Kerbside Recycling in Metropolitan Melbourne

8/2/2019 Kerbside Recycling in Metropolitan Melbourne

1/44

Kerbside Recyclingin MetropolitanMelbourneSocial ResearchSummary Report

mwmg.vic.gov.au

sustainability.vic.gov.au


2/44

2

Acknowledgements

Kerbside Recycling in Metropolitan Melbourne Social Research Summary Report

is a Victorian Government initiative. The report is a partnership project of Sustainability Victoria

and the Metropolitan Waste Management Group. The report is an abridged version of

Kerbside Recycling in Metropolitan Melbourne Social Research Report (2010).

Sustainability Victoria and the Metropolitan Waste Management Group would like to acknowledge

the following organisations for their contributions to the project.

Funding

www.australianpackagaingcovenant.org.au

The Australian Packaging Covenant (APC) is a commitment by governments and industry to the

sustainable design, use and recovery of packaging. Funding and other support for the implementation

of the APC is provided by the Commonwealth, state and territory governments and industry.

Research and report preparation

www.wallisgroup.com.au

Research design

The research design was informed by Barriers to Recycling at Home (2008), a study undertakenby MEL and Get it Sorted on behalf of the United Kingdom resource efficiency agency WRAP

(Waste & Resources Action Programme).

To obtain a copy of the full report please contact Sustainability Victoria at [email protected]

or Metropolitan Waste Management Group at [email protected]

978-1-920825-24-9 (Paperback)

978-1-920825-25-6 (PDF)

Kerbside Recycling in Metropolitan Melbourne Social Research Summary Report

Sustainability Victoria 2011 (December ENV058)

While reasonable efforts have been made to ensure that the contents of this publication are factually correct,

Sustainability Victoria gives no warranty regarding its accuracy, completeness, currency or suitability for any

particular purpose and to the extent permitted by law, does not accept any l iability for loss or damages incurred

as a result of reliance placed upon the content of this publication. This publication is provided on the basis that all

persons accessing it undertake responsibility for assessing the relevance and accuracy of its content.

Kerbside Recycling in Metropolitan Melbourne Social Research Summary Report should be attributed to

Sustainability Victoria and the Metropolitan Waste Management Group.

Kerbside Recycling in Metropolitan Melbourne Social Research Summary Report excluding the Waste and

Resources Action Program (WRAP) copyright material is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia

licence. In essence, you are free to copy, distribute and adapt the work, as long as you attribute the work and abide by

the other licence terms. To view a copy of this licence, visit: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/


3/44

3

Contents

Tables & Charts

Executive summary..................................................................1

Introduction ..............................................................................2

Building a picture of how Melburnians recycle .......................2

The research ............................................................................2

1. Attitudes and motivations ....................................................4

1.1 Commitment to the task ....................................................4

1.2 Concern for the environment .............................................5

1.3 Guilt ....................................................................................5

1.4 Condence .........................................................................5

2. Recycling behaviour ............................................................8

2.1 Whos in charge? ...............................................................8

2.2 Where (and how) we recycle ..............................................8

2.3 How convenient is it? ........................................................8

3. Recycling know-how .........................................................10

3.1 What we know .................................................................103.2 What we dont know ........................................................10

3.3 How do we decide? .........................................................10

3.4 What we do when we cant decide .................................11

3.5 What if we knew more? ...................................................11

4. What prevents Melburnians recycling more? ....................14

4.1 Dirty or clean? ..................................................................14

4.2 Difcult items: Is it recyclable or rubbish?.......................14

4.3 Problems with plastic bags .............................................14

4.4 Problems with bins ..........................................................15

4.5 Different rules, changing processes ...............................164.6 Lack of time and competing priorities .............................16

4.7 Recycling habits ..............................................................16

5. Sources of information.......................................................18

5.1 Word of mouth .................................................................18

5.2 Councils ...........................................................................18

5.3 Other ................................................................................18

6. What would help Melburnians recycle more? ...................20

6.1 Council incentives and warnings .....................................20

6.2 Clarity about environmental benets ...............................20

6.3 Condence in the recycling system ................................21

7. Culturally and linguistically diverse groups ......................24

7.1 No lack of commitment ..................................................24

7.2 Recycling know-how .......................................................24

7.3 New arrivals .....................................................................25

7.4 Getting information ..........................................................25

7.5 Larger households, bigger bins? .....................................257.6 Recycling decisions .........................................................26

7.7 Difcult items ...................................................................26

7.8 Plastic bags......................................................................26

7.9 Council incentives and warnings .....................................27

What prevents Melburnians recycling more? ........................29

Helping Melburnians to recycle more ....................................29

Target audiences ....................................................................29

Summary of ndings ..............................................................29

Conclusion .............................................................................30

Appendix: Survey ...................................................................32

Table 1 - Levels of commitment to recycling......................................2

Table 2 - Melburnians attitude to recycling household waste ...........4

Table 3 - Importance of recycling to Melbourne households ............4

Table 4 - Level of household recycling in Melbourne .........................4

Table 5 - Rooms in the home Melburnians have recycling systems..8

Table 6 - Melburnians in-home recycling systems .............................8

Table 7 - How convenient is recycling for Melbourne households ....8

Table 8 - How Melburnians decide what can be recycled ...............10

Table 9 - Knowledge barriers to recycling right ................................11

Table 10 - Items Melburnians are uncertain about recycling ...........14

Table 11 - How Melburnians put recycling items in their bin ...........15

Table 12 - Situational barriers to recycling right ...............................15

Table 13 - Behavioural barriers to recycling correctly ......................16

Table 14 - Other information sources used for recycling services ...18

Table 15 - What would encourage Melburnians to recycle more). .....20

Table 16 - Willingness to make additional effort to recycle ................24

Table 17 - Importance of recycling ..................................................24

Table 18 - Outcomes of household recycling ...................................24

Table 19 - Respondents suggestions as to what would make

recycling easier ................................................................25

Table 20 - How recyclers decide what can be recycled .................26

Table 21 - Throwing items in waste bin because unsure they can

be recycled ......................................................................26Table 22 - What would encourage Melburnians to recycle more ....27

Chart 1 - Commitment to recycling ....................................................4

Chart 2 - Motivations and barriers to recycling in Melbourne ..........5

Chart 3 - Melburnians condence in the recycling system ...............5

Chart 4 - How well do Melburnians understand what can be .........10

Chart 5 - Percentage of Melburnians who put recycling in the

rubbish bin when the recycling bin is full ..........................15

Chart 6 - Melburnians understanding of the environmental benets .20

Chart 7 - Condence of Melburnians that recycling is recycled ......21

Chart 8 - Inuence of local council information on

Melburnians recycling .......................................................21

Chart 9 - Commitment to recycling ....................................................24

Chart 10 - How well CALD groups understand what can

be recycled ......................................................................25


4/44

1

Executive summary

This report presents a snapshot of how Melbournehouseholds recycle including their commitment to recycling,what impacts their behaviour, what barriers prevent recyclingand what would help households to recycle more often andmore effectively.

The report is based on research commissioned bySustainability Victoria and the Metropolitan WasteManagement Group in 2010. The research was undertaken byWallis Consulting Group and involved focus groups, in-homeinterviews and a telephone survey with randomly selectedMelbourne households.

The research found Melburnians to have a high level of

commitment and enthusiasm for recycling which is stronglymotivated by a concern for the environment. Melbourne hasa great recycling system, with 99% of respondents believingit makes recycling convenient and only 1% indicating theyrecycled only sometimes.

While most Melburnians appeared to be committed torecycling, the research suggests the following barriers arepreventing improved household recycling:

issues for what people put in each bin.

recyclables or in the belief they can actually be recycled

via kerbside recycling systems, plastic bags causeproblems throughout the recycling process.

recycling system causes confusion, for example differenttypes of plastics, dirty items or what to do with lids.

system has lead to different rules for many councils,resulting in varying degrees of confusion about recycling.

community no longer access traditional forms of mediaused to convey recycling messages. Reaching thesegroups is required to improve know-how and addressconfusion.

as recycling only being generated in the kitchen andconfusion about what we do with dirty items. Breakinghabits is made more difcult when we dont know theright answers.

