made based on the results of the pre-program community surveys, field data analyzed, observations made from on-site engagement events, and best management practices from other communities (Appendix A). Further discussion will be necessary with the City of Ann Arbor to address the action plans, budget, and time required to implement any recommendations the City of Ann Arbor is interested in pursuing further. City-Wide Survey of MFU Communities Regarding a Rewards Program This recommendation relies heavily on City of Ann Arbor Solid Waste staff or other contracted organizations for the survey creation, implementation, data analysis, and cost of mailings. The City of Ann Arbor should first conduct a city-wide survey of MFU communities if there is interest in further pursuing a MFU Rewards Program. The GreenBrier Rewards Program was just one Ann Arbor MFU community and one reward model, so it is highly recommended that a more comprehensive survey of MFU households is conducted before any additional reward programs are conducted. Based on Ann Arbor s 2014 residential profile, 34 there are 26,822 Ann Arbor MFU units that could be targeted. The results of a city-wide survey of all MFU communities could prove insightful into what reward incentives (if any) might be of interest to a much larger demographic of MFU households. Survey results could also show that the Ann Arbor MFU community is just not motivated by an incentive based program; in which case the City of Ann Arbor could definitively decide another rewards-based program is not worth pursuing. Additional solid waste or city service questions could be rolled into this survey to maximize its exposure and results. Recycle Ann Arbor does not feel it can provide accurate, detailed costs on this recommendation since further discussion with the City of Ann Arbor would be necessary. The costs of implementing a survey of this size would be dependent on the consultant hired, survey structure, and what information the City of Ann Arbor ultimately wanted to gather. However, the pre-program community survey of this pilot program to only 1,047 units cost approximately 33 Recyclebank was piloted in 2010 to all Ann Arbor SFHs and the GreenBrier rewards model was piloted in to only 500 units in one MFU complex. 34 City of Ann Arbor Publication (2014). "Ann Arbor Residential Profile" [Online], p.1 (full footnote) 36

41 $7,500 (at a $75/hour rate 35 ). This cost reflects the time spent by Iris Waste Diversion Specialists on survey creation, data analysis, and creating a final report. 36 Recycle Ann Arbor recommends this survey be conducted by mail for a better chance at reaching the majority of MFU tenants, in addition to avoiding any property staff coordination or permission for distribution. Resident turn-over is also not an issue with mailed surveys, since they can be addressed to Current Resident and any tenant occupying that unit would be able to respond. Respondents could be directed to a recommended online survey form to capture their responses and to limit paper survey collection. The City of Ann Arbor would need to consider if the advantages of a mail distribution outweigh the printing and postage costs associated with it. 37 If the City of Ann Arbor is interested in pursuing a city-wide MFU survey, further discussion would be necessary for detailing its structure, overall implementation, and additional budget considerations. Alternative Reward Program Model This recommendation requires reliance on property staff for initial permission and site access, but their involvement in actual implementation or up-keep is minimal. This recommendation does however rely heavily on City of Ann Arbor Solid Waste staff or other contracted organizations for program coordination and implementation. If the City of Ann Arbor is interested in pursuing any additional reward-based programs, further discussion would be necessary for detailing its structure, overall implementation, partnerships for reward donations, and program budget. An Individual-Participation Based Rewards Program for MFU Tenants The City of Ann Arbor could explore options for implementing an individualparticipation based rewards program at MFUs which focuses on activities related to recycling (or other community programs). An individual model would allow each tenant to be responsible for their own participation, which may help with the programs appeal since the participant would not have to rely on others within their community. Additionally, aspects of the program would actually assist property staff and City staff with recycling education and engagement efforts based on the activities structures. o Program Structure Example: Rewards are earned by MFU complex members (individuals) participating in activities related to a recycling pilot program, such as attending a recycling orientation meeting, completing behavior surveys, translating recycling guidelines, using an indoor bin, or volunteering to assist with resident education. Participating in these activities would earn the 35 The pre-program community survey was conducted by Iris Waste Diversion Specialists. 36 Recycle Ann Arbor staff and interns took on all survey site coordination, property staff communication, and survey response data entry from all print surveys which is not included in this cost estimate. 37 Recycle Ann Arbor does not feel it can provide accurate, detailed costs on printing and postage costs since it is dependent on survey size and structure. 37

42 individual participant points that would add up to receiving a certain predetermined reward. Using more universally appealing rewards, such as Visa gift cards, cash, or rental discounts could increase participation in the program also. If current City of Ann Arbor Solid Waste staff could not coordinate such a program, the recommendation for hiring an Outreach Assistant or Intern (p.28) would also apply here. The City of Ann Arbor should research the City Points Rewards model that Grand Rapid, MI has established. 38 The model allows for individuals to earn points for more than recycling, and includes points for volunteering and participating in other community programs. An interdepartmental rewards program for City of Ann Arbor MFU tenants, or all residents, may allow for increased participation if the focus wasn t just on recycling practices. 38 City of Grand Rapids website: My GR City Points: FAQs [Online]. Available: [2017, February]. 38

43 7. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Recycle Ann Arbor would like to thank the following organizations, communities, and individuals for their support and involvement throughout the duration of this pilot program: The City of Ann Arbor- for funding the pilot program Iris Waste Diversion Specialists, Inc.- for their survey creation, data analysis, and expertise Arbor Landings Apartments- Management and Residents Glacier Hills Senior Living Community- Management and Residents GreenBrier Apartments- Management and Residents Craig North, Kroger Consumer Communications Analyst, and the Kroger Associates who live and work in Ann Arbor Recycle Ann Arbor Curbside Recycling Interns, Drivers, and Field Staff Cities in our Best Management Practice Research for time spent sharing their program details 39

44 APPENDICES 40

45 Appendix A: Best Management Practices Research from Multi-Family Unit Recycling Programs 41

46 Best Management Practices from Multi-Family Unit Recycling Programs Across the United States All of the below selected cities have education as a main strategy type. Alameda, CA is included specifically due to its focus on the mandatory recycling ordinance as a key strategy. There are opportunities to learn from their implementation to better enforce ordinances. Our Program Location Ann Arbor, MI City Stats Population: 117, % speak language other than English 48.1% of housing in MFU s Home to University of Michigan: 43,400 students Location Minneapolis, MN City Stats Population: 400, % speak language other than English 51.1% of housing in MFU s Strategy Type Home to University of Minnesota: 51,500 students Case Study Summary Education, Outreach, and Incentive City ordinance requires owners and managers of Multi-Family Units (>2 units) to provide recycling for cardboard, paper, glass bottles and jars, metal cans, and plastic bottles at a minimum. The city operates under a Pay-As-You-Throw ordinance, placing a fee on the amount of trash disposed, which encourages the use of recycling to reduce the amount of trash. Key Strategies Used Educational materials are available to apartment managers o Stickers, signs, magnets, and labels o Recycling guides, brochures, and posters Recycling totes provided to encourage transport of recycling from indoors to bins Apartment complexes are encouraged to recruit recycling advocates, who would monitor and empty common areas and promote recycling to their neighbors On-site assessments and informational presentations are offered by the city to increase knowledge and participation Pay-As-You-Throw offers an incentive to recycle more and pay less for trash Website: 42

