Key Findings Report Recycling Tracking Survey 2017 Behaviours ... · Behaviours, attitudes and awareness around recycling 7 The most common items not captured for recycling (Figure

Key Findings Report

Recycling Tracking Survey 2017

Behaviours, attitudes and

awareness around recycling

Report of the recycling tracking survey, spring 2017

Project code: BHV030-001

Research date: February – March 2017 Date: September 2017

Behaviours, attitudes and awareness around recycling 2

WRAP’s vision is a world in which

resources are used sustainably.

Our mission is to accelerate the move to

a sustainable resource-efficient

economy through re-inventing how we

design, produce and sell products; re-

thinking how we use and consume

products; and re-defining what is

possible through re-use and recycling.

Find out more at www.wrap.org.uk

Document reference WRAP, 2017, Banbury, Recycling Tracking Survey 2017 Behaviours, attitudes and awareness

around recycling, Prepared by WRAP

Document reference: [e.g. WRAP, 2006, Report Name (WRAP Project TYR009-19. Report prepared by…..Banbury, WRAP]

Front cover photography: Recycle Now Imagery

While we have taken reasonable steps to ensure this report is accurate, WRAP does not accept liability for any loss, damage, cost or expense incurred or arising

from reliance on this report. Readers are responsible for assessing the accuracy and conclusions of the content of this report. Quotations and case studies

have been drawn from the public domain, with permissions sought where practicable. This report does not represent endorsement of the examples used and

has not been endorsed by the organisations and individuals featured within it. This material is subject to copyright. You can copy it free of charge and may use

excerpts from it provided they are not used in a misleading context and you must identify the source of the material and acknowledge WRAP’s copyright. You

must not use this report or material from it to endorse or suggest WRAP has endorsed a commercial product or service. For more details please see WRAP’s

terms and conditions on our website at www.wrap.org.uk

http://www.wrap.org.uk/

http://www.wrap.org.uk/


Contents

Contents ................................................................................................................. 3

Glossary .................................................................................................................. 4

Introduction ........................................................................................................... 5

1.0 Dry Recycling .................................................................................................. 6

1.1 Assessing recycling behaviours .................................................................... 6

1.2 Recycling behaviour groups ....................................................................... 10

1.3 Residents recycling practices ......................................................................... 12

1.4 Communal recycling schemes ....................................................................... 12

1.5 Recycling motivation and sources of knowledge ............................................ 13

2.0 Food Waste Recycling ................................................................................... 15

2.1 Levels of usage ......................................................................................... 15

2.2 Room for improvement among users ........................................................ 17

2.3 Barriers to the service among non-users ................................................... 18

2.4 Attitudes to food waste recycling ............................................................... 19


Glossary

Capture – material targeted by a local recycling collection that is placed in a recycling

container by the householder.

Missed capture – a missed opportunity by the householder to recycle a material that is

targeted by a local recycling collection.

Contamination – in the context of this report, an umbrella term to describe both non-

targeted recyclable material and non-recyclable items placed in a recycling container by

the householder.

Serious contamination – the addition to a recycling container of waste items that

cannot be recycled and cause issues for processing plants e.g. animal bedding, sanitary

products, and food.

Matched – survey responses that have been compared to local waste and recycling

services by mapping respondents’ postcodes on to WRAP’s local authority database. This

allows subjective, self-reported responses to be compared against objective information

about recycling services in the local area.

Able to be matched – ‘matched’ data analysis excludes those with communal

collections, materials that are disposed of outside of the home (e.g. at a local recycling

point) and where a household does not purchase a particular item and therefore has

none to dispose of (further information is presented in the methodology section)


Introduction

The Recycling Tracker is an annual survey of UK households that gathers evidence on

consumers’ current attitudes, knowledge and behaviour in relation to recycling.

Fieldwork was undertaken online by Icaro, between the 27th January and 13th February

2017. A total of 3,239 interviews were undertaken - in England (2,172 including boosts in

London and Greater Manchester), Wales (650), Scotland (207) and Northern Ireland

(300). To achieve the overall UK sample the data from each of the four nations and

regions were combined according to their share of the UK population – giving an

‘effective UK base’1 of 2,586.

The analysis compares respondents’ self-reported recycling behaviour to the known

kerbside service provision in their area (using respondents’ postcodes and a database of

all UK council schemes maintained by WRAP2). This enables householders’ behaviour,

knowledge and attitudes to recycling to be understood in the context of the services

they have access to. To understand recycling behaviour, questions are specifically asked

about how respondents disposed of items on the last/most recent disposal occasion.