The research also found younger people (16-39 year olds) wereless committed to recycling and may require specic informationchannels to understand how to recycle more effectively. Inaddition, culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) groups facedchallenges in improving their recycling habits due to languagebarriers and lack of access to mainstream media. Overcomingthese barriers will help to improve the ability of these groups tofully grasp kerbside recycling.

The research indicates that householders want more guidance onrecyclable items and more clarity about plastics, including plasticbags. There is a desire to improve know-how by understandingclearly what is and isnt recyclable through the kerbside system.Householders also want a better understanding of what happens

to recycling after it has been collected and to feel more condentthat what is put out for recycling actually gets recycled.

Regardless of age or background, the research indicates thateveryone will benet from messages that encourage goodrecycling habits and decision making, so that all Melburnians canget into the habit of recycling more often and more effectively.


5/44

2

Introduction

Building a picture of howMelburnians recycle

In 2008-09 Melbournes metropolitan councils sent over700,000 tonnes of household rubbish from kerbside collectionto landll. Despite the communitys acceptance of kerbsiderecycling services, audits of kerbside rubbish bins haverevealed that, on average, 20% of rubbish sent to landll(approximately 140,000 tonnes) consists of packaging,paper and cardboard that could have been recycled. Thisis a signicant amount of valuable material that is wasted,impacting on Victorias resource recovery and landll diversiontargets.

This social research report sets the context for developing aneducation program aimed at improving household recyclingrates in Melbourne. The program will focus on increasingrecycling rates by reducing the amount of household recyclingdiscarded in kerbside rubbish bins.

This research will also inform future kerbside waste andrecycling service planning, assist in service optimisation andcomplement further research in the area.

Developed by Sustainability Victoria (SV) and the MetropolitanWaste Management Group (MWMG) with funding from the

Australian Packaging Covenant (APC) and local governments,this program supports the Victorian Governments commitment

to meeting the packaging recovery targets set by APC and tosupport Sustainability in Action: Towards Zero Waste (TZW)Victorias ten-year plan to reduce waste in Victoria, increaserecycling and reduce the environmental impact of wastedisposal.

The research

Kerbside Recycling in Metropolitan Melbourne Social

Research Summary Report is an abridged version of acomprehensive research study commissioned by SV andMWMG, and undertaken by Wallis Consulting Group.

The initial phase of research included desktop research of

national and international waste and recycling studies, 20in-home interviews and six focus groups that helped to builda picture of how Melburnians recycle at home. The resultsof these focus groups and interviews are referenced in thefollowing report as qualitative research.

Findings from the rst phase informed the approach for thequantitative research which consisted of a telephone survey of1000 Melbourne households selected at random (referred toas the main sample in the report). An additional 220 telephoneinterviews were conducted with culturally and linguisticallydiverse (CALD) groups selected to represent Melbourneskey language groups from Australias three major historicalwaves of migration since the 1950s: oldest (Greek and Italian

speakers); middle (Vietnamese and Chinese speakers) andrecent (Sudanese and Arabic speakers). The results of therandom survey and CALD interviews are referenced in thefollowing report as quantitative research.

Telephone surveys took place between 10 June and 20 July2010. Everyone who took part was over the age of 16, withtheir selection based on their access to kerbside recycling andconrmation of their role as the main person responsible formanaging household waste. It is important to note that the datacollected has not been weighted against population averagesfor metropolitan Melbourne. For this reason all ndings onlyrepresent the views of the household waste managers surveyed.

Also, where percentages have been rounded to the nearestwhole number the sum of percentages may not add up toexactly 100%.

The overall research design was informed by the researchmodel applied in the study, Barriers to Recycling at Home, by

the UKs Waste & Resources Action Programme (WRAP 2008).Of particular relevance was the WRAP studys identicationof four types of barriers with potential to either encourage orprevent good recycling behaviour. Also relevant was WRAPsdevelopment of a scale that classied peoples commitment torecycling: super-committed, committed, not committed and non-recycler [Table 1]. This study used a similar format with answersto three questions devising a commitment scale for Melburnians.Other factors shown to inuence recycling rates, such as thelanguage spoken at home, were also taken into account whendeveloping the research.

Table 1 - Levels of commitment to recycling

Dened Group Question B2 Question B4a Question B5

Super-committedrecycler

Recycling isvery important

Recycle evenif it requiresadditionaleffort

Householdrecycleseverythingthat can berecycled

Committedrecycler

Recycling isvery important

Recycle evenif it requiresadditionaleffort

Householddoes notrecycleeverything thatcan be

Not committedrecycler

Does not state both thatrecycling is very important at B2and that they recycle even if it

requires more effort at QuestionB4a

Householddoes recycle(any of

rst threeresponses)

Non-recycler n/a Do not recycle at all, either atQuestion B4a or question B5

WRAP UK

More information on the research methods, including themethodologies adapted from the WRAP study, details of howsurvey data was analysed and possible sources of survey bias,can be found in the research studys technical report available bycontacting SV or the MWMG.


6/44


7/44

4

1.1 Commitment to the task

Throughout both the quantitative and qualitative research,Melburnians scored highly when tested on their attitude andcommitment to recycling.

Most Melburnians were in the habit of recycling at home andalmost all took advantage of weekly or fortnightly kerbsiderecycling collections offered by local councils. In particular,the qualitative research component failed to recruit any non-recyclers, and as stated by one participant: It is easier torecycle than not to. When that statement was tested duringquantitative research, 79% of people agreed.

As shown in Table 2, almost nine out of ten (89%) peopleconrmed their willingness to make the extra effort to recycle(with those aged 50 plus more willing than younger age groups).

Table 2 - Melburnians attitude to recycling household waste

Main sample (Base: all respondents) (n=1000)

%

I recycle even if it requires additional effort 89

I only recycle if it does not require additional effort 11

I do not recycle -

Dont know 1

(Refer appendix - survey question B4a)

A total of 77% of people surveyed considered recycling veryimportant [Table 3].

Table 3 - Importance of recycling to Melbourne households


%

Very important 77

Fairly important 22

Not very important 1

Not at all important


8/44

5

1.2 Concern for the environment

The majority of respondents during the qualitative researchmade the link between recycling and its potential environmentalbenets, for example, saving trees by recycling paper or savingenergy by recycling cans or bottles.

This was further supported during quantitative research. A totalof 94% of people agreed that recycling made them happy to bedoing their bit for the environment and, of these, 45% stronglyagreed. That gure rose among the super-committed to 56%and then dropped to 24% among the not committed.

Although the link between recycling and improved environmentaloutcomes seemed well established as a motivation for theirbehaviour, respondents were not only less certain about whatthose environmental outcomes were but also unsure whathappened to recyclables after kerbside collection. While people

agreed that concern for the environment motivated them torecycle, they also reported that knowing more about howrecycling benets the environment would encourage them torecycle more.

1.3 Guilt

Respondents preference to do the right thing by recycling,rather than feel guilty if they dont, was another factor reectingtheir commitment to recycling.

Chart 2 shows that of those householders who indicated theydidnt currently recycle everything they could, 74% agreed theyfelt guilty when they didnt recycle and 77% felt not recycling

would bother them.Chart 2 - Motivations and barriers to recycling in Melbourne

(Base: main sample)

0% 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Strongly agree Agree Neither Disagree Strongly disagree Dont know

Rules about what items can berecycled make it all too complicated

Don't have enough time torecycle properly

Recycle because the council tellsme to do it

Often have other things on mymind which are more important

When I don't recycle it doesn'tbother me

When I don't recycle I feel a bit guilty 3

2

21136221

5

3

1

1

55934

1

1635325

2065217

1

1556116

19 4 57 17

Guilt

(Base: dont recycle everything)

Time / Difficultly

(Refer appendix - survey question E1b, E1c, E1d, E1e, E1f and E1g)

This relationship between concern and commitment to recyclingwas conrmed by 38% of the not committed who agreedthat not recycling didnt bother them, compared with just 12%agreement from the committed.

1.4 Confidence

During qualitative research, respondents who expressed astrong commitment to recycling, including the need to recyclewith care, were also the same people who expressed thegreatest condence in the recycling system, and the mostknowledge about what happens to recycling after collection.

However, quantitative research revealed that despite high levelsof commitment to household recycling there was a lack of trustin the kerbside recycling system. As illustrated in Chart 3 atotal of 45% of people surveyed agreed they were not alwayscondent that the items they put out for recycling were actuallyrecycled.

