Front of Store Recycling Sainsbury’s Trial Sainsburys FINAL_0.pdf · A ‘man-in-a-van’ was employed to visit the sites on days when collections were not scheduled to record fill

1

Front of Store Recycling

Sainsbury’s Trial

Project code: FOS2 Date: April 2006 Project duration: 01.03.05 – 30.03.2006 Written by: Steve Hough, Heatha Anderson and Kathy Nicolaou

Front Of Store Recycling: Sainsbury’s Trial

2

Executive Summary This is a report of one of the two retailer trials for the Front of Store

Recycling research. There are a further three detailed research reports

from project partners which are “Final overarching report summarising

the research”, “Assessing the impact of front of store recycling” and

“The Tesco trial”.

Project Purpose

The purpose of the project was to establish the effects on recycling rates,

within different social economic groups, following the provision of a more

aesthetically pleasing recycling environment and the introduction of user

incentive schemes. Any impacts on other local authority recycling activities

were also to be considered and the data gathered during the trial was to be

collated to provide WRAP with information on the economics of collection from

front of store and a robust cost benefit model.

Unique Project Partnership

A unique aspect to this project was the combined project team; Sainsbury’s and

Valpak partnered with Christian Salvesen, an European Logistics company,

rather than a typical waste management company, to collect, record and

transport the deposited recyclate. This is the first reported trial to have been

run in this way.

Local Authority Selection

Six trial and four control sites were selected within the greater London area.

They were chosen to give a mix of districts with recycling rates above and

below 12%. They were also selected from a variety of different social economic

areas, using ACORN classifications to determine whether sites lay in high or low

affluence areas. The selected trial and control sites are given below.


3

Benchmarking

Prior to the commencement of the trials, a Benchmarking Study was carried out

in order to establish some key parameters and characteristics about the sites.

Such analysis was required in order to facilitate comparisons with the

information collected after the rescape™ bank installation.

rescape™ Banks and Materials Collected

The rescape™1 banks were designed to offer a more user-friendly approach to

recycling. For the sake of comparison, standardised 10 bay units were installed

at all trial sites, to collect the following materials:

Paper & Card (3 rescape™ modules)

Plastic Bottles (2 rescape™ modules)

Clear Glass (1 rescape™ module)

Brown Glass (1 rescape™ module)

Green Glass (1 rescape™ module)

Mixed Cans (1 rescape™ module)

Cartons (1 rescape™ module)

Within each module two 1,280 litre Eurobins were placed back-to-back. When

the front one was full, it was moved to the back of the unit and replaced with

1 www.rescape™.org.uk

Store Location Affluence Classification Site Type Chingford, Waltham Forrest Low Trial Haringey Low Trial Kingston High Trial Richmond High Trial Wandsworth High Trial Winchmore Hill, Enfield Low Trial Crystal Palace Low Control Dulwich Low Control Ladbroke Grove High Control North Cheam High Control


4

the empty bin behind; thus avoiding the requirement to pick-up all bins when

they were full.

Logistics and Servicing

Christian Salvesen serviced the rescape™ units and bulked-up the collected

materials at their distribution centre in Kent. Rather than using specialised

waste management vehicles, 17 tonne fixed body and articulated trailers were

used as the vehicles were cheaper to lease and could collect all the material

streams at the same time.

A ‘man-in-a-van’ was employed to visit the sites on days when collections were

not scheduled to record fill levels, swap bins and cleans the banks. This

approach to the collection of materials was a qualified success.

Data Collection

Quantitative and qualitative data was recorded and analysed to indicate

changes in the quantities of materials collected throughout the trial; potentially

as a result of the implementation of rescape™ banks or two incentive schemes.

It also enabled the economics of the trial to be evaluated and modelled.

The key data recorded throughout this project was; weekly tonnages collected,

by material, by site, number of Eurobin lifts per visit and time taken,

cleanliness of site and quality of material collected, and weight of ‘roll-on roll-

off’ container and the equivalent number of Eurobins.

Each local authority was requested to provide data for weekly tonnages

collected both at the trial site and throughout the authority as a whole, during

the trial and for the 12 months preceding.


5

Quantative Impacts of the rescape™ Banks

Following the introduction of the new-style rescape™ banks, there appears to

have been an increase in total tonnage of material collected throughout the

duration of the FOSR trial, as illustrated in Figure 1. It was also evident that

over the Christmas period (weeks 28-30) the majority of stores and materials

saw peaks in tonnages collected.

Due to the quality of data provided on tonnage levels collected at the trial sites

before the installation of the banks, it has not been possible to accurately

compare tonnage levels before and after the change of banks.

Figure 1: Total weekly tonnages collected

15

20

25

30

35

4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32

Week

To

nn

age

Incentive SchemesNew-style Banks

Conclusions on the Qualitative Impact of New Style Banks

From the records made, the banks were in an average or good state over 95%

of the time. Reports of untidiness were predominantly made towards the

beginning of the trial or over the festive period. Results of the benchmarking

study prior to the trial indicated banks were in a clean state only two thirds of

the time.


6

Levels of material overflow were very low throughout the project. However, of

the incidents recorded, Richmond experienced the highest levels of overflow

and consequently untidiness and Wandsworth the lowest levels of overflow and

untidiness. Overflow relates to the volume of material collected; this was

reflected in the fact that paper & card and plastic bottles were the most

common overflow materials.

On the whole the overall quality of collected material was very good, however

of the material streams, plastic bottles and cartons were subject to the most

contamination, potentially due to the misconception of what could be recycled.

Plastic bottles tended to contain plastic trays and yoghurt pots while cartons

included plastic bottles and cardboard cartons.

In conclusion it appears that the rescape™ banks and their servicing had a

positive qualitative impact on FOSR recycling, particularly minimising untidiness

and overflow.

Issues Arising During the Trial

A number of issues arose during the trial, including some contamination of

plastics, commercial dumping of paper, the collection of card (and card

jamming in the banks), slow removal of old-style banks by local authorities and

limited provision of data by local authorities.

Impact of Incentive Schemes

Two types of incentive schemes were implemented during the trial, from week

16 (26th September 2005) through to week 33: an individual incentive scheme

and a community-based reward scheme. Promotion of the incentive schemes

was limited to the sites themselves in order not to encourage ‘switching’ or

diversion of recyclate from other collection facilities or schemes.

Participation levels were low and no robust evidence was found to show either

type of incentive scheme positively (or negatively) impacted the levels of

tonnages collected. This was predominantly due to the fact that it was not


7

possible to directly relate any changes in tonnages to the introduction of

incentives. It has become clear that factors such as the new banks themselves,

site changes and seasonality can all affect tonnages.

Conclusions

The introduction of rescape™ banks at Front of Store presented a positive

alternative to existing collection infrastructure.

The impact of the individual and community incentives was inconclusive.

The selection of materials needs to take into account both consumers

requirements and the cost effectiveness of collections, whilst maintaining an

adequate service level.

The use of a logistics operator in the collection of materials was a qualified

success.

The project provided an opportunity for retailers to work with local authorities

and demonstrate a commitment to recycling.

Existing local authority collections did not appear to influence the new FOSR

facilities’ recycling rates.


8

Contents

1.1 Background to Project................................................................ 12

1.2 Current Industry Situation ......................................................... 13

1.2.1 Background to Bring to sites .................................................. 13

1.3 Objectives ................................................................................... 13

1.4 Deliverables ................................................................................ 15

1.5 The Project Partnership.............................................................. 15

1.6 Purpose of Final Report .............................................................. 17

2. Methodology ..................................................................................... 18

2.1 Phase 1: Benchmarking and Attitudinal Survey ....................... 19

2.2 Phase 2 Infrastructure and Collection ....................................... 20

2.3 Phase 3 Analysis and Reporting ................................................ 22

3 Local Authority Areas ....................................................................... 23

3.1 Local Authority Selection ........................................................... 23

3.2 Local Authority Participation ...................................................... 24

3.3 Local Authority Profiles – Trial Sites.......................................... 25

3.3.1 Winchmore Hill, London Borough of Enfield .......................... 27

3.3.2 London Borough of Haringey .................................................. 29

3.3.3 Surrey Basin, London Borough of Kingston upon Thames.... 31

3.3.4 London Borough of Richmond upon Thames ......................... 34

3.3.5 Low Hall Chingford, London Borough of Waltham Forest ..... 36

3.3.6. London Borough of Wandsworth ........................................... 38

3.4 Local Authority Profiles - Control Sites...................................... 39

3.4.1 Crystal Palace, London Borough of Croydon.......................... 40

3.4.2 Ladbroke Grove, London Borough of Kensington and Chelsea41

3.4.3 Dulwich, London Borough of Southwark................................ 43

3.4.4 North Cheam, London Borough of Sutton.............................. 46

3.5 Benchmarking Analysis, Results and Conclusions .................... 50

3.5.1 Methodology ............................................................................ 50

3.5.2 Qualitative Data ...................................................................... 51


9

3.5.3 Quantitative Data.................................................................... 52

4 Introduction of New Style Banks and Servicing ......................... 54

4.1 Installation of rescape™ Banks ................................................. 54

4.1.1 The rescape™ banks ............................................................... 55

4.1.2 Materials Selected for Collection ............................................ 56

4.1.3 Build Schedule......................................................................... 58

4.2 Logistics and Operations (Collection and Servicing) ................ 59

4.2.1 Logistics ................................................................................... 60

4.2.2 End Market Agreements ......................................................... 61

4.2.3 Frequency of Collection........................................................... 62

4.3 Data Collection ........................................................................... 63

4.3.1 Local Authority Data ............................................................... 64

4.4 FOSR Trial – Data Collection...................................................... 64

4.4.1 Total Tonnages........................................................................ 65

4.4.2 Total Tonnages by Trial Site ................................................... 65

4.4.3 Total Tonnages by Material Stream ....................................... 71

4.4.4 Comparison with Benchmark Data......................................... 78

4.4.5 Conclusions on the Quantitative Impacts of the rescape™

banks ................................................................................................. 81

4.5 Qualitative Impact of New Style Banks (cleanliness, overflow)81

4.5.1 Cleanliness of the Trial Sites .................................................. 82

4.5.2 Overflow at the Trial Sites ...................................................... 85

4.5.3 Contamination ......................................................................... 90

4.5.4 Conclusions on the Qualitative Impact of New Style Banks . 91

4.6 Issues Arising During the Trial .................................................. 91

4.6.1 Quality of Recyclate ................................................................ 92

4.6.2 Materials Collected .................................................................. 92

4.6.3 Local Authority Participation................................................... 93

4.6.4 Operational Observations ....................................................... 93

5. Introduction of Incentive Schemes.............................................. 95

5.1 Individual Incentive Schemes.................................................... 96

5.1.1 Selected Trial Sites and Stores .............................................. 96


10

5.1.2 Details of the Individual Incentive Scheme ........................... 96

5.1.3 Impact on Recycling Rate ....................................................... 98

5.2 Community-Based Reward Schemes....................................... 104

5.2.1 Selected Trial Sites and Stores ............................................ 105

5.2.2 Details of the Community Incentive Scheme ...................... 105

5.3 Comparison of Individual vs. Community ............................... 110

5.4 Conclusions on the Impact of Incentive Schemes .................. 111

6. Key Research Questions Answered ............................................ 113

6.1 Did Recycling Rates Increase with the New FOSR Facilities?. 113

6.1.1 Did Recycling Rates Increase with rescape™ Banks? ......... 113

6.2 Have Existing Local Authority Collections Influenced the New

FOSR Facilities’ Recycling Rates? ................................................... 113

6.2.1 Influence of kerbside and Estates Recycling ....................... 113

6.2.2 Influence of Bring and CA Recycling .................................... 113

6.3 How do the Characteristics of an Area Influence the Level of

Success?.......................................................................................... 113

6.3.1 Affluence................................................................................ 113

6.3.2 Number of Households and Population Density................... 113

6.3.3 Home Ownership ................................................................... 113

6.3.4 Proximity to Central London ................................................. 113

6.3.5 Holidays and Events.............................................................. 113

6.4 What are the principle barriers to introducing FOSR and how

could they be overcome? ............................................................... 113

6.4.1 Frequent and Regular Servicing of Banks............................ 113

6.4.2 Levels of Servicing of Charity Banks.................................... 113

6.4.3 Proximity to and Availability of space at Front of Store...... 113

6.4.4 Cost of Collection of Lightweight Materials .......................... 113

6.4.5 Infrastructure and Operational Costs................................... 113

6.5 What would you do differently? ............................................... 113

6.5.1 Cardboard Collections ........................................................... 113

6.5.2 Signage and Iconography..................................................... 113

6.5.3 Capacity of Units ................................................................... 113


11

6.5.4 Choice of Sites....................................................................... 113

6.5.5 Duration................................................................................. 113

6.5.6 Incentives .............................................................................. 113

7. Economic Model for Sainsbury’s ................................................. 113

8. Conclusions ..................................................................................... 113

Appendix I: Written Approval from Local Authorities................ 113

Appendix II: Benchmarking Sheets ............................................... 113

Appendix III: Benchmarking Schedule ......................................... 113

Appendix IV: Cleanliness of Trial Sites (Benchmarking)........... 113

Appendix V: Recycle Now Iconography ........................................ 113

Appendix VI: Iconography Specification ....................................... 113

Appendix VII: Trial Tonnages by Site and by Material................ 113

Appendix VIII: Trial Weeks & Dates ............................................. 113













Appendix IX: Trial Borough Characteristics ................................. 113


12

1 Introduction

1.1 Background to Project

The Proposal

In February 2005 Sainsbury’s, Valpak and Christian Salvesen submitted a

proposal to WRAP, as part of a competitive tender, to research and test the

viability of introducing FOSR at supermarkets in the UK.

