1 / 34

Waste Reduction in BC 2006 Survey Results

Waste Reduction in BC 2006 Survey Results. Context. Objectives. Methodology. Quick and dirty, 7K budget Identify similar research $20/mth on-line survey software that compiles results for the group, produces a completed survey for each participant and generates spreadsheet of raw data

galvin
Download Presentation

Waste Reduction in BC 2006 Survey Results

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. Waste Reduction in BC 2006 Survey Results

  2. Context

  3. Objectives

  4. Methodology • Quick and dirty, 7K budget • Identify similar research • $20/mth on-line survey software that compiles results for the group, produces a completed survey for each participant and generates spreadsheet of raw data • Development of tables to show results by RD for selected questions • Some chasing

  5. Existing Studies • MSW Tracking Report • Landfill Bans by Helen S for RCBC • Post-survey publications • FBC report • Powell River RD • Others (please share!)

  6. Data Limitations • Data is only as good as the interpretation of the questions and the accuracy of the information provided • Much more analysis can be done to correlate factors affecting practices – take our data please!

  7. New BC Target? • no clear consensus – not an easy question • Seven respondents mention zero waste • Four mention setting targets based on the region, sector, and available funding and enforcement support from MOE. • Six don't think a new target should be set • 5% per year • 75% • 30% over 2004 level • So what? Setting a new target not as simple as the first time around.

  8. Waste Reduction Targets >50% = 27% or 7 20-50% = 42% or 11 <20% = 30.8% or 8

  9. Integrated Goals and Strategies

  10. Air Quality 22% • Emergency Preparedness 11% • Natural landscaping 11% • Energy management 14% • Other 30% • Liquid waste • Biosolids • Organic pest management plan

  11. Integrated Education

  12. Seeing is believing

  13. EPR • Provide a collection site 42% • Promote sites free of charge 65% • Fee for service for siting and operations 30% • Mediation role 4% • Guidelines or policies NO 73%

  14. EPR in Terrace

  15. In-vessel Composting If there is an operating in-vessel composting system, please provide details on ownership. Response Percent Response Total 100% RD owned 3.8% 1 100% owned by two or more RDs 0% 0 100% owned by private interest 15.4% 4 Private-public partnership 0% 0 N/A 69.2% 18 Other (please specify) 11.5% 3 Total Respondents 26 (skipped this question) 1 Only 5 Regional Districts have centralized in-vessel composting systems as this time.

  16. Organics Diversion in Vernon

  17. Giant worm composting bins

  18. Raw data

  19. What efforts have been made to divert organics from your landfills? • 34.6% (9) Have completed feasibility studies for centralized composting • 7.7% (2) Are currently siting a facility for in-vessel composting • 69.2% (18) Have a drop-off for windrow composting of yard and garden organic material • 19.2% (5) Provide seasonal pick up of yard and garden materials • 3.8% (1) Provide year round residential pick up of all organics

  20. What efforts have been made to divert organics from your landfills? • 34.6% (9) Have or are considering banning yard and garden organics from landfills • 19.2% (5) Promotion of natural landscaping • 53.8% (14) Promotion of backyard composting and grass cycling • 50% (13) Distribution of subsidized composter bins • 27% (7) Ban on open burning • Other

  21. Innovation Assessment • Based on FCM questions and scoring system and responses • more than 50% of all Reg. Districts scored LOW on innovation

  22. Innovation assessment results

  23. NOW WHAT?

  24. Garbage feeds my family

  25. He doesn't like it

  26. Garbage is for dinosaurs

  27. Information Sharing • Share results of survey • Find leader for Open Library • Consider protocols for research and surveys

  28. R&D • Diversion credits • Avoided cost of landfilling • EPR Guidelines • Exit strategy • Do we endorse FCM method? • Necessity and method for integrating other environmental goals • Lots more...

  29. Funding • Cost recovery evaluation • EPR • Senior Gov't • User Pay • GST and PST dividend? Diversion credits paid to RDs based on avoided costs and diversion volumes

  30. Acknowledgements • FFGRD and RDKS • MOE staff especially Brian Grant • Survey participants • CWMA, RCBC, and FBC • Composting Council

  31. Stay tuned! Laurie Gallant footprint environmental strategies laurie@footprintbc.com 250-847-1670 Current projects: SWMP revision: NORD with CH2MHill New SWMP: CSRD with CH2MHill New WRP: RDKS Air Quality: BVLD AMS

More Related