Chart 3 - Melburnians confidence in the recycling system

(Base: main sample)

0% 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Very condent Not always con

dent Not con

dent

OtherDont know

ow condent are you that

he items you put out

or recycling are recycled?

2

1

6 45 46

(Refer appendix - survey question E3)

The research ndings clearly link attitude and commitment withpeoples trust that their recycling actions will be supported bythe kerbside recycling system. Building peoples condencein the system and reassuring them that their actions do havea positive outcome is discussed later in this report whererespondents agreed that increased condence would spur them

to recycle more.


9/44

6

A total of 45% of peoplesurveyed agreed they werenot always confident thatthe items they putout for recycling were

actually recycled


10/44


11/44

8

2.1 Whos in charge?

With the exception of share houses, qualitative research revealedthat most households had a gatekeeper or chief recycler whotook charge of recycling and advised the rest of the householdwhat to do with difcult items. Depending on their commitment,the chief recycler might even be prepared to rummage throughbins to ensure that things were done correctly.

Over half (or 61%) of household chief recyclers in the mainquantitative research were women.

2.2 Where (and how) we recycle

According to the quantitative research, when people were askedwhat rooms they used a container or bag to collect recyclingin, the kitchen was the most selected (79%). The next mostselected room was the laundry (17%) followed by the study(7%). Only 6% of people said they used a container or bag tocollect recycling from the bathroom [Table 5].

Table 5 - Rooms in the home Melburnians have recycling systems

Main sample (Base: those with specialcontainers / bags)

(n=494)

%

Kitchen 79

Laundry 17Study / retreat 7

Bathroom / toilet 6

Lounge 4

Bedroom(s) 3

Garage / shed 3

Dining room 2

Spare room 2

Outside back door 2

Other 3

Not answered 1

(Refer appendix - survey question B6)

Qualitative research indicated that some people took the extrastep of separating paper from bottles and plastics in the home.

Qualitative research also suggested that waste collected outsideof the kitchen was less likely to be sorted, even by committedrecyclers, and usually ended up in the rubbish bin instead.

However, positive recycling behaviour was not necessarilyconnected with whether or not recycling was collected in adedicated bin inside the home before being emptied into thekerbside bin.

As Table 6 demonstrates just as many people reported setting

aside recyclable items and carrying them loose to the kerbsiderecycling bin outside (47%), as those who said they preferredto collect items in a dedicated recycling bin inside the houserst (49%).

Table 6 - Melburnians in-home recycling systems

Main sample (Base: all respondents who recycle) (n=999)

%

Have special containers or bags in some rooms thatyou put recyclable items into

49

Put recyclable items aside and then just take themloose to the recycling bin

47

Put general waste and recycling into one containerand then sort it out when you get to the recycling bin

2

Take it out straight away to the recycling bin 2

Have some other system 1


Dedicated bins for recycling were also more likely in biggerhouseholds than single-person households even though thelatter make up the highest proportion of super-committedrecyclers.

2.3 How convenient is it?

Table 7 shows that a total of 99% of people surveyed agreed itwas either very convenient or fairly convenient to recycle.

Table 7 - How convenient is recycling for Melbourne households


%

Very convenient 74

Fairly convenient 25

Not very convenient 1

Not at all convenient 0

Don't know


12/44


13/44

10

3.1 What we know

During qualitative research, Melburnians displayed a high levelof understanding about what they thought could be recycled, forexample, paper cardboard, glass, most rigid plastic containers,aluminium and steel cans.

This was supported during quantitative research whenrespondents were asked how well they understood what itemscan be placed in their recycling bin. More than half (61%) saidvery well, 38% said fairly well, only 1% saying not very welland less than 0.5% saying not at all.

Condence seemed to increase with age. It was highest among

people aged 40 and above, peaking at 66% of those aged60 plus, who reported they understood very well what theycould put in their kerbside recycling bin.

Chart 4 illustrates that, of the younger age groups, a higherproportion of people aged 30-39 reported that they understoodvery well what could be recycled (49%) compared withthose aged 16-29 (41%). More than half (54%) of those aged16-29 said their knowledge of what could be recycled was onlyunderstood fairly well.

Chart 4 - How well do Melburnians understand what can be

recycled (Base: main sample)

0%

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Very well

Fairly well

Not very well

Not at all

60+50-5940-4930-3916-29ALL

Age of responsent

61 41 49 62 62 66

38

1 5 3 1 1

54 48 38 37 32


3.2 What we dont know

A good general understanding of recycling does not mean thatpeople are always certain what to do with all items or how tomake the correct decision when unsure.

Although 61% of people surveyed said they understood verywell what items could be recycled, 39% said that they onlyunderstood fairly well [Chart 4].

While two-thirds (65%) of people surveyed reported that theyrecycled everything that they could, council audits of kerbsiderubbish bins revealed that on average up to 20% of items in the

bin could have been recycled. This suggests a gap betweenwhat people report that they know and do, and what actuallyhappens.

Qualitative research indicated that a lack of knowledge maycontribute to contamination, particularly the mistaken belief thatkerbside recycling is for any item or material type that can, inprinciple, be recycled.

When shown a number of common household items, theitems that caused the greatest amount of uncertainty amongrespondents were a shampoo bottle with shampoo in it, a plasticfood container with a triangle symbol on it, and items madefrom recyclable materials but not in recyclable form, for example,coat hangers and plastic bags.

Qualitative research conrmed most peoples awareness thatmany items not suitable for kerbside recycling could be re-used

or recycled elsewhere (for example clothing, mobile phones,toys and batteries). However, this is not clear to everyone withquestions raised about the kerbside recycling potential of oldcandles, a mop head and staples. This revealed respondentsfailure to grasp that kerbside recycling relates to packaging,paper and cardboard.

3.3 How do we decide?

The main factors people consider when making decisionsabout recycling are shown in Table 8 with what material theitem is made from and the presence of recycling symbols bothconsidered by 49% of respondents. Plastic-type codes wereconsidered by 19% of respondents before making their decision,

even though these relate to the recyclability of an item notwhether it can go into your kerbside recycling bin.

A total of 18% of respondents also turned to bin stickers forhelp when deciding what goes into the bin. As such, bin stickersoutranked all other forms of council information people chose toconsult, with only 14% saying they followed other informationprovided by their council [Table 8].

Table 8 - How Melburnians decide what can be recycled

Main sample (Base: Households that recycle) (n=999)

%

What material it is made from 49

Recycling symbols 49Plastic type (number 1 to 7) 19

Bin sticker provided by council 18

Other info. provided by councils 14

Whether it says it is recyclable 10

General knowledge/common sense 2

Whether the item is dirty or smelly 2

Media information / reports 1

Dont know 1

(Multiple response, refer appendix - survey question C3 )

3. Recycling know-how


14/44

11

3.4 What we do when we cant decide

Condence does not equate to people recycling correctly.Despite the good intentions behind recycling, a lack of

knowledge about kerbside recycling and fear of getting it wrongcan result in either recycling contamination or recycling beingdiscarded in the rubbish bin.

Making the wrong recycling choices has just as much impact onrecycling rates and the level of contamination as well-intendedbut incorrect decisions made by people who think they knowwhat theyre doing.

Both scenarios are also equally as likely to contribute torecyclable items being put into the rubbish bin destinedfor landll.

As demonstrated in Table 9, 60% of respondents who wereunsure whether or not something could be recycled sometimes

discarded the item in the rubbish bin, while 39% reported theysometimes put the item in the recycling bin.

Younger age groups (16-29 and 30-39) were more likely thanolder groups to put things into the rubbish bin if they couldntdecide, with the super-committed least likely.

Table 9 also shows that 39% of people agreed that on occasionthey may throw an item into recycling when they were not sure ifit could or could not be recycled. This also included 33% of thesuper-committed.

Table 9 - Knowledge barriers to recycling right

Measure All Super-

committed

Committed Not-

committed

(Base: main sample) (n=1000) (n=528) (n=348) (n=123)

% % % %

% who do notunderstand whatitems can berecycled very well

39 30 50 52

Sometimesthrows items ingeneral wastebecause not sureif they can berecycled

60 47 75 72

Sometimes putsthings in recyclingbin even thoughnot sure if they canbe recycled

39 33 46 44

(Refer appendix - survey question B1, C1b and C2a)

3.5 What if we knew more?

Gaps in knowledge and lack of understanding about whatcan and cant be recycled prevented some respondents fromrecycling as much as they could.