Not all data can be matched. This includes those who live in areas with partial3

collections and those with communal collections (due to variations in services across a

local authority area and uncertainties regarding service provision at multiple occupancy

buildings).

The results give 2,490 valid, matched records. When this is weighted in line with the

distribution of the UK population the “effective matched base” is 2,000. On graphs and

tables, statistically significant differences are clearly flagged (at the 95% confidence

level); if they are not flagged then any difference is not significant. Where there are

differences between nations and regions these are noted using the first letter of the

nation or region e.g. E= England, N= Northern Ireland etc.

1 The effective sample size is a measure of the precision of the survey once the effect of

weighting is considered, i.e. although 3,239 interviews were undertaken, this is the equivalent of

an un-weighted sample of 2,586. 2 The database is updated annually via a survey of every council in the UK. There are margins of

error associated with the survey (in addition to the consumer survey), and postcodes do not

always align precisely with council boundaries. Therefore, the results are subject to small

margins of error rather than being absolute. 3 Where a material is not consistently collected for recycling from all kerbside properties due to

variations in the scheme across a local authority


1.0 Dry Recycling

1.1 Assessing recycling behaviours

The tracker assesses two key elements of recycling behaviour: missed capture (i.e.

items put in the general rubbish that are accepted for recycling locally) and

contamination (i.e. items put in the recycling when they are not accepted). The former

indicates the scope to improve the capture of recyclables (quantity); the latter the

quality. The findings highlight room for improvement in both respects:

Just over half (53%) of UK households dispose of one or more items in the general

rubbish that is in fact collected for recycling in their area. This is a small but

statistically significant increase from 2016 (49%).

Close to three quarters of UK households (76%) add one or more item to their

recycling collection that is not accepted locally4.

There are significant differences across the UK nations, although all have the potential to

improve. Wales has the lowest level of missed capture (40% of households could add at

least one item to the recycling), compared to 53% in England and 60% in Northern

Ireland.

There are also differences across key variables, although once again the differences

should not distract from the scope to improve across all groups.

Age: The scope for improvement is highest among younger households aged 18-34 –

they have the highest levels of missed capture (65% vs. 45% of those aged 55+) and

the highest levels of contamination (83% vs. 73%).

Confidence: Levels of missed capture are highest among those with less confidence

about what can and can’t be recycled (64% vs. 43% of those who are very confident).

However, levels of contamination are no lower among those who say they are

confident about all items compared to those who are not confident (indicating over-

confidence among some householders).

Number of items collected by the council: Missed capture increases with the number

of items collected for recycling (from 39% in areas collecting 0-8 items to 53% in

areas collecting 14-15); the reverse is true of contamination which is highest in areas

collecting fewer items (84% vs. 71%).

4 This compares to 69% in 2016, although direct comparisons are not possible because the list of

contaminants expanded in 2017. When comparing contamination using just the items asked

about in both 2016 and 2017, the 2017 result actually falls to 65% - a statistically significant

decrease.


The most common items not captured for recycling (Figure 1) are foil (26% could have

recycled this on the last disposal occasion), aerosols (20%) and plastic cleaning bottles

(16%). The level of missed capture has increased for foil (from 21% in 2013), which

appears to be a result of an increase in the number of local authorities that accept it

(with not all residents aware and/or adapting yet). By contrast, there is less missed

capture for aerosols – 20% could recycle this locally, down from 24% in 2014.

Figure 1 – Potential to increase capture, item by item

The graph shows the % of households who put items in the general rubbish when they are

collected for recycling locally.

Base: All those able to be matched excluding flat-block dwellers (2,000), UK, Feb 2017


For contamination (Figure 2), common items include plastic bags and wrapping (29%),

dirty pizza boxes (23%), toothpaste tubes (22%), Tetra Pak (17%), bubble wrap (16%) and

plastic carrier bags (15%).

Figure 2 – Recycling of non-targeted materials and contamination, item by item

The graph shows the % of households who recycled items when they are not accepted locally.

Base: All those able to be matched (2,000) – those in red have been classified by WRAP as “serious”;

whereas those in blue are classified as “non-targeted recycling”. UK, February 2017

To assess the reasons for missed capture and contamination, survey respondents were

given a series of statements outlining potential reasons and asked how frequently each

applies to them.