In March 2006 the project was commissioned by WRAP and the Sainsbury/

Valpak/Christian Salvesen team undertook to carry out a 33 week collection

from six supermarket sites in London. The packaging materials included in the

trial were glass, plastic bottles (HDPE and PET), cans (steel and aluminium) and

cartons. The completion date for the project was initially 29th January 2006.

Project Purpose

The purpose of the project was to establish the effects on recycling rates,

within different social economic groups, following the provision of a more

aesthetically pleasing recycling environment and the introduction of user

incentive schemes. Any impacts on other local authority recycling activities

were also to be considered and the data gathered during the trial was to be

collated to provide WRAP with information on the economics of collection from

FOSR and a robust cost benefit model.

Cost Model

The cost model was to enable a comparison of two different types of incentive

scheme, assess the benefit of simply upgrading a recycling site and record any

new tonnages achieved.


13

Unique Project Partnership

A unique aspect to this project was the combined project team; Sainsbury’s and

Valpak partnered with Christian Salvesen, an European Logistics company,

rather than a typical waste management company, to collect, record and

transport the deposited recyclate. This is the first reported trial to have been

run in this way.

Project Context

The Sainsbury’s/Valpak/Christian Salvesen project was carried out in

conjunction with a project run by Tesco/Tomra to test the viability of

introducing FOSR supermarkets by trialling facilities in London and Hampshire

respectively. A further project was run by Brook Lyndhurst which investigated

consumer attitudes towards FOSR. It is WRAP’s intention to consider the results

of all three projects in unison, in order to produce a comprehensive report on

FOSR.

1.2 Current Industry Situation

1.2.1 Background to Bring to sites

There are just over 1,250 retailer sites in the UK that have existing, or are

suitable for, FOSR facilities. The majority of these sites (98%) are operated by

local authorities, with no input from the retailer.

1.3 Objectives

The objectives of this trial, as per the initial brief developed by WRAP were to:

Assess whether the introduction of FOSR infrastructure at retail sites increases

the volume and frequency of recycling over and above the existing

supermarket bring site facilities. The FOSR/reverse vending systems must


14

include the ability to recycle paper and/or cardboard packaging amongst

other materials

Test the theory that FOSR is a complementary approach to existing bring sites

(whether at civic amenity sites or elsewhere) and kerbside collection schemes –

and measure the extent to which they either displace or augment materials

collected through the existing recycling infrastructure in a given locality

Establish the baseline tonnage for existing local authority recycling

infrastructure within the catchments of retail trial sites and control sites.

Determine the impact on recycling rates providing an incentive to different

socio-demographic groups, particularly those that are not usually committed

recyclers

Gain a thorough understanding of the installation, maintenance and materials

handling costs relating to traditional bring sites and FOSR infrastructure to

determine whether they offer good value for money when compared to the

costs and performance of traditional bring sites

Determine the financial and technical viability of installing FOSR on a larger

scale, including maintenance and materials handling costs

Extrapolate the potential impact on recycling rates, should FOSR be rolled out

nationally (or via a selected national roll out using geographical or socio-

economic criteria)

Evaluate the quality of each recyclate collected and their market value

To test whether these technologies can be effectively operated and managed

in partnerships between retailers, local authorities and waste management

companies

To understand the benefits and the challenges to retailers (e.g. increased foot

fall and improved consumer attitudes towards using the supermarket), local

authorities (e.g. increased recycling rates and reduced infrastructure costs) and

waste management companies (e.g. improved operating efficiencies and

improvements in the scheduling of waste collection activities)

To trial and promote the Recycle Now campaign’s iconography and colour

coding of materials


15

1.4 Deliverables

The principal deliverable of this project is to detect whether FOSR infrastructure

has a direct and significant impact upon household waste recycling rates. The

main deliverables are listed in Table 1 below:

Table 1: Project Deliverables

1.5 The Project Partnership

WRAP

WRAP was established to accelerate resource efficiency by creating stable and

efficient markets for recycled materials and products and removing barriers to

waste minimisation, re-use and recycling. It is a not-for-profit company limited

by guarantee, backed by funding from DEFRA, DTI and the devolved

administrations of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. WRAP works with the

public, private and community sectors throughout the EU with the aim of

promoting resource efficiency within the UK.

WRAP was responsible for commissioning this project, which ran with more

than one retailer and technology, managing the contract and reporting the final

outcomes of the trial.

J Sainsbury’s PLC

J Sainsbury PLC is a leading UK food retailer with interests in financial services.

J Sainsbury plc comprises Sainsbury's Supermarkets, Sainsbury's Bank, Bells

Deliverables Report Section

Actual, measurable recycling rates achieved during the project –

overall tonnages and breakdown by materials collected at each

retail trial site

Section 4 & Appendix 9

The influence of external factors on project outcomes Section 6, Appendix 11

The impact of front of store infrastructure on existing recycling

performance within the locality Section 6


16

Stores, Jackson's Stores and JB Beaumont. Their goal is to ensure they get

maximum benefit from investments whilst concentrating on giving customers

the best quality, service and price. For full details of the company please refer

to www.sainsburys.co.uk

Sainsbury’s provided six FOSR sites as trial areas for the project and overall

direction from a retail perspective.

Valpak Ltd

Valpak is the leading provider of Producer Responsibility and recycling solutions

for UK businesses offering a range of services covering packaging compliance,

the WEEE directive, bespoke data collating solutions for annual submissions and

rescape™, modular banks for increasing recycling rates. For full details of the

company please refer to www.valpak.co.uk

Valpak provided the project management of the trial with Sainsbury’s, including

managing the partners, collation of data and reporting.

Christian Salvesen PLC

Christian Salvesen is a major European logistics business, specialising in

managing outsourced supply chain operations for manufacturing and retail

customers. Customers include Auchan, Danone, Carrefour, Ford, GM, Marks &

Spencer, Safeway and Unilever. For full details of the company please refer to

www.salvesen.com

Christian Salvesen replaced the role of a waste management contractor in this

project and was responsible for the material collection, transport and storage,

as well as recording and reporting trial data on tonnages and site appearances.


17

1.6 Purpose of Final Report

This final report serves as a record of project activities, costs and impacts and

finally draws conclusions and makes recommendations based on the lessons

learnt from the project as a whole. The report is structured as follows:

1. Introduction to the Project

2. Project Methodology

3. Local authorities and selected recycling sites

4. Introduction of new recycling banks & servicing method

5. The incentive schemes

6. Key research questions answered

7. Economic model

8. Conclusions

The next section of this report outlines the methodology adopted in carrying out

the project.


18

2. Methodology

The methodology developed for the project was believed to be the most

efficient and cost effective manner of carrying out the trial, collecting and

analysing data, and reporting the findings to WRAP. The project was carried in

three distinctive phases, shown in Figure 2.1 below.

The deliverables of each of these phases, plus the associated activities and

responsibilities are described in the remainder of this section. Valpak took on

overall responsibility for project management in all phases.

Figure 2.1: Illustration of Project Methodology


19

2.1 Phase 1: Benchmarking and Attitudinal Survey

The three main deliverables of this phase were to:

Identify the baseline tonnages at six selected stores and six control sites

(which became four control sites).

Assess consumers’ attitudes towards recycling at these supermarkets

Develop incentive schemes that rewarded both community and individuals.

The ten selected trial and control stores were within the greater London area.

They were chosen to represent a mix of districts with recycling rates above and

below 12%, and a variety of different social economic areas. Detailed

information on the local authorities engaged and the area surrounding the

selected sites can be found in Section 3 of this report.

Deliverable 1: Baseline Tonnages

The benchmark tonnages for the trial sites was assessed using a combination of

information supplied by the collection authorities, their subcontractors and

onsite sampling. Further detail can be found in Section 3.3 of this report.

Deliverable 2: Customer Attitudes

The second key deliverable of this phase of the project was to assess customer

attitudes towards recycling and incentives that would succeed in increasing

participation in recycling. This deliverable was undertaken by WRAP, but was

given the full support of the appropriate Sainsbury’s teams to ensure that it

was in keeping with Sainsbury’s interaction with their customers.

Deliverable 3: Incentive Schemes

Both a community and individual based incentive scheme were developed; a

community scheme to reward a sector of the community for achieving higher

recycling rates and encourage greater social responsibility and inclusion, and an

individual scheme that was planned to be a lottery based scheme, such as a


20

“message in a bottle” competition. Further details on the incentive schemes and

their impacts can be found in Section 5 of this report.

Interim Report 1

An interim report was prepared at the end of this phase which covered the

following activities:

Engagement of local authorities

Footfall study at all trial and control sites

Development of an economic model

Development of community and individual incentive schemes

Installation of rescape™ banks

Commencement of collection at all sites

2.2 Phase 2 Infrastructure and Collection

The key deliverables of this phase of the project were to:

Install the collection infrastructure for recyclate at the six selected locations

Assess the economics of collection from these sites using a logistics

specialist, rather than a waste management company

Establish a link between store sales data and volume at recycling sites

Deliverable 1: Installation of Banks

rescape™ Premier Banks were used at all of the chosen locations. The banks

are modular in design and fitted into the space available at the sites. Banks

were installed so that no additional car parking space was used and the impact

on the car park was kept to a minimum.

Ten modules were installed at each site to collect paper & card, green glass,

brown glass, clear glass, metal cans, plastics bottles and cartons. The collection

of textiles (including bank provision) remained the responsibility of the existing


21

collectors, which were expected to maintain the same service level agreement

set by this project.

Materials were collected by Christian Salvesen and taken to their Rochester

facility for storage prior to onward shipping for recycling. For each delivery the

following information was recorded: the store location, material type, dates

emptied and fill level of bin were recorded. In addition to this information the

number of bins emptied into each container was also noted. When the container

was shipped off for recycling the weighbridge ticket formed the basis of a

continuing estimation of the bin weights using a mass balance approach.

The material collected from the control sites during the trial was the

responsibility of the existing collector.

Deliverable 2: Economics of Collection

Introducing a logistics company to undertake the collection element of the trial

facilitated the assessment of the most effective collection economics. As part of

the trial Christian Salvesen advised on the most appropriate containers and

handling techniques to retrieve the material in the most cost effective method.

As part of the trial, each site was visited daily to assess its cleanliness, the fill

level of the bins and levels of participation at the site. This information was

used to establish the collection frequency required for the site and to minimise

incidents of overflow. The rescape™ banks were designed to ensure that

overflow material is contained within the banks and the banks will continue to

be available for use. Establishing the optimum collection frequency enabled the

most cost effective collection to be implemented and minimised vehicle

movement.

Deliverable 3: Correlation of Tonnages Collected and Store Sales Data

The third deliverable of this phase of the project was to establish a link between

store sales and volume and type of material collected at the recycling sites.


22

However, sales data was not available throughout the trial, so no analysis was

possible.

An analysis was also carried out to identify any impacts of the trial throughout

the local authority’s collection area; impact on local kerbside programmes and

overall authority bring tonnages were examined. This took into account the

periods of the trial in which incentive schemes were running, in case it was

possible to identify whether ‘switching’ occurred.

Interim Report 2

A second interim report was produced at the end of this phase of the project,

covering the following aspects:

Launch of community and individual incentive schemes

Impact on recycling rate using incentives

Breakdown of Capital Costs

Ongoing operational costs

Non recurring operational costs

2.3 Phase 3 Analysis and Reporting

The key deliverable of the final phase of the project was to produce this

detailed project report, incorporating conclusions and recommendations.

In addition to the Interim Reports mentioned above, a Project Timetable and

Milestones document was produced, in order for WRAP to monitor the progress

of the project.

As part of the final analysis, a follow up questionnaire was undertaken at each

of the trial locations to assess customer’s attitudes to the new recycling

facilities. This survey, analysis and comparison was carried out by Brook

Lyndhurst on behalf of WRAP, with appropriate input from Sainsbury’s.


23

3 Local Authority Areas

This section of the report outlines the criteria used to select the sites to

participate in the study and provides a short summary on each selected local

authority, including information on demographics and current recycling

infrastructure and services. The control sites used within the study were also

assessed and their recycling infrastructure summarised.

An outline and analysis of the benchmarking study carried out prior to the

commencement of the trial is also discussed. Both quantitative (tonnages) and

qualitative (cleanliness etc) information was collected and analysed to identify

the recycling levels and user characteristics prior to rescape™ bank installation.

3.1 Local Authority Selection

Six trial and four control sites were selected within the greater London area.

They were chosen to give a mix of districts with recycling rates above and

below 12%. They were also selected from a variety of different social economic

areas, using ACORN classifications to determine whether sites lay in high or low

affluence areas. The final selection criteria were that the tenure of sites were

freehold, as this would make the installation of the new recycling facilities

easier. The selected trial and control sites are given in Table 3.1 below.

Table 3.1: Trial and Control Sites

Store Location Affluence Classification Site Type Chingford, Waltham Forrest Low Trial Haringey Low Trial Kingston High Trial Richmond High Trial Wandsworth High Trial Winchmore Hill, Enfield Low Trial Crystal Palace Low Control Dulwich Low Control Ladbroke Grove High Control North Cheam High Control


24

3.2 Local Authority Participation

Getting buy-in from all the local councils affected by this project was critical so

the project team were keen to involve the local authorities in all aspects of the

project.