A total of 24% of those surveyed who did not recycle everythingsaid it would make a lot of difference if they had a betterunderstanding of what could and could not be recycled.

Among the younger age groups the proportions were higher with35% of those under 30 and 41% of the 30-39 year olds saying itwould make a lot of difference to them.

This result also supports the differences emerging betweenyounger and older age groups elsewhere in the research,which indicates knowledge and behaviour improves over time.This could be, in part, a result of the chief recycler in the housegaining more experience.

Commitment was no guarantee of expertise, with 24% ofcommitted and 25% of not committed recyclers that did notrecycle everything, indicating that better know-how would makea lot of difference to how much they would recycle in future.


15/44

12

A total of 24% of those surveyedwho did not recycle everything,said it would make a lot ofdifference if they had a betterunderstanding of what could

and could not be recycled


16/44


17/44

14

4.1 Dirty or clean?

During qualitative research, the issue of whether dirty recyclablesshould be washed and cleaned was a source of confusion,particularly for those people from countries where water isprecious. People resolved the question of dirty versus cleanwith a variety of solutions.

For some, the choice to clean dirty or smelly food containers(which may be left for up to two weeks between collections) wasa trade-off between the benets of recycling against the effort toclean them and the water wasted. These respondents put dirtyrecyclables into the rubbish bin.

Others solved the problem by putting items in the recycling bin dirty,but leaving their caps and lids on, while others put dirty recyclablesinside plastic bags. Some then placed these in the recycling bin,depending on whether they thought plastic bags could be recycled.Some rinsed and recycled, and some believed that more thoroughcleaning would take place at the recycling plant.

Quantitative research conrmed that 41% of people occasionally,often or always discarded dirty recyclables as rubbish, ratherthan cleaning or emptying them. This behaviour is least likelyamong the super-committed and most likely among the younger16-29 age group. A total of 33% of people agreed that concernsabout wasting water led them to occasionally or often discardrecycling as rubbish rather than clean it. This was also a factor for

23% of the super-committed and 45% of the committed.Respondents aged 60 plus, were more likely to say they neverdiscarded dirty recyclables compared to other groups. Theproportion of people who occasionally didnt recycle dirty itemsbecause of concerns about wasting water was highest in the 30

ve or more), the proportion of people who said dirty items neverimpacted on their recycling declined, and the proportion of peoplereporting occasionally increased.

4.2 Difficult items: Is it recyclable orrubbish?

Super-committed recyclers demonstrated less uncertainty aboutwhether or not some items were rubbish or recyclable and peopleaged 60 plus were more likely to report no uncertainty.

As illustrated in Table 10 of the uncertain items, empty food packagingmade of cellulose or plastic scored highest (14%), followed bypolystyrene packaging such as meat trays (8%), with plastic bags anditems of mixed materials each representing 4% of uncertain items

Table 10 - Items Melburnians are uncertain about recycling

Main sample (Base: all recyclers) (n=999)

%

Empty food packets (cellulose, plastic) 14

Polystyrene packaging (e.g. meat tray) 8Plastic bags 4

Things made of more than one material 4

Lids from bottles or jars 3

Containers with dirty food liquids 3

Waxed / lined cardboard 3

Toxic materials / paints / oils 3

Aerosol cans 2

Batteries 2

Glass other than bottles 2

Metal items 2

Packaging without symbols / numbers 2

Cling lm 1

Pet food cans 1

China / pottery / porcelain 1

1Cosmetics containers 1

Cleaning product containers 1

37

Dont know 1

(Multiple response, refer appendix - survey question C4)

During qualitative research, people also expressed uncertaintyabout the recyclability of the following types of packaging:

Qualitative research also indicated that differences between recyclingfacilities and councils guidelines on kerbside recycling added topeoples confusion when considering what to do with difcult items.

4.3 Problems with plastic bags

Previous audits and anecdotal evidence has identied plastic bagsas problematic due to their potential impact on effective recyclingand overall community recycling levels.

During the in-home interviews the inspection of recycling bins

conrmed the presence of plastic bags. Lack of care or concernwas not always the reason plastic bags ended up in recycling.Instead, plastic bag contamination was informed by goodintentions, including the mistaken belief that plastic bags wererecyclable. Other participants believed that placing recyclableitems together inside plastic bags would make sorting easier.

Qualitative research indicated that the practice of putting dirtyrecyclable items inside plastic bags as an alternative to cleaningalso resulted in plastic bags ending up in kerbside recycling bins.

An additional reason was linked to their use for carrying recyclingto the bin. But when this was tested during quantitative research,the results suggested the opposite.

Table 11 shows that 90%of people reported always puttingrecyclable items loose into the bin. Just 2% always put theminside a plastic bag with that gure rising to 12% sometimesamong not committed recyclers. A further 8% agreed that theyput recyclable items into the kerbside bin sometimes loose,sometimes wrapped.

4. What preventsMelburnians recycling more?


18/44

15

Table 11 - How Melburnians put recycling items in their bin

Main sample (Base: all recyclers) (n=999)

%

Always loose 90

Sometimes loose, sometimes wrapped 8

Always wrapped in plastic bags or other material 2

Other 1

Can't say


19/44

16

4.5 Different rules, changing processes

Qualitative research indicated that varying kerbside recyclingrules between different council areas had the potential to createconfusion for householders moving from one suburb to another.The variation between council areas can be linked to differentprocesses between recycling facilities which can impact on whatcan and cant be recycled. Examples of areas of confusion includehow to dispose of dirty recyclables, the different types of plasticsthat have been collected over time and whether to keep lids on ortake them off.

Advances in recycling processes and changed recycling rules andeducation information over time have added to confusion. Plasticidentication codes are one example. Although codes may referto the recyclability of different sorts of plastic, this is mistakenlyunderstood as conrmation that any plastic item with a code cango into the kerbside recycling bin. Shopping bags with recycling

symbols are an example of this confusion.

4.6 Lack of time and competing priorities

Qualitative research suggested that when chief recyclers couldntkeep up with household recycling habits, recycling standards mayslip. This may happen in large families or when other priorities,such as meeting the immediate needs of children, compete forpeoples attention and their ability to recycle effectively.

Quantitative research also linked better recycling outcomes withpeople who had more uncommitted time. Equally, peoples beliefthat there is not enough time to recycle or that there are betterthings to do, may also impact their attitude and commitment.

Six percent of people surveyed agreed with the statement thatthey didnt have enough time to recycle properly. A further 25%agreed that they had other things on my mind more importantthan worrying about recycling [Chart 2].

Among younger people, 43% of 16-29 year olds and 31% of30-39 year olds agreed that they had more pressing prioritieselsewhere. Agreement was also higher among people in sharedhouseholds (33%).

The super-committed had the lowest level of agreement, withonly 17% agreeing that they often directed their attention to thingsmore important than recycling. This compared with agreementfrom 27% of the committed and 52% of the not committed .

4.7 Recycling habits

Generally, Melburnians have very good recycling intentions andbehaviour with the exception of some prevailing habits which, whencombined, may signicantly impact both the amount householdsrecycle and the contamination of kerbside recycling bins.

As shown in Table 13 these habits included:

such as rubbish, rather than cleaning or emptying them, withthe proportion of people who did this often highest amongthose aged 16-29.

bathroom into the rubbish bin, with the proportion of peoplewho did this often or all the time again highest amongthose aged 16-29.

want to waste water cleaning them, with people aged 60 plusmost likely to say never and the proportion of people whosaid occasionally highest among people aged 30-39.

concerns with people aged 60 plus most likely to say never.

Table 13 - Behavioural barriers to recycling correctly

Measure All Super-

committed

Committed Not-

committed

(Base: main sample) (n=1000) (n=528) (n=348) (n=123)

% % % %

Sometimes forgets to

empty bin so full before

next collection

20 17 26 15

Sometimes throws

recyclables from

bathroom in general

waste

36 23 48 56

Sometimes throws

recyclables in general

waste rather then clean or

empty them

41 28 55 54

Sometimes doesnt

recycle because does

not want to waste water

cleaning item

33 23 45 48

Sometimes puts

documents in general

waste because of privacy

concerns

28 23 35 28

(Refer appendix - survey question C1a, C1c, C1e, C1f and C1i)

The greater a persons commitment to recycling the less likely theywere to conform to these behaviours. The exception was with thesuper-committed indicating the same security concerns aboutthe disposal of private documents as those less committed. Ofthe remaining behaviours the responses from committed andnot committed people were similar, with the exception thatamong the not committed more people said that the rst threebehaviours applied to them often or all of the time.

