Recycling Tracking Survey 2019 Behaviours, attitudes and ... · 9% who are new users and 15% who are recycling more/more consistently. By contrast, 3% UK households are recycling

Key Findings Report

Recycling Tracking Survey 2019

Behaviours, attitudes and awareness

around recycling

Report of the Recycling Tracker, Spring 2019

Project code: BHV030-0012

Research date: March 2019 Date: August 2019

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, 2019, Banbury, Recycling behaviours and attitudes 2019, Prepared by WRAP

Written by: Phil Downing, Icaro Consulting & Mark Roberts, WRAP

Front cover photography: Recycle Now Imagery

While we have tried to make sure 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/


Contents

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

Executive Summary .............................................................................................. 5

Introduction ......................................................................................................... 8

1. Communications ............................................................................................. 10

1.1 Recognition of recycling assets and campaigns ............................................... 10

1.2 Recycling information ................................................................................... 10

1.3 Sources of recycling knowledge ..................................................................... 12

2. Dry Recycling ................................................................................................. 13

2.1 Recycling behaviours .................................................................................... 13

2.2 Social norms around recycling ....................................................................... 18

2.3 Recycling motivation ..................................................................................... 19

2.4 Communal recycling schemes ........................................................................ 20

3. Food Waste Recycling .................................................................................... 21

3.1 Food waste behaviour................................................................................... 21

3.2 Social norms around food waste recycling ...................................................... 22

3.3 Room for improvement among users ............................................................. 23

3.4 Attitudes to food waste recycling ................................................................... 23


Glossary

Item – this refers to the something that is first used and then disposed of in the

household (for example, paper, glass, plastic drinks bottles). This term is used rather

than the term ‘material’, since it allows for a distinction between individual types of

materials, such as various types of plastic.

Capture – item accepted 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 an item that is

targeted and accepted by a local recycling collection.

Non targeted item – this is an item that is placed in the recycling collection by a

household that is not accepted by the local recycling collection

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

targeted recyclable items 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 self-reported responses to be compared against information about

recycling services in the local area.

Able to be matched – this defines when a post code given be a respondent can be

verified and matched to a particular local authority (more details are provided in the

methodology section).


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

recycling attitudes, knowledge and behaviour. It is the largest and longest running of

its kind. A total of 5,452 interviews were undertaken in March 2019.

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

kerbside service provision in their area (using a database of Local Authority schemes

maintained by WRAP). This enables householders’ behaviour to be understood in the

context of their local service.

Key findings

Recycling Communications

The results in 2019 demonstrate a series of positive changes in the past year. There

has been a significant increase in Recycle Now brand recognition - three quarters (75%)

of UK households have seen the Recycling ‘Swoosh’ (45% in 2018); and over half (53%)

have seen on-pack recycling labelling (43% in 2018). Furthermore, when the Recycle

Now brand is seen there is a positive association with reported behaviour change

(particularly the recently launched ‘Britain Recycles’ and ‘Britain Does’ social norm

messaging). Recognition of the Recycle Now brand is also strongly associated with

households seeking out more recycling information.

There has been an increase in the proportion of UK households who have received

information from the council in the past year about the waste/recycling collection –

from 59% in 2017 to 68% now. This is significant because the research also highlights

an association between receiving this information and improved recycling

performance.

UK households have gathered their knowledge about recycling from a range of

sources. The most prominent source is a council leaflet, although there is a significant

difference between those aged 55+ (for whom it is the dominant source) and 18-34s

(where it is much less influential). Younger households draw on a wider range of

sources that includes social media, trial and error and friends/family/ neighbours -

pointing towards future communication challenges.

Recycling behaviour

The Tracker results demonstrate three key findings about recycling behaviour:

• Just over half of UK households (51%) dispose of one or more items in the general

rubbish that are collected for recycling kerbside in their area. This is in line with

previous years (e.g. 54% in 2018). Households could recycle, on average, 1.6 more

items kerbside – most commonly foil, aerosols and plastic detergent/cleaning plastic

bottles.

• While the overall level of missed capture is largely the same, three in five (60%)

households report additional recycling of one or more items in the past year (either

an item they were not previously recycling or one they are now recycling more often

or more consistently). The most frequently cited items are plastic drinks bottles,


cardboard, paper, glass and plastic toiletries/ shampoo bottles. In other words,

households report more recycling but - because they still miss the opportunity to

recycle certain key items (e.g. foil, aerosols) - this has not translated into lower levels

of missed capture.

