The document summarizes Seattle's efforts to increase organics recycling and reduce food waste through an organics ban. Key points: 1. Seattle piloted every-other-week garbage collection, finding diverse neighborhoods reduced waste most. This informed a food waste ban. 2. Seattle has increased recycling over time through policies like a 2003 ban on recyclables in garbage. The new 2014 ban on food waste aims to reach a 60% recycling goal. 3. Early results for the food waste ban are positive, with commercial food waste increasing 91% as more subscribe to collection. Educational tags on contaminated garbage correlated with less contamination.

1. Measuring Effectiveness of
Seattle’s Organics Ban
Prepared by:
Luis Hillon,
Seattle Public Utilities
For:
Biocycle West Coast Conference
April 14, 2015
1

2. From EOW to Food Waste
Mandate
1. Lessons learned form Every Other Week
Garbage Collection Pilot.
2. Measuring effectiveness of a Ban.
3. First findings (3 months)

3. 1. Challenges in EOW Pilot Design
1. The pilot should include populations that pose unique
customer service challenges like diverse, linguistically
isolated, and low income households: low response rates
from minorities
2. The majority of the cities implemented yard & food waste
collection with EOW: we could expect only small changes in
recycling and yard & food waste collection, since it has
already been in operation.
3. A customer service survey from 2005 found that people were
willing to accept $6 to reduce the garbage collection service
to EOW: design rate schedule that maintains customer
satisfaction while avoiding an unexpectedly large shift in
customer behavior that could create financial risk for SPU

4. Where?
Our strategy was to
oversample in areas
with more diverse
population
793 single-family
households along 4
collection areas from
July 1 to December 31,
2012.
260 EOW households
completed the January
2013 survey
33% response rate

5. Oversampling Works
• It was cost-effective – the majority of the responses were collected using an
online survey.
• Post-pilot door-to-door visits in the Dunlap and Highland Park pilot
neighborhoods to increase their survey response rates and focus groups for
Vietnamese customers, (N=11), Spanish customers (N=2), and for those
who did not redeem stipends (N=8)
• As a whole, the demographic responses obtained in EOW pilot customer
survey data represented a reasonable match to citywide ACS single-family
households data.
Post EOW survey City of Seattle
Race
White 77% 79%
Black 7% 6%
Asian 13% 11%
Other 3% 4%
Hispanic, Latino
Origin
Yes 2% 3%
No 98% 97%
Ownership
Own 80% 80%
Rent 20% 20%
Comparison of EOW survey demographics to Seattle census survey data
2007-11 American Community Survey for single-family households in Seattle.

6. Findings
The most diverse areas
disposed more garbage
per household, and
they had the greatest
reductions in garbage
disposal of EOW
households..
Citywide households reduced their garbage by 1.4
percent during July to December 2012 resulting in a
net impact attributable to the pilot of 15 percent less
garbage disposal per household.
-18%
-16%
-14%
-12%
-10%
-8%
-6%
-4%
-2%
0%
1.7
1.8
1.9
2.0
2.1
2.2
2.3
%NetReductioninDisposal
PoundsperHouseDay
Range
Pounds per House
Week

7. Engage in Behavior More Often with
Every-Other-Week Garbage Collection
7
36%
30%
13%
21%
13%
6%
9%
39%
23%
26%
21%
17%
9%
12%
23%
15% 14%
10% 10%
4%
1%
26%
17% 18%
10%
6%
8%
2%
0%
20%
40%
60%
South
Southwest
Northeast
Central

8. Measuring Recycling
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
-9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Pilot Weeks
Pounds of Yard and Food waste per
Household-Day
Control Group
Baseline
May -Jun
2012
We use Pounds per Household/day as an indicator.