The results (Table 1) demonstrate that the key factor for contamination – recognised by

just over half (51%) of UK households - relates to presuming that on-pack

labels/guidance applies to their local collection. For missed capture, food residue on

items and confusion about what can and can’t be recycled are both prominent,

identified by around one in three households. A lack of bin capacity is a barrier to both

missed capture and contamination, with around one in five identifying with this as an

issue for their recycling bin (leading to missed capture) and their general rubbish bin

(leading to contamination).


Table 1: Reasons for missed capture and non-targeted recycling/contamination

The table shows the % saying that each statement applies to them ‘regularly’ or from ‘time to time’.

Base: All (2,553)

Incidence Missed capture Contamination

50% or

more

households

I follow guidance on the packaging, so I

presume everything I put in recycling is

correct (51%)

30-49% There was too much food/residue on

the item (33%)

There are so many different types of

item I’m never sure what is allowed in

recycling and what isn’t (31%)

20-29% I’m not convinced everything actually

gets recycled by the council (29%)

I do enough so don’t tend to worry

about the odd thing here and there

(24%)

The packaging says to “check locally if it

can be recycled” and I can’t be bothered

(24%)

The recycling bin was full (21%)

If I don’t know whether or not something

is recyclable, I put it in recycling in the

hope that it will be (25%)

There isn’t enough space in the general

rubbish bin (20%)

Less than

20%

There’s no recycling bin in that room /

nearby so it went in the normal bin

(17%)

I didn’t want to go outside / to the

communal area (12%)

It all gets sorted anyway so it’s up to the

council / the recycling plant to take out

what they don’t want (19%)

The council collects everything in the

same truck so it doesn’t matter what bin I

put it in (18%)

It doesn’t really bother me what bin I put

things in, I tend not to give it much

thought (15%)

The survey demonstrates that, as part of the overall trend in missed capture, there is

scope to increase capture of items from different rooms in the home. For example, half

of UK households (50%) say aerosols from the bedroom and bathroom are sometimes or

always disposed of in the general rubbish (with the data matching showing that 84% of

these households are able to recycle this item kerbside).


1.2 Recycling behaviour groups

Clustering recycling behaviour according to missed capture and contamination identifies

six dry recycling5 behavioural groups (Table 2). Close to one in eight households (13%)

are ‘Top Recyclers’ – they do not put any items in the residual bin that could be recycled,

nor do they put any items in the recycling that are not accepted. By contrast, the

majority of households (87%) have room for improvement (to different degrees). For

example, Group 2 (Minor Issues) contaminate or miss opportunities to recycle with a

small number of items. By contrast, Group 6 (Multiple Issues) has higher levels of both

missed capture and contamination.

Table 2: Behavioural groups

1 Top Recyclers 13% Do not contaminate or miss opportunities to recycle. Use

their kerbside service to its fullest potential.

2 Minor Issues 22% Get the vast majority of their recycling right, but

contaminate and / or miss opportunities to recycle with

1-9% of the item types they dispose of at home.

3 Medium Issues 13% Get most of their recycling right, but contaminate and / or

miss opportunities to recycle with 10-14% of the item types

they dispose of at home.

4 High contamination,

no missed capture

18% Not responsible for any missed capture, but add multiple

items to the recycling collection that are not accepted

locally.

5 High missed capture,

no contamination

13% Not responsible for any contamination but add multiple

items to the residual waste that are collected locally for

recycling.

6 Multiple Issues 21% Responsible for both contamination and missed capture

with multiple items

The composition of the six groups varies according to a range of socio-demographic,

service-based and attitudinal/knowledge-based variables, as follows:

Age: Groups 1 (Top Recyclers) and 2 (Minor Issues) are more likely to contain older

households – 45% of those aged 55+ fall into these two groups (compared to 19%

among 18-34s). In contrast, 18-34s are more likely to be in Group 5 (High missed

capture, no contamination) and Group 6 (Multiple Issues).

Rurality and deprivation: In Groups 1 and 2 there is a higher proportion of

households in rural areas6 (38% vs. 32% in urban areas) and in low deprivation areas

(38% vs. 31% in areas of higher deprivation).

5 Food waste is not included in the analysis

6 Defined on a six point rural/urban and high/low deprivation classification based on ONS data.


Time living in area: There is a higher proportion of Groups 1 and 2 who have lived in

the same area for 10 years or more (40% vs. 19% of those living in the area for less

than two years).

UK nation/region: There are relatively few differences across the UK nations/regions.