• Just over four in five (82%) UK households recycle one or more items kerbside that is

not accepted locally. This is an increase from previous years (76% in both 2017 and

2018). This suggests that some of the increased recycling reported in the past year is

not targeted by the local collection scheme.

When the results for missed capture and contamination are combined, UK households

dispose of 3.5 items 'incorrectly' on average, relative to what their local collection

accepts.

Recycling norms and habits

Three in five (60%) UK households perceive a positive social norm around recycling

(compared to 12% who perceive a negative norm and 29% a moderate norm). For food

waste recycling, fewer households (37%) with access to a collection perceive a positive

social norm and a similar proportion (34%) perceive a negative norm.

Social norms are strongly associated with recycling behaviour - those who perceive a

positive social norm dispose of fewer items incorrectly while those who perceive a

negative social norm dispose of more items incorrectly. A similar trend is evident for

food waste recycling – with those reporting a strong norm in their area significantly

more likely to report higher levels of food waste recycling.

Turning to habits, for both dry recycling and food waste recycling there has been an

increase in the proportion who say that their recycling has been internalised as a daily

habit / routine. This is now one of the key reasons cited for why households recycle,

with a corresponding decline in the proportion who cite the fact that the council

provide the service.

Food waste recycling

There has been an increase in food waste recycling in the past year - one in four UK

households (25%) say they have recycled more food waste in the past year, comprising

9% who are new users and 15% who are recycling more/more consistently. By contrast,

3% UK households are recycling less and 4% who say they have stopped using the

service altogether. Nearly two in five (38%) say they do not have a food waste recycling

collection.

Attitudes towards the food waste recycling service have improved over time – although

they remain significantly lower among non-users. This is particularly the case for

lapsed users (i.e. previously using it but stopped), highlighting the challenge of getting

a household to re-engage once they have stopped.

The role of collection scheme factors

In addition to its central focus on household behaviours, the tracker also provides a

number of key findings about the role of collection scheme characteristics.

For example, fewer items are disposed of incorrectly by households who have services

with the following scheme characteristics: a restricted residual waste capacity, weekly


recycling collections, higher numbers of materials accepted for recycling and multi-

stream recycling schemes. By contrast, more items are disposed of incorrectly by

households in areas where: fewer items are collected for recycling; there is a weekly

collection of residual waste; and there is a 3-4 weekly recycling collection.

Scheme design also impacts upon food waste recycling. For example, households are

more likely to say they are recycling more food waste in areas with a restricted residual

waste collection. Moreover, the type of food waste collection itself plays a role -

separate food waste collections perform better, on average, than mixed collections of

food and garden waste – both in terms of stronger social norms and better overall

sentiment towards the service.


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

recycling attitudes, knowledge and behaviour. It is the largest and longest running of

its kind, having been undertaken by WRAP since 20041.

Fieldwork was undertaken online by Icaro, between the 21st – 31st March 2019. A total

of 5,452 interviews were undertaken - in England (4,288), Wales (656), Scotland (207)

and Northern Ireland (301). Extra boost sampling was undertaken in London (to 989)

and the Greater Manchester Combined Authority (GMCA) area (to 496). The data from

each of the four nations/regions was combined according to their share of the UK

population – giving an ‘effective UK base’2 of 4,628.

Statistical significance

Statistical tests have been performed to assess whether an apparent difference in the

survey data (i.e. across years or between sub-groups) is statistically significant or not3.

These tests have been undertaken to the 99% confidence level (i.e. 99 times out of 100

the observed difference will be real vs. 1 time out of 100 it will have happened by

chance). This provides a greater level of surety in the findings than the more commonly

used 95% confidence level.

Because a sample of households has completed the survey (rather than a census), the

results are subject to statistical margins of error. For the 2019 results as a whole, the

maximum margin of error in the results is ±1.5% (i.e. if the survey gives a result of 50%

then the real result, if all households in the country were interviewed, would be

somewhere in the range 48.5% - 51.5%). When comparing results across time, for

example the results in 2019 vs. 2018, the maximum margin of error is ±4% (i.e. an

increase from 50% in 2018 to 54% in 2019 would be statistically significant, whereas a

2019 result of 53% would not be).