In order to gain support from the local authorities a three stage plan was

initiated. Firstly, a letter was sent to each authority on behalf of Sainsbury’s

and WRAP (see Appendix 1). This was followed up by telephone contact and a

meeting to discuss the aims and objectives of the project with the local

authority.

Meetings commenced in mid-May and were completed within a month. Verbal

support was received from all participating authorities during these meetings

with written support following shortly (see Appendix 2).

The authorities were invited to participate within the promotional activities

undertaken by WRAP. There were a number of press photocalls and posters

were produced that were displayed on the rescape™ units that included

reference to the local authority’s participation within the trial.

A close relationship was maintained with all the authorities during the trial as it

was important to be able to demonstrate the sites were being operated in a

professional manner. The tonnage data recorded was sent to each trial

authority on a monthly basis and the authorities were kept abreast of

developments within the trial as we progressed through the initial ramp-up, on

to the incentives and then finally during the close-out.

During the trial period, Valpak provided collection tonnages for all materials, on

a monthly basis, to the respective authorities in order for them to include the

tonnages in their annual returns to DEFRA and to claim for recycling credits.


25

3.3 Local Authority Profiles – Trial Sites

This section provides a summary of the demographics and recycling

infrastructure of each of the six sites selected for participation in the FOSR trial.

Additional information such as funding received and promotional campaigns

carried out are detailed where available. The information was collected through

primary research contacting the relevant local authorities backed up by

secondary information from the individual local authority website, ‘Capital

Waste Facts’ (www.capitalwastefacts.com) and the Office of the Deputy Prime

Minister (www.communities.gov.uk). Unfortunately the information available

varied hence the inconsistency in full data sets between the local authorities.

Firstly, Table 3.2 below illustrates the materials collected at each site prior to

and during the trial and Figure 3.2 shows the geographical location of the ten

sites involved in the trial.

It should be noted that throughout this report the site located in Enfield is

referred to as the Winchmore Hill trial site/store and the trial site based in

Waltham Forest is referred to as the Chingford site/store.

Table 3.2: Materials Collected Before and During the FOSR Trial

Trial Site Materials Collected Before Trial During Trial Chingford Paper Paper & card

Clear Glass Clear Glass

Brown Glass Brown Glass

Green Glass Green Glass

Cans Cans

Cartons

Plastic bottles

Haringey Paper Paper & card




Cans Cans

Cartons

Plastic bottles


26

Kingston Paper Paper & card




Cans Cans

Cartons

Plastic bottles

Richmond Paper Paper & card




Cans Cans

Cardboard Cartons

Plastic bottles

Wandsworth Paper Paper & card

Cans Clear Glass

Mixed Glass Brown Glass

Green Glass

Cans

Cartons

Plastic bottles

Winchmore Hill Paper Paper & card




Cans Cans

Cartons

Plastic bottles


27

Figure 3.1 Map of Trial and Control Site Locations

3.3.1 Winchmore Hill, London Borough of Enfield

This store is situated in Enfield, the northernmost local authority in London.

Enfield is the second largest authority to participate in the study and is seen to

have a relatively low population density of 3,403 people per km². The Borough

has been classed as one of low affluence, highlighted through the

unemployment rate (2.1%) and an ethnic minority population of 23%2.

However levels of car and home ownership seem to be of a mid-ranging level in

comparison to other authorities studied.

Enfield provides 55 recycling sites and one Civic Amenity (CA) site for residents

as well as a further 79 recycling banks at schools across the Borough (Table

3.3). Kerbside collections are offered on a weekly basis and cover 87% of

households; in addition estate collections are in operation on over 212 estate

2 Census 2001


28

blocks. In order to promote recycling to residents Enfield Borough Council runs

door knocking campaigns across the authority.

Table 3.3: Recycling facilities in Enfield

Enfield was able to provide data on tonnages collected at bring, CA and estate

sites, as well as that collected on kerbside (Figure 3.2). This illustrates that

over the period July 2004 to December 2005 kerbside tonnages were

increasing, bring site tonnages were gradually declining and CA and Estate

collections showed no particular trend.

Enfield

No of Households 117,0002

Population Density 3,403.1

Affluence Low

Recycling rate 2004/05 (%) 17.4

Kerbside Coverage (%) 87

Kerbside Collection Frequency Weekly

Kerbside Collection Vessel Box

Number of bring sites 55

Bring Site Density 1:2089

Materials collected on bring and collected at FOSR paper, cardboard, mixed cans, separate glass, textiles

Materials collected on bring and not collected at FOSR None

Competition from local bring sites/CA sites low

Number of CA sites 1

Materials collected at CA sites collected at FOSR paper, cardboard, mixed cans, separate glass, textiles

Materials collected on kerbside collected at FOSR Cardboard, glass, mixed cans, paper, plastic bottles

Materials collected on kerbside not collected at FOSR Aerosols

No of Estates Recycling Sites 650

Materials collected on Estates Paper, mixed glass, mixed cans,

aerosols, plastic bottles, cardboard

Promotional Activities Door- knocking campaign to encourage kerbside


29

Figure 3.2: Tonnages of Recyclate Collected in Enfield3

0.00

200.00

400.00

600.00

800.00

1000.00

1200.00

1400.00

Jul-0

4

Aug-0

4

Sep-0

4

Oct-04

Nov-0

4

Dec-0

4

Jan-

05

Feb-0

5

Mar

-05

Apr-0

5

May

-05

Jun-

05

Jul-0

5

Aug-0

5

Sep-0

5

Oct-05

Nov-0

5

Dec-0

5

Month

To

nn

es

Co

llec

ted

Bring Sites

Kerbside - comingled

CA Sites

Estate Collections

Rescape Bank Installation

3.3.2 London Borough of Haringey

The London Borough of Haringey is also located in north London, which in

general is an area of low affluence. Ranked at only 13th of 354 on the Index of

Multiple Deprivation 2004 (where 1 is the most deprived), it is therefore seen

to be the most deprived Borough covered by the study. As might be expected,

it has a low percentage of home and car ownership, coupled with a high

unemployment rate (3.6%) and a high ethnic minority population (34%).

Haringey also has a high population density of 7,203 people per km², with a

relatively high proportion of the population living in flats4.

Residents of Haringey have the use of 72 bring sites and 2 CA sites, which is

the second largest number of recycling centres in operation in an authority

under investigation (Table 3.4) Kerbside collections are in operation for 83% of

households, with a further 10,000 estate households being served by estate

bring sites.

3 At time of writing full information from January 2006 onwards was not available

4 Census 2001


30

Table 3.4: Recycling Facilities in Haringey

In order to promote recycling to residents, the authority had been running a

DEFRA funded incentive scheme during the trial period. This scheme

commenced in December 2005 with 30,000 homes being leafleted, as well as

posters on buses and presentations to publicise the scheme. The scheme was

based around various types of incentive schemes including awards drawn at

random from those residents who recycle using kerbside facilities, charity

scheme offering prizes to 6 chosen charities based on recycling rates and

nomination based awards for the best estates and for other community groups

5 Census 2001

Haringey No of Households 96,0005


Affluence Low







Materials collected on bring that were collected at FOSR paper, cardboard, mixed

cans, separate glass, textiles

Materials collected on bring but not collected at FOSR None


Number of CA sites 2 (second one opened in Nov 2005)

Materials collected at CA sites collected at FOSR paper, cardboard, mixed

cans, separate glass, textiles

Materials collected on kerbside that were collected at FOSR

Cardboard (intro Jan 2005,) glass, mixed cans, paper,

plastic bottles & bags (intro Jan 2005)

Materials collected on kerbside not collected at FOSR Textiles, aluminium foil, books

No of Estates Recycling Sites 10,000 households served

Materials collected on Estates Paper, mixed glass, mixed cans

Promotional Activities Various incentive schemes sponsored by DEFRA


31

such as schools and businesses. The scheme ended in March 2005 with winners

receiving cash prizes or improvements to their local recycling facilities.

The local authority was able to provide tonnages collected from kerbside, CA

and bring sites (Figure 3.3). It is evident from this that over the period July

2004 to January 2006, tonnages collected on kerbside greatly increased which

may be related to the introduction of the scheme to a further 32,000 homes

and the addition of cardboard and plastic bottles and bags to the materials

collected in January 2005. In comparison collection levels at bring sites can be

seen to be gradually decreasing. Collections at CA sites appear to undulate, but

remain fairly constant.

Figure 3.3: Tonnages of Recyclate collected in Haringey

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

Jul-04

Aug-04

Sep-04

Oct-04

Nov-04

Dec-04

Jan-05

Feb-05

Mar-05

Apr-05

May-05

Jun-05

Jul-05

Aug-05

Sep-05

Oct-05

Nov-05

Dec-05

Jan-06

Month

To

nn

es C

olle

cte

d

Bring Sites

Kerbside

CA Sites


3.3.3 Surrey Basin, London Borough of Kingston upon Thames

The Kingston store, classified by Sainsbury’s as Surrey Basin, is situated in

south-west London. In this project Kingston is seen to have a relatively low

population density, as a result of having the least number of households out of

the participating authorities (61,426). The Borough is an area of high affluence


32

and is considered to be the second least deprived6 local authority in the trial.

Related to this, Kingston has a high level of home and car ownership, a low

unemployment rate (1.2%) and a comparatively small ethnic minority

population (16%)7.

Kingston has 35 bring sites within its boundaries and has been operating a

kerbside collection since 1995 which now covers 90% of households in the

Borough. It has also been able to offer estate/flat recycling facilities to most

locations since 2003.

Table 3.5: Recycling Facilities in Kingston

6 Index of Multiple Deprivation 2004 7 2001 Census

Kingston



Affluence High



Kerbside Collection Frequency Fortnightly



Bring Site Density 1:1,755

Materials collected on bring that were collected at FOSR

paper, cardboard, plastic bottles, mixed cans, mixed glass

Materials collected on bring not collected at FOSR Textiles, ink cartridges

Competition from local bring sites/CA sites medium


Materials collected at CA sites collected at FOSR paper, cardboard, plastic bottles, mixed cans, mixed glass


Glass, mixed cans, paper, plastic bottles

Materials collected on kerbside not collected at FOSR Textiles

No of Estates Recycling Sites


Promotional Activities Street recycling and new banks


33

Kingston has been installing new Street Recycling Litter Bins for paper, plastic

bottles and cans since October 2005 and has promoted recycling to residents

through door knocking campaigns. As well as this, from November 2005 all

banks located at bring sites within the authority have been changed to 1100

litre Continental Containers and are now emptied by one contractor.

The local authority were able to provide

tonnages of material collected from July 2004

to December 2005 for that collected at bring

sites and kerbside (Figure 3.4).

It is evident from this data that recyclate

collected at kerbside has been increasing at a significant rate, whereas

that collected by bring is declining.

Figure 3.4: Tonnages of Recyclate collected in Kingston8

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Jul-04

Aug-04

Sep-04

Oct-04

Nov-04

Dec-04

Jan-05

Feb-05

Mar-05

Apr-05

May-05

Jun-05

Jul-05

Aug-05

Sep-05

Oct-05

Nov-05

Dec-05

Month

To

nn

es C

olle

cted

Bring sites - total

Kerbside - comingled


8 At time of writing full information from January 2006 onwards was not available


34

3.3.4 London Borough of Richmond upon Thames

Richmond is situated in south west London and is considered to be the most

sparsely populated authority included within the study. It is also seen to be the

most affluent area trialled, with high car and home ownership, low

unemployment (1.2%) and a comparatively low ethnic minority population

(9%)9

When comparing the recycling facilities offered by each authority in the study,

Richmond is seen to offer the most comprehensive. There are 123 bring sites,

one CA site and a weekly kerbside collection service covering 90% of the

Borough (Table 3.6), as well as 6,300 estate households being served by estate

banks. During the trial period, kerbside kitchen collections were rolled out in

November 2005 (funded by the London Recycling Fund) and plastic bottle and

card collections were trialled to 2350 households in August 2005.

Table 3.6: Recycling Facilities in Richmond

Richmond



Affluence High

Recycling rate 2004/05 (%) 28



Kerbside Collection Vessel Box and bag




paper, cardboard, plastic bottles, mixed cans,

separate glass

Materials collected on bring not collected at FOSR Aluminium foil, textiles

Competition from local bring sites/CA sites Medium


Materials collected at CA sites collected at FOSR

paper, cardboard, plastic bottles, mixed cans,

separate glass

9 Census 2001


35


Card (trial during study to 2,350 hhd), glass, mixed

cans, paper, plastic bottles (trial during study to 2,350

hhd)

Materials collected on kerbside not collected at FOSR

Textiles, aluminium foil, kitchen waste (new during

trial)


Materials collected on Estates Paper, mixed glass, mixed cans, aerosols

Promotional Activities

Incentive scheme for estates. Kerbside trials for

card and plastic. Investment in bring banks

In order to promote the use of the estate recycling facilities, Richmond ran an

incentive scheme in November 2005, where the first ten blocks of flats to sign

up for this service were rewarded with £50.

Richmond Borough Council were able to provide tonnages for bring, CA and

estate sites and kerbside collections during the period June 2004 to December

2005 (Figure 3.5). From this data it is seen that kerbside tonnages have been

increasing, whereas bring site tonnages have been declining. Estate collections

show a gradual increase and CA sites fluctuate, but around a constant level.