47 Location Alameda, CA City Stats Population: 72, % speak language other than English 46.6% of housing in MFU s Strategy Type Mandatory County Recycling Ordinance, Education Home to smaller Liberal Arts College & University- College of Alameda: 6,516 students Case Study Summary The City of Alameda has a long history of recycling and has a 75% diversion rate. As of the City adopted the mandatory recycling ordinance of Alameda County which went into effect in Enforcement of the ordinance will begin All businesses and multi-family units with 5-units or more will be required to comply with the ordinance and have adequate composting and recycling services. Key Strategies Used County Mandatory Ordinance - Website/Education Support Materials Visitors to the City website are provided with basic recycling information and are directed to the Alameda County or waste hauler website for more detailed information. o FAQ posters about the ordinance in English, Spanish and Chinese o Recycling, composting and garbage posters and signage o Sign maker tool o Template of resident notification letter for MFU recycling o Multi-language, 2-sided notification letter in customizable PDF format Technical Assistance MFU Property Owners/Managers can request assistance to establish or improve a recycling program Update Subscription MFU residents and Property Owners/Managers can sign up from the County website to receive updates, news and resources Website: and Location Strategy Type Boulder, CO Outreach, Education, and Incentive City Stats Population: 103,133 14% speak language other than English 46% of housing in MFU s 43

48 Home to University of Colorado-Boulder: 31,700 students Case Study Summary Boulder is a city where >90% of residents recycle. They have a strong culture of environmentalism that has led to multiple programs in Multi-Family Units working towards Zero Waste in partnership with Eco- Cycle and Western Disposal Services. Key Strategies Used Informative recycling posters are provided to apartment managers in Spanish and English Recycling coupon for 3 months off of a year s subscription of recycling services is available to businesses in the city Provide educational handouts for the most common contaminants in recyclables, increasing the likelihood that recycling is acceptable Results at a Glance Multiple MFU s in Boulder have programs designed for their communities with very specific goals in mind. While most of these projects are still ongoing, some have been able to report significant improvements. Kalmia Apartments in Boulder were able to increase their recycling and composting diversion rates by 12% over six months. Website: Location Chicago, IL City Stats Population: 2,695, % speak language other than English 70.6% of housing in MFU s Strategy Type Outreach, Education, and Incentive Home to many universities, including University of Chicago (15,000 students) and University of Illinois at Chicago (28,000 students) Case Study Summary The City of Chicago requires MFU s to offer an effective recycling program to their tenants through a private hauler. As part of this program, MFU owners/managers are also required to submit a written recycling plan, which includes semi-annual quality reports, and educational materials to be provided to tenants on how and what to recycle. It is also mandatory that managers of MFU s provide an educational program on recycling for new and current tenants. Key Strategies Used Many educational tools are provided by the City specifically for owners/managers of MFU s o 5-Step Recycling Plan outlines how to create an effective program o Worksheet for individual buildings to calculate the amount of waste they produce and recycle o Toolkits of advice categorized by the size of the MFU, including BMP for each category 44

49 o Implementation of recycling coordinators is suggested as a way to oversee recycling from within the community The City suggests getting kids involved in this role, as a way to engage adults members of the community, as well o Pledge card templates are provided to managers to serve as a way to increase participation by providing an incentive for return of the cards o MFU s are encouraged to post progress reports on volume of recycling or number of recycling bins Educational tools for the residents are also provided o Many informational posters, handouts, and newsletters are provided to increase awareness and understanding of the program for the tenants o A specific list of actions to take to improve or implement a recycling program is available to tenants on the City s website Website: Location Fort Collins, CO City Stats Population: 152, % speak language other than English 31.9% of housing in MFU s Home to Colorado State University: 31,000 students Case Study Summary Strategy Type Education and Incentive Although Fort Collins enforces a Pay-As-You-Throw ordinance for residential locations, this does not apply to Multi-Family Units. Recycling in Multi-Family Units is not required by the city, but is encouraged through a program called WRAP (Waste Reduction and Recycling Assistance Program). The implementation of a recycling program is the responsibility of an interested resident, manager, or owner of a Multi-Family Unit. Key Strategies Used Step-by-step guideline provided by city for setting up a program Posters available to educate about the program Discounts are offered on the first few months for signing up for the program Referral incentive of $50 for recommending WRAP Website: Location Fresno, CA Strategy Type Outreach & Education 45

50 City Stats Population: 509, % speak language other than English 33.3% of housing in MFU s Home to California State University, Fresno: 23,060 students Case Study Summary The city of Fresno is known for having one of the highest recycling rates in the country for cities of comparable size. Although the city itself does not provide recycling for Multi-Family Units, they do provide a list of many available haulers. Key Strategies Used One of the private haulers available to Fresno citizens for recycling services has an extensive outreach program o Will host or sponsor community events to increase awareness o Public education provided in English and Spanish o CURBY, a remotely controlled robot, is a popular outreach tool used to engage children City of Fresno Recycling Program offers many resources and outreach programs to help educate about recycling in general (not specific to MFU), and develop a culture of environmentalism o Multiple kid-friendly informational packets and interactive games o Educational packets and curriculums specific to age ranges o City staff participate in community and school events to increase recycling awareness A Zero Waste Culture is actively sought after by the city Website: and htm **All statistics on language, housing, and city population demographics were taken from the United State Census Bureau. The inclusion of these cities in this report is merely for research and the information provided is current as of this report date. 46

51 Appendix B: Iris Waste Diversion Specialist s Residential Pre-Program Survey Results and Iris Waste Report Appendix 47

52 City of Ann Arbor Multi-Family Recycling Incentive Project, Residential Survey Report - August Prepared by Iris Waste Diversion Specialists, Inc. Report Summary Recycle Ann Arbor in a partnership with Iris Waste Diversion Specialists conducted a survey of three Ann Arbor Multi-Family communities, Arbor Landings, Greenbrier, and Glacier Hills. The survey was conducted to gain an understanding of the common motivations for engaging in recycling programs and how to best encourage participation in the recycling programs available to them. This survey was conducted in three different communities, comprised of 1,047 households, representing the diverse population of Ann Arbor residents. The communities selected had management staff interested in improving recycling and willing to participate in a pilot study. Arbor Landings (328 units) is located on the west side of Ann Arbor and has a high population of young professionals. Greenbrier (500 units), located on the north side, has a diverse ethnic population of year olds. To represent the older adult population, Glacier Hills condominiums (219 units) on the north side was selected. 183 surveys, electronic and hard, were returned. The 17.5% response rate is slightly above the expected rate of participation for a semi-targeted population, ~10%. The vast majority, 95%, of the respondents participate in the recycling program in their multi-family community. While high recycling participation is the desired behavior of this project, the lack of response by non-recyclers makes deep analysis of the data difficult because of the lack of variation. Therefore, this study takes a more topical and graphical approach to highlight certain relationships amongst those who do recycle and recommend that the respondents who do not recycle be treated as a focus group. The tenant survey found the average respondent: Lives in a two person household Is over 65 years of age or under forty Recycles on a weekly basis Has a dedicated spot inside their home for their recyclables Favors using containers, such as paper and plastic bags, for carrying recyclables to the outdoor recycling carts The average respondent would probably agree they might be motivated to recycle more if: A storage container were provided for them to use inside their home Larger outdoor recycling containers were available Property management provided recycling information Having a volunteer recycling contact or someone to personally explain, in their native language, how to recycle would not be a motivation to participate in recycling. 48