Data matching

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

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

1 The focus of the tracker and the specific questions have naturally changed with time and so direct comparisons over time typically only cover part of this period (e.g. between 2013-2019)

2 The effective sample is a measure of the precision of the survey once the effect of weighting is considered, i.e. although 5,452 interviews were undertaken this is equivalent to an unweighted UK sample of 4,628.

3 Statistical tests are only valid when the survey method has used random probability sampling. While the

market research industry routinely applies the same logic to non-probability samples, this must be done with

appropriate caveats. For example, if the data reported throughout this report was generated from a random

probability sample then the confidence intervals discussed in the report would apply. However, as the data

were generated from a quota sample, confidence intervals are – strictly speaking – not possible to calculate.


of all UK Local Authority schemes maintained by WRAP4). This enables householders’

behaviour to be understood in the context of the services they have access to.

Not all data can be matched. This includes those who live in areas with partial5

collections and those with communal collections (due to uncertainties regarding

service provision at multiple occupancy buildings). This gives a revised “matched base”

of 4,310 UK households.

Analysis by different audiences and groups within the population

In addition to the results for the UK as a whole and the constituent UK nations and

regions, analyses have also been undertaken according to a range of socio-

demographic variables (e.g. age, gender, children in the household) and recycling

scheme types (e.g. weekly/fortnightly/3-weekly collections, co-mingled/two-

stream/multi-stream schemes).

4 The database is updated annually via a survey of all local authorities in the UK. There are margins of error associated with the survey, and postcodes do not always align precisely with local authority boundaries. Therefore, the results are subject to small margins of error rather than being absolute.

5 Where a material is not consistently collected for recycling for all kerbside properties across a local authority. Matching is only undertaken where a single collection scheme applies to at least 90% of households.


1. Communications

1.1 Recognition of recycling assets and campaigns

Three quarters (75%) of UK households have seen the Recycle Now ‘Swoosh’ logo in the

past year (Figure 1), and over half (53%) have seen On-Pack Recycling Labelling (OPRL).

Smaller proportions have seen ‘Britain Recycles’ (6%) and ‘Britain Does’ (2%) – both

recent additions in 2018.

There has been a significant increase in 2019 in recall of both the Recycle Now Swoosh

(from 45% in 2018 to 75% now) and OPRL (from 43% to 53%). In both cases this is the

highest level recorded by the Tracker.

Figure 1 – Recognition of recycling assets and campaigns

Q40. Have you seen any of these, or a similar version, in the last year?

Base: 5,452 UK adults aged 18+ with responsibility for dealing with the rubbish and recycling. March

2019

For the first time, the Tracker assessed recognition of Recycle Week. The results

demonstrate that almost one in ten (9%) say they have seen or heard of it and a

further 23% say they may have heard of it but are not sure. Recognition is higher

among certain groups within the population, including those who have seen recycling

information on their social media in the past year (19% of this group have seen or

heard of Recycle Week), 18-34s (17%), those with children aged 6-11 at home (15%) and

those living in London (13%).

1.2 Recycling information

The Tracker results demonstrate that around two in three households (68%) have

received information from their council about the waste and recycling collection

service in the past year, while close to half (49%) have searched for information (Figure

2). In both cases, the information most frequently received or searched for is collection

schedules/times and information about what items can/can’t be recycled and what

goes in each box/bin/bag.


Over half (56%) say they have had a conversation with friends, family or colleagues

about recycling in the past year, while 47% say they have promoted recycling to others.

Around one in three (34%) have seen something about recycling on their social media

and – among those who have – 40% went on to share or comment on it.

Figure 2 – Recycling information received and searched for

Q35. In the past year, which of the following apply to you?


2019

Comparisons across time demonstrate that receipt of information from the council has

increased significantly compared to the period 2015-2018 (e.g. 57% in 2017 said they

had received information) and it is now back in line with the period 2013-2014 (e.g.

69% in 2014 said they had received information). The same trend is evident for

searches for recycling information, which is significantly higher in 2019 compared to

2015-2018 and now back in line with 2013-2014.

There are also significant variations across different groups:

• Receiving information from the council - those aged 65+ (79%), households in

Northern Ireland (78%) and those living in a detached house (77%) are all more likely

than average to report this.

• Information searches - there is a strong association between searching for

information and recall of recycling campaigns. For example, higher than average

searching behaviour is evident among those who have heard of Recycle Week (74%),

those who have seen ‘Britain Does’ (72%) and those who have seen recycling

information on their social media (68%). Higher levels of searching are also evident

among those with children at home (58%) and 18-34s (57%).