Figure 3.5 Tonnages of Recyclate Collected in Richmond

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Jun-

04

Aug

-04

Sep

-04

Nov

-04

Dec

-04

Feb-

05

Apr

-05

May

-05

Jul-0

5

Sep

-05

Oct

-05

Dec

-05

Month

To

nn

es

Co

llec

ted

Kerbside

CA Sites

Estate Collections

Bring Sites


NB. At time of writing full information from January 2006 onwards was not available


36

3.3.5 Low Hall Chingford, London Borough of Waltham Forest

The Chingford store, classified by Sainsbury’s as Low Hall, is situated in the

London Borough of Waltham Forest, north London. The Borough is considered

to be an area of low affluence, ranked 47th out of 354 authorities in the Index

of Multiple Deprivation 2004 (where 1 is the most deprived). Waltham Forest

has a mid-ranging level of unemployment of 2.7% and a high ethnic minority

population of 35%10. Both home and car ownership are seen to be relatively

high in Waltham Forest when considering its deprivation scoring.

Waltham Forest has 28 bring sites and a further 2 CA sites in operation. This is

complimented with a kerbside collection scheme covering 85% of the authority.

This scheme was increased from fortnightly to weekly collections in September

2005, at which time cardboard was added to the materials collected (Table

3.7). Waltham Forest has also set up 220 mini recycling sites at local estates

and the authority states that all residents not covered by the kerbside recycling

scheme are within 1km of a recycling site.

Table 3.7: Recycling facilities in Waltham Forest

Chingford



Affluence Low



Kerbside Collection Frequency Fortnightly to weekly (September 2005)





paper, cardboard, mixed cans, separate glass, textiles

Materials collected on bring not collected at FOSR none




paper, cardboard, mixed cans, separate glass, textiles


Cardboard (New Sept 05), glass, mixed cans, paper

10 Census 2001


37

Materials collected on kerbside not collected at FOSR

Textiles, aluminium foil, batteries



Promotional Activities

Kerbside increased from fortnightly to weekly and

cardboard added to collected materials

Waltham Forest has received funding from the London Recycling Fund. This

money has been used to run door knocking campaigns to promote the use of

kerbside recycling by residents. It has also been used to implement a green

garden waste service in the Borough and generally improve household waste

centres from 2002 to 2006.

Waltham Forest were able to provide tonnages collected for the period June

2004 to December 2005 for tonnages collected at bring sites and on kerbside

(Figure 3.6). From this data it is possible to see that during this period,

tonnages collected at kerbside increased steadily, whereas those collected at

bring remained steady.

Figure 3.6: Tonnages of Recyclate Collected in Waltham Forest

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Jul-04 Aug-04

Sep-04

Oct-04

Nov-04

Dec-04

Jan-05

Feb-05

Mar-05

Apr-05

May-05

Jun-05

Jul-05 Aug-05

Sep-05

Oct-05

Nov-05

Dec-05

Month

To

nn

es C

olle

cted

Bring sites

kerbside




38

3.3.6. London Borough of Wandsworth

Wandsworth is considered to be a high affluence area with a relatively high

population and population density. It has a mid-ranging level of car and home

ownership within the study and an unemployment rate of 2.2%11.

The authority has 32 bring sites and 2 CA sites. Kerbside collections cover a

wide range of materials and 95% of households in Wandsworth, with a further

650 sites offering estate collections. These banks are currently being improved

and rolled out to further sites.

Table 3.8: Recycling Facilities in Wandsworth

Wandsworth



Affluence High




Kerbside Collection Vessel Sack




paper, cardboard, plastic bottles, mixed cans, separate glass

Materials collected on bring not collected at FOSR Textiles, ink cartridge

Competition from local bring sites/CA sites Medium



paper, cardboard, plastic bottles, mixed cans, separate glass


Cardboard, glass, mixed cans, paper, plastic bottles

Materials collected on kerbside not collected at FOSR Aerosols


Materials collected on Estates Paper, mixed glass, mixed cans, aerosols, plastic bottles, cardboard

Promotional Activities None

11 Census 2001


39

Funding within the authority has been secured from the London Recycling Fund;

this has been used for the roll out of estate recycling facilities and for the

purchase of six kerbside collection vehicles.

The Borough Council were able to provide tonnages collected during the period

July 2004 to January 2006 for bring, estate and kerbside collections (Figure

3.7). It is evident from this data that tonnages collected at kerbside and estate

sites have been steadily increasing over this period, whereas tonnages collected

from bring recycling have been decreasing.

Figure 3.7: Tonnages of Recyclate Collected in Wandsworth

0.00

200.00

400.00

600.00

800.00

1000.00

1200.00

1400.00

1600.00

Jul-0

4

Aug-0

4

Sep-0

4

Oct-04

Nov-0

4

Dec-0

4

Jan-

05

Feb-0

5

Mar

-05

Apr-0

5

May

-05

Jun-

05

Jul-0

5

Aug-0

5

Sep-0

5

Oct-05

Nov-0

5

Dec-0

5

Jan-

06

Month

To

nn

es C

olle

cted

Bring sites - total

Kerbside

Estate collections


3.4 Local Authority Profiles - Control Sites

The local authorities selected as control sites were also contacted to provide

tonnages of recyclate collected 12 months prior to and during the trial, for bring

and kerbside collections. Tonnages collected from the individual sites prior to

the trial were also requested.


40

3.4.1 Crystal Palace, London Borough of Croydon

The Crystal Palace store is situated in the London Borough of Croydon, the

largest authority involved in the trial, with a high population but relatively low

population density. The authority is classified as an area of low affluence;

however it does have a mid-ranging level of unemployment (2%) and car and

home ownership, but a relatively high ethnic minority population (30%)12. The

authority has 30 bring sites, 3 CA sites and a kerbside collection scheme

covering 82% of Croydon (Table 3.9). In addition to this, 85 mini recycling

centres are provided on estates across the Borough. In order to increase the

levels of recycling the authority has been offering free compost to users at the

Purley Oaks Reuse and Recycling Centre.

Table 3.9: Recycling Facilities in Croydon

Croydon



Affluence low

Recycling rate 2004/05 (%) 13


Kerbside Collection Frequency fortnightly

Kerbside Collection Vessel box



Materials collected on bring sites paper, mixed cans, separate glass, textiles,

shoes


Materials collected at CA sites

paper, cardboard, mixed cans, separate

glass, electricals, books, aluminium foil,

plastic bottles, batteries, oil, cartridges,

textiles, shoes

Materials collected on kerbside mixed glass, mixed cans, paper, textiles and

shoes


Materials collected on Estates cardboard, mixed glass, fixed cans and paper

Promotional Activities free compost to residents who recycle at CA

site

12 Census 2001


41

Croydon were only able to provide tonnages in quarterly periods during the trial

and these are displayed in Figure 3.8 below. Due to the time and collection type

groupings of the dataset, it is not possible to carry out a comparable or

accurate analysis on it.

Figure 3.8: Tonnages Collected at Croydon Control Site During the Trial Period

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

April - June 2005 July to Sept 2005 Oct to Dec 2005

To

nn

es C

oll

ecte

d

Total Bring

CA and Kerbside

3.4.2 Ladbroke Grove, London Borough of Kensington and Chelsea

The Ladbroke Grove store is situated in the London Borough of Kensington and

Chelsea, the smallest authority considered in the study with the highest

population density. It is an area of high affluence, however due to the nature of

its size and central location, 83% of the population inhabit flats and over 50%

of residents do not own a car13.

Within the Borough 25 bring sites and two CA sites are provided for residents.

Kerbside collections only cover 77% of the population; however this is due to

the majority of the population being housed in flats. As a result of this, 19,000

households are provided with estate recycling facilities (Table 3.10).

13 Census 2001


42

Table 3.10: Recycling Facilities in Kensington and Chelsea

Kensington & Chelsea



Affluence High


Kerbside Coverage (%) 77 Kerbside Collection Frequency Twice weekly

Kerbside Collection Vessel sacks



Materials collected on bring sites

cardboard, mixed glass, mixed cans,

paper, plastic bottles, textiles, books,

cartridges Number of CA sites 2


paper, cardboard, mixed cans, separate

glass, electricals, books, plastic bottles,

batteries, oil, cartridges, textiles,

green waste

Materials collected on kerbside

Aerosols, Card, Mixed Cans, Paper, Plastic

bottles


Materials collected on Estates

aerosols, cardboard, mixed glass, mixed cans, paper, plastic

bottles Promotional Activities None

Kensington and Chelsea authority were only able to provide recyclate tonnages

collected from kerbside. Figure 3.9 below shows that these tonnages appear to

have gradually increased over the period.


43

Figure 3.9 Kerbside Materials Collected in Kensington and Chelsea

0.00

200.00

400.00

600.00

800.00

1000.00

1200.00

Jul-0

4

Aug-0

4

Sep-0

4

Oct-

04

Nov-0

4

Dec-0

4

Jan-

05

Feb-0

5

Mar

-05

Apr-0

5

May

-05

Jun-

05

Jul-0

5

Aug-0

5

Sep-0

5

Oct-

05

Nov-0

5

Dec-0

5

Month

To

nn

es C

olle

cte

d


3.4.3 Dulwich, London Borough of Southwark

The Dulwich store is situated in the London Borough of Southwark which is

relatively densely populated with a high proportion of the population inhabiting

flats. The area is one of low affluence and in relation to this has a low level of

home and car ownership, a high rate of unemployment and a large ethnic

minority population (37%)14.

The authority provides 44 bring sites and one CA site for residents’ use.

Kerbside collections cover 95% of the Borough and increased from fortnightly

to weekly collections in April 2005. In addition to this, 56,000 estate

households are served by mini recycling centres (Table 3.11). In order to

encourage the use of these facilities the authority ran a door knocking

campaign in autumn 2005 to educate residents about recycling.

14 Census 2001


44

Table 3.11: Recycling Facilities in Southwark

Southwark



Affluence Low



Kerbside Collection Frequency weekly (increased in April 2005)

Kerbside Collection Vessel box



Materials collected on bring sites aluminium foil, cardboard, mixed glass, mixed cans, paper, plastic

bottles, textiles, shoes



aerosols, aluminium foil, paper, cardboard, mixed cans, separate glass, electricals, books, plastic bottles, batteries, oil, cartridges,

textiles, green waste

Materials collected on kerbside Plastic bottles, Paper ,Cardboard, Glass bottles and jars, Mixed cans


Materials collected on Estates cardboard, mixed glass, mixed cans, paper, plastic bottles

Promotional Activities Door knocking in Autumn 2005

Southwark were able to provide tonnages collected at kerbside and a combined

figure for that collected at bring sites, estate banks and CA sites in the

authority. This is displayed in Figure 3.10 below.

It can be seen that the tonnages collected for recycling banks in Southwark

have been increasing throughout the entire period of July 2004 to January

2006. It appears from looking at Figure 3.11 that paper is seen to have shown

the largest increase in collected tonnages, but both mixed cans and glass are

also increasing.

Material tonnages collected on kerbside are also seen to be increasing over this

period which is slightly more evident after April 2005 when the collections

increased from fortnightly to weekly. This is particularly evident in mixed cans

and glass material streams, as seen in Figure 3.12.


45

Figure 3.10: Tonnages of Recyclate Collected in the Authority of Southwark

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Jul-0

4

Aug-0

4

Sep-0

4

Oct-0

4

Nov-0

4

Dec-0

4

Jan-

05

Feb-0

5

Mar

-05

Apr-0

5

May

-05

Jun-

05

Jul-0

5

Aug-0

5

Sep-0

5

Oct-0

5

Nov-0

5

Dec-0

5

Jan-

06

Month

To

nn

es C

oll

ecte

d

Bring, estate and CA sites- total

Kerbside - total

Figure 3.11: Tonnages of Recyclate Collected at Recycling Banks in Southwark

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Jul-0

4

Aug-0

4

Sep-0

4

Oct-04

Nov-0

4

Dec-0

4

Jan-

05

Feb-0

5

Mar

-05

Apr-0

5

May

-05

Jun-

05

Jul-0

5

Aug-0

5

Sep-0

5

Oct-05

Nov-0

5

Dec-0

5

Jan-

06

To

nn

es

co

llect

ed

Bring - Mixed Glass

Bring - Paper

Bring - Mixed Cans


46

Figure 3.12: Tonnages of Recyclate Collected by Kerbside in Southwark

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Jul-0

4

Aug-0

4

Sep-0

4

Oct-04

Nov-0

4

Dec-0

4

Jan-

05

Feb-0

5

Mar

-05

Apr-0

5

May

-05

Jun-

05

Jul-0

5

Aug-0

5

Sep-0

5

Oct-05

Nov-0

5

Dec-0

5

Jan-

06

To

nn

es c

olle

cte

d

Kerbside - Mixed Glass

Kerbside - Paper

Kerbside - Mixed Cans

3.4.4 North Cheam, London Borough of Sutton

The North Cheam store is situated in the Borough of Sutton in south London

and is relatively sparsely populated. The area is considered to be of high

affluence and in relation to this has a high rate of home and car ownership, a

low unemployment rate (1.1%) and a low ethnic minority population (11%)15.

Bring bank recycling facilities are located at 40 sites in the Borough. Kerbside

collections cover 99% of suitable properties, with a further 9,200 households

being provided with estate mini recycling sites (Table 3.12). In order to

promote the use of such recycling facilities the authority has distributed leaflets

to educate residents.