53 In addition to the qualitative data, comments by tenants indicated overall satisfaction with the recycling program. Nearly 13% of comments suggested providing more or larger outdoor recycling carts to increase the level of satisfaction and participation. Over 6% of comments indicated the need or desire for more information about how to properly recycle. To engage the Property Management staff of the participating multi-family communities, a survey was developed to gain baseline information for use during in-person interviews with staff. The survey and interview responses regarding recycling motivators align with the tenant survey results; provide a storage container to tenants and larger outdoor recycling containers. Property Management staff also indicated the need for more frequent collection service since recycling carts are usually overflowing. A total of 8 Property Management surveys were received and results are not included in this report. Introduction Approximately half of the residential dwelling units in the City of Ann Arbor are multi-family, totaling approximately 24,000 units. A waste sort conducted in 2012 revealed that 26% of trash generated from multi-family dwellings consisted of recyclable materials, more than double that found among trash from single-family homes (12%). The City of Ann Arbor currently has an ordinance in place that requires multi-family properties with 10 or more units to provide space for City recycling containers and provide residents with recycling information upon lease signing and on an annual basis. In December 2013, the Ann Arbor City Council passed the Ann Arbor Solid Waste Resource Plan which identified the use of pilot projects and education to identify methods to increase recycling participation by residents of multi-family communities. The specific actions identified were: Action 1 Increase recycling participation through pilots, such as introducing a recycling incentive program for multi-family dwellings. Action 2 Increase multi-family educational opportunities in cooperation with multi-family management companies by piloting an on-site recycling coordinator to provide education and outreach information in-person using print materials and online tools. Objectives The City of Ann Arbor has contracted with Recycle Ann Arbor and partner, Iris Waste Diversion Specialists, to conduct pilot programs to measure the impacts of specific practices aimed at motivating positive recycling behavior among multi-family residents. To gain an understanding of pre-pilot participation and gauge recycling behaviors and motivators a survey was developed. The survey findings will inform decisions related to determining the specific approach to test at each multi-family community and will provide a base-line for post-pilot comparison. Survey Methodology A survey was developed for online and hard-copy distribution by Property Managers in early May

54 Arbor Landings distributed the online survey link to residents and had hard-copy surveys available in the Leasing office. Only one of the 77 surveys was a hard-copy survey. Only hard-copy surveys were provided at Greenbrier and Glacier Hills, with 48 and 58 surveys received respectively. The online survey was designed using a web-based survey tool from Constant Contact. The online survey was available beginning May 8, 2014 and closed on June 8. Providing the survey in hard-copy form allowed residents to respond to the survey in a manner most familiar and convenient for them. The survey consisted of 9 questions for non-recyclers and a possible 18 questions for recyclers, with the opportunity to provide freeform comments within specific questions and at the end of the survey. The first set of questions, Recycling in Your Household, determined the respondent s participation in recycling and asked them to identify the probability that offering specific services would influence their participation. Specific services included a rewards program, providing a collection container, and an on-site recycling volunteer. Respondents who indicated they recycled were asked specific questions about storage and delivery of materials to the outdoor recycling carts, as well as their satisfaction with the recycling program at their multi-family community. Recyclers had the option of identifying the types of materials they recycle and the frequency they recycle each type. This report does not include an analysis of the results of the Optional question responses however aggregate data is provided in the results section. The About Your Household section captured demographic information about the respondent, including the main language spoken in their home and provided an opportunity to submit additional comments about their community s recycling program. To increase the return rate, an incentive was offered to respondents in the form of a $5.00 voucher redeemable at the Recycle Ann Arbor ReUse Center which was provided upon completion of the survey. The hard copy survey instrument and online survey format are included in the Appendix of this report. Tenant Survey Results Survey responses were entered into a spreadsheet and comments associated with specific questions were compiled separately. Online survey data was imported from Constant Contact into a spreadsheet. The data from both spreadsheets were merged prior to analysis to gain aggregate results. Results are provided as an aggregate study however, specific community data is provided where findings vary notably from the aggregate results. Survey questions are provided on the following pages and include the total number of responses from the three properties surveyed. A compilation of all comments can be found in the Appendix. 50

55 Multi-Family Recycling Tenant Survey Results Recycling at Your Household 1) Do you recycle at your apartment/condominium? Number of Responses Response Ratio a. Yes % b. No 7 3.8% c. No response 1.05% Totals % Recycling at Your Household (Questions Asked of Non-Recyclers) 2N) NO to Question 1 Please tell us why you do not recycle. Check all that apply. Number of Responses Response Ratio a. I didn t know there is a recycling program here 1 7.6% b. I don t know what items to recycle % c. I don t have space in my home for storing recyclables % d. I don t have enough to bother with % e. The location of the outdoor recycling carts is inconvenient 1 7.6% f. There aren t any outdoor recycling carts to use 1 7.6% g. Recycling isn t important to me 0 0% h. Recycling takes too much time 0 0% i. No one else recycles here 0 0% j. Other 0 0% Totals % 3N) NO to Question 1 How likely would you be to recycle if the following were available to you? 1=Definitely Would, 2=Probably Would, 3=Not Sure, 4=Probably Wouldn t, 5=Definitely Wouldn t Number of Responses Rating Score* a. A rewards program to earn coupons to local businesses and restaurants b. A rewards program that allows you to support a local school or community organization c. A container to collect and store recyclables in your home d. Someone to personally explain how to recycle in your native language e. Larger, more convenient outdoor recycling containers f. An on-site recycling volunteer to contact

56 g. Recycling communication from the Property Manager *The Rating Score is the weighted average calculated by dividing the sum of all weighted ratings by the number of total responses. 52

57 Recycling at Your Household Continued (Questions Asked of Recyclers) 3Y) YES to Question 1 How likely would you be to recycle more if the following were available to you? 1=Definitely Would, 2=Probably Would, 3=Not Sure, 4=Probably Wouldn t, 5=Definitely Wouldn t a. A rewards program to earn coupons to local businesses and restaurants b. A rewards program that allows you to support a local school or community organization c. A container to collect and store recyclables in your home d. Someone to personally explain how to recycle in your native language e. Larger, more convenient outdoor recycling containers f. An on-site recycling volunteer to contact g. Recycling communication from the Property Manager Number of Responses Rating Score* Y) Where do you recycle your materials? Check all that apply. Number of Responses Response Ratio a. I use the outdoor recycling carts at my apartment/condominium % b. I take my items to a recycling drop-off center % c. Other % Totals % 5Y) How often do you take your recyclables to the outdoor recycling carts? Number of Responses Response Ratio a. Every day % b. At least once per week % c. Every other week 7 3.9% d. Once per month % e. Other % f. No response % Totals % 6Y) Do you have a dedicated area in your home for storing recyclables until you take them out to the recycling carts? Number of Responses Response Ratio a. Yes % b. No % c. No response % Totals % 7Y) Where in your home do you keep recyclables until you take them out to the recycling carts? 116 responses See Appendix 53

58 *The Rating Score is the weighted average calculated by dividing the sum of all weighted ratings by the number of total responses. 54

