1 / 31

Project Overview Waste Pathways: Outlook 2007 Justin Lang, City of Burnside

Project Overview Waste Pathways: Outlook 2007 Justin Lang, City of Burnside. Overview. Trial preparation – lead times Background info on GO presentation Scope of organics audits Participation & barriers to uptake Resident survey Composting sessions Recommendations. Implementation.

eliana-allen
Download Presentation

Project Overview Waste Pathways: Outlook 2007 Justin Lang, City of Burnside

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Project OverviewWaste Pathways: Outlook 2007Justin Lang, City of Burnside

  2. Overview • Trial preparation – lead times • Background info on GO presentation • Scope of organics audits • Participation & barriers to uptake • Resident survey • Composting sessions • Recommendations

  3. Implementation • Large trial area • Representative housing, demographics, etc • Limited contact with residents • Professional information for community

  4. Trial brochure • Key messages: • Fortnightly service • Place material in GO Bin • Clean & simple to use • Current service has achieved 56% diversion • 50% of residual stream is organic (2004 CoB audit) • Bio baskets will help divert up to 75% of residential waste stream • As easy as one, two, three…

  5. Audit methodology Adapted from Kerbside Performance reporting: • Assess participation and resident behaviour (contamination, no. of bags); • Monitor presentation rates, tonnages, yields per household; • Assess WHERE organics are going (both waste and GO streams).

  6. Results • Participation • Contamination • Diversion (and potential diversion) • Weight per bag • Bag consumption • Yields per household (kilograms)

  7. recyclables waste recyclables waste Food waste & compostable material (kg) 62% capacity 2nd bins 62% 66% capacity 69% capacity 58% capacity Not assessed Recyclables17.9% 66% capacity, 2nd bins 65% Compostables(kg) Compostables53.9% Recyclables96.6% Compostable green organic material (kg) Contents not assessed. Misc plastics 5.2% Not assessed Not assessed Othermaterial 23.0% contamination (kg) 2004 Kerbside Audit (W&R)Composition of material – as presented (n=76) 05/06 Bio Basket Organics Audit (W&GO)Composition of material – as presented (n=245, GO n=192, waste n=241)

  8. Rec. W Bio bags presented in GO bin Rec. W 5.00 kg food waste/ fortnight ~17.00 kg green organics per fortnight X 56% capacity Contents not assessed. Contents not assessed. 56% capacity 59% capacity Food in residual Negligiblefood in residual Rec. Rec. W W X X Substantial food in residual Typical participants “Non participants”

  9. Participation • 245* premises incl. in organics audits • 192/245 premises (78%) presented GO bins • 132/192 presented food waste in GO Bins (69% of GO Bins presented). • Based upon kerbside audits, this represents a participation rate of 54% (132/245). • Home composters (~9-18) • 3.2 bags per wk/hh

  10. Results - diversion • 36.3% diversion of the residual organic waste • 8.6% diversion of the total waste stream green organics 64.6% diverted food (8.6%) recyclables 20% residual 15.4% organic

  11. Food waste per household

  12. % diversion of organics per household (No GO presented)

  13. % diversion food waste per household

  14. Results - contamination • Green organics stream • 2.79% contamination of green organics bins (by weight) • 23% incident rate of contamination • Typically garden pots etc • Negligible contamination within cornstarch bags

  15. Results – telephone survey • 98% trial community awareness • 84% had used the system • 77% continued to use the system (93% were happy to continue) • 81% of current users and 48% former users – “very easy” to use • No issues with odour • Willingness $, 5+ bags,other disposal methods

  16. Composting / sessions • Telephone survey 38% (34) composting • 13 resident info sessions (3 hr sessions) - free Gedye bin • Part of exit strategy (in conjunction with continued use). Cornstarch bags available from Council office.

  17. Kerbside collection • Performance of trucks (monthly audits) • Weight per load & daily tonnages • Determine average yield / household • Contamination • CCTV • 2 strikes policy • Removal of service

  18. Barriers to uptake • Basic GO service (since 1997) monthly (optional user-pays service) • 39% dwelling units / flats • GO Bin ownership relatively low (~65%) • Split bin service collected weekly (by necessity) compared with opportunity for Councils with 3 bin systems to reduce effective volume of residual waste containers (fortnightly collections)

  19. Recommendations • Reduce residual waste collection frequency (reduced cost of collection offsets bio basket cost & ongoing bag costs) • This also has the potential to:- increase diversion ratio (for each h/hold) and - increase participation (get more onboard) • LG report available.

More Related