Notable exceptions include a higher proportion of households in both Wales (25%)

and Greater Manchester (27%) who are in Group 4 (High contamination, no missed

capture), compared to England (19%). The size of Group 6 is larger in London and

Greater Manchester.

Recycling outlook: A more positive recycling outlook (i.e. those associating with the

statement I want to be a really good recycler and I take the trouble to ensure that I’m

doing everything right) equates to a higher proportion of households in the top two

groups (43% vs. 9% who opt for Recycling is good in principle but for various reasons

I don’t really do it as much as I ought to). That said, the data shows that 57% of those

who self-identify as highly committed fall outside of the top two performing groups,

showing room for improvement even where positive motivations and values are in

place.

Sources of knowledge and information receipt: Households in Group 1 obtain much

of their recycling information from council leaflets – crediting this source with over

half of their knowledge (5.2 points out of 10). This compares to 2.9 points among

those in Group 6. Among those who have received and read information about what

the council wants them to recycle, 45% are in the top two groups (vs. 19% among

those who say that they have not received any information about recycling in the

past year).

Residual waste capacity and collection frequency: Almost half (48%) of those in areas

with an average weekly capacity equivalent to 70-90L fall into the top two groups -

compared to those with 120L (34%), 140-180L (40%) and 240L (28%). In terms of

frequency, more households in Groups 1 and 2 are in areas with a fortnightly

collection (37% vs. 30% in areas with a weekly collection).

Comprehensiveness of local recycling collections: In areas that collect 14-15 items

almost half (48%) of households are in the top 2 groups vs. 20% in areas collecting 0-

8 items. However, there is also an increase in the proportion of households in Group

5 (High Missed Capture, No Contamination) – highlighting the need for households in

these areas to be reminded of the full range of materials collected. The size of Group

4 increases where fewer (0-8) items are collected (41% vs. 7% in areas collecting 14-

15 items), indicating households in these areas are trying to recycle more items than

the collection accepts.


1.3 Residents recycling practices

The tracker looked at what set out practices are being followed by residents7. The results

show:

The majority of households consistently remove any absorbent pads from the

bottom of plastic trays and put these in the general rubbish (62% say they do this ‘all

the time’).

A similar proportion (60%) say they always empty and rinse items.

Fewer always squash plastic bottles (42%) or remove packing tape from cardboard

boxes (39%).

The least common practice is putting metal lids and caps back on glass containers

(28%).

A higher proportion of households in Wales say they consistently follow all of the set out

practices compared to England; whereas households in London and Greater Manchester

are the least likely to follow it.

1.4 Communal recycling schemes

Given that they are excluded from the formal data matching process (and therefore the

behavioural groups), residents with communal recycling collections are asked a separate

set of questions.

Ratings of the service provision highlight a number of issues (Figure 3). For example, the

overall cleanliness of the bin areas is given an average score of 6.3 out of 10, while

specific issues include overflowing general rubbish bins (with 44% saying this happens

all or most of the time), overflowing recycling bins (41%) and a lack of consideration

among fellow residents (39% report that others using the communal bins take no or

little care).

The results also demonstrate the potential for contamination of communal recycling

bins with plastic bags – 26% say that they take the recycling down in plastic bags that

they put inside the recycling bin with the recycling. A similar proportion (24%) say they

also use plastic bags but empty them out rather than put in the recycling, while one in

three (33%) say they use a re-usable bag/box.

7 While it is not possible to know if respondents are being asked to follow this set out guidance by

their local authority, and therefore are ‘correct’ or ‘incorrect’ in following or not following it, the

guidance is considered to represent best practice.


Figure 3 – Communal collection ratings

Q9new. Please rate the following on a scale from 0-10.

Base: Those with a communal recycling collection (207). UK, Feb 2017

1.5 Recycling motivation and sources of knowledge

Respondents described their outlook on recycling by selecting one of four statements

that best describes them:

Almost half (48%) select the statement “I want to be a really good recycler and I take

the trouble to ensure that I’m doing everything right”, There is a clear age gradient

with 60% of those aged 55+ saying they want to be a good recycler, compared to 34%

of 18-24s.

One in three (36%) select “Recycling is a good thing, but I don’t spend too much time

worrying about it – the same things go in every week and I feel like I’m doing my bit”.