59 Recycling at Your Household Continued (Questions Asked of Recyclers) 8Y) What do you hold your recyclables in until you take them to the recycling carts? 113 responses See Appendix 9Y) What do you use to carry your recyclables to the outdoor recycling carts? Check all that apply Number of Responses Response Ratio a. A box % b. A paper bag % c. A plastic bag % d. A reusable bag % e. A plastic tote/bin % f. Nothing. I carry them loose in my hands % g. Other 7 2.4% Totals % 10Y) How satisfied are you with the recycling program here? 1=Very Satisfied, 2=Somewhat Satisfied, 3=Neither Satisfied or Dissatisfied 4=Dissatisfied, 5=Very Dissatisfied Number of Responses Rating Score* Y) How could the program be improved to increase your level of satisfaction? 100 responses See Appendix OPTIONAL QUESTION (Question Asked only of Recyclers) 12Y) Would you like to take a few extra moments to tell us how often you recycle specific items? Number of Responses Response Ratio a. Yes % b. No % c. No response 8 5.5% Totals % Paper Items Number of Responses 1=Always, 2=Most of the time, 3=Once in awhile, 4=Never, 5=I don t have these, 6=I didn t know they were recyclable Rating Score* a. Newspapers b. Magazines/catalogs/phonebooks c. Paper bags d. Junk mail e. Office/copier paper/envelopes f. Boxboard (cereal boxes, tissue boxes, paper rolls, etc.) g. Cardboard

60 h. Pizza boxes *The Rating Score is the weighted average calculated by dividing the sum of all weighted ratings by the number of total responses. OPTIONAL QUESTION Continued (Question Asked only of Recyclers) ABOUT YOUR HOUSEHOLD (Asked of Recyclers & Non-Recyclers) Number of Response 13Y/4N) How many people live in your household? Number Responses of Rating Ratio Plastic Items Marked with #1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 Responses Score* % a. One 1=Always, 2=Most of the time, 3=Once in awhile, 4=Never, 5=I don t have these, 6=I didn t know they were recyclable % b. Two a. Plastic bottles and tubs % c. Three b. Plastic laundry jugs 5 2.7% d. Four c. Plastic milk jugs 1 0.5% e. Five or more d. Bulky plastics (laundry baskets, lawn chairs, etc.) % f. No Response Totals % Glass Items Number of Responses Rating Score* Number of Response 14Y/5N) 1=Always, What 2=Most age group of the represents time, 3=Once the in people awhile, living 4=Never, in your 5=I household? don t have Check these, all 6=I that didn t apply. know they Responses were recyclable Ratio a. Under 18 years % 1.3 b years % c years 43 Number of 21.3% Rating Metal Items d years Responses 12 Score* 5.9% 1=Always, 2=Most of the time, 3=Once in awhile, 4=Never, 5=I don t have these, 6=I didn t know they 72 were recyclable 35.6% e years a. f. Aluminum Over 65 years cans % 1.7 b. Aluminum Totals foil and trays % 2.9 c. Steel cans d. Metal lids and caps e. Metal pots Cartons Number of Responses 1=Always, 2=Most of the time, 3=Once in awhile, 4=Never, 5=I don t have these, 6=I didn t know they were recyclable Rating Score* a. Juice boxes b. Milk and soup cartons c. Juice cartons *The Rating Score is the weighted average calculated by dividing the sum of all weighted ratings by the number of total responses. 56

61 15Y/6N) What is the main language spoken in your home? 169 responses See Appendix 16Y/7N) How long have you lived at this apartment/condominium? Number of Responses Response Ratio a. Less than 2 years % b. 2-4 years % c years % d. 10+ years % e. No Response % Totals % 17Y/8N) How long have you lived in the City of Ann Arbor? Number of Responses Response Ratio a. Less than 2 years % b. 2-4 years % c years % d. 10+ years % e. No Response % Totals % 18Y/9N) Do you have any additional comments about the apartment/condominium recycling program? 54 responses See Appendix KEY FINDINGS - RECYCLING AT YOUR HOUSEHOLD Non-Recyclers While the response to this survey by non-recyclers was negligible and therefore does not provide statistically significant data, the following information is note worthy. All non-recycler respondents indicated their main reason for not recycling as lack of space to store recyclables. Interestingly, having a container to collect and store recyclables had the highest ranking (2.5) among all options that would motivate them to recycle. Given that a ranking of 2 means Probably Would and a ranking of 3 means Not sure, a 2.5 ranking indicates a good probability of participation. Carry Methods from Home to Cart Recyclers were asked to identify all methods for carrying recyclables to the outdoor carts. Multiple methods are used by most respondents and Chart 1 illustrates that nearly 60% of respondents favor the use of a bag, with paper bags being most used (32.2%) followed by the use of plastic bags (19.7%). 8% of respondents indicated the use of a reusable bag to transport material to the recycling carts. The use of bags points to the convenience of bags for storage and ease of use. In the case of paper and 57

62 plastic bags, residents have drop and go convenience when the bag is placed into the cart along with recyclables. Chart 1 Carry Methods Aggregate Carry Methods of Recyclables to Carts Loose in hands, 10.7% Plastic tote/bin, 13.5% Reusable bag, 8.0% Other, 2.4% Paper bag, 32.2% Box, 13.5% Plastic bag, 19.7% Graph 1 Carry Methods by Multi-Family Community 100 Carry Methods of Recyclables to Carts - By Multi-Family Community AL GB GH Box Paper bag Plastic bag Reusable bag Plastic tote/bin Loose in hands 12 4 Other 58

63 Potential Incentives for Recycling Recyclers were asked to indicate the probability a specific incentive would increase their recycling effort. Graph 2 provides the rating for each incentive by community and collectively. The lower the rating the more probable the respondent would recycle more. Looking at the data collectively, providing an in home storage container has the highest probability of increasing recycling behavior with a rating of 2.4. A rewards program may also motivate increased recycling with a rating of 2.6 for both a program to earn coupons to local businesses and a rewards program that supports local schools or organizations. When the data is analyzed by individual community, receiving an in-home recycling container rates highest for Arbor Landings (2.0) and Glacier Hills (2.2), while residents of Greenbrier rate earning coupons to local businesses as the incentive most likely to increase their recycling efforts (2.0). Providing larger, more convenient outdoor recycling containers rated second for Arbor Landings (2.3) and Greenbrier (2.2). The aggregate rating was 2.7 however, is not likely a strong motivator for Glacier Hills residents with a rating of 3.8. Having someone explain the program in their native language ranked second among Glacier Hill respondents (2.6). As all Glacier Hills respondents indicated the main language spoken in their home as English this rating identifies a desire for more in depth education about the recycling program. Looking at the aggregate data this incentive received a rating of 3.4, with a rating of 3.6 for Arbor Landings and a 3.7 rating for Greenbrier. Communication from the Property Manager received an aggregate rating of 2.8, just under the Not Sure rating of 3. Arbor Landings and Greenbrier residents equally rated this incentive at 2.9, while Glacier Hills came in at 2.7. The least likely motivator was identified as having an on-site recycling volunteer to contact with an aggregate rating of 3.5. Ratings for all communities were above 3.0 with at 3.4, 3.2 and 3.9 rating for Arbor Landings, Greenbrier and Glacier Hills, respectively. 59

64 5 4.5 Results of Survey Question: "How Likely Would You Be to Recycle More if the Following Were Available to You?" 1 = Definitely Would 2 = Probably Would 3 = Not Sure 4 = Probably Wouldn't 5 = Definitely Wouldn't Rewards program for local businesses or restaurants Rewards program to support school or organization Container to collect and store Personal explanation Larger, more convenient recyclables about recycling inoutdoor recycling native language containers An on-site recycling volunteer to contact Recycling info from Property Manager Rating Score AL Rating Score GB Rating Score GH Rating Score Combined Graph 2 Recycling Incentives Ratings - Aggregate and by Multi-Family Community 60