• Recycling information via social media – this is strongly associated with age, with 18-

24s (56%) and 25-34s (50%) both more likely than average to say they have received

recycling information via social media. This is also true of students (51%), those with

children aged 0-5 at home (50%) and those living in London (39%).


1.3 Sources of recycling knowledge

The Tracker findings demonstrate that households have gathered their knowledge

about recycling from a wide range of sources and, moreover, these sources vary in

prominence across different age groups (Figure 3). Respondents were asked to

attribute 10 points across information sources (with more points reflecting more

important sources), giving the following results:

• The most prominent source of information overall is a council leaflet (2.7 points out

of 10). This is far less prominent for 18-34s (1.3), whereas it is the dominant source

for those aged 55+ (4.0). Other groups are also more likely than average to cite a

council leaflet, notably those with a 3-4 weekly residual waste collection (3.2) and a

3-4 weekly recycling collection frequency (3.2).

• Information on product packaging (1.8), what it says on the box/bag/bin (1.8) and

the council website (1.5) are all significant sources – with less variation by age. Those

in a shared house with friends and students are both more likely to cite on pack

information (2.4 and 2.2, respectively).

• What friends/neighbours/family say (0.7), trial and error (0.5), a recycling app (0.5)

and social media (0.4) are credited with less influence overall, although are more

likely to be used by 18-34s (especially so friends/family/neighbours and social

media).

Figure 3 – Sources of recycling knowledge

Q23. Where would you say your knowledge of what can and can’t be recycled comes from? You have 10

points to allocate. Put more on those that most apply to you and less (or none) on those that don’t.


2019. The base sizes for each age cohort is shown in brackets.


2. Dry Recycling

2.1 Recycling behaviours

The Tracker assesses recycling behaviours in two complementary ways:

• By asking about changes in recycling in the past year - including any items that

households have begun to recycle for the first time, any items that households were

already recycling but are now recycling more often/more consistently, and any items

that they have stopped recycling.

• By asking about how 15 different items were disposed of on the last occasion (for

example, recycled from home, put in the general rubbish or disposed of away from

home).

In each case, overall recycling performance is a function of two key elements: the

behaviour of households (i.e. how they choose to dispose of items) and the

characteristics of the local recycling scheme (e.g. the range of items that are collected;

the frequency of collections, etc.). The Tracker gives important insights about the

impact of both elements.

Changes in recycling in the past year

Three in five (60%) UK households report extra recycling of one or more items in the

past year. This includes 32% of households who say they have started to recycle one or

more new items and a similar proportion (34%) who say that they have increased their

recycling of an existing item (i.e. they are now recycling it more/more consistently). By

contrast, only two percent say they have stopped recycling one or more items.

Several groups are more likely to say they are recycling more in the past year

compared to the UK average, and this is most strongly associated with three variables:

1. Recall of recycling communications – those who have seen the Recycle Now brand

are more likely to have recycled more in the past year. This includes those who have

seen ‘Britain Does’ (79% of this group say they are recycling more), ‘Britain Recycles’

(74%), those who have seen/heard of ‘Recycle Week’ (77%) and those who have seen

recycling information via social media (75%).

2. Age – younger households, including those aged 18-24, 25-34 and 35-44, are all

more likely than average to report more recycling in the past year (78%, 73% and

64%, respectively).

3. Children in the home – households with children at home are more likely to say they

have recycled more in the past year, particularly so those with young children aged

0-5 (74%).

The results demonstrate that a wide range of items are being recycled more in the past

year (Figure 4). The most frequently cited item, nearly one in four (24%) UK

households, is plastic drinks bottles, followed by card/cardboard (23%), paper, glass

and plastic toiletries and shampoo bottles (all 22%).


Figure 4 – Extra recycling in the past year – by material

Q4a. Which items/materials have you started to recycle that you didn’t before?

Q4b. Which items/materials are you now recycling more of/more often?

Base: 5,391 UK adults aged 18+ with responsibility for dealing with the rubbish and recycling at home.

March 2019

These results have been matched to assess if the reported extra recycling is accepted

by the local kerbside collection (and therefore is ‘targeted’) or not accepted (and

therefore ‘non-targeted’). The results (Figure 5) demonstrate that much of the reported

increases in recycling are targeted:

• For six items – including paper, card, metal cans and various types of plastic bottles

– all (i.e. 100%) of the reported extra recycling in the past year is accepted in the

kerbside collection.