Turning to the reasons why households say they recycle, respondents were asked to

attribute 10 points across a range of motivations (with more points reflecting more

important reasons). The two primary reasons – each attributed 3.1 points each – is ‘to do

my bit for the environment’ and ‘the council provides the service so I am doing what I

am supposed to’. This is followed by habit (1.5 points) and ‘I like the idea of new things

being made from old’ (1.0 points).

To assess how households have acquired their knowledge about recycling, respondents

were given a list of six information sources and again given 10 points to allocate. The

most prominent source of information is a council leaflet (3.4 points out of 10), followed

by what it says on the recycling box/bag/bin (1.9), what it says on the product packaging

(1.6) and the council website (1.5). What friends/neighbours/family say (0.7) and trial and


error (0.5) are credited with less influence overall but are notably more likely to be used

by 18-34s.

Recycling attitudes and behaviours do not vary significantly according to where

householders do their grocery shopping.


2.0 Food Waste Recycling

2.1 Levels of usage

Respondents’ answers about how they dispose of food waste have been matched with

local service provision, as per dry recycling8.

For the UK as a whole, almost one in three (29%) households recycle their food waste

and do so correctly, that is they are served by a local collection and use it (Figure 4). A

further 38% correctly use the residual bin (i.e. because no food waste collection is

provided locally), while 13% compost it.

By contrast, one in seven (14%) are non-users – that is, living in an area where a service

is provided but they don’t use it. This comprises 5% who are ‘lapsed users’ (i.e. they used

the service previously, but have stopped) and 9% who have never used it. Furthermore,

a small minority (5%) say they recycle food waste even though they live in an area where

no service is provided (i.e. potentially representing contamination of the dry recycling

collection).

The results highlight pronounced differences across the UK nations and regions:

The proportion of food recyclers is highest in Wales (74%) and lowest in England

(25%). There is also a particularly notable difference between London (22%) and

Greater Manchester (69%). This largely reflects service provision – with 42% of

households in England and 38% in London not served with a food waste collection,

whereas all of Greater Manchester receives a service.

The proportion of lapsed and non-users with a service is highest in Greater

Manchester (26%) and Northern Ireland (20%) and lowest in Wales and England (15%

and 14%, respectively).

8 For the purposes of data matching, a respondent who lives in an area where the local authority

provides a food waste collection to 85-100% of kerbside properties is considered to have a

service. This means that there is a small potential for error (i.e. a respondent does not have a

service even though one is provided to the majority of other households in that area).

Respondents living in areas which offer a partial kerbside collection (i.e. to 1-84% of households)

are excluded from the analysis because there is too much uncertainty. Those with communal

collections are excluded, as per dry recycling.


Figure 4 – Food waste disposal routes

The graph shows the profile of food waste users, based on their responses to Q18 and Q19.

Q18. Please indicate how your household last disposed of food waste?

Q19. Have you ever used your council’s food waste collection service?

Base: Those who produce food waste (bases below in brackets). UK, Feb 2017

Turning to key variables:

Age is a key influence – with older households more likely to be correct users (36% of

those aged 55+ vs. 21% of 18-34s). By contrast, 18-34s are more likely to be lapsed

users (11% vs. 1% of those aged 55+) and non-users with a service (14% vs. 5%).

Length of time living in the area also has an impact, with those living less than 2

years in the area more likely to be lapsed users (17% vs. 3% of those living in the area

more than 10 years) and non-users with a service (15% vs. 9%). Being a food waste

recycler is associated with being a more effective recycler. For example, food waste

recyclers are more likely to fall into the top two dry recycling groups - Top Recyclers

and Minor Issues (40% vs. 21% of non-users with a food recycling service).

Turning to how food recyclers line their caddy, over three quarters (76%) use a liner bag

– split evenly between those provided with a free liner by their council (38%) and those

who purchase their own (38%). A further 6% use newspaper, 5% a plastic bag, 7%

nothing and 4% say they don’t have a caddy in the kitchen. There has been no change

since 2016. There is a pronounced difference across the UK nations and regions, with

78% of households in Wales and 62% in Greater Manchester provided with free liners

(compared to 26% in England and 29% in London). The use of purchased liners is higher

in England and London, as is the use of newspaper and plastic bags.


2.2 Room for improvement among users

Food waste recyclers were asked whether they put any food items in the general rubbish.

Just over half (52%) say that none of the items listed ever go in the general rubbish, while

the remaining 48% select one or more items that do. The most commonly cited items are:

Tea bags/coffee grounds (20%);

Unopened food still in the packaging (19%);

Bones (18%); and

Egg shells (18%).