9. Results
• We measured the adjacent areas, but we use the city as a control
group.
• For the yard & food waste, there was no difference in observed rates
of change for collections between EOW households and control group.
Caution: high degree of variability, 30% said put more food waste
• Recycling in EOW households increased by 13.4%.
Could increase Single-family Recycling Rate 4.3% - City Rate 1.3%
EOW
Food/Yard
Citywide
Food/Yard
EOW
Recycling
Citywide
Recycling
Before pilot (May-Jun) 3.9 4.5 1.94 2.07
During pilot (Jul-Dec) 2.7 3.2 2.23 2.11
Change -29.8% -29.8% 15.1% 1.7%
Net of citywide change 0% 13.4%
Pilot food/yard and recycle diversion compared to citywide (pounds/household/day)

10. 2. Seattle recycling rules history
Year Provision
1978 First recycling policy. Variable can rate structure initiated.
1981 Recycling goal established: 22% by 1986.
1986 Rates increase substantially (landfill closure, disposal tip fees).
1988 Curbside recycling collection begins.
1989 Yard waste banned from garbage.
1992 Multi-family recycling first offered.
2000 New materials added to recycling.
2003 Recyclables banned from garbage. Effective 2005.
2009 Single-family organics sign-up mandatory, weekly organics; meat
& dairy OK in compost; more plastics and metal recyclable.
2011 Multi-family organics sign-up mandatory.
10

11. 2003 Ordinance 121372 ban
provisions
In Sectors
• Residential: single & multi-family
• all recyclables (not including organics)
• Commercial
• recyclable paper, cardboard
Effective January 1, 2005 all sectors
• Delay allows time for education
11

12. Changes in overall recycling rate
• Changes Pre Ban 3% (2003-2004) Education only
• Post Ban 3.4% (2005-2006) Education + enforcement
38.2%
41.2%
44.2%
47.6%
48.2%
50.0%
51.1%
53.7%
55.4%
55.7%
56.2%
60.0%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2015Goal
12

13. Recycling rate change by sector
over ban ramp period
Recycling Rate
Sector 2003 2006 Change
Single-family 57.5% 64.0% 6.5%
Multi-family 22.2% 26.3% 4.1%
Commercial 37.3% 51.7% 14.4%
Overall 38.2% 47.6% 9.4%
13

14. Changes in recycled tons
• Economy, Rates structure, Subscribers, Services
offered could have an effect in tons recycled
-
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
Feb-88
Jul-88
Dec-88
May-89
Oct-89
Mar-90
Aug-90
Jan-91
Jun-91
Nov-91
Apr-92
Sep-92
Feb-93
Jul-93
Dec-93
May-94
Oct-94
Mar-95
Aug-95
Jan-96
Jun-96
Nov-96
Apr-97
Sep-97
Feb-98
Jul-98
Dec-98
May-99
Oct-99
Mar-00
Aug-00
Jan-01
Jun-01
Nov-01
Apr-02
Sep-02
Feb-03
Jul-03
Dec-03
May-04
Oct-04
Mar-05
Aug-05
Jan-06
Jun-06
Nov-06
Apr-07
Sep-07
Feb-08
Jul-08
Dec-08
May-09
Oct-09
Mar-10
Aug-10
Jan-11
Jun-11
Nov-11
Apr-12
Sep-12
Feb-13
Jul-13
Dec-13
May-14
CITY OF SEATTLE
SINGLE FAMILY RECYCLE PROGRAM TONS COLLECTED (Without Contaminants)
-
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
May-89
Sep-89
Jan-90
May-90
Sep-90
Jan-91
May-91
Sep-91
Jan-92
May-92
Sep-92
Jan-93
May-93
Sep-93
Jan-94
May-94
Sep-94
Jan-95
May-95
Sep-95
Jan-96
May-96
Sep-96
Jan-97
May-97
Sep-97
Jan-98
May-98
Sep-98
Jan-99
May-99
Sep-99
Jan-00
May-00
Sep-00
Jan-01
May-01
Sep-01
Jan-02
May-02
Sep-02
Jan-03
May-03
Sep-03
Jan-04
May-04
Sep-04
Jan-05
May-05
Sep-05
Jan-06
May-06
Sep-06
Jan-07
May-07
Sep-07
Jan-08
May-08
Sep-08
Jan-09
May-09
Sep-09
Jan-10
May-10
Sep-10
Jan-11
May-11
Sep-11
Jan-12
May-12
Sep-12
Jan-13
May-13
Sep-13
Jan-14
May-14
CITY OF SEATTLE
MULTI FAMILY RECYCLE PROGRAM TONS COLLECTED (Without Contaminants)
Single-Family
Multi-Family
Permanent increase
in the multifamily
sector
14