With the exception of people putting documents into the rubbishbin due to privacy concerns, all recycling habits trended upwards

16-29 and 30-39 were more likely to behave in all of these waysand to do so more often than other age groups.


20/44


21/44

18

5.1 Word of mouth

Qualitative research indicated that word of mouth betweenhouseholders and between neighbours was a key medium fortransferring recycling know-how and, on occasion, debate.Many respondents had built their recycling knowledge overyears and cemented their behaviour through repetition and habit.

5.2 Councils

Councils also distribute information about recycling to residentsand, according to quantitative research, with mostly positiveresults. Responses to questions asking people to recall councilinformation received, kept and referred to when recyclingrevealed the following:

from their council at some time. Of these, 90% agreed it hadhelped them to understand what could and could not go intotheir kerbside recycling bin and 76% agreed it helped themto better understand the process of recycling.

information. Of these, 67% agreed that it was helpful,making this age group the least likely to be helped by councilinformation when making decisions about recycling.

frequently recalled items were brochures or booklets (68%),

waste and recycling calendars (24%) and fridge magnets(13%).

While quantitative research indicated many people maderecycling decisions before getting to their kerbside bin, asTable 8 shows, bin stickers were selected by 18% ofrespondents as an information source that helped them decidewhat goes in the kerbside recycling bin.

The fact that 56% of the not committed kept any recyclinginformation received (compared with 74% of the super-committed) highlights the need for future recycling messagesto be communicated in a variety of ways.

5.3 OtherAs demonstrated in Table 14, apart from local councilinformation, the most commonly used information source forwaste and recycling services was the internet (particularly foryounger groups aged 16-39), with 32% using a search engineand 12% accessing a specic website.

Table 14 - Other information sources used for recycling services


%

Internet via search engine (e.g. Google) 32

Internet - named website 12

Local newspapers 10

Council website 8

Contact the council 8

Tip or recycling centre 4

White Pages or Yellow Pages 3

TV 2

Information on bin lids 2

Radio 1

Family, friends, neighbours 1

Workplace 1

Leaets or booklets from council 1

Other government authorities 1

Non-government organisations 1

Local library 1

Shopping centres and supermarkets 1

Other 3

Dont know / nowhere else 30

(Multiple responses refer appendix - survey question D4a)

5. Sources of information

90% agreed council information had helpedthem to understand what could and couldnot go into their kerbside recycling bin


22/44


23/44

20

6.1 Council incentives and warnings

Councils use a number of ways to educate and encouragegood recycling. Carrot motivations include appreciation andincentives, while stick motivations refer to council warnings,penalties and collection denial. There are also knowledgemotivations that include nding out how recycling reduceslandll, what happens to recycling after kerbside collection, howrecycling helps to tackle climate change and how it saves energyand resources.

Quantitative research indicates that Melburnians want to knowmore about recycling, specically what happens to recycling aftercollection, and to more clearly understand how recycling benetsthe environment. Table 15 shows that improving knowledge ratedmuch higher as a potential inuence on attitude and recyclingbehaviour than carrot and stick actions undertaken by councils.

Table 15 - What would encourage Melburnians to recycle more

(Table shows items that would encourage respondents to recycle a lot)


%

Carrot and stick motivations

Warned/notied by your council about what you aredoing wrong

46

Told your bin wont be collected that week for not

recycling properly38

Feeling more appreciated by your local council foryour efforts

33

Receiving some kind of incentive from your localcouncil

35

Knowledge motivations

How recycling is helping to reduce landll 70

What happens to recyclables after pick up 55

How recycling helps to tackle climate change 57

How recycling is saving energy and resources 65

(Refer appendix - survey question E4a, E4b, E4c, E4d, E4e, E4f, E4g, E4h)

Only 19% of people agreed that they recycled because thecouncil told them to [Chart 2] yet 46% of people stated awarning notice for failing to recycle correctly would impacttheir behaviour a lot [Table 15]. Although this gure indicateswarning notices provided by councils may have an impact,people were more likely to identify with knowledge motivationsthan any amount of carrot or stick.

6.2 Clarity about environmentalbenefits

Quantitative research conrmed that concern for theenvironment clearly motivated peoples attitudes to recycling,with 94% agreeing or strongly agreeing they were happy torecycle for the environment.

Despite this positive attitude the environmental benets ofrecycling was only understood very well by 47% of people[Chart 6].

Chart 6 - Melburnians understanding of the environmental benefits

of recycling (Base: main sample)

0% 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Very well Fairly well Not very well

How well do you feel

that you understand

the environmental

benets of recycling?

6 47 47


Knowledge of the environmental benets of recycling was verywell understood by 34% of 16-29 year olds, compared to 51%of those aged 50 plus. Also, 60% of the super-committed felttheir knowledge was very well understood, followed by 33% ofthe committed and 28% of the not committed.

As outlined in Table 15 a range of environmental benets wereposed to respondents as options that would encourage them torecycle more. Seventy percent of people claimed that improvingtheir understanding of how recycling helped reduce landllwould achieve this, 65% of respondents wanted to gain a better

understanding of how recycling saves energy and resources and57% wanted to know how recycling addresses climate change.

Greater clarity about environmental benets also emerged as thestrongest motivation to recycle more in future for the 16-29 and30-39 age groups.

6. What would helpMelburnians recycle more?


24/44

21

6.3 Confidence in the recyclingsystem

Qualitative research indicated that respondents with the clearestidea about what happens to recycling after collection were oftenthose who also reported greater commitment and attention tothe task of correctly sorting recycling from rubbish.

Others displayed a poor understanding of what happens torecyclables after collection. For some people, this included theirbelief that all or some recyclables go to landll anyway, makingthe task of sorting recyclables from general rubbish pointless.

While most people during qualitative research felt thatrecyclables went somewhere for sorting and reuse, the researchconrmed that few knew exactly what happened after kerbsiderecycling was collected.

Fortyve percent of people were not always con

dent thateverything they sent to recycling was in fact recycled with 6%

indicating that they had no condence in the recycling system[Chart 7].

Chart 7 - Confidence of Melburnians that recycling is recycled

(Base: main sample)

Very condent Not always condent Not condent Other Dont know

How condent are you

that the items you put out

for recycling are recycled?

2

1

6 45 46


Fifty-ve percent said they would be encouraged to recyclemore if they understood exactly what happened to recyclingafter it was collected [Chart 8].

Chart 8 - Influence of local council information on Melburniansrecycling (Base: main sample)

0% 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

A lot A little No difference Not relevant / Don't know

Knowing how recycling is

saving energy and resources

Knowing how recycling helps

to tackle climate change

What happens to recyclablesafter they have been picked up

How recycling is

helping to reduce landll

Receiving some kind of

incentive from your council

Feeling more appreciated

for your efforts

Told your bin won't be

collected that week

Warned / notied by yourcouncil about wrong doing

5 24 25 46

10 40 12 38

3 48 16 33

5 45 15 35

2 15 13 70

1 23 21 55

3 23 17 57

1 16 17 65

(Refer appendix - survey question E4a, E4b, E4c, E4d, E4e, E4f, E4g, E4h)


25/44

22

55% said they would beencouraged to recycle moreif they understood exactlywhat happened to recycling

after it was collected


26/44


27/44

24

7.1 No lack of commitment

As demonstrated in Chart 9 the CALD groups surveyed showeda commitment to recycling that was the similar to, and in somecases exceeded, the main sample of people surveyed.

Chart 9 - Commitment to recycling (Base: main sample and

CALD sample)

0%

10

20

3040

50

60

70

80

90

100

Not-committed

Committed

Super-committed

Arabic/

Sudanese

Vietnamese/

Chinese

Italian/GreekMain Survey

12 32 33 21

53 48 28 69

20

20

39

10

A total of 60% of CALD people surveyed strongly agreedthat recycling made them happy to be doing their bit for theenvironment, compared with 45% of the main sample ofpeople surveyed.