65 KEY FINDINGS - ABOUT YOUR HOUSEHOLD Household Size Aggregate survey data revealed that nearly 83% of households were occupied by one (46.7%) or two (36%) people. Chart 2 Number of People in Household Number of People in Household Four 3% Three 8% 5 or more 0% No response 6% One 47% Two 36% Age Groups Age group representation is as expected with Glacier Hills which accounts for the majority of residents 50 years and older. Arbor Landings and Greenbrier respondents nearly equally represented the years old and years old categories. Chart 3 Age Groups Represented Age Groups Represented Over 65 years 8% Under 18 years 7% years 36% years 22% years 21% years 6% 61

66 What is the Main Language Spoken in Your Home? The majority of respondents living at Arbor Landings (90%) and Glacier Hills (100%) indicated English as the main language spoken in their home, while over 50% of Greenbrier respondents indicated a language other than English as the primary language spoken at home. A diversity of languages was identified and included Chinese, French, German, Gujarati, Japanese, Korean, Mandarin, Persian, Portuguese, and Teluga. Only five respondents identified both English and another language spoken in the home. When asked how the program could be improved to increase the respondents level of satisfaction, six of the 33 comments made by non-english speaking Greenbrier residents were specific to providing information about how and what to recycle. Interestingly, there was no correlation between those indicated wanting more information and the incentive option to have someone explain recycling in their native language. Residency Analysis of the raw data from the survey found insignificant correlation between the length of residency in Ann Arbor, the length of residency in the respondent s respective multi-family community and participation in recycling. The data does indicate that residency in multi-family housing among recyclers is not long term; suggesting a need for ongoing recycling communication to ensure new tenants are aware of the recycling program. Graph 3 Length of Residency Comparison Conclusions Length of Residency Comparison AL GB GH 62

67 The key findings of the Multi-Family Recycling Tenant survey indicate the following: A. The top rated incentive to increase recycling efforts is to provide a container to collect and store recyclables at Arbor Landings (2.0 rating) and Glacier Hills (2.2 rating). B. The top rated incentive to increase recycling efforts is to offer a rewards program for coupons to local businesses at Greenbriar (2.0 rating). C. The most probable incentives (less than 3.0) varied for each community Arbor Landings Rating Incentive 2.0 In-home collection container 2.3 Larger, more convenient outdoor containers 2.3 Rewards to benefit schools or organizations 2.4 Rewards to local businesses 2.9 Recycling communication from Property Manager Glacier Hills Rating Incentive 2.2 In-home collection container 2.6 Someone to explain how to recycle in native language 2.7 Recycling communication from Property Manager Greenbrier Rating Incentive 2.0 Rewards to local businesses 2.2 Larger, more convenient outdoor containers 2.3 Rewards to benefit schools or organizations 2.9 Recycling communication from Property Manager D. Overall satisfaction with the recycling program among recyclers (1.7 rating). However, based on freeform comments provided, opportunities exist to increase satisfaction by: Increasing the number of recycling carts for resident use 13% of comments Improve marketing and communication about the recycling program 6% of comments 63

68 IRIS WASTE REPORT APPENDIX Tenant Survey Instrument Tenant Online Constant Contact Survey Sample Tenant Hard Copy Survey Format Tenant Survey Comments 64

69 Tenant Survey Instrument Online Format Tenant Online Constant Contact Survey Sample 65

70 City of Ann Arbor Multi-Family Recycling Pilot Project Pre-Pilot Tenant Survey Spring 2015 SURVEY INTRODUCTION The City of Ann Arbor is interested in increasing recycling participation among residents of apartment and condominiums and has contracted Recycle Ann Arbor to pilot specific recycling practices at your location. Your participation in this survey will help identify recycling perceptions and behaviors before pilot activities are implemented. For returning the completed survey to the leasing office you will receive a $5.00 voucher redeemable at Recycle Ann Arbor s ReUse Center. We value your honest response and feedback. Confidentiality is built into this survey and individual responses will remain anonymous. Community specific data will be compiled together as a whole and used to gauge progress throughout the pilot program and in a final report. The time commitment to take this survey is estimated at 5-10 minutes, depending on the length of any comments you provide. SURVEY QUESTIONS Section 1 Recycling in Your Household 1. Do you recycle at your apartment/condominium? Yes No (PLEASE SKIP TO SECTION 2) 2. How likely would you be to recycle more if the following were available to you? Method A rewards program to earn coupons to local businesses and restaurants A rewards program that allows you to support a local school or community organization A container to collect and store recyclables in your home Someone to personally explain how to recycle in your native language Larger, more convenient outdoor recycling containers Definitely Would Probably Would Not Sure Probably Wouldn t Definitely Wouldn t An onsite recycling volunteer to contact Recycling communication from the Property Manager 3. Where do you recycle your materials? Check all that apply. I use the outdoor recycling carts at my apartment/condominium I take my items to a recycling drop-off center Other (please comment) 66

71 4. How often do you take recyclables to the outdoor recycling carts at your apartment/condominium? Every day Once per month At least once per week Every other week Other Do What you do have you a use dedicated to carry area your in recyclables your home to for the storing outdoor recyclables recycling until carts? you Check take them all that out apply. to the recycling carts? Yes A box - Please continue to Questions 5A and 5B below A plastic tote/tub No - Please skip to Question 6 A paper 5A bag - Where in your home do you keep recyclables Nothing. until you I carry take them loose out to in the my recycling hand carts? A plastic 5B - bag What do you hold your recyclables in until you Other take (please them describe) to the recycling carts? A reusable bag 7. How satisfied are you with the recycling program here? Very Satisfied Somewhat Satisfied Neither Satisfied or Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied 8. How could the program be improved to increase your level of satisfaction? Please comment. About Your Household 9. How many people live in your household? or more 67

72 10. What age group represents the people living in your household? Check all that apply. Under 18 years years years years years Over What is the main language spoken in your home? 12. How long have you lived at this apartment/condominium? Less than 2 years 2-4 years 5-10 years 10+ years 13. How long have you lived in the City of Ann Arbor? Less than 2 years 2-4 years 5-10 years 10+ years 14. Do you have any additional comments about the apartment/condominium recycling program? Optional Question Continue or Skip 15. All of the following items are accepted in your recycling program. Please indicate how often you recycle the following items in the multi-family recycling containers. Items not listed below are not accepted for recycling in the carts but may be recyclable elsewhere. Visit the Recycle Ann Arbor website at the end of this survey for more information. ITEM Always Most of the time Once in awhile Never I don t have these I didn t know they were recyclable PAPER ITEMS 15a - Newspapers 15b Magazines/catalogs/phonebooks 15c Paper bags 15d Junk mail 15e Office/copier paper/envelopes 15f Boxboard (cereal/tissues boxes, paper rolls, etc.) 15g Cardboard 15h Pizza boxes PLASTIC ITEMS MARKED WITH #1,2,4,5,6,7 68

73 15i Plastic bottles and tubs 15j Plastic laundry jugs 15k Plastic milk jugs 15l Bulky plastics (laundry baskets, lawn chairs, etc.) GLASS ITEMS 15m Glass bottles and jars METAL ITEMS 15n Aluminum cans 15o Aluminum foil and trays 15p Steel Cans 15q Metal lids and caps 15r Metal pots CARTONS 15s Juice boxes 15t Milk and soup cartons 15u Juice cartons Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey and assist in our efforts to improve recycling. Please return this survey to the leasing office for a $5.00 voucher redeemable at the Recycle Ann Arbor ReUse Center. 69