Overall, among those users who say that items still go in the general rubbish, the

average number of items cited is 3.5. There has been no change since 2016. Drawing on

these findings, food waste recyclers were grouped according to how many food items

they put in the general rubbish at least some of the time:

High – say they put none or just one food item in the general rubbish (68% of food

waste recyclers overall);

Medium – say they put 2-3 food items in the general rubbish (15% of food waste

recyclers overall);

Low – say they put 4+ food items in the general rubbish (17% of food waste recyclers

overall).

There are some significant differences by key variables:

UK nation/region: Four in five (80%) of current food waste recyclers in Wales are high

users, compared to 65% in England, 64% in Greater Manchester and 59% in London.

Therefore, those in Wales are more likely to use the service and - when they do – are

more likely to be high users.

Age: The majority (79%) of current food waste recyclers aged 55+ are high users,

compared to 52% of 18-34s. Therefore, older age groups are more likely to use the

service and – when they do – are more likely to be high users.

Dry recycling behaviour groups: The majority (81%) of current food waste recyclers in

Group 1 (Top Recyclers) are high users, compared to 59% of those in Group 6

(Multiple Issues). This once again supports the link between being an effective

recycler and being an effective food waste recycler.


2.3 Barriers to the service among non-users

Non-users who are aware of the food waste service that is provided locally were asked

to identify the reasons they do not use it, and then the main reason (Figure 5). The main

reasons include “it would be too messy or smelly” (15%), “don’t produce much/enough to

bother” (15%), and “don’t have a bin/caddy” (9%). Concerns about hygiene and

flies/foxes/vermin are also prominent within the top four reasons cited.

Q21. What are the main reasons why you don’t use the food waste collection in your area?

Please select 1 main reason and up to 3 other reasons MULTI

Base: Those who don’t use the food waste collection, but think they have one (305). UK, Feb 2017

Time series comparisons show a decrease in the proportion of non-users citing flies /

foxes / vermin as their main barrier (from 13% on 2016 down to 7% now).


2.4 Attitudes to food waste recycling

Households with a local food recycling collection service (including both users and non-

users of the service) were asked to place themselves on a 0-10 scale across several

different aspects of the service. The results demonstrate a number of positive changes

over recent years:

Understanding of the reasons why food waste recycling is important has

increased - now achieving an average score of 7.0 out of 10 (where 10 = understand

completely), compared to 6.4 in 2015.

Knowledge of what happens to the food waste after it is collected has improved

to 5.6 (where 10 = understand completely), compared to 4.6 in 2015. However, it

remains low (aligning with findings from the Recycle Now refresh testing that

demonstrated that, while the end process of dry recycling is clearer, the process for

food recycling is not).

Perceptions of how unpleasant it is to use the food waste collection service

have improved – now achieving a score of 6.7 out of 10 (where 10 = not unpleasant

at all), compared to 5.9 in 2015.

Overall feelings towards the food recycling service have improved – achieving a

rating of 7.1 out of 10 (where 10 = ‘I think it is excellent’), compared to 6.5 in 2015.

There has been no change in how much effort is required to use the service - which

scores 4.6 (where 10 = it requires a huge amount of effort), compared to 4.4 in 2015.

Likewise, there has been no change in perceptions of how much food waste is

required to make using the service worthwhile – which scores 4.2 (where 0 = worth it

even with a small amount), compared to 4.2 in 2016.

A consistent feature of the scores across all of these aspects is that they are poorer

among non-users when compared to users. For example, those who have never used

the service give a score of 5.7 for their understanding of the reasons why food waste

recycling is important, compared to 6.5 among lapsed users and 7.5 among users.

By contrast, lapsed users give the most negative score (6.2) for how much effort is

required to use the service, compared to 5.7 among those who have never used the

service and 3.7 among users.

However, there have been some positive attitudinal shifts among non-users in recent

years. For example, this group now shows more understanding of the reasons why food

waste recycling is important (from 4.6 in 2015 to 5.7 now) and more understanding of

what happens post-collection (from 2.8 to 4.6) – although in both instances there is

significant scope for further improvements. No change has been seen, however, in

perceptions about service-based barriers, such as how much effort is required and how

unpleasant it is to use.

www.wrap.org.uk

Documents

Key Findings Report Recycling Tracking Survey 2017 Behaviours ... · Behaviours, attitudes and awareness around recycling 7 The most common items not captured for recycling (Figure