Prassede Calabi, Winchester, discusses how Winchester used data from electronic surveys to drive forward waste reduction policy.

1. Prassede Calabi, Trash Pickers
1

2. Overview of talk
 Why a Survey?
 Goals
 How?
 BACKGROUND - Winchester
 Transfer station revenue-neutral
 drop-off, with sticker,
 75% of residents (5000 HH)
 25% pickup (rentors, condos etc)
 Mixed socionomic; ~50% HH with school-age kids
2

3. Why DO a survey?
 Information w/o Confrontation
 Wanted to Get off the dime
 Trash is touchy
 Manage “squeaky wheels”
 Test your urban myths!
 Credibility
 Outreach & teaching tool
3

4. GOALS of that Survey: big picture
 Use(s):
 What information?
 How will you use it?
 Who is Target audience for information
 What Preconceptions held by that Audience
 SURVEY IS (just) A TOOL
4

5. How (broadly)
 WHO is running it?
 Credibility
 Confidentiality
 WHO is taking it
 Population/ subpopulations
 Sample size
 Comparison with US census data
5

6. How: KIND of Questions
 Three topics
 Recycling & Trash handling 12 Q
 Transfer station 9 Q
 Respondents 11 Q
 33 total
 Common mistakes
 too narrow
 Too few
 No checks for validity/ internal consistency
6

7. How: KIND of Questions cont.
 Internal validity
 Attitude or affect as well as fact
 Willingness for change (?pay for it)
 Include pro/ con info, to get informed answers
7

8. How: FORMAT of Questions
 Forced = multiple choice
 3 to 5 choices
 Include comment option
 Have a few pure comment (‘like’ ‘dislike’ ‘other’)
8

9. How: SKILLS and steps
 Design of Questions
 Set up on SurveyMonkey ($200./ year)
 Get residents to take it!
 leaflet, talk, email, invite, cajole, write newspaper
 Advertise
 merchant 'prizes’
 possible role(s) of TownHall, DPW
9

10. How: skills cont.
 Code responses
 Analyze, interpret
 Have other(s) help, ensure unbiased interpretation
 Internal consistency
 Create scores across related questions
 Create the story “octopus tentacles”
 Tell the story to ‘everyone’
10

11.  HAPPY ENDINGS HERE!
11

12. THANK YOU
 DPW (Jay Gill, LeeAnn McGahan, Norman Doucette)
 Trash Pickers Prassede Calabi, Ingrid Geis, Jeff Cabral,
Fritzie Nace)
 MassDEP Recycle Coordinator, (Carolyn Dann)
Richard Howard; Tom Howley; members of BOS and
CAAC; interns; Mary Ellen Lannon; Staff of Town
Clerk, of BOS, of DPW; Town Merchants who donated
prizes.
12

13. 13

14. Why Change?
• 69%: a moral obligation to recycle
• 91%: it will reduce landfill/ incinerators
• 89%: recycling makes a difference in the quality of the
environment
• 83%: it makes economic sense
• 76%: disagree that recycling takes too much time
• Curbside Pickup
 Gives Ease; not lugging recyclables to TS (86%)
 Reduces trips to TS (67%)
 To see original survey language, see Q6 in appendix section.
14

15. Survey: Nutshell
 High Demand for more/better recycling
 68% want change
 Increased ease, convenience, speed
 Recycle more types of things
 96% already recycle (38% divert everything)
 High Support for any/all tool(s) that will help
 High Support for Actions supporting Environment
 69% feel moral obligation to recycle
 76% strongly disagreed recycling takes too much time
15

16. The SURVEY: Who
 18% response of 5000 ‘Sticker’ households
 (~ 13% of all households)
 Statistically significant sample
 950 Total respondents
 Sample represents Winchester (per US Census)
 Age; income; education; children
 Attitudinal questions also assess willingness to change;
reasons that matter
16

17. Survey Responses
 SSR
 65% yes + 12% other in favor
 Curbside Recycling
 46% yes + 6-22% other
 47% would pay more
 36 % $50 more; 12% pay $100 more
 SMART
 32% yes + 23% other in favor
 TS Redesign
 58% yes + 12% other in favor
17

18. Single-Stream Recycling at TS
 Steps
 Converted Recycling to Single-stream
 Communicated changes to public
 Flyer; Message Board; Gill on WinCam, Press Releases;
Doucette; articles in Star, Wicked Local
 Reinforcing message with new FAQ
 Lessons
 Residents did respond to improvements at TS
 TS needs more capacity for additional recycling
18