• For seven items – including plastic trays, glass and aerosols - the majority of the

extra recycling is accepted. For example, 75% of the extra reported recycling of

plastic trays is accepted in the kerbside collection compared to 25% which is not.

• Four items stand out because the majority of the extra recycling is not accepted

kerbside. This includes textiles (75% of the households reporting extra recycling live

in areas where it is not accepted); batteries (77%); small electrical items (84%) and

plastic film/wrappers (90%).

Figure 5 – Extra recycling in the past year – matched with local collections

This graph is based on those respondents who say they are recycling new/more in the past year –

showing the proportion of the extra recycling which is accepted locally vs. not-targeted.

Base: 4,310 UK adults aged 18+ with responsibility for dealing with the rubbish and recycling at home

(NB. Based on the matched data). March 2019


Disposal last time

The Tracker asks about how 15 items were last disposed of on the last disposal

occasion - for example, recycled at home, put in the general rubbish or disposed of

away from home. The results are then matched to establish levels of 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 quantity of capture and the latter the quality.

On missed capture, just over half of UK households (51%) dispose of one or more

items in the general rubbish that are collected for recycling kerbside in their

area. This is in line with previous results (2018 = 54%; 2017 = 49%)6. The average

number of items missed is 1.6. The most commonly ‘missed’ items (Figure 6) are foil

(23% could recycled this), aerosols (21%) and plastic detergent/ cleaning bottles (14%).

This pattern has been relatively stable across time – with the exception of aerosols

where there is less missed capture (down from 24% in 2014).

Figure 6 – Potential to increase capture, by item

The graph shows the percentage of UK households who put items in the general rubbish when they

are collected for recycling locally.

Base: 4,310 UK adults aged 18+ able to be matched. March 2019

6 While this may appear, at first sight, inconsistent with the reported increase in recycling in the past year, this

reflects a disconnect in the specific items that respondents say they are recycling more of. Additional recycling

in the past year is more commonly focused on plastic drinks bottles, card/cardboard, paper, glass and plastic

toiletries and shampoo bottles. However, because households still miss the opportunity to recycle other items

- notably foil, aerosols and plastic detergent bottles - this has not translated into lower missed capture.


There are some differences across the UK nations - for example, Wales has the lowest

level of missed capture (45% of households could put one or more items in the

recycling rather than the general rubbish), compared to England (50%), Scotland (63%)

and Northern Ireland (64%). Furthermore, a number of groups have higher levels of

missed capture compared to the UK average of 1.6 items, and this is most strongly

associated with five variables:

• Personal recycling motivation - those with low recycling motivation miss

opportunities to recycle 3.0 items on average, compared to 1.0 items among those

who have high recycling motivation.

• Living circumstances – missed capture is higher among those living in flats (2.3 items

on average) and among those who have lived in the area less than one year (2.1).

• Age – younger households aged 18-24 and 25-34 are more likely to miss

opportunities to recycle (2.2 items and 2.0 items, respectively), compared to those

aged 65+ (1.2 items).

• Social norms – missed capture is higher among those who do not think that others

around them recycle (2.7 items) and lower among those who perceive a positive

norm (1.3 items).

• Local collection schemes - missed capture is lower among those with a multi-stream

recycling scheme (1.2 items) and among those who have received information in the

past year about what can and can’t be recycled (1.3 items).

Turning to contamination, over four in five (82%) UK households add one or more

items to their recycling collection that is not accepted locally. This represents a

statistically significant increase from previous years (when it was 76% in both 2017 and

2018). The average number of items incorrectly put in the recycling is 3.1.

When focused just on items that WRAP considers to be “serious contaminants” (shown

in the graph below in red), 45% of UK households put one or more of these items in

the kerbside collection. Unlike contamination overall, this is not significantly different

from previous years (with 43% recorded in both 2017 and 2018).

There is a wide number of contamination items reported (Figure 7), the most common

of which is plastic bags and wrapping (30% recycle this kerbside when it is not


accepted), toothpaste tubes (22%) and drinking glasses/Pyrex (21%). There has been a

significant increase in the proportion contaminating with drinking glasses/cookware,

plastic toys, pots/pans/cutlery, small electrical items and textiles. Significant decreases

are evident for cartons/Tetrapak and bubble wrap.