Table 3.12: Recycling Facilities in Sutton

Sutton



Affluence High



Kerbside Collection Frequency fortnightly

Kerbside Collection Vessel wheelie bin

15 Census 2001


47



Materials collected on bring sites paper, cardboard, mixed cans, mixed glass, books, textiles,

shoes Number of CA sites 1

Materials collected at CA sites paper, cardboard, mixed cans,

separate glass, aerosols, plastic bottles, batteries, oil, textiles

Materials collected on kerbside aerosols, mixed glass, mixed

cans, cardboard, paper, plastic bottles, yellow pages


Materials collected on Estates cardboard, aluminium, mixed cans, paper, plastic bottles

Promotional Activities Leaflets distributed

Sutton council were able to provide data on the tonnages collected for the

entire authority for bring sites, kerbside and CA sites (Figure 3.13).

Figure 3.13: Tonnages of Recyclate Collected in the Authority of Sutton

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

Jul-04

Aug-04

Sep-04

Oct-04

Nov-04

Dec-04

Jan-05

Feb-05

Mar-05

Apr-05

May-05

Jun-05

Jul-05

Aug-05

Sep-05

Oct-05

Nov-05

Dec-05

Jan-06

Month

To

nn

es C

oll

lect

ed

Bring sites

Kerbside

CA sites

As indicated by the graph above, kerbside tonnage collections appear to have

slightly increased over the period July 2004 to January 2006, despite some

monthly variation. However, tonnages collected at bring and CA sites in the

Borough are not seen to show much variation over this period.


48

When looking at individual material streams, it is apparent that at bring sites

paper is in decline over the period, whereas glass, plastic and card appear to

show slight increases (Figure 3.14).

Figure 3.14: Tonnages of Recyclate Collected at Bring Sites in Sutton

0

50

100

150

200

250

Jul-0

4Aug

-04

Sep-0

4O

ct-04

Nov-0

4Dec

-04

Jan-

05Fe

b-05

Mar

-05

Apr-0

5M

ay-0

5Ju

n-05

Jul-0

5Aug

-05

Sep-0

5O

ct-05

Nov-0

5Dec

-05

Jan-

06

To

nn

es

co

llec

ted

Bring - Mixed Glass

Bring - Paper

Bring - Card

Bring - Plastic (Combined with cans)

The graph below illustrates that paper is the most abundantly collected material

by kerbside collections in Sutton. It is therefore the slight upward trend in this

material that has influenced the increase in total tonnages collected by kerbside

in the Borough. However, mixed glass is also seen to be slightly increasing over

the period as well.


49

Figure 3.15: Tonnages of Recyclate Collected by Kerbside in Sutton

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

Jul-0

4

Aug-0

4

Sep-0

4

Oct-04

Nov-0

4

Dec-0

4

Jan-

05

Feb-0

5

Mar

-05

Apr-0

5

May

-05

Jun-

05

Jul-0

5

Aug-0

5

Sep-0

5

Oct-05

Nov-0

5

Dec-0

5

Jan-

06

To

nn

es c

olle

cte

d

Kerbside - Mixed Glass

Kerbside - Paper

Kerbside - Plastic

Kerbside - Mixed Cans

Collections from CA sites by material are shown in Figure 3.16, it appears that

textiles are the most prominent material collected and is seen to be increasing

over the period. Paper is also seen to be gradually increasing whereas other

materials illustrate no clear trends.

Figure 3.16: Tonnages of Recyclate Collected at CA Sites in Sutton

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Jul-0

4

Aug-0

4

Sep-0

4

Oct-04

Nov-0

4

Dec-0

4

Jan-

05

Feb-0

5

Mar

-05

Apr-0

5

May

-05

Jun-

05

Jul-0

5

Aug-0

5

Sep-0

5

Oct-05

Nov-0

5

Dec-0

5

Jan-

06

To

nn

es

coll

ecte

d

Recycling centres - Mixed Glass

Recycling centres - Paper

Recycling centres - Card

Recycling centres - plastic (Combinedwith cans)

Recycling centres - Wood

Recycling centres - Textiles


50

3.5 Benchmarking Analysis, Results and Conclusions

Prior to the commencement of the trials, a Benchmarking Study was carried out

in order to establish some key parameters and characteristics about the sites.

Such analysis was required in order to facilitate comparisons with the

information collected after the rescape™ bank installation because there was no

site specific data available for the individual sites other than tonnage data for

two of the trial sites. The benchmark analysis enabled a brief heads-up on site

activity.

3.5.1 Methodology

In order to study the trial sites before the new bank installation, observers were

stationed at all sites (trial and control) over designated periods of time and

asked to complete sheets concerning the site’s appearance based on

cleanliness, recycler characteristics such as gender, approximate age, transport

type and material deposited and bank fullness per material stream, as seen in

Appendix 3.

The schedule for the benchmarking study was devised to accommodate the

busiest times of day in terms of recycling activity, the opening times of the

stores and the regulations imposed by the working time directive on those

undertaking the study. Observation times on Monday through to Saturday were

8am-11am, 12am-3pm and 4pm-7pm. On Sundays timings were dependent on

opening hours; the observation period was 2.5 hours followed by an hour’s

break and a further 2.5 hours. In all the total time that the stores were

observed during the study was 265 hours.

On this basis a schedule was drawn up with a mirrored schedule for High

Affluence and Low Affluence sites, plus mirroring across control sites16. It’s

important to note that this was an observational study and did not involve

interaction with the public, unlike the Brook Lyndhurst study, carried out

independently for WRAP.

16 The survey timetable is shown in Appendix 5


51

3.5.2 Qualitative Data

During the study data was collected on qualitative aspects of the bring banks

and surrounding area, such as bank cleanliness and characteristics of recyclers.

Information concerning recycler characteristics is detailed below:

The most deposited material was paper, recycled by 26% of recyclers.

48% of recyclers were male, 46% female and 6% children.

Carrier bags were used to bring their recyclate to the bank by 66% of

recyclers observed.

Most recyclers deposited a single material stream making up 48% of

recyclers.

68% of recyclers travelled by car to the recycling bank, with 28% arriving on

foot.

Age was visually assessed and the most common age group found to be

recycling was 41-60 year olds, making up 37% of recyclers.

Bank cleanliness was also assessed by the observers during the study and the

banks were considered clean/tidy or better for 75% of the time, as displayed in

Figure 3.17 below. When considering the state of cleanliness on a per site

basis, it appears that Chingford was the least clean and Richmond and Crystal

Palace were the cleanest (Figure 3.18).

Figure 3.17: Cleanliness of Bank Area During Benchmarking Study

32, 29%

15, 14%3, 3%

59, 54%

Clean / Tidy

Not Clean / Tidy

Very Clean / Tidy

Very Unclean / Untidy


52

Figure 3.18: State of Cleanliness per Site

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Very Clean / Tidy Clean / Tidy Not Clean / Tidy Very Unclean / Untidy

Chingford

Harringay

Kingston

Richmond

Wandsworth

Winchmore Hill

Sum of CountOfCleanliness of Bank Area

Cleanliness of Bank Area

Store Location

3.5.3 Quantitative Data

During the Benchmarking Study observations were made on the bank fullness

of each material at each site, in order to crudely estimate tonnages collected

(Figure 3.19). It can be seen that the most frequently recycled material during

the study was green glass, followed by paper.

When comparing the levels of recycling at each site, it appeared that

Winchmore Hill collected the highest volumes of material, followed by Haringey.

However, the estimated tonnages may have been exaggerated due to the

number of banks in place; Winchmore Hill and Haringey had the most.


53

Figure 3.19: Estimated Benchmarking Tonnages

0

5

10

15

20

Brown Glass Cans Clear Glass green glass paper mixed glass

Material

To

nn

es C

olle

cted Chingford

Kingston

Richmond

Wandsworth

Winchmore Hill

Haringey

The observations regarding tonnage levels should only be taken as indicative

and used with caution as the data collected was based on bank fullness

observations rather than weighbridge tickets.


54

4 Introduction of New Style Banks and Servicing

This section of the report outlines the activities involved in the planning and

installation of the new style rescape™ banks at the trial sites, the

logistical/servicing operations adopted and any operational issues that arose

during the trial. A summary of findings from the data collection carried out is

also given. Both the quantitative (tonnages) and qualitative (cleanliness, etc.)

data was analysed to establish whether:

The new banks encouraged more recycling.

The trial provided an improved recycling environment.

It should be noted that data analysis was carried out from week 4 to week 33

of the trial, as the first full week of collections from all six sites was week 4.

Build of the sites started in Week 1, with some collections starting in week 3

(week commencing 27th June).

4.1 Installation of rescape™ Banks

The planning and installation of the new-style banks was the second major step

in the trial, following the selection of, and liaison with, participating local

authorities’ (as discussed in Section 3 of this report). The installation and

commencement of collection is reported as follows:

The rescape™ banks

Auditing selected sites

Materials to be collected

Specification of rescape™ banks

Build schedule

Mobilisation Costs


55

4.1.1 The rescape™ banks

The rescape™ banks were designed to offer a more user-friendly approach to

recycling. The current systems situated in retailer car park locations tend to be

designed with the operator in mind rather than the consumer. The objective of

rescape™ is to change the consumer’s perception of what a recycling area

should look like thus making it more appealing and inviting for the public to use

and as a result encouraging increased recycling rates.

rescape™ Banks at Sainsbury’s, Wandsworth

For the trial, Premier units were used. They are modular banks, made from

galvanised steel and house two 1280l wheeled containers (back-to-back) within

each bay. The livery was specified by Sainsbury’s and the recycling information

contained on the vinyl’s based on Recycle Now iconography. The A2 posters

above each door and the 6 sheet posters at either end of the banks were used

for displaying information pertaining to the trial. This is illustrated in the

adjacent photo, taken following rescape™ installation at Sainsbury’s in

Wandsworth.


56

The colours on the banner, sides, roof and doors of the banks were specified by

Sainsbury’s; they were generally bright colours to encourage the public to

notice and use them. WRAP specified the iconography and colours for the

vinyl’s adhered to the recycling bays, in line with Recycle Now guidelines (see

Appendix 6), and provided the instructive wording on the banks, such as

‘Please Wash and Squash’ on the mixed metal can and plastic bottle banks. The

final specification is defined in Appendix 7.

A2 panels above doors highlighted the value of recycling to encourage participation

4.1.2 Materials Selected for Collection

Materials Collected as part of the Trial

For the sake of comparison, standardised 10 bay units were installed at all

sites, to collect the following materials:

Paper & Card (3 rescape™ modules)

Plastic Bottles (2 rescape™ modules)

Clear Glass (1 rescape™ module)

Brown Glass (1 rescape™ module)

Green Glass (1 rescape™ module)

Mixed Cans (1 rescape™ module)

Cartons (1 rescape™ module)


57

As well as the rescape™ banks, a bin was provided to the side of the units for

collection of plastic bags which consumers had used to carry their materials for

recycling. The volume of plastic bags deposited was significant enough to be

classified as a separate material stream collected.

Within each module two 1,280l Eurobins were placed back-to-back. When the

front one was full, the operator would move it to the back of the unit replacing

it with the empty bin behind; thus avoiding the requirement to pick-up all bins

when they were full.

This resulted in a change in the number of banks, capacity available and mix of

materials collected at each site. Prior to the trial, most of the sites used Titan

style maxibanks for collection of material, which have a capacity of 2.5 cubic

metres.

Table 4.1: Change in Collection Capacity for the FOSR Trial17

Table 4.1 shows that the capacity available across all sites was decreased for

the trial. However plastic bottle and carton collections were introduced at all

sites, with card being collected together with paper. It does not appear that this

decrease in capacity negatively affected collection rates; in general cleanliness

and overflow were not considered to be issues

Prior to the Front of Store Trial, all the sites incorporated one or more banks

collecting materials for charity, such as clothes & shoes or books & music. With

the introduction of rescape™, Sainsbury’s made an agreement with both the

Salvation Army and Oxfam for them to install new textile banks once each site

became operational; the servicing, maintenance and cleaning remained the

responsibility of the charities or their respective contractors. At times

17 Expressed as a percentage change, except for new material streams, which are expressed in litres (l)

Paper +

card Clear Glass

Brown Glass

Green Glass Cans Plastic Cartons

Kingston -49% -49% -74% -83% -67% +2,560l +1,280l

Richmond -69% -66% -66% -83% -50% +2,560l +1,280l

Wandsworth -23% +1,280l +1,280l -87% -49% +2,560l +1,280l

Chingford -50% 0% 0% -50% -80% +2,560l +1,280l

Haringey -69% -87% -83% -91% -93% +2,560l +1,280l

Winchmore Hill -69% -83% -74% -87% -74% +2,560l +1,280l


58

throughout the trial it is possible that overflow from these banks influenced

public perception of the appearance of the trial sites as a whole. Observations

recorded by Christian Salvesen regarding cleanliness and overflow referenced

the specific materials concerned, therefore it is possible to identify where

charity banks have overflowed as opposed to rescape™ banks. Section 4.6 of

this report details the qualitative aspects and impacts of the trial.

4.1.3 Build Schedule

The installation of the rescape™ units involved careful planning and co-

ordination between the local authority and their subcontractors, the builders of

the rescape™ units (SMF), the suppliers of the Eurobins (Taylors), the suppliers

of the plastic bag bin (Linpac) and Christian Salvesen. Prior to build

commencing, site plans were drawn up showing how the existing infrastructure

would need to be moved and local authorities were instructed to remove

existing facilities, leaving only a skeleton collection capability to the side of the

existing site. A plan of the site was drawn up showing the intended position of

the rescape™ units and where the skeleton service would be sited.

The build schedule was devised so that the trial started after Brook Lyndhurst

had completed their attitudinal survey and in-line with the launch of the Big

Recycle recycling week on 27th June 2005.