While CALD groups ranked the importance of recycling as highlyas other groups, as with the main respondents, gaps in know-how and understanding prevented CALD groups matching goodintention and commitment with correct recycling practices[Table 16, Table 17, Table 18].

Language barriers mean that CALD groups may miss out onrecycling messages delivered to the rest of the community,potentially limiting their knowledge to recycle effectively and,in some cases, to even to get started.

In addition, some CALD groups have no past recyclingexperience or knowledge of different recycling systems outsidetheir country of origin.

Quantitative research revealed a clear willingness to put in theextra effort to recycle from 76% of Italian or Greek respondents,70% of people from Vietnamese or Chinese origin and 81% of

Arabic speakers and those of Sudanese origin. But despite this

willingness research indicated that CALD groups struggled withdecision making as per the main sample groups.

Among the CALD groups, Arabic speakers and those ofSudanese origin were likely to say they understood theenvironmental benets of recycling very well (76%). The samegroups also demonstrated a very high trust of the system, with80% very condent that everything put in their recycling binwas later recycled. In contrast, 22% of people of Italian or Greekorigin reported that they did not understand the environmentalbenets very well. People of Italian or Greek origin alsodisplayed a lack of trust in the recycling system, with only 30%agreeing they were very condent everything put into their binwas later recycled.

Table 16 - Willingness to make additional effort to recycle

CALD sample (Base: allrespondents)

Italian /Greek

Vietnamese /Chinese

Arabic /Sudanese

(n=71) (n=92) (n=80)

% % %

I recycle even if it requiresadditional effort

76 70 81

I only recycle if it does notrequire additional effort

17 28 16

I do not recycle 0 2 1

Don't know 7 0 1


Table 17 - Importance of recycling


Italian /Greek

Vietnamese /Chinese

Arabic /Sudanese

(n=71) (n=92) (n=80)

% % %

Very important 66 60 86

Fairly important 18 34 10

Not very important 7 4 4

Not at all important 1 0 0

Don't know 7 2 0


Table 18 - Outcomes of household recycling


Italian /Greek

Vietnamese /Chinese

Arabic /Sudanese

(n=71) (n=92) (n=80)

% % %

(I /We) recycle everythingthat can be

83 38 75

(I /We) recycle a lot but noteverything

15 51 18

(I /We) recycle sometimes 1 9 6

(I /We) do not recycle at all 0 2 1


7.2 Recycling know-how

As with the main sample of people surveyed, quantitativeresearch revealed gaps in CALD groups understanding andcondence about what could and could not be recycled.

Length of residency in Australia did not necessarily contribute togreater recycling knowledge. CALD groups residing in Australiafor more than ten years (such as respondents of Vietnameseor Chinese origin) expressed a lack of condence about theirknowledge of what could and could not be recycled.

7. Culturally andlinguistically diverse groups


28/44

25

As shown in Chart 10, 35% of people of Vietnamese or Chineseorigin agreed that their existing knowledge of recycling was verywell understood. In contrast, the more recently arrived groupsof Arabic speakers and those of Sudanese origin expressed

higher levels of condence with 78% reporting that theyunderstood very well what could and could not be recycled.

Chart 10 - How well CALD groups understand what can be

recycled (Base: CALD sample)

0%

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100Very well

Fairly well

Not very well

Not at all

Arabic/SudaneseVietnamese/ChineseItalian/Greek

CALD Grou s

65

34

1

35

58

2 11

78

20

3


Table 18 illustrates that 75% of Arabic speakers and thoseof Sudanese origin also agreed that their household recycledeverything that they could. Similarly, this statement wassupported by 83% of those of Italian and Greek origin.

However, these high percentages may be evidence of goodrecycling intentions rather than a literal translation of recyclingoutcomes. As with the main sample of people surveyed, CALDgroups also later agreed that they put bathroom items that couldbe recycled into the rubbish bin and threw away dirty recyclablesrather than clean them.

CALD groups also matched the main sample of people surveyedin the apparent contrast between condence in their recyclingability and their reported difculty trying to decide whether ornot to recycle items that were in fact not recyclable, such asbatteries and plastic bags.

Thirty six percent of CALD people surveyed said they did notrecycle everything they could with a third indicating that moreknowledge would make a lot of difference to their recyclingbehaviour.

7.3 New arrivals

Discussions and interviews during qualitative research suggested

that people from more recently arrived CALD communities wereconfused about how recycling operated in Australia, with manypeople not appearing to recycle well or, in some cases, not at all.

For respondents arriving from countries where water is scarce,the concept of wasting water by rinsing recyclables wasinconceivable. The research showed that CALD newcomers toMelbourne are not likely to be shown how to recycle when theyrst arrive. This means that many fail to understand the benetsof recycling, while others struggle to work out on their own howrecycling should be done.

For example, qualitative research suggested confusion aboutwhich bins were used for what purpose. CALD people surveyedwho had moved into free-standing homes from multi-storey

public housing accommodation (where there had been nokerbside recycling) reported they were initially perplexed aboutthe presence of two bins in their new home. In some cases, notunderstanding the purpose of the two bins led larger householdsto reverse the bin functions and to use the larger kerbsiderecycling bin for rubbish instead.

7.4 Getting information

Existing council materials and information mediums are lesslikely to reach CALD groups, with those surveyed unable torecall receiving any information from their council.

Research indicated that CALD groups relied more heavily onword of mouth communications, community forums, ethnicradio, written word or symbols for information.

Particularly where English language prociency and / or literacywas poor, CALD groups preferred to nd out about recyclingand waste collection from in-language community informationsessions, though existing community and cultural groups and,ideally, when delivered by community leaders.

Over 26% of people of Vietnamese or Chinese origin and 21%of Arabic speakers and those of Sudanese origin said moreinformation or clarity about what could be recycled would help

make recycling easier for their households [Table 19].

Table 19 - Respondents suggestions as to what would make

recycling easier


Italian /Greek

Vietnamese/ Chinese

Arabic /Sudanese

(n=71) (n=92) (n=80)

% % %

Nothing / None / No 72 55 63

More information / clarityabout what can be recycled

6 26 21

More frequent collection 4 3 5

Bigger / better recycling

bins

4 1 1

Information on whathappen after its picked up

4 1 6

Separate bins for glass ,paper, plastic etc

- - -

Information in pictorial form/ other languages

4 2 3

How to deal with electricalwaste / TVs / computersetc

- 1 -

Other 11 15 5


7.5 Larger households, bigger bins?

CALD households that did not recycle everything reportedsimilar issues as the main sample about frequency of recycling

have the potential to contribute to household recycling endingup as landll.

As with the main sample, CALD respondents who did notrecycle everything said it would make a lot of difference ifthey had either a more frequent recycling collection or a biggerrecycling bin, with a preference for the bigger bin.


29/44

26

7.6 Recycling decisions

In general, CALD respondents paid less attention to recyclingsymbols (including plastic-type codes) or to the materials itemswere made from when deciding whether or not something couldbe recycled compared to the main sample of people [Table 20].

Table 20 - How recyclers decide what can be recycled


Italian /Greek

Vietnamese/ Chinese

Arabic /Sudanese

(n=71) (n=92) (n=80)

% % %

What material it is madefrom

61 62 22

Recycling symbols 20 24 51

Plastic type (number 1 to 7) 4 3 3

Bin sticker provided by

council

31 13 25

Other info. provided bycouncils

14 10 -

Whether it says it isrecyclable

1 4 -

General knowledge /common sense

- 1 -

Whether the item is dirty orsmelly

- - -

Media information / reports - - -

Dont know 4 6 6

(Refer appendix - survey question C3)

When CALD respondents couldnt decide whether or notsomething should be recycled, they were less likely than themain sample to dispose of those items in the rubbish bin[Table 21].

Table 21 - Throwing items in waste bin because unsure they can

be recycled


Italian /Greek

Vietnamese/ Chinese

Arabic /Sudanese

(n=71) (n=90) (n=79)

% % %

Never 61 46 84

Occasionally 28 42 11

Often 0 9 4

All of the time 6 2 1Don't know 6 1 0

(Refer appendix - survey question C1b)

There were differences between CALD groups when it cameto making decisions about recycling. Bin stickers were animportant source of recycling information for people of Arabicspeakers and those of Sudanese origin and those of Italian orGreek origin. People of Italian or Greek origin and people ofChinese or Vietnamese origin were likely to assess what materialitems were made from as part of their decision making process[Table 20].