Figure 7 – Recycling of non-targeted materials and contamination, by item

The graph shows the percentage of households who recycled items when they are not accepted

locally. The bars in red indicate items that WRAP considers to be ‘serious contaminants’ that are

more ikely to


The overall proportion of households that contaminate with one or more items is

consistent across the UK nations, although there are variations across specific items.

For example, households in Wales are more likely than the UK as a whole to

contaminate with cartons/Tetrapak; households in England with plastic pots, tubs and

trays; households in Northern Ireland with glass bottles and jars; while those in

London are more likely to contaminate with plastic bags/wrapping and small

electricals.

Several groups have higher levels of contamination compared to the UK average of 3.1

items, and this is most strongly associated with three variables:

1. Local collection scheme – households in areas where the council accepts fewer

materials for recycling kerbside are more likely than average to contaminate (4.7

items), as are those living in areas with a 3 or 4 weekly recycling collection (3.9).

2. Recall of recycling communications – those who have seen Recycle Now assets are

more likely to contaminate. This includes those who have seen ‘Britain Does’ (who

contaminate with 4.5 items) and seen/heard of ‘Recycle Week’ (5.1). This suggests

that while these assets have been successful in initiating more recycling overall it

has also led to more recycling of items that are not accepted locally.

3. Children in the home – households with children aged 0-5 and 6-11 are both more

likely than average to contaminate (3.8 and 3.5 items, respectively).


Overall recycling performance

When the results for missed capture and contamination are combined, UK households

dispose of 3.5 items from home ‘incorrectly’ on average relative to their local collection.

Table 1 sets out the groups within the population who dispose of a higher number of

items incorrectly (left hand column) and those who dispose of a lower number (right

hand column). The data is presented in descending order, i.e. those at the top are the

groups who dispose of the most items, or fewest items, incorrectly. The table

represents a range of variables, including demographic factors, recycling norms and

collection scheme characteristics.

Table 1: Groups/audiences within the population who over and under index for:

number of items disposed of incorrectly (when compared to their local collection). UK

average = 3.5 items


More items disposed of incorrectly on

average

Fewer items disposed of incorrectly on

average

• Heard of Recycle week (average of 5.3

items)

• Low recycling motivation (5.2)

• Negative recycling norms (4.8)

• Council accepts 0-8 of the 15 materials

(4.7)

• 18-24 (4.4)

• 25-34 (4.4)

• Live in a flat (4.3)

• Student (4.3)

• 3 or 4 weekly recycling collection (4.3)

• Council accepts 9-11 of the 15 materials

(4.1)

• Areas classified as ‘urban’ (4.0)

• Children aged 0-5 at home (4.0)

• Areas classified as ‘deprived’ (3.9)

• Weekly residual waste collection (3.9)

• Working FT (3.9)

• Children aged 6-11 at home (3.8)

• Two stream recycling scheme (3.8)

• 35-44 (3.8)

• Male (3.8)

• Council collects 14-15 of the 15 materials

(average of 2.7 items)

• Households in Wales (2.8)

• 65+ (2.9)

• High recycling motivation (2.9)

• Multi-stream recycling scheme (3.0)

• Areas classified as rural (3.1)

• Areas classified as low deprivation (3.1)

• Female (3.3)

• Strong recycling norm (3.3)

• 90L or less effective weekly residual waste

capacity (3.3)

• Received information from the council

about specific items in the past year (3.3)

• Weekly recycling collection frequency (3.3)

2.2 Social norms around recycling

A new question was added to the Tracker to assess the prevalence and strength of

social norms around recycling. Respondents were asked to give a score out of 10

(where 0 = ‘I don’t think that anyone recycles in my area’ and 10 = ‘I think that everyone

in my area recycles’). The results (Figure 8) demonstrate that three in five (60%)

perceive a positive social norm for recycling (i.e. scoring 8-10 out of 10) compared to


12% of UK households who perceive a negative social norm (i.e. scoring 0-5). The

average UK score is 7.7.

Figure 8 – Perceived recycling norms

Q12. On a scale of 0-10 please tell us your perception of the number of people who recycle in your

local area? 0 = I don’t think anyone recycles in my local area; 10 = everyone recycles in my local area.

Base: 5,391 UK adults aged 18+ with responsibility for dealing with the rubbish and recycling at home.