74 SECTION 2 You are continuing the survey with Section 2 because you responded No to Question 1 Do you recycle at your apartment/condominium? Please continue with Question 2 below. (If you responded Yes to Question 1 and have completed Section 1 you are finished with the survey. Thank you.) About Your Household 2. Please tell us why you don t recycle? Check all that apply. I didn t know there is a recycling program here I don t know what items to recycle I don t have space in my home for storing recyclables I don t have enough to bother with The location of the outdoor recycling carts is inconvenient There aren t any outdoor recycling carts to use Recycling isn t important to me Recycling takes too much time No one else recycles here Other (please comment) 3. How likely would you be to recycle if the following were available to you? Method A rewards program to earn coupons to local businesses and restaurants A rewards program that allows you to support a local school or community organization A container to collect and store recyclables in your home Someone to personally explain how to recycle in your native language Larger, more convenient outdoor recycling containers Definitely Would Probably Would Not Sure Probably Wouldn t Definitely Wouldn t An onsite recycling volunteer to contact Recycling communication from the Property Manager 70

75 4. What would motivate you to recycle? Please comment. About Your Household 5. How many people live in your household? or more 6. What age group represents the people living in your household? Check all that apply. Under 18 years years years years years Over What is the main language spoken in your home? 8. How long have you lived at this apartment/condominium? Less than 2 years 2-4 years 5-10 years 10+ years 9. How long have you lived in the City of Ann Arbor? Less than 2 years 2-4 years 5-10 years 10+ years 10. Do you have any additional comments about the apartment/condominium recycling program? Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey and assist in our efforts to improve recycling. Please return this survey to the leasing office for a $5.00 voucher redeemable at the Recycle Ann Arbor ReUse Center. 71

76 Survey Comments All responses are unabridged Where do you recycle your materials? Other (21 responses, 1 without comment) 1. I recycle plastic bags at Kroger 2. Indoor containers on property (x13) 3. At U of M 4. I sometime return cans for deposit return 5. Have bin in garage. Picked up each week. 6. We have INSIDE containers that overflow occasionally 7. I sort recyclables and leave out with trash collection 8. I bag them up and they are picked up at my door How often do you take recyclables to the outdoor recycling carts? Other (14 responses, 6 without comment) 1. two times per week 2. never 3. every other day or when my improvised indoor bin is full times a week 5. Twice/week 6. Twice/weekly 7. Never outdoors 8. Never outdoors Where in your home do you keep recyclables until you take them out to the recycling carts? (116 responses) Front door (x9) Kitchen/sink (x49) Laundry room (x12) Dining room (x2) Closet (x16) Next to garbage can (x8) 1. Under computer desk 2. Storage cabinet at wash room 3. Store room 4. Waste basket 5. Garage 6. In the study 7. In a paper bag from the grocery store 8. Newspapers and catalogs on a shelf; other materials in an empty waste basket 9. Facility basement 10. In my studio apartment 11. In my apartment 12. On top of a bookcase 13. Closet and study 72

77 14. Under staircase 15. Cupboard 16. Laundry / Utility Room 17. Under sink & in den - space is tight so not every 18. container in my coat closet and a box in a cabinet 19. kitchen and front door 20. In the kitchen and in the laundry area What do you hold your recyclables in until you take them to the recycling carts? (113 responses, 1 without comment) Paper bag (x34) Reusable bag (x5) Plastic bags (x6) Cardboard box (x9) Wastebasket/trashbin/can (x13) Plastic Bin/Basket/Tote (x16) 1. Large shopping bag 2. Paper bag for papers, plastic bag for bottles 3. Plastic and glass into used plastic bag; paper into paper shopping bags 4. Ikea shopping bag and diaper box 5. Papers, boxes 6. Basket 7. Buckets 8. Plastic or paper bag 9. Carts are in garage 10. Pail with handle 11. Bag 12. Usually in a bag 13. Special container 14. In a shopping bag 15. Grocery bag 16. In a bag 17. Box and wastebasket 18. paper bags, big plastic bags 19. Tall kitchen trash can/bag for plastic bags 20. Plastic trash bag or a paper grocery bag 21. Cans 22. On both sides of sink 23. In a bag or box in my laundry room 24. A plastic grocery bag or paper grocery bag 25. Box and plastic container 26. Paper bag and a box 27. I recycle cardboard. I stack them inside each other 28. Plastic or paper bags 73

78 29. A paper bag or reusable shopping bag What do you use to carry your recyclables to the outdoor recycling carts? Other (7 responses, 2 without comment) 1. The cart is in my garage and I throw recyclables directly to it 2. I bring the cart to my front door 3. the bin I keep them in in my apt 4. Wicker basket 5. laundry basket How could the program be improved to increase your level of satisfaction? (100 responses) 1. It s working well already 2. Composting for vegetable waste 3. More awareness and promotion rewards for recycling 4. There are cases when the outside containers are full 5. More blue bins outside. They are often filled and I have to wait for them to be emptied. (The ones near dumpster in leasing office lot) 6. Having a container to collect recyclable items inside homes. 7. No! 8. There is always overflow- so large containers would be helpful 9. Everything is good. I am satisfied. 10. It could include more items such as Styrofoam, plastic bags, etc. There could be a box for battery and container for used kitchen oil. More info should be available, examples: Can I recycle dirty aluminum foil? How should I dispose broken glass? 11. Manuals about recycling information easy to reach 12. Better containers, more instruction such as to breakdown paper boxes, etc and maintenance could stop throwing away in garbage dumpsters paper board boxes, containers from "their work" or paper articles laying all around that fall out of recycle containers. They have no time to do "resident recycling" 13. Indoor recycling bin 14. I think it would be more convenient if we could throw plastic bags into the recycling bins. It would also be more convenient if cardboard boxes did not need to be broken down. 15. Bins in each apartment building, personal bins 16. Community could provide large boxes for recyclables 17. It s good enough now 18. Can t think of anything. I have few recyclables 19. Need to explain about recycling program 20. Give some praise or coupon 21. Containers should close more securely so wind cannot blow them open and distribute contents. Of course, also people should not overfill. Often there is space in other containers. Maybe a few big containers instead of several small ones improve compliance. Separate glass containers? (but this can potentially cause noise) 22. Perhaps providing an indoor recyclables container would help 23. Large containers. Provide indoor containers. Hold interesting programs for kids. 24. Add more classifications of the recyclables carts. For example, we have no carts for used batteries here. 74

79 25. I would like a shredding day for on-site real time shredding for personal documents. It would be convenient, help everyone manage their paperwork, and much appreciated 26. Two things that go hand in hand: bins are often overflowing just before pick-up; often including things that can t be recycled (e.g. vacuum cleaners!?) 27. It s great. A composting bucket would be nice 28. Send a brief description/instruction of how to recycle and what and where to recycle certain (all kinds) of materials. Perhaps include bins for electronics and batteries, light bulbs in apartment complex or main office 29. Get to know how to recycle and what to recycle 30. Determine exactly what is recyclable 31. Please explain and introduce the program in details 32. It would be great if there was a place onsite where we could turn in empty soda/beer cans/bottles. The apartment could get the refund money and donate it or put together a resident picnic or something. 33. More outdoor containers. Instructions to fold/break down boxes! 34. Seasonal update on what our efforts of recycling are achieving ie: statistics, stories, and impact 35. Have a recycle container in the area by the mailboxes 36. Better instructions particularly for new residents 37. It's perfect 38. I think it's possible the management might not recycle as much as we residents do 39. Accept Styrofoam packaging 40. If you would take plastic lids and Styrofoam 41. Pick up recyclable foam 42. Recycle plastic lids and caps (my former community has been doing it for years 43. Pick up recycling at door 44. Include plastic bags 45. I would like to know what items can be recycled 46. I don't think all residents understand how the system works. I see plastic bags of trash in recycle bins 47. Am satisfied 48. Many residents are unaware of the specifics and frequently put their items in the wrong container 49. I have long been a supporter of recycling and am very proud of your promising efforts. You are the greatest 50. There could be separate non-recyclable containers at the mailboxes so all junk mail is clean and recyclable 51. More options/containers to separate better 52. Some residents here at Glacier Hills place garbage and recycle materials outside their door for daily pick up in the evening. So that in reality it depends on the person collecting the trash to separate garbage from recycle items when they are placed in the large bins 53. Recycling space is limited 54. I recycle all that I believe should be. But nurses here do not--most to trash 55. Don't know. Glacier Hills handles it 56. I don't know how recyclables are handled 57. More recycling bins inside 58. Have an outside (?) place for polystyrene 59. Manor assisted living: A blue wastebasket with recycling logo that was taken to recycling when full--now anything that looks like a wastebasket is emptied to trash three times a day 75