In terms of installation, the rescape™ unit is relatively new; SMF was therefore

required to adapt the build to each particular site. This was particularly

prevalent at the first site to be installed, which was Wandsworth. The lessons

learnt from this site were thus passed on to subsequent builds.

Sainsbury’s Haringey Original Site


59

Sainsbury’s Haringey rescape™ Site

Each build took three days and included the adherence of the vinyls to the units

and the installation of the plastic bag recycling bin.

The press launches on 27th and 28th of June 2005 were co-ordinated by

Ptarmigan18 on behalf of WRAP. Photocalls were organised at each of the sites

with local school children and councillors being pictured in front of the

rescape™ banks. The ‘before and after’ pictures (above and opposite) illustrate

the transformation of the site at Haringey, with the installation of the rescape™

units.

4.2 Logistics and Operations (Collection and Servicing)

Simultaneously to the mobilisation of the rescape™ banks, the operational

aspects of the trial were planned, in order for collection to commence as

promptly as possible. The logistical and operational elements considered are

listed, then detailed one at a time below:

Logistics

End market agreements

Frequency of collection

Collection Model

18 www.ptarmiganpr.co.uk


60

4.2.1 Logistics

For the purposes of the trial, the decision was made to use a logistics company,

Christian Salvesen, as opposed to a waste management company for the

collection and storage of the recyclate. The traditional approach would be to

utilise specialised vehicles that can carry bulk loads, but are restricted to

picking up selected materials. The approach for the trial was to see whether

advances in logistics thinking could be applied to the movement of waste

materials for a more efficient and better value service.

Operational Aspects

Christian Salvesen serviced the rescape™ units and bulked-up the collected

materials at their distribution centre in Rochester, Kent. The installation of

baling equipment was deemed uneconomic for such a short period, given that

most standard contracts are for 5 years; therefore all materials were bulked

loose in 40 cubic yard roll-on roll-off containers (RORO).

Rather than using specialised waste management vehicles, Christian Salvesen

used 17t fixed body and articulated trailers. The advantage of this approach

was that the vehicles were cheaper to lease and there was greater scope to

collect different material streams.

In addition to the collection vehicles, Christian Salvesen also employed a ‘man-

in-a-van’ whose role was to manage the bins at each site. The ‘man-in-a-van’

would visit the sites on days when collections were not scheduled and would

assess the fill levels in all the bins. Dependent on the level of fullness and the

expected fill rate, he would move empty bins to the front of the unit to try to

avoid potential overflows before the next scheduled collection. He would record

the bank movements and relative fill levels and report back so that the drivers

undertaking collection could better plan what materials they would be picking

up. He was also responsible for cleaning the banks on a weekly basis.


61

Benefits of Using Christian Salvesen

The decision to adopt a logistics approach to the collection of materials

deposited during the FOSR trial, as opposed to a waste management solution,

was a qualified success. The use of 17t fixed body vehicles allowed multi-

material pick-ups which in turn offered a smaller environmental footprint by

offering more flexibility in organising which materials would be picked up.

Standard waste management vehicles tend to be compartmentalised which

means a restriction to the number of materials that can be collected at one

time, so to service the six sites would require a greater number of trips.

It is important to highlight that the costs of the service were disproportionate to

what would be expected in the event of a roll-out, due to a number of factors.

With only 6 sites to collect from, that were spread across London, it was

difficult to find a suitable point to bulk materials that was an optimum distance

from all sites; therefore extra mileage was incurred as was time getting to the

sites. The disparate locations of the sites also necessitated collections from

sites at all times during the day which again was an advantage on the logistics

approach in that there was minimal noise pollution when picking up the

materials, thus no complaints from nearby residential properties. Tipping glass

bins into containerised vehicles at 5am can create significant noise pollution.

4.2.2 End Market Agreements

As the material from the six sites was bulked at Rochester, new agreements

were made with end market recyclers that represented the best value options

for the project, rather than the existing recycler. With the exception of glass,

the method of storage drove the choice of recycler; finding recyclers that

accepted material loose was an added difficulty, as the material still required

baling before recycling. It was also important to ensure minimum transfer

distances to the recyclers, due to material being transported pre-bailing (high

volume /low weight). Table 4.2 below details the reprocessors the material was

delivered to:


62

Table 4.2: Materials Reprocessors

As this was a trial and not a full-scale operation, it was difficult to assess the

true market value of the materials, due to the quantities and method of storage

not being fully representative of a commercial offering.

4.2.3 Frequency of Collection

For the most part the delivery schedule was pre-ordained with special

collections being made as a result of information from the man-in-a-van.

Although two 17t vehicles were available, there were only two drivers for the

trial, so in order to maintain a 7 day service, only one vehicle was running most

days.

The proximity of the stores meant that routes were comprised of collections

from the northern sites – Chingford, Haringey and Winchmore Hill and the

southern sites – Kingston, Richmond and Wandsworth. Traffic permitting, it was

normally possible to collect from all sites in one day. However, this necessitated

leaving very early in the morning to avoid the congestion on the M25.

Table 4.3 below details the average collection frequencies, distances and time

spent on site for the six trial sites.

Table 4.3: Materials Reprocessors

Material Reprocessor Brown Glass United Glass, Harlow Clear Glass United Glass, Harlow Green Glass Day Aggregates, Greenwich Paper & Card SCA, Charlton Metal Cans EMR, Dartford Plastic Bottles Viridor, Canterbury Cartons Liquid Food Carton Manufacturers Association

Sainsbury’s Store

Distance from Rochester

Average Number of visits per week

Average time spent per visit

Chingford 40 miles 5.83 37 minutes Haringey 36 miles 3.77 33 minutes Kingston 55 miles 6.00 43 minutes Richmond 43 miles 6.50 59 minutes Wandsworth 37 miles 2.53 26 minutes Winchmore Hill 44 miles 4.53 31 minutes


63

The number of visits per week was influenced by the tonnage of material

deposited at each site; the higher the tonnages deposited, the higher the

frequency of collections. The differences in time spent per visit reflect the

number of bins actually collected from each site, as opposed to the number of

bins that could be swapped around.

4.3 Data Collection

Key to the success of this trial was the collation of data, both quantitative and

qualitative. The analysed data illustrates any changes in the quantities of

materials collected throughout the trial; potentially as a result of the installation

of rescape™ banks, as discussed below, or the implementation of incentive

schemes, as discussed in Section 5. It also enables the economics of the trial to

be evaluated and modelled.

The key data recorded throughout this project was as follows:

Weekly tonnages collected, by material, by site

Number of Eurobin lifts per visit and time taken

Cleanliness of site and quality of material collected

Weight of RORO container and the equivalent number of Eurobins

Christian Salvesen didn’t have the capability to weigh individual Eurobins so a

visual assessment of fullness was made on each bin using the markings

moulded into the bin of ¼, ½, ¾ or Full. The tonnage on the weighbridge ticket

for each RORO container sent to the recyclers was then divided by the number

bins and their respective fullness that were contained within each load. Thus

the average bin weight based on a full Eurobin was constantly updated as

weighbridge tickets were received.


64

4.3.1 Local Authority Data

Each local authority was requested to provide benchmarking data for weekly

tonnages collected both at the trial site (if available at site level) and

throughout the authority as a whole, for the 12 months preceding the trial.

Authorities were also asked to provide weekly tonnage figures from the

remainder of their bring network and their kerbside schemes during the trial

itself. Further detail regarding participating authorities, the local areas and their

recycling activities can be found in Section 3 of this report.

In the local authorities where the trials were being undertaken there was an

additional requirement for them to assist with the removal of the old-style

banks and the transfer of collection responsibilities.

Monthly collection tonnages for each trial site were fed back to the respective

authorities.

The remainder of this section presents the key research findings from the

period following the installation of the new-style rescape™ banks.

4.4 FOSR Trial – Data Collection

The analysis has been carried out and reported on three levels as listed below.

Note the full data reporting didn’t commence across all 6 sites until the fourth

week of the trial

Total Tonnages

Total Tonnages by Trial Site

Total Tonnages by Material

Finally, the provision of site tonnage levels prior to the installation of the banks

is discussed and conclusions on the quantitative impact of the rescape™ banks

are made.


65

4.4.1 Total Tonnages

The total weekly tonnages (all materials combined), collected at all trial sites is

illustrated in Figure 4.1 below. Weeks 4 to 33 illustrate the period following the

installation of the rescape™ banks (see appendix 9 for the project week

definitions), with the incentive schemes introduced in week 15.

Figure 4.1: Total Weekly Tonnages Collected

15

20

25

30

35

40

4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32

Week

To

nn

age

Incentive SchemesNew-style Banks

From this graph it can be seen that the weekly tonnages of materials collected

from all six trial sites, following the installation of rescape™ banks appear to

follow an upward trend. In order to identify which, if any, specific trial sites or

individual materials contributed to this upward trend, each is considered below.

4.4.2 Total Tonnages by Trial Site

In order to identify any trends, each trial site is analysed individually below.

When considering the tonnages collected over the trial period, it is important to

bear in mind the influence of seasonal factors on the tonnages collected.

Previous studies have shown that seasonal trends are evident in the volume of

recyclate collected over the Christmas season, as well as in the summer.

However, it should be noted that little information on seasonality exists and it is

apparent from previous work that seasonal trends are more obvious when data


66

is collected over many seasons; therefore it is likely that the data collected

during this trial will not be sufficient to clearly illustrate such trends. Where

peaks relating to the Christmas period are evident in the FOSR data, they have

been noted in the report.

Chingford, Waltham Forest

As can be seen in Figure 4.2 below, no obvious increase in weekly tonnages

was recorded throughout the trial at the Chingford store. It should be noted

that the small peak at week 29 corresponds with Christmas where consumption

and availability of recyclate are higher. Furthermore, if this graph is reproduced

for each material stream as displayed in appendix 8, no individual material

shows an obvious weekly tonnage increase over the course of the trial although

plastic bottles do reveal a slight increase in tonnages.

From September 2005 (week 13 onwards), Waltham Forest Borough Council

changed from fortnightly kerbside collections to weekly collections; no impact is

visible in the graph below, but it is possible that the lack of growth in weekly

tonnages is as a result of more regular kerbside collections.

Figure 4.2: Total Tonnages Collected at the Chingford Trial Site

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33

Week

To

nn

age

Christmas Period


67

Haringey

The increase in weekly tonnages recorded following the installation of the

rescape™ banks at the Haringey trial site is clearly illustrated in Figure 4.3

below. It should be noted that the peak around week 28-30 corresponds with

Christmas and New Year when consumption and recyclate availability is seen to

be higher. When reproduced for each material stream as displayed in appendix

8, these graphs appear to illustrate increasing weekly tonnages for paper &

card and plastic bottles.

Figure 4.3: Total Tonnages Collected at Haringey Trial Site

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32

Week

To

nn

ag

e

Christmas Period

There are numerous factors which can influence recycling rates, making it

extremely difficult to pinpoint a specific cause for an increase in tonnages

collected. Whilst it appears the installation of the rescape™ banks have had a

very positive impact on recycling rates at Haringey, the following factors may

also have contributed:

Plastic Bottles, cartons and card are not collected at most other bring sites in

the local vicinity

Haringey has an above average recycling rate for Greater London (18%)

Lowest coverage of kerbside collection of all Boroughs involved in the trial

(83% - this figure remained unchanged throughout the trial period.)


68

Kingston

It is also possible to identify an upward trend in the weekly tonnage collected at

Kingston, as seen in Figure 4.4 below. It should be noted that the peak at week

30 corresponds with New Year once again.

Figure 4.4: Tonnages Collected at Kingston upon Thames Trial Site

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32

Week

To

nn

age

Christmas Period

Richmond

The increase in weekly tonnage recorded following the installation of the

rescape™ banks at the Richmond trial site is clearly illustrated in Figure 4.5

below. The tonnages collected at Richmond are considerably higher than any of

the trial sites investigated, which appears to be a result of the high tonnages of

paper & card collected here. It should be noted that the peak at week 30

corresponds with New Year. When reproduced for each material stream as

displayed in Appendix 8, these graphs appear to illustrate increasing weekly

tonnages for paper & card and plastic bottles.

Following week 21 two new Eurobins were added to the Richmond site for the

collection of paper & card, which was experiencing overflow problems. This

corresponds to an increase in tonnages collected.


69

Figure 4.5: Tonnages Collected at Richmond Trial Site

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32

Week

To

nn

age

Christmas Period

Richmond has the most comprehensive coverage in terms of recycling facilities

of the Boroughs participating in the trial and the highest recycling rate of 28%.

These factors could imply that residents have a better awareness of recycling

and as such responded well to the new rescape™ banks and wider choice of

material banks.

Wandsworth


was recorded throughout the trial at the Wandsworth store. It should be noted

that the small peak at week 30 corresponds with New Year. Furthermore, if this

graph is reproduced for each material stream as displayed in Appendix 8, no

individual material shows an obvious weekly tonnage increase over the course

of the trial.


70

Figure 4.6: Total Tonnages Collected at Wandsworth Trial Site

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32

Week

To

nn

age

Christmas Period

It should be noted that the tonnages collected at Wandsworth are seen to be

considerably lower than at all other sites. This could possibly be due to the wide

kerbside coverage of 95% and the superior tonnages collected.

Winchmore Hill


was recorded throughout the trial at the Winchmore Hill store in Enfield. It

should be noted that the small peak at week 30 corresponds with New Year.