March 2019

A number of sub-groups are more likely to perceive a positive social norm, most

notably those aged 55+ (who score an average of 8.2), households in Wales (8.1), those

with high personal recycling motivation (8.0) and those living in detached houses (8.0).

Several recycling scheme factors are also correlated with positive social norms,

including a higher overall number of materials collected for recycling (8.0), the

inclusion of small electricals and textiles in the kerbside collection (8.2), multi-stream

recycling collections (8.1), an effective residual waste capacity of 90L/week or less (8.0)

and receipt of information about recycling in the past year (7.9).

By contrast, those groups who are less likely to perceive a positive social norm are:

those with a communal recycling collection (6.7); lower personal recycling motivation

(6.7), students (6.9), 18-24s (7.0) and those living in flats (7.0).

2.3 Recycling motivation

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

that best describes them:

▪ Almost half (49%) select the statement “I want to be a really good recycler and I take

the trouble to ensure that I’m doing everything right”, representing no change on

previous years. There is a clear age gradient with 61% of those aged 55+ saying

they want to be a good recycler, compared to 38% of 18-34s.

▪ Approaching two in five (38%) 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”. There has been a significant increase in the proportion identifying with this

statement (from 32% in 2016), at the expense of those who think they don’t do as

much as they should do as well as those who question if recycling is worthwhile.


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). Three dominant reasons emerge: ‘to do my bit for the

environment’ (attributed 2.8 points out of 10), ‘it’s just part of my everyday routine – I

don’t really think about it’ (2.2) and ‘the council provides the service so I am doing what

I am supposed to’ (2.0 points). A key change compared to previous years is a significant

decrease in the proportion that cite the fact the council provides the service and a

corresponding increase in the proportion who cite habit and routine.

2.4 Communal recycling schemes

Residents with communal recycling collections were asked additional questions about

the service they receive. Ratings of the service provision highlight several issues (Figure

9). For example, the overall cleanliness of the bin areas is given an average score of 6.3

out of 10. Specific issues include overflowing general rubbish bins (with 60% saying

this happens all or most of the time) and overflowing recycling bins (58%) – and the

proportion citing both these issues has significantly increased from previous years.

Another key issue is a perceived lack of consideration among fellow residents (33%

report that others using the communal bins take no or little care), although this has

decreased compared to previous years.

Figure 9 – Communal collection ratings

Q16. Please rate the following on a scale from 0-10. NB. The boxes to the right hand side of the chart

represent average scores out of 10. Any result in orange is statistically significant to previous years.

Base: Those with a communal recycling collection (229). UK, Jan-Feb 2018


3. Food Waste Recycling

3.1 Food waste behaviour

There has been an increase in food waste recycling in the past year - one in four UK

households (25%) say they have recycled more food waste in the past year (Figure 10),

comprising 9% who are new users and 15% who are recycling more/more consistently.

A similar proportion (29%) say they are recycling about the same as they were

previously. This compares to 3% who say they are recycling less food waste and 4%

who were previously recycling food waste but have stopped using the service. Nearly

two in five (38%) say they do not have a food waste recycling collection.

Figure 10 – Changes in food waste recycling in the past year

Q6. Have you been recycling more, less or about the same amount of food waste in the past 12

months, or is this a service that you don’t use or is not provided in your area?


2019

A number of groups are more likely to say they have recycled more food waste in the

past year:

• UK nation – households in Northern Ireland are more likely than the UK average to

say they are recycling more food waste in the past year (46%), followed by Wales

(33%).

• Communications materials – there is an association between higher levels of

reported food waste recycling in the past year and recall of recycling assets –

including those who have heard/seen of Recycle Week (45%), ‘Britain Does’ (39%)

and those who have seen recycling information on their social media (38%).

• Age – younger households are more likely than average to say they are recycling

more food waste in the past year, i.e. those aged 25-34 (37%), 18-24 (35%) and 35-44

(29%).

• Children in the home – those with young children aged 0-5 and 6-11 are more

likely than average to report more food waste recycling in the past year (33% and

31%, respectively).


• Food waste norms – those who perceive a strong food waste recycling norm in

their area are more likely than average to say they have recycled more food waste in

the past year (43%).

• Recycling collection scheme – those with a 3-4 weekly collection of residual waste

are more likely than average to say they have recycled more food waste in the past

year (35%), as are those with an effective residual waste capacity of 90L or less per

week (31%).