80 60. Having separate paper, plastic and glass receptacles and aluminum cans and cartons 61. Start collecting Styrofoam and have a person drop off at recycling center 62. I would love to have a label, with what is and isn't recyclable, on the inside of my sink cabinet so I can easily reference it if I'm unsure. My old apartment in California allowed us to recycle plastic bags as long as they were gathered inside one bag. I really miss that. I'd also love a bin that fit under my sink so I don't have to use bags. 63. Somewhat satisfied 64. Bin provided to put in home 65. Picked up more frequently. 66. good enough as is 67. It would be nice to have a thing for compostables 68. It is fine as is 69. NA. More collection 70. teach everyone how to flatten boxes man from maintenance (?) doing a good job correcting this now 71. Having a receptacle to dedicate to recycling would be nice 72. more carts 73. Sometimes the bins are very full and it's hard to fit larger items so it can be tempting to toss them in the dumpster 74. more bins so it is more convenient 75. Bigger bins. 76. Better under sink container that would pull out 77. The bins are all generic (all items). Some bins get lots of boxes that take up empty space. Sometimes they get fairly full. It would be nice to have another bin or bins by item (glass, paper) etc. 78. Collect Styrofoam and plastic bags 79. A recycling container for my home 80. Composting 81. More recycle bins 82. Add composting. Provide in home container. 83. I wish there was a compost option. 84. accept plastic bags 85. They need more bins because the ones here fill up fast. 86. Clearer instructions on what can/cannot be recycled 87. The current containers are numerous and too small. They also blow over in the wind and run into cars. One larger container would be more helpful. 88. I would like to see plastic that is used for shrink wrapping bottled water, plastic bags and inflatable "pillows" used in shipping to be able to be recycled at Arbor Landings rather than needing to take that separately to Kroger. 89. Better/more descriptions for what can be recycled. Such as items from prepared foods, frozen food, or packaging from household items. Bigger & designated bins for whatever type of material being recycled. 90. More recyclable items 91. include compostables 92. A clear document provided to residents about what is acceptable to place in recycling containers. Pick up of recycled materials from the front doorstep instead of carrying out to the containers. 76

81 93. It's great! I think awareness would be the biggest improvement. I still see a lot of recyclable items in the dumpsters. 94. Containers for plastic bag recycle like the one at Kroger. I think a regular recycle bin doesn't take plastic bags. 95. increase the number of bins, sometimes they fill up faster than they are emptied 96. better education as I often see non recyclable trash in recycle bins 97. Teach residents to flatten boxes that can fill a dumpster immediately. The man (who may be from maintenance) does an excellent job making room for more. 98. more recycling options 99. Bigger bin for storing items in my home 100. Larger bins, or more bins; often the bins are full near pick-up days What is the main language spoken in your home? (169 responses) Chinese (x11) Chinese/English English/Mandarin English (x139) French (x2) German Gujarati Japanese/English Korean (x5) English /Korean Persian Portuguese (x2) Telugu I live alone so I don't speak to anyone silence, English Do you have any additional comments about the apartment/condo recycling program? (54 responses) No (x9) 1. I am happy with it 2. More containers for glass, plastic, cardboard (separated) 3. Not strong enough 4. Again more containers. Put them inside? 5. There should be specific full instructions from AA Recycle and our complex to instruct NEW residents and those of other languages, etc. Should get a form with their language 6. I am satisfied with the recycling in my apt 7. I didn t hear about recycling program from apartment 8. No. It s enough 9. Improve labeling of recycling containers with pictures. If you are already spending money- free reusable shopping bags? (maybe you have some at the center though) 10. It s great that you are working on this. I think people are not recycling enough. 11. On-site shredding day 12. How does the sorting work- if in doubt, recycle it? Or if there are too many non recyclables, does our whole bin get rejected? 13. See suggestion in Q It is not very public nor communal. In Korean apartments, there are days set when the residents come out to pile up recyclables. Taking a private good activity into a public arena may help raise awareness motivation. 15. Overall, it is an excellent system. 16. Don't waste money and time with surveys. Just do the job. 17. Very good! 77

82 18. The amount of trash (for landfill) generated by residents appears to be much less than the volume of material recycled, which is good. In this building I think the recycle amount from kitchen and other units, should be checked it could be increased. 19. Well managed 20. Glacier Hills as an organization doesn't seem to emphasize recycling as much as it could 21. Dining services should separate and recycle plastic from waste 22. We need to know what plastics can be recycled. Foam items with #6 apparently cannot be recycled 23. Dining services could use less plastic that is non-recyclable 24. Our retirement apartments are beginning to use recyclable cups, soup containers and carry-out containers 25. Deliver a list of recyclables to all--to post on wall 26. The fact that I sort out recyclables does not assure me of what the complex does 27. We have many "take home" containers that are not recyclable. Wish this could change. It is difficult to get to recycle center 28. I'm not sure newspapers and magazines left in hall wind up in recycling bins 29. Need recycle bin on all 5 floors, not just 1 floor 30. This strikes me as a stupid questionnaire 31. Recycle bins in common areas 32. I never read the labels on the recycle bins. I don't want to hang around the nasty dumpsters. I would assume others agree. I do LOVE that we don't need to sort out our items! I'm excited to see what comes of this program--recycling is so important! 33. it works as is 34. It is fine 35. Thanks for promoting recycling! 36. The small recycle dumpster by new community mailboxes sometimes is overflowing I doubt it would be practical but I wish we had provision for compostables and could them separate from trash! 37. Keep it up 38. Recycle Containers too small for large boxes. Area under sink for collecting recyclables too hard to use as garbage disposal makes it difficult to fit both trash and recycle containers there 39. We appreciate the Arbor Landings recycling program. We are fairly knowledgeable of recycling policies (although we did learn something from this survey). There are no external motivators that would encourage us to recycle more, as we currently recycle as much as possible. 40. Our recycling brochure shows that we are not able to recycle aluminum foil. I always recycle aluminum trays and pie pans. 41. Love the fact that the city of Ann Arbor recycles! 42. I am very glad that I can participate 43. Another recycling can by the mailboxes would be helpful. It's frustrating when that gets full. The alternative would be to have the post office deliver less junk. 90 percent of my mail goes directly into the recycling. 44. Would be nice to have recycle container provided in an apartment. 45. Appreciate that the complex does provide bins. 78