Furthermore, if this graph is reproduced for each material stream as displayed

in Appendix 8, no individual material shows an obvious weekly tonnage

increase over the course of the trial.


71

Figure 4.7: Tonnages Collected at the Winchmore Hill Trial Site

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

5.5

6

6.5

7

4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32

Week

To

nn

age

Christmas Period

4.4.3 Total Tonnages by Material Stream

Each material stream is considered below in order to identify any trends. Three

material streams showed obvious increases in weekly tonnages throughout the

trial; cartons, paper & card and plastic bottles. This is illustrated in Figures 4.8–

4.10.

Cartons and plastic bottles were two new material streams introduced at all the

trial sites. It is possible that some of the increase in tonnages was due to

increasing awareness of the carton and plastic bottle banks.


72

Cartons

Figure 4.8: Weekly Carton Tonnages

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

0.45

0.50

4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32

Week Number

To

nn

es

coll

ecte

d p

er

sit

e

Chingford

Haringey

Kingston

Richmond

Wandsworth

Winchmore hill

Christmas period

Seasonal variations in carton collections are unlikely to have affected collection

tonnages; retailers questioned about the sales of fruit juice (often packaged in

cartons) revealed that this does not vary throughout the year. As stated above

the increasing trend evident in cartons collections could relate to the recent

introduction of this material to the bring sites, however no one store appears to

be particularly influencing the increase.


73

Paper & Card

Figure 4.9: Weekly Paper & Card Tonnages

0

5

10

15

20

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33

Week

To

nn

es C

oll

ecte

d p

er

Sit

e

Chingford

Haringey

Kingston

Richmond

Wandsworth

Winchmore hill

Christmas period

Paper & card collections are seen to increase throughout the trial period; this

increase appears to be influenced by the Richmond site, which collected

considerably higher tonnages than any other site. This site saw the introduction

of two new Eurobins in week 21 for the collection of paper & card, and as can

be seen in the graph, Richmond collected higher tonnages after this point.

Although this trend was evident before reaching the Christmas period, it does

appear that during this time the tonnages collected did peak.


74

Plastic Bottles

Figure 4.10: Weekly Plastic Bottle Tonnages

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33

Week

To

nn

es

Co

lle

cte

d p

er S

ite

Chingford

Haringey

Kingston

Richmond

Wandsworth

Winchmore hill

Christmas period

The collected tonnages of plastic bottles are seen to increase throughout the

trial period, particularly at Richmond and Chingford, where the highest

tonnages were collected. Collections were seen to peak just before and after

the Christmas period.


75

Metal Cans

Figure 4.11: Weekly Metal Cans Tonnages

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33

Week

To

nn

es

Co

lle

cte

d p

er

Sit

e

Chingford

Haringey

Kingston

Richmond

Wandsworth

Winchmore hill

Christmas period

In general, the tonnage of metal cans collected appears to vary throughout the

trial, but does not show a specific increase if the Christmas peak is excluded.

Slightly higher tonnages collected over this period is expected due to the

increased consumption of alcoholic drinks from cans.


76

Brown Glass

Figure 4.12: Weekly Brown Glass Tonnages

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33

Week

To

nn

es

Co

lle

cte

d p

er

Sit

e

Chingford

Haringey

Kingston

Richmond

Wandsworth

Winchmore hill

Christmas period

The tonnages of brown glass collected appear varied throughout the trial

period, with a slight upward increase evident overall. Winchmore Hill is seen to

have collected the highest tonnages of brown glass in the trial with peaks at

this store evident following Christmas, this maybe due to the high consumption

of products during the period or may be related to no collections taking place in

week 29, inevitably increasing collected tonnages in the weeks that followed.


77

Clear Glass

Figure 4.13: Weekly Clear Glass Tonnages

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33

Week

To

nn

es

Co

lle

cte

d p

er

Sit

e

Chingford

Haringey

Kingston

Richmond

Winchmore hill

Wandsworth

Christmas period

Clear glass is seen to have been collected in the largest volumes from

Winchmore Hill once again, peaking at this site and in total over the Christmas

period. This would be expected as a result of high consumption of alcoholic

beverages. It does appear that during the summer higher tonnages were seen

than in the autumn months, which again may be related to peaks expected in

drink consumption, however the data is not comprehensive enough to be sure

such changes are related to seasonal trends.


78

Green Glass

Figure 4.14 Weekly Green Glass Tonnages

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33

Week

To

nn

es

Co

lle

cte

d p

er S

ite

Chingford

Haringey

Kingston

Richmond

Wandsworth

Winchmore hill

Christmas period

As with clear and brown glass, green glass was collected in its highest volumes

from Winchmore Hill. Peaks are evident during the Christmas season which is

likely to be due to the increase consumption of wine from green glass bottles.

The peak in week 16 may be related to the introduction of the incentive scheme

on this material in week 15; however no sound conclusions can be drawn on

this.

4.4.4 Comparison with Benchmark Data

In terms of data provided on a site specific basis by the Borough Councils there

was limited information available as follows:

Chingford - no site specific data available

Haringey - estimated monthly tonnages

Kingston - no site specific data available

Richmond - estimated monthly average tonnages

Wandsworth - no site specific data available

Winchmore Hill - no site specific data available


79

This was mainly due to a lack of on-board weighing for vehicles collecting from

these sites and as a result of the councils adopting a round robin approach to

picking up materials which means it is impossible to identify exact tonnages by

any particular site on that route.

As part of the benchmarking study, bank fullness was noted but the subjectivity

of the method of assessment means no statistical significance can be placed on

the findings.

The data provided by Haringey and Richmond is discussed below.

Haringey

The most comprehensive data received was for the Haringey trial site; this was

analysed and the findings discussed and illustrated in Figure 4.15 and Figure

4.16 below.

Figure 4.15: Tonnages Collected at Haringey, Pre- and During Trial

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

Jul-04

Aug-04

Sep-04

Oct-04

Nov-04

Dec-04

Jan-05

Feb-05

Mar-05

Apr-05

May-05

Jun-05

Jul-05

Aug-05

Sep-05

Oct-05

Nov-05

Dec-05

Jan-06

To

nn

es C

olle

cted

Clear glass

Green glass

Brown glass

Mixed Cans


According to the data supplied by the London Borough of Haringey, it would

appear that the majority of materials available for recycling at the site before

the trial (green glass, clear glass and metal cans), experienced increasing

weekly collection tonnages during the trial, as illustrated in Figure 4.15 above.


80

However, both brown glass and paper & card recorded lower collection

tonnages. Paper tonnages are illustrated separately in Figure 4.16 below, due

to the much larger tonnages collected.

Figure 4.16: Paper Tonnages Collected at Haringey, Pre- and During Trial

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

Apr-0

4

Aug-0

4

Nov-0

4

Feb-0

5

May

-05

Sep-0

5

Dec-0

5

Mar

-06

Month

To

nn

es c

olle

cted


The reported tonnages of paper collected at the Haringey site were significantly

higher and appeared more erratic than those recorded during the FOSR trial. It

is surprising that no reports of excessive overflows were made, which would

have been expected at least initially. Furthermore, the tonnages collected

remained reasonably constant during the trial, contrary to the highly variable

tonnages recorded by Haringey Borough Council.

Richmond

The London Borough of Richmond was able to provide average monthly

tonnages collected for each material at the trial site prior to the installation of

the rescape™ banks. Due to the data being averages, no in-depth analysis

could be carried out, however a number of observations can be made and these

are illustrated in Table 4.4.


81

Table 4.4: Average monthly tonnages collected before and during the trial

Table 4.4 indicates that the only materials to increase in tonnage levels during

the FOSR trial were clear and green glass; all other materials appear to have

recorded lower tonnages. However, these figures are only indicative and can

not be statistically proven and should be considered with caution.

4.4.5 Conclusions on the Quantitative Impacts of the rescape™ banks

Graphs of the Haringey, Kingston and Richmond trial site tonnages show

upward trends in collection levels, as do the material streams (all sites

combined) of cartons, paper & card and plastic bottles. It was also evident that

over the Christmas period the majority of stores and materials saw peaks in

tonnages collected.

Due to the reliability and level of data provided on tonnage levels collected at

the trial sites before the installation of the banks, it has not been possible to

accurately compare tonnage levels before and after the change of banks.

4.5 Qualitative Impact of New Style Banks (cleanliness,

overflow)

In addition to the tonnages of materials collected through the rescape™ banks,

it is important to assess elements such as the cleanliness of the sites, material

overflows, material contamination, ease of servicing and down-time of the

banks.

Before Trial During Trial Difference Bring - Total 28.72 27.78 -0.94 Bring - Amber glass 1.71 1.1 -0.61 Bring - Clear glass 1.98 2.34 0.36 Bring - Green glass 2.25 4.1 1.85 Bring - Mixed cans 0.4 0.3 -0.1 Bring - Paper & card 22.38 18.29 -4.09


82

It should however be noted that that these elements are a reflection of the

operational aspects of the trial and not the effectiveness of the rescape™ banks

themselves; changing collection schedules or bins numbers, for example, would

most likely eliminate any issues.

4.5.1 Cleanliness of the Trial Sites

Overall

During the trial Christian Salvesen swept around the banks on each visit to a

site and the units were cleaned at least once a week, therefore maintaining

their appearance. Upon each visit, the cleanliness of the banks and surrounding

area was assessed and recorded as good, average or bad prior to the cleaning

of the area. This process is clearly subjective and was recorded by different

surveyors and as such the results should be regarded with caution.

From the records made, it is appears the banks were in an average or good

state over 95% of the time, as displayed in Figure 4.17. The days that banks

were recorded to be untidy for most stores were near the beginning of the trial

and in weeks 30-31, which coincides with the Christmas and New Year period

(Figure 4.18).


83

Figure 4.17: Overall State of Cleanliness at all Trial Sites (% of time)

95.17% 4.83%Total

Good or Average Bad

Figure 4.18: Overall Cleanliness of the rescape™ Banks

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

90.00%

100.00%

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33

Week

Cle

an

lin

ess

(%

of

tim

e)

Average or Good

Bad


84

While based on a limited snapshot of time the results obtained from the

benchmarking study carried out prior to the installation of the rescape™ banks

showed the banks to be in a clean state only two thirds of the time. The results

from the trial may suggests that cleanliness has improved since the

introduction of the rescape™ banks.

Cleanliness by Store

Figure 4.19 below illustrates the cleanliness of the banks and surrounding areas

on an individual store basis:

Figure 4.19: Cleanliness (% of time) of rescape™ Banks per Store

94.1%

92.5%

97.1%

92.0%

98.8%

96.6%

5.9%

7.5%

2.9%

8.0%

1.2%

3.4%

Chingford

Harringay

Kingston

Richmond

Wandsworth

Winchmore Hill

Average & Good Bad

This graph shows that cleanliness appears worst at Richmond, however at 92%

average or good cleanliness, this is still very high and a large improvement on

pre-trial cleanliness. Occurrences of paper overflow, detailed in Section 4.5.2

are one likely cause of bad reports and this store in particular being subject to

dumping of non-packaging materials like textiles and carpet. However, in

general it appears that all sites were able to provide a clean environment for

recycling.


85

4.5.2 Overflow at the Trial Sites

The occurrence of overflow of banks was noted, as well as at which material

bank this had occurred. In this study overflow was defined as any bin

overflowing (internal to the rescape™ bank) or where material had been

deposited outside the bank. Therefore it is important to note that not all

incidents of overflow would have been visible to the public. Overflow was

generally caused by one or more of the following factors:

Bins being full (not visible to public)

Capacity for high volume materials limited by constraints of trial

Inclusion of cardboard to be collected with paper

Bank holes not big enough for selected materials

Chutes jammed with material

Laziness of the recycler

It is important to stress that the design of the rescape™ unit has little impact

on the occurrence of overflow and that it is predominantly an operational issue

which was often considered to be a result of textile fly tipping or plastic carrier

bags. Unfortunately in the trial, operational effectiveness was budget

constrained due to the number of sites requiring optimised resources and hence

the relative levels of overflow were significantly higher than would be expected.

With more flexibility of staff / vehicles as a result of servicing a greater number

of sites, the service could be more reactive to surges in demand thus nipping

overflow in the bud.

Overflow by Trial Site

When considering the occurrences of overflow by store it is possible to identify

Richmond as encountering the most problems. This is related to the cleanliness

conclusions drawn in Section 4.5.1, where Richmond was observed as unclean

on more occasions than the other sites. Wandsworth is shown in the graph

below to have the least occurrences of overflow and was also found to be the

cleanest trial site. It should be noted that this probably as a result of the lowest

tonnages being collected at this site.


86

Figure 4.20: Occurrences and Type of Overflow by Trial Site

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Chingford Haringey Kingston Richmond Wandsworth Winchmore Hill

Nu

mb

er

of

oc

cu

ren

ces

Bin Blocked

Bin Full

Dumped by bin

Figure 4.20 also reveals bin fullness as being the cause of most incidents of

overflow, which due to the design of the rescape™ banks, is less likely to have

been visible to the public. Richmond collected the highest tonnage of material

during the trials and as all sites had equal numbers of banks/capacity, it is not

surprising more overflow was observed.

Overflow by Material

As a result of the observations made above, further analysis was carried out by

material stream (Figure 4.21).


87

Figure 4.21: Materials Causing Overflow by Store

The occurrence of overflows is directly related to the volume of material being

collected. Thus, paper & card and plastic bottles exhibited the highest

occurrence of overflows due to their high fill rate. It is worthwhile noting that

overflows were not categorised as being internal or external so this graph

illustrates the total recorded.