7.7 Difficult items

When asked to identify items that they had difculty decidingwhether or not to recycle, CALD people surveyed indicated thesame gaps in knowledge and understanding about what wasacceptable for kerbside recycling as the main sample of peoplesurveyed.

Although CALD respondents were less likely than the mainsample of people surveyed to mention food packaging they weremore likely to mention plastic bags, cling wrap, aerosol cans andbatteries. More specically, 14% of those people of Vietnameseor Chinese origin were unsure about recycling batteries and with9% unsure about recycling glass other than bottles. Although

Arabic speakers and those of Sudanese origin were keenrecyclers and reported a good understanding of what could berecycled, relatively high proportions had difculties with plasticbags, batteries and glass other than bottles.

7.8 Plastic bags

During qualitative research CALD respondents who held theview that plastic bags could be recycled through the kerbsidecollection system, were later surprised to learn that this wasincorrect.

While the majority of the CALD people surveyed duringquantitative research demonstrated a clear understanding thatrecyclable items should be emptied loose into kerbside bins, allCALD groups expressed a degree of confusion when decidingwhether or not to recycle plastic bags. This peaked at 19%among Arabic speakers and those of Sudanese origin.

CALD groups may lack specic recycling knowledge comparedto the main sample of people surveyed, but there were oftengood intentions behind their actions.

For example, 27% of Arabic speakers and those of Sudaneseorigin said they always wrapped recyclable items insideplastic bags, with a further 47% reporting they discarded itemsinto recycling sometimes loose, sometimes wrapped. Earlierqualitative research revealed that these actions may have beeninformed by the mistaken belief that putting recyclables in plasticwould somehow assist the recycling process.

A total of 17% of people of Vietnamese or Chinese origin alsosaid they sometimes put recyclables in the recycling bin

wrapped in plastic or a plastic bag.

also inform the varied recycling actions of CALD groups.


30/44

27

7.9 Council incentives and warnings

Compared to the main sample of people surveyed, CALDgroups gave different responses when it came to the motivation

to recycle more in future. Of particular note was whether or notclosing knowledge gaps about environmental benets and therecycling process would encourage them to recycle correctlymore than the carrot and stick motivations by council.

As shown in Table 22 most Arabic speakers and those ofSudanese origin said they would be encouraged to recyclea lot more by either the knowledge or by the carrot andstick motivational options. People of Italian or Greek originand those of Vietnamese or Chinese origin were less inclinedto be motivated by increasing their knowledge about theenvironmental benets. However, people of Italian or Greekorigin were just as likely to be encouraged by more knowledgeas they were by council warnings.

If strategies and messages for CALD groups are to be effective,the quantitative research indicates that messages should betailored to match the preferences and motivations of eachgroup.

Table 22 - What would encourage Melburnians to recycle more

(Table shows items that would encourage respondents to recycle a lot)


Italian /Greek

Vietnamese/ Chinese

Arabic /Sudanese

(n=71) (n=92) (n=80)

% % %

Carrot and Stick Motivations

Warned/notied by your

council about what you aredoing wrong

42 35 83

Told your bin wont becollected that week for notrecycling properly

25 40 70

Feeling more appreciatedby your local council foryour efforts

25 34 80

Receiving some kind ofincentive from your localcouncil

15 30 83

Knowledge Motivations

How recycling is helping toreduce landll

41 55 86

What happens torecyclables after pick up

35 33 81

How recycling helps totackle climate change

44 58 90

How recycling is savingenergy and resources

35 49 90

(Refer appendix - survey question E4a, E4b, E4c, E4d, E4e, E4f, E4g and E4h)


31/44

28

60% of CALD people surveyedstrongly agreed that recyclingmade them happy to be doingtheir bit for the environment


32/44

29

Summary of findings

What prevents Melburnians recyclingmore?

Most Melburnians are committed to recycling. The researchsuggests the following barriers are preventing improvedhousehold recycling:

insufcient storage capacity. Lack of space in the recycling bin maylead to recycling ending up in the rubbish bin destined for landll.Likewise, limited space in the kerbside rubbish bin increases thepotential for contamination problems if householders discard their

rubbish in the recycling bin.

Confusion about the recyclability of plastic bags leads to theircontribution as a source of contamination. Contaminationfrom plastic bags also results from the mistaken belief that therecycling process is assisted by the use of plastic bags to sortitems. This includes the practice of placing recycling inside plasticbags or using them to carry recycling to the bin outside.

While Melburnians understand the basics of recycling materialssuch as paper, bottles, cardboard, glass and aluminium, there is

confusion regarding some plastic items. Uncertainty also existsabout the disposing of dirty recyclables and whether to keeplids on or take them off. There is also uncertainty about whethernon-packaging related items, which are recyclable in principle,are acceptable for kerbside collection. Decision making involvingthese difcult items can lead to both the contamination ofrecycling and the disposal of recycling as rubbish.

Differences in what can be accepted for recycling may vary fromcouncil to council, potentially leading to confusion, especially whenpeople move home from one area to another. Advances in recyclingprocesses over time may also mean that messages retained by thecommunity may no longer be up to date and correct.

When recycling messages are not being conveyed throughpreferred information channels (for example, younger audiencespreference for digital media), there is potential for confusion anddiminished recycling know-how. Similarly, for groups such asCALD, temporary residents and the newly arrived, gaps existbetween their commitment to recycling, their understanding ofcouncil literature and access to mainstream media. This impactstheir ability to access and understand messages despite theirwillingness to recycle.

bathroom, the study and the bedroom. If householders are unsurewhether or not to clean recyclables, dirty items may unnecessarilyend up in the rubbish bin. Unless otherwise convinced, force ofhabit results in our retention of long-held beliefs.

Helping Melburnians to recycle more

The research not only uncovered room for improvement butalso revealed a desire for increased knowledge, including moreinformation about the wider outcomes of recycling actions:

Respondents indicated a demand for more explicit directionabout kerbside recycling. Particular attention is neededfor difcult items, plastic bags and the potential impact ofcontamination on recycling efforts.

Respondents want greater information and a betterunderstanding about what happens to the recycling afterits collected from the kerbside, including its contribution tohelping the environment.

Target audiences

As well as encouraging the efforts of those not recycling atmaximum capacity, another way to improve recycling may beto convince those who think they recycle everything, that theycan in fact recycle more:

Regardless of commitment or background, most people canrecycle better and more often. All levels of the communitywill benet from messages that encourage good habits andbetter know-how to help them recycle more effectively. Whilerespondents recognised common recyclables, the researchindicates that people were just as likely as not, to make mistakesabout other items that are recyclable. This confusion regardingkey messages suggests that basic kerbside recycling messagesneed repeating and, to be effective, their delivery must be simpleand consistent [Table 28].

Younger age groups (16-29 year olds and, to a lesser extent,30-39 year olds) showed lower commitment to recycling

compared to older age groups. Along with less commitment,the 16-29 age group indicated poorer recycling know-how,and considered themselves time poor and pre-occupied bymore pressing issues. Some may have recently left homewhere recycling was taken care of by someone else or theymay be in a share house for the rst time.

groupsLanguage barriers and less access to mainstream media meanthat CALD groups may not receive the recycling messages thatare delivered to the rest of the community. They may also preferdelivery in alternative ways, for example, spoken via communitygroups and leaders, ethnic radio or visual rather than written

messages. More recent and temporary residents, perhaps familiarwith different systems or with no prior experience of recycling,may need particular support to help them adapt or start.


33/44

30

Conclusion

Melburnians have high levels of commitment and enthusiasmfor recycling, with only 1% of respondents saying they recycledonly sometimes and 99% of people reporting that Melbournehas a convenient recycling system.

The research suggests that Melburnians commitment torecycling changes with age and circumstances. Commitmentincreases with age and decreases as households get bigger.Ensuring recycling efforts dont go unrecognised, along withexploring ways to lift commitment may help to increase theoverall recycling level.