83 Paper Survey - Non-Recycler Responses What would motivate you to recycle? (4 responses) 1. Be rewarded 2. Having a container to fill that is as discretely placed as the disposal bin 3. Possibility is reasonable 4. Proper information about what, where, and how to recycle Do you have any additional comments about the apt/condo recycling program? (1 response) 1. I do not know about it! 79

84 Appendix C: Examples of Engagement Surveys and Program Tools 80

85 EXAMPLE: Follow-Up Survey to Staff and Management of Pilot Communities Staff and Management Survey Follow-Up Questions, Summer 2015: On-Phone or In-Person Survey (circle) Date of Interview: / /2015 Full Name: Title: Community: Arbor Landings, GreenBrier, Glacier Hills (circle) Years employed at this community: Do you personally live in Ann Arbor? Q.1 Does your company have corporate environmental/sustainability goals? Q.2 Do you find it difficult to communicate with your residents about recycling at your complex? Such barriers could be not knowing enough about recycling yourself, residential language barriers, etc. Q.3 When your residents have come to you about recycling questions or concerns, what has their main issue been? Q.4 Do you personally have a commitment to recycling or sustainable practices (using reusable bags, shopping farmers markets, etc) in your own home/community? Q.5 What can Recycle Ann Arbor do better to serve your community, residents, and your staff in regards to recycling at your complex? Q.6 Is there anything else you want to discuss or tell us regarding recycling at your complex/in Ann Arbor overall? 81

86 EXAMPLE: Indoor Bin Placement and Size Test- Model Units Location: Arbor Landings Apartments- 545 Landings Boulevard, Ann Arbor, MI Bedroom Apartment: o Laundry Room-overhead shelf measures 59 long x 1 (can store either 14 or 28 qt upright or 18 gallon tote). o Laundry Room-area to side of dryer measures 21 ½ wide x 5 deep (any of the bins would fit). o Kitchen (under the sink) measures 22 ½ width x 23 ½ deep but the garbage disposal sticks down into the area making available space only 10 ¾ width x 23 ½ deep where the 14 or 28 qt upright bin would fit. 82

87 EXAMPLE: How To Use Your Indoor Bin Instruction Sheet Congratulations on your new indoor recycling bin! During July 2015, a recycling survey was distributed to your complex by Recycle Ann Arbor to better understand the motivations for tenants engaging in the on-site recycling program, as well as how to better encourage participation. This community chose in-home collection container as their top rated incentive to increase recycling behavior. Based on that survey, and measuring inside model units at your community, we determined a 7-gallon indoor recycling bin would best fit. Why use this indoor bin for your recycling collection? The indoor bin is meant to help with transporting your recycling from inside your home to the outdoor carts. It also creates an effective collection point for all your recyclable items in your home. Suggestions on how to use your indoor bin: Place the bin wherever you generate the most recyclables- under your kitchen sink or next to your trash can for instance. Line the indoor bin with a recyclable paper bag that can collect the recyclable items (and prevent leaks) and can be brought out to the outdoor carts for disposal- the paper bag can be recycled too. We do not recommend using plastic bags to line your indoor bin as the plastic bags are not recyclable in Ann Arbor s curbside collection. You can also choose to bring your indoor bin directly to the outside carts and empty the recyclable contents in the carts. If you do this, please make sure the indoor bin comes back to your unit and isn t left outside! Your feedback helps our program: Over the course of , we will contact you 3-4 times (via or door-to-door) with a brief survey to determine how useful and effective the indoor bin is to your recycling behavior. We appreciate your participation and honest feedback If you have any questions throughout the use of your indoor bin, please contact Christine Chessler-Stull at christine@recycleannarbor.org or ext 119. Reminder: By receiving an indoor bin today and signing it out, you agreed that the indoor bin is the property of the City of Ann Arbor and is meant to STAY in the unit you live even upon moving. These indoor bins are part of a pilot program and not for personal ownership. 83

88 EXAMPLE: Indoor Bin Distribution Event Sign-Out Sheet & Agreement 84

89 EXAMPLE: Indoor Bin Behavior Follow-Up Survey Indoor Recycling Bin Follow-Up Survey: Winter 2016 Turn in completed survey to the main office of this complex by Tues, March 8 th. During October 2015, you picked up an indoor recycling bin and agreed to be part of our 1- year pilot program aimed at better understanding resident participation in recycling. Most of you filled out survey #1 in November, so this will be considered survey #2 in the program. Based on that, we would like to understand your indoor bin usage and how it may have impacted your recycling behavior. Please take a brief 2-5 minutes to fill out this survey and return it to your complex office. Thank you. 1. Were you recycling at your complex before you received the indoor bin? Yes No 2. Are you still using the indoor bin you received? Yes No I never received a bin. That must have been previous tenants.* *Please list your name and unit # so we may contact you about the program: 3. Is your answer to Q. #2 the same as when you filled out survey #1 in November? Yes, my bin use hasn t changed No, my bin use changed I didn t fill out survey #1 3a. If you answered No to question #2 please tell us why and stop the survey here: 4. Has the indoor bin you received changed your recycling behavior at all? Yes, it helped make recycling easier. No, it didn t change. 5. Have you been/are you still pleased with the size (7-gallons) of your indoor bin? Yes, it fits perfectly in my unit. No, it s too small. No, it s too large. 6. Where in your unit did you place your indoor bin? Under the sink In the pantry Next to my trash can Other 8. Do you have any additional comments, questions, or concerns about the program? Thank you for your feedback! -Recycle Ann Arbor Curbside Recycling Staff Christine@recycleannarbor.org ext

90 EXAMPLE: GreenBrier Follow-Up Survey for Rewards Program Selection Greenbrier Recycling Rewards Program Survey Turn in completed survey to the main office of this complex by Friday, October 9 th, During July 2015, a recycling survey was distributed to your complex to better understand the motivations for tenants engaging in the on-site recycling program, as well as how to better encourage participation. The Greenbrier community (~50 responded) chose offer a rewards program for coupons to local businesses as their top rated incentive to increase recycling behavior. Based on that, we would like to better understand which business coupons will motivate you to recycle more. Please take a brief 2-5 minutes to fill out this survey and return it to your Greenbrier office. Thank you. 1. Did you fill out the recent recycling questionnaire administered through Greenbrier and Recycle Ann Arbor? Yes No Unsure 2. If Greenbrier were to offer coupons/discounts at nearby retail stores for improved recycling behavior at the complex overall (ex. 10% increase in recycling behavior at Greenbrier would yield $5/month coupons for residents at a store of your choosing, 20% increase in recycling behavior would yield $10/month, etc), would you be more likely, less likely or neutral about increasing your personal recycling efforts? More Likely Less Likely Neutral 3. Would coupons/discounts at one or more of the following stores/restaurants increase your willingness to maximize your personal recycling behavior (please check all that apply): McDonald s Kroger Songbird Café Way One Market Curry Up The Wine Seller Cottage Inn Pizza Jerusalem International Market Jet s Pizza No Thai! Restaurant Saica Japanese Restaurant Subway Sandwiches Hagopian World of Rugs 4. Are there any nearby businesses not on this list that would motivate increased recycling behavior on your part? (please write in response) Thank you for your feedback! -Recycle Ann Arbor Curbside Recycling Staff info@recycleannarbor.org ext

91 EXAMPLE: GreenBrier Rewards Program Engagement Flyer 87

92 EXAMPLE: Photo of Kroger reusable tote bags for GreenBrier Community 88

93 EXAMPLE: Field Waste Assessment Survey Form 89