19. What Else Do Residents Want?
 SSR was positively supported in survey
 There are many more opportunities to reduce waste
 Residents almost unanimous in wanting MORE in
survey
19

20. The Strongest Feelings?
 Like Least (N = 650)
 20% want curbside pickup; hate going to TS;
 20% hate layout, flow, lines, waiting
 11% want more and/or Sunday hours
 7% fees, charge, surcharge; second sticker
 Like Most ( N = 614)
 24% being able to recycle
 9% no barrels; no pickup; clean streets
 8% like nothing
 To see text of question, see Q.20 in appendix.
20

21. 21

22. Appendix
 Here follow from Section 4
 the questions verbatim from the Survey
 Survey responses for each tool separately,
with more detail and numbers
22

23. SSR Survey Question (Q7)
Q7. Option 1: Would you like the Town to save you
having to sort and transport recyclables? Town
would provide all households with a 96 gallon
barrel (with wheels) for all your current recycling
combined (paper, plastics, cans and glass; not yard
waste) and pick it up every other week at the curb?
(Answer options yes, somewhat, no, maybe)
23

24. SSR Responses
 75% combined support SSR
 63% support SSR (YES I would recycle more if SSR)
 12% No I already recycle to the max (BUT would prefer
an easier process OR it might motivate others)
 No concerns
 Are SSR materials actually recycled?
 want other changes (more hours; help from staff)
24

25. Curbside Recycling Responses
 52% - 69% combined support
 46% yes
 6% maybe with favorable comments
 5% maybe with neutral comments
 12% maybe with no comments
 Willing to pay more? TOTAL 47%
 36% would pay up to $50 more
 12% would pay up to $100 more
25

26. Curbside: Pros and Cons
 APPEAL of Curbside Pickup
 Ease; not lugging recyclables to TS (86%)
 Reduce trips to TS (67%)
 Potential CONCERNS about Curbside Pickup
 Noise, fumes from truck (58%)
 Storage space for barrel (59%)
 Aesthetics of barrels on curb (60%)
 Potential overflow if miss pickup (66%)
26

27. Curbside: yes, maybe, no
27

28. Curbside Questions: Pros &Cons (Q8, Q10)
 Q8. What appeals to you about such curbside pickup of
recyclables?
 Use of one big barrel bin
 Not lugging recyclables to the Transfer Station
 Reducing the number of times I need to go to the Transfer Station
 Other, please explain
 Q10. Please rate the following potential concerns in importance
to curbside recycling?
 Finding storage space for a large barrel.
 Aesthetics of barrels on the streets.
 Noise /pollution from the recycle pick-up truck.
 How to manage if we miss the recycling pickup.
 Other, please explain
28

29. SMART Responses
 55% TOTAL Yes or OK
 32% yes
 23% maybe
 Concerns
 specifics of bag,
 possible inconvenience,
 possible cost issues
 prefer other solutions e.g. curbside, longer hours
29

30. SMART responses: yes, no, maybe
30

31. SMART Question (Q11)
 Option 2: Would you like Town to change how you pay for
conveyor belt trash at the Transfer Station, thereby
offering potential savings to you? (Note: you still get
unlimited recycling and yard waste)
 Q11
 a. Yes – I want the opportunity to save money by paying a
reduced sticker fee and paying by the bag for your conveyor
belt trash, using pre-paid Town trash bags.
 b. No - I want to continue with the current set-up (pay a set
sticker fee for unlimited conveyor belt trash)
 c. maybe - it depends
31

32. SMART Question (Q12)
 Q12. If you wanted to pay less by reducing your conveyor
belt trash, might that motivate you recycle/ divert more of
the following from the conveyor belt?
(Answer options: Would do more; already do it; wouldn’t do more)
 kitchen recyclables (bottles, cans, plastic detergent and food
containers)
 home office recyclables (containers for soap, shampoo,
skincare, etc.) [sic]
 basement/ garage recyclables (paper, cardboard)
 yard waste (clippings and leaves)
 Donate household items (clothes, small appliances)
32

33. TS Redesign Responses
 71% TOTAL Support redesigning TS
 58% yes (recycle more if more efficient TS layout)
 13% yes (recycle max, but would appreciate if it were
easier /it might help others recycle more)
 29% no (including no need; never had to wait)
Note: the question did not indicate that redesigning
TS might cost residents.
33

34. Redesign TS: Question (Q15-17)
If the TS had a more efficient layout (such as a one-
way loop road) and
Q15. you could drop all current recyclables in one
container
Q16. there was no waiting to drop recyclables,
Q17 you could drop all your recyclables in one stop,
might that motivate you to recycle more?
(Answer options: yes; somewhat; no)
34