15. 2002 2006 2010 2002 2006 2010
Paper 22.60% 18.1% 17.7% 32,248 25,892 20,197
Glass 3.60% 2.3% 2.1% 5,170 3,236 2,368
Metal 3.80% 3.5% 4.0% 5,406 5,069 4,522
Plastic 9.60% 11.5% 10.4% 13,671 16,372 11,835
CDL Wastes 5.90% 4.8% 5.7% 8,469 6,893 6,505
Organics 35.90% 36.0% 31.4% 51,254 51,408 35,863
Other Materials 18.20% 23.2% 27.9% 26,049 33,108 31,886
Hazardous 0.50% 0.7% 0.9% 644 933 979
Subtotal PGMP 39.6% 35.4% 34.2% 56,495 50,569 38,922
Change 4.2% 1.2% 5,926 11,647
Changes in Composition Percentages 2002 - 2010
Disposed TonsPercent
Mask over title
Changes in waste composition
residential (single & multi-family
• Clear reductions in Paper and Glass
Source: http://www.seattle.gov/Util/Documents/Reports/SolidWasteReports/index.htm
15

16. Seattle’s newest ban:
Food waste & compostable paper
• Approved September 15, 2014
• Prohibits disposal of food waste and
compostable paper in garbage, in all sectors
• Effective January 1, 2015
• Education and informational tagging only during
1st six months
16

17. Seattle’s newest ban:
Why?
• At recent rate of gains, would not reach 60%
recycling goal until 2023
• In 2013, Seattle was about 28,000 tons short of
adopted goal of 60% by 2015
• Compostables are biggest target left in the
waste stream
• Ban could yield those tons (?)
• Even businesses with compost service have
very high amounts of compostables left in
garbage
• Samples from100+ businesses with food waste
collection found 50% compostables
17

18. Elements of the new ban
• Food and compostable paper included
• Thresholds for non-compliance
• Fees for non-compliance
• Exemptions for certain conditions
• Assistance and education for implementation
18

19. Support for the new ban
• Endorsed in Seattle’s Solid Waste Plan, and in
Seattle Public Utilities’ Strategic Business Plan
• Helps greenhouse gas control
• Survey of Seattle residents -- supporters
outnumber opponents 7:1
• Consulted with stakeholder groups – many
supportive
• Environmental, business, property, ethnic, etc.
• Almost all concerns can be adequately
addressed
• Good experience with 2005 ban
19

20. 3. Tonnage increase
Increase in Commercial
Subscriptions from 865
to 1,654 (91.2%)
20
From 14,4 % Dec to
20,7% Feb – Adjusted
by month Controlled by
subs
115.00
165.00
215.00
265.00
315.00
365.00
415.00
465.00
515.00
Jan-14 Feb-14 Mar-14 Apr-14 May-14 Jun-14 Jul-14 Aug-14 Sep-14 Oct-14 Nov-14 Dec-14 Jan-15 Feb-15
Tons Per Collection Day
AVERAGE Tons/Collection day Additional tons

21. 21
Educational Tags
Driver effect
100 – 10 – 1
High Correlation
tags per household
vs level effort
+51%

22. 22
R² = 0.2998
-
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
35.00
40.00
0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0%
% Non White SF Households
Number of Tags per 1,000 SF Households
An increase of 10 percent points in the -
% of nonwhite SF households- is
correlated with an average increase of 1
tag per 1,000 households
Low correlation +30%, but maybe more
outreach, education, incentives and food
waste prevention and recycling programs
needed…