3.2 Social norms around food waste recycling

In keeping with the new question in 2019 on social norms for recycling (see section

2.2), an identical question was asked to establish the strength of social norms around

food waste recycling. The results (Figure 11) demonstrate that almost two in five (37%)

households who have a food recycling collection perceive a positive social norm (i.e.

scoring 8-10 out of 10). By contrast, a similar proportion (34%) perceive a negative

social norm (i.e. 0-5 out of 10). A further 29% perceive a moderate social norm (i.e. 6-7

out of 10). The average UK score is 6.4 – some way behind the 7.7 recorded for dry

recycling.

Figure 11 – Perceived food waste recycling norms

Q33. Using the scale from 0-10, please rate where you sit on each issue: The number of people who

recycle food waste in your local area? 0 = no-one recycles food waste in my area; 10 = everyone

recycles food waste in my area.

Base: 3,652 UK adults aged 18+ with responsibility for dealing with the rubbish and recycling and have a

food waste recycling collection. March 2019

A number of groups are more likely than average to perceive a positive social norm:

• UK nation – households in Wales and Northern Ireland are more likely than the UK

average to perceive a positive social norm for food waste recycling (recording

average scores of 7.2 and 7.1, respectively). The reverse is true for households in

London (6.2).

• Collection scheme – households with a separate collection of food waste are more

likely than those with a mixed collection of food and garden waste to perceive a

positive social norm (6.9 vs. 6.4, respectively). Furthermore, those households with


an effective weekly residual waste capacity of 90L or less are more likely than

average to perceive a positive social norm (6.9), as are those with a 3-4 weekly

collection frequency of residual waste (6.8).

• House type – those who live in a detached house or bungalow are more likely than

average to perceive a positive social norm (7.1).

• Food waste behaviour – users of the service are more likely to perceive a positive

social norm than lapsed users and non-users who have never used it (6.6 vs. 4.5 and

5.0, respectively).

3.3 Room for improvement among users

Food waste recyclers were asked whether they continue to put any food items in the

general rubbish. Just over one in three (36%) say that nothing ever goes in the general

rubbish, while the remaining 64% select one or more items that do. The most

commonly cited items are tea bags/coffee grounds (27%), eggshells (27%), bones (26%),

plate scrapings/leftovers after a meal (23%) and unopened food still in its packaging

(23%).

There have been significant increases in the proportion of users who put items in the

general rubbish rather than the food waste recycling – this is evident for every food

item asked about in the Tracker. This finding, coupled with the increase in the number

of ‘new’ food waste recyclers, suggests that the new cohort of food waste recyclers are

not yet using the service to its full potential.

3.4 Attitudes to food waste recycling

Households with a 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 several positive changes over

recent years:

▪ Understanding of the reasons why food waste recycling is important has

increased - achieving an average score of 7.6 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 6.0 (where 10 = understand completely), compared to 4.6 in 2015.

However, it remains low (aligning with findings from the Recycle Now refresh

testing7 that demonstrated that, while the end process of dry recycling is clearer, the

process for food recycling is not).

By contrast, perceptions of how unpleasant it is to use the food waste collection

service are stable – achieving a score of 6.6 out of 10 (where 10 = not unpleasant at

all), compared to 6.6 in 2016. Likewise, overall feelings towards the food recycling

service are stable – achieving a rating of 7.1 out of 10 (where 10 = ‘I think it is

excellent’), compared to 7.2 in 2016.

7 http://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/Recycle_Now_materials_communication_testing.pdf

http://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/Recycle_Now_materials_communication_testing.pdf


A consistent feature of the scores across these aspects is that they are lower among

non-users when compared to users. For example, non-users give a score of 5.9 for

their understanding of the reasons why food waste recycling is important, compared to

7.7 among users. Lapsed users give the most negative score (6.3) for how much effort

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

service and 5.3 among users. This suggests the importance of a successful initial roll

out of the service – once a household has lapsed it is more difficult to persuade them

to use the service than someone who has never used it.

The type of food waste collection also plays a role in overall attitudes towards the

service with separate collections of food waste performing better, on average, than

mixed collections of food and garden waste. Separate collections of food waste achieve

an average score of 7.6 out of 10, compared to 7.2 for mixed collections of food and

garden waste.

www.wrap.org.uk

Documents

Recycling Tracking Survey 2019 Behaviours, attitudes and ... · 9% who are new users and 15% who are recycling more/more consistently. By contrast, 3% UK households are recycling