The ndings show that enthusiasm is no substitute for know-how. Despite a good grasp of the basics, people struggle to

discern the different types of plastics, whether or not to recycledifcult items, whether or not to clean dirty items, or whether totake lids off or leave them on.

bags and lack of knowledge all prevent Melburnians recyclingmore often and more effectively. In addition, people want abetter understanding of what happens to recycling after it hasbeen collected and want to feel condent that what is put out forrecycling does actually get recycled.

Regardless of background or age research has shown thateveryone will benet from messages that promote goodrecycling habits and decision making, with younger peopleaged 16-39 and CALD groups requiring particular attention.

Building Melburnians condence in the recycling system bydemonstrating what happens to recycling after its collected andby emphasising the environmental benets of recycling could beways to help improve recycling and reinforce positive behaviour.


34/44


35/44

32

INTRODUCTION

Good morning/afternoon/evening. My name is (..............)from Wallis Consulting Group. We are conducting a survey onbehalf of local and state government about waste and recyclingcollection services in your area. It takes no more than 15 minutesand is completely condential.

S1. May I please speak to the person aged 16 andabove who is most responsible for managing wasteand recycling in your home?

Yes

Relevant person is absentRelevant person is not yet

Refused

Business / not a private household

IF REFUSAL ASK

X1. Could I just ask only one question then, just tohelp us get a broader consultation on one point;which of the following statements best describeshow much of your household waste is recycled?

We recycle everything that can be recycled

We recycle a lot but not everything that can be recycled

We recycle sometimes

We do not recycle at all

Refused

CS1. Were you born in Australia or overseas?

Australia

Overseas

Refused

CS2. What is the main language your householdusually speaks at home?

English

Greek

Italian

Vietnamese

Chinese

Arabic

Sudanese

Other (SPECIFY)

Appendix: Survey

CS3. When did you first come to live in Australia?

Before 1950

1950 - 1959

1960 - 1969

1970 - 1979

1980 - 1989

1990 - 1999

2000 - 2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009 / 2010

Refused

SECTION A: Waste and recyclingcollection services

A1. Thinking about the waste services that yourcouncil provides, which of the following types ofbins are provided by your local council for kerbside

pick-up at your residence?General waste

Recyclable materials

Garden waste and organics

Apartment building / waste not taken at kerbside

Dont know / Refused

Other (SPECIFY)

A2. Thinking about the (general waste / recycling) bin(provided by your council)

Is that an individual bin solely for your householdsuse or is that a communal bin that is shared withother households?

Individual bin for household

Shared / communal bin

A3a. Is this bin...?

Too big for your household

Just right for your household

Too small for your household

A3b. Are there enough bins for the households thatshare them?

Too many for the households that share them

Just the right amount of bins

Not enough bins for the households that share them


36/44

33

A4. How often does your local council collect your(general waste / recycling) bin?

Weekly

Fortnightly

Other (SPECIFY)

A5. And is the council collection

Too frequent for your household

Just right

Not frequent enough for your household

A6. So, on average, how full is your (general waste /recycling) bin on collection day?

Overowing

Full

Half full

Less than half full

Dont know

A7. How many people live in your household?

One (self)

Two

Three

Four

Five

Six or more

SECTION B: Recycling behaviour

Now I would like you to think about household waste that canbe recycled via your kerbside recycling bin provided by yourcouncil.

B1. Thinking generally, how well would you say thatyou understand what items can be placed inyour kerbside recycling bin? Would you say...

Very well

Fairly well

Not very well

Not at all

Dont know

B2. And still thinking about recycling of householdwaste, how important would you say recycling is toyou personally? Is it

Very important

Fairly important

Not very important

Not at all important

Dont know

B3a. How convenient is it for you personally torecycle your household waste. Would you say it isVery convenient

Fairly convenient

Not very convenient

Not at all convenient

Dont know

B3b. In what way is it not convenient for you torecycle household waste?

B4a. Which of the following statements bestdescribes your attitude to recycling of householdwaste?

I recycle even if it requires additional effort

I only recycle if it does not require additional effort

I do not recycle

Cant say

B4b. And thinking about other people in yourhousehold who dispose of waste, how well do theyrecycle in comparison to you? Would you say they...

Do it better or just as well as you

Do it quite well but not as well as you

Dont do it very well

Dont do it at all

Cant say / it varies

B5. So thinking about your household overall,which of the following statements best describeshow much of your household waste is recycled?

(I / we) recycle everything that can be recycled

(I / we) recycle a lot but not everything that can be recycled

(I / we) recycle sometimes

(I / we) do not recycle at all

B6. Now thinking about when you have items thatcan be recycled in your home, which of the followingbest describes the USUAL process for sorting therecycling in your household? Do you.

a) Have special containers or bags in some rooms that you putrecyclable items into or

b) Put recyclable items aside and then just take them loose tothe recycling bin or

c) Put general waste and recycling into one container and thensort it out when you get to the recycling bin or

d) Have some other system (SPECIFY)

e) Cant say


37/44

34

B7. In which rooms do you have special containersor bags for recyclables?

Kitchen

LaundryLounge

Dining room

Study / retreat

Bedroom(s)

Bathroom / toilet

Garage / shed

Other

B8. When items are placed into the recycling bin arethey loose or are they in a bag or wrapped up?

Always looseSometimes loose, sometimes wrapped in plastic or in a plasticbag

Always wrapped in plastic or in a plastic bag

Other (SPECIFY)

Cant say

SECTION C: Decision making andinfluences around practical problems

Now we are going to talk about recycling in more detail.Again, we are talking about recycling via your kerbside bin.

C1. Some people find that there are times when theydont recycle all the household waste that they could.Im going to run through some possible reasons andin each case can you tell me how often this happensin your household? Firstly, how often does it happenthat your household

a) Forgets to put the recycling bin out and its full before the nextcollection

b) Throws things in the general waste bin because you are notsure if they can be recycled

c) Throws recyclable materials from the bathroom (like plasticbottles) in the general waste bin

d) Throws recycling in your general waste bin because yourrecycling bin is full

e) Throws dirty or smelly recyclable materials in the generalwaste bin rather than cleaning them or emptying them

f) Doesnt recycle items that are dirty because you dont want towaste water cleaning them

g) Puts things out in the general waste because you dont havespace to store items for recycling in the house

h) Throws things in the general waste because your recycling binis inconveniently located or you dont want to go outside to it

i) Puts documents in the general waste bin because of privacyconcerns

Never

Occasionally

Often

All of the time

Dont know

C2. And still using the same scale, how often would ithappen that your household

a) Puts things in the recycling bin even though youre not sure ifthey can be recycled

b) Throws general waste in the recycling bin because yourgeneral waste bin is full

C3. When deciding on whether or not to place anitem into the recycling bin, what are the things about

this decision?What else do you look for?

What material it is made from (e.g. plastic, metal, glass, paper)

Whether it is packaging

Recycling symbols

Plastic type (number 1 to 7)

Whether it says it is recyclable

Whether the item is dirty or smelly (contains food waste or milk)

Whether I have to use water to clean the item

Bin sticker provided by councilsOther waste and recycling information provided by councils

Other (SPECIFY)

Dont know

C4a. Are there any particular items that you havedifficulty in deciding whether to place in the recyclingbin or not or anything that you are unsure about?

Aerosol cans

Batteries

Cling lm

Empty food packets (cellulose, plastic)

Lids from bottles or jars

Pet food cans

Plastic bags

Mobile phones / old cameras

Polystyrene packaging (e.g. meat tray)

China / pottery / porcelain

Glass other than bottles

Metal items (e.g. coat hangers, cutlery)

Containers with dirty food or liquids left over in them

Things made of more than one material (e.g. plastic and metal)

Things that say they are biodegradable

Other (SPECIFY)

Dont know


38/44

35

C4b. Thinking about others in your household, arethere any particular items that you think they havetrouble deciding whether to place in the recycling binor not?

Aerosol cans

Batteries

Cling lm

Empty food packets (cellulose, plastic)

Lids from bottles or jars

Pet food cans

Plastic bags

Mobile phones / old cameras

Polystyrene packaging (e.g. meat tray)

China / pottery / porcelain

Glass other than bottlesMetal items (e.g. coat hangers, cutlery)

Containers with dirty food or liquids left over in them

Things made of more than one material (e.g. plastic and metal)

Things that say they are biodegradable

Oth

Documents

Kerbside Recycling in Metropolitan Melbourne