It was identified early in the trial that cardboard was getting blocked in the

chutes of the banks, giving the false impression that the banks were full. The

approach to rectifying this problem is detailed below in Section 4.5.4 of this

report and illustrated in Figures 4.22 and 4.23 below.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35


CartonsGlassMetal cansPaper & cardPlastic bottlesTextiles


88

Figure 4.22: Richmond Incidents of Overflow

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Week

Nu

mb

er o

f In

cid

en

ts

Original Chute

New Chute

New chute installed

Additional banks installed

Figure 4.23: Kingston Incidents of Overflow

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Week

Nu

mb

er

of

Inc

iden

ts

Original Chute

New Chute

New Chute Installed

At Richmond it is clear that the redesign of the chute considerably reduced the

occurrence of overflow. Also, two additional Eurobins, primarily for collection of

card, were placed to the side of the rescape™ banks (at the end of October

2005.)


89

Kingston does show a trend of fewer occurrences of overflow following the

introduction of the new chute; however the graph is distorted by the peak

recorded over the Christmas and New Year period, where overflow would be

expected to be higher. No additional banks were installed at this site as per

Richmond and as such overflow occurrences would not be expected to reduced

as dramatically. It is important to note that the majority of paper overflows

after the new chutes were installed occurred within the bank and thus were not

visible to the public.

A further contributory factor to the results established on overflow is the

number of times the banks were monitored. Table 4.5 indicates that Richmond

was subject to the most monitoring time and Wandsworth the least.

Table 4.5: Time spent monitoring banks by store

To reduce incidence of overflow in the future a number of steps can be taken:

The number of bays of the rescape™ unit needs to reflect the volumes that

were previously collected.

Consideration needs to be given as to the inclusion of lightweight, high

volume materials in the collection mix.

The design of the holes needs to accommodate larger items but not at the

expense of increasing the amount of contamination.

Service Agreements need to be made with all service operators to ensure

that the rescape™ banks are emptied on a regular basis as are the textile

banks.

Compaction of materials may be an option but this adds cost and complexity.

Average time spent per week by

monitoring staff

Average time spent per week by van

staff Chingford 3.16 5.66 Haringey 2.91 3.63 Kingston 2.70 5.80 Richmond 4.00 6.44 Wandsworth 2.88 2.52 Winchmore Hill 2.52 4.42


90

4.5.3 Contamination

It must be stressed that the overall quality of collected material was very good,

but it is usual for materials collected to be subject to some degree of

contamination by unsuitable or different materials being deposited.

Contamination levels throughout the trial were considered very low.

Incidents of contamination were observed by monitoring staff as shown in

Figure 4.24 below.

Figure 4.24: Observed Incidents of Contamination

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70


Nu

mb

er o

f in

cid

ents

Cans

Cartons

Glass

Paper/ Card

Plastic

The data indicates that plastic bottles were subject to the most cases of

contamination. This was expected as the plastic bottle banks were not intended

to collect other plastic items, but recyclers appeared to have been unaware of

this to a certain extent. Plastic carrier bags and yogurt pots are examples of

contaminants.

To reduce incidents of contamination in future, a number of steps can be taken:

Better information can be displayed on the banks indicating what can be

collected and what can’t.


91

This information should also include details of alternative sites where those

materials can be recycled.

4.5.4 Conclusions on the Qualitative Impact of New Style Banks

From the records made, the banks were in an average or good state over 95%

of the time. Reports of untidiness were predominantly made towards the

beginning of the trial or over the festive period. Results of the limited

benchmarking study prior to the trial indicated banks were in a clean state only

two thirds of the time.

Levels of material overflow were very low throughout the project. However, of

the incidents recorded, Richmond experienced the highest levels of overflow

and consequently untidiness (8%) and Wandsworth the lowest levels of

overflow and untidiness (1.2%).

Overflow relates to the volume of material collected; this was reflected in the

fact that paper & card and plastic bottles were the most common overflow

materials. Cardboard jamming in the rescape™ chutes towards the beginning of

the project caused additional overflow at Kingston and Richmond.

The overall quality of collected material was very good, however of all the

material streams plastic bottles were subject to the most contamination,

potentially due to the misconception of what plastics could be recycled.

4.6 Issues Arising During the Trial

A number of issues arose that will have impacted the trial to some degree.

These included some contamination of plastics, commercial dumping of paper,

the collection of card (and card jamming in the banks), slow removal of old-

style banks by local authorities and limited provision of data by local

authorities. There are all discussed in turn below.


92

4.6.1 Quality of Recyclate

Contamination

The quality of material collected was very good, with only one RORO container

of plastic rejected from the recyclers out of a total of 160 RORO containers (all

materials). Limited contamination had been identified amongst plastic bottles

and cartons, principally as a result of lack of consumer awareness of what

materials could be deposited. This could be minimised in the future with the use

of more prescriptive iconography and guides to what should and shouldn’t be

deposited in the banks.

Commercial Waste

Amongst the paper & card there was a significant amount of commercial waste

(large quantities of local papers, some still bound) deposited at all the sites,

which led to bins overflowing. It was noted that none of the stores where the

trial was operating were open 24 hours although the car parks were accessible

any time. It was presumed that commercial dumping also occurred prior to the

trial commencing.

4.6.2 Materials Collected

Cost of Paper & Card Collection

The inclusion of paper & card collected together as opposed to separately

significantly impacted operations. Collections were initially based on collecting

260kg – 290kg of paper in a 1,280l container (based on figures provided by

Taylor’s), however, by incorporating card this weight dropped to 160kg. As a

consequence paper and card accounted for over 50% of the cost of collection

but the material revenue represented only 30% of the total.


93

Cartons

From a research perspective the data collected on tonnages of cartons provided

a useful guide to potential volumes on a roll-out and also represented a high

profile route for collection of cartons. However there was no revenue stream for

the collected material which although negated to a certain extent by storage

responsibilities being passed to the Liquid Food Carton Manufacturers

Association nonetheless added an extra cost burden to the project as well as

reducing the available capacity for the collection of other materials.

4.6.3 Local Authority Participation

Local Authority Removal of Banks

The change from the existing facilities to the rescape™ units required careful

coordination to ensure there was no interruption to the recycling service.

Unfortunately failure to remove facilities in line with the intended build start

date caused delays in Chingford, Kingston and Winchmore Hill; however the

completion of the build was still implemented on time.

4.6.4 Operational Observations

Standard Bank Module

In a commercial environment the number of bays within each rescape™ system

would reflect the expected volumes at each site. However as this was a trial a

standard 10-bay unit was adopted across all the sites for comparative

purposes. As a consequence this increased the occurrence of overflow

especially at the high volume sites like Richmond.

Aperture Size

The aperture sizes in banks were designed to maximise the variety of

recyclables to fit, but to minimise fly tipping and contamination. The size of the

bank holes and slots were benchmarked on existing infrastructure; slots were


94

adopted for paper & card and for carton, while all other materials were posted

through round holes.

Problems were experienced with some large glass and plastic bottles that didn’t

fit through the holes and were thus placed outside the unit giving the

impression it was full. Examples of these bottles included shaped glass bottles

and large plastic bottles like detergent bottles, 6 pint milk bottles and 4 litre

water bottles.

Material Chutes

The chutes on each door are designed to channel recyclate into the centre of

each bin and to indicate to the consumer when the bin is full. This is shown

below in Figure 4.25.

Figure 4.25: Profile View of a Material Chute

Problems were experienced with the collection of cardboard because consumers

were placing too large pieces of cardboard into the chutes without folding them.

As such the cardboard became jammed on the back plate of the chute giving a

false impression that the bin was full.

The first approach to solve this problem was to remove the chutes at Richmond

where the problem was most prevalent. Unfortunately, without the chute there

was no control of how material was channelled into the unit and no indication of

whether the unit was overflowing.

Eurobin

Chute

Material Flow


95

The second approach involved redesigning the chute by reducing the size of the

back plate. This was successful in preventing jamming and directing material

into the Eurobin. However, there was still no indication of whether the unit was

overflowing. To rectify this situation, the back bin was pulled flush to the front

bin so that when the front bin was full material would fall into the back bin,

thus reducing the amount of overflow. An unintended advantage of this

approach was that any overflow was contained within the bank, thus remaining

dry and out of site of the public.

5. Introduction of Incentive Schemes

A further objective of this project was to assess whether the introduction of

incentive schemes would positively affect recycling rates at the trial sites. Two

types of incentive schemes were implemented during the trial, from week 16

through to week 33: an individual incentive scheme and a community-based

reward scheme.

Promotion of the incentive schemes was limited to the sites themselves and

their corresponding Sainsbury’s stores. Wider promotion of the schemes could

have resulted in higher participation rates, however the purpose of the

incentives was not to encourage ‘switching’ or diversion of recyclate from other

collection facilities or schemes, but to increase the participation of current

recyclers, non-recycling Sainsbury’s customers or the public who routinely pass

one of the trial sites as part of their everyday activities.

Both incentive schemes were launched in the week commencing 26th

September 2005 (Week 16) and ran until the end of the trial.

This section of the report analyses:

The impact of the individual incentive scheme.

The impact of the community-based reward scheme.

The effectiveness of the individual vs. the community-based incentive scheme.


96

5.1 Individual Incentive Schemes

5.1.1 Selected Trial Sites and Stores

In order to establish whether one type of scheme had a greater impact on

recycling rates than the other, three trial sites and stores were nominated for

participation in the individual incentive scheme and three for the community-

based reward scheme. The following sites and Sainsbury’s stores were chosen

for the individual incentive scheme:

Chingford (Low affluence area)

Richmond (High affluence area)

Wandsworth (High affluence area)

5.1.2 Details of the Individual Incentive Scheme

The Concept

The concept behind the individual scheme was ‘message in a bottle’. Recyclers

were asked to leave contact details inside any bottles being deposited (plastic

or glass), in order to enter into a monthly prize draw.

The Rewards

A chance to win £150 worth of music/DVD vouchers. Two draws were made for

each site (one for glass and one for plastic bottles) at the end of October,

November, December and January.

Promotion of Scheme

The following promotional activities were used in each store:

In store promotional methods, including shelf talkers (20 per store), till

dividers (20 per store) and leaflets at checkouts/customer services (500 per

store)

Posters on banks (6 x A2)

Leafleting of customers at the front of stores


97

Displays of prize winners’ names on the rescape™ banks

PR and articles in local press

Figure 5.1: Individual Incentive Poster Congratulating Winner and Encouraging

Participation

Selection of Winners

Winners were chosen by regularly removing bottles from both the plastic and

glass bins in order to carry out a final draw and at the end of each month. A

manual check of entry levels was undertaken on a daily basis and from this it

was established that the participation rate was very low at all 3 sites selected.

Table 5.1 below shows how many winners were identified at each site per

material


98

Table 5.1: Individual Incentive Winners

October November December January

Chingford 1 Glass

1 Plastic

0 Glass

1 Plastic

0 Glass

1 Plastic

0 Glass

0 Plastic

Richmond 1 Glass

1 Plastic

1 Glass

0 Plastic

0 Glass

1 Plastic

0 Glass

0 Plastic

Wandsworth 0 Glass

1 Plastic

1 Glass

1 Plastic

0 Glass

0 Plastic

0 Glass

0 Plastic

As participation was low, consumers were directly engaged at the sites to

assess the reason why they weren’t participating in the draws. Over the course

of 1 day at all three sites in October, the majority of respondents were unaware

of the draw or didn’t feel the incentives were directed at them.

Of the winners selected, very few went for multiple entries despite bringing

along a number of containers to be recycled.

5.1.3 Impact on Recycling Rate

To assess whether the individual incentive scheme positively impacted recycling

rates, analyses were carried out on a number of levels. Firstly, the overall

tonnage of material collected at the three trial sites combined, secondly the

overall tonnages collected per individual material, and finally both total and

individual material tonnages at each specific site. This three pronged approach

aimed to establish:

Whether the total tonnage of material collected from the three trial sites

increased.

Which, if any, material streams experienced increased recycling rates.

Which, if any, trial sites experienced increased recycling rates.

It should however be noted that other factors may have influenced the

tonnages collected during this time, in addition to the incentive scheme, and

therefore any changes commented upon in this section cannot be attributed to

the incentive scheme alone.

Overall Tonnage


99

The total tonnage of all materials combined from the three trial sites appeared

to slightly increase in the run-up to the launch of the individual incentive

scheme. Following the launch this trend appears to have been amplified as

tonnage figures picked up, however this increase may have been expected as a

result of more awareness of the facilities and the peak evident in the Christmas

season. This is illustrated in Figure 5.2 below.

Figure 5.2: Pre and Post-incentive Growth Trends (total tonnage)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Week

To

nn

es

Co

llec

ted

Pre-Incentive Tonnages

Incentive Tonnages

Individual Incentive scheme launched

Tonnage by Material

In order to establish which materials were responsible for this upward trend of

collections following the introduction of the incentive scheme, each individual

material was analysed. Due to the nature of the scheme, plastic bottles and

glass were the only materials that were actually incentivised and as such

changes in these materials are of particular interest. These changes are

displayed in the following graphs:


100

Plastic Bottles

Figure 5.3: Tonnages Collected of Plastic Bottles

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33

Week

To

nn

es

Co

llec

ted

Chingford

Richmond

Wandsworth

Individual incentive scheme launched

From the graph it does appear that the collections of plastic bottles did increase

at Richmond and Chingford following the introduction of the scheme. However,

as collections were on the rise before the incentive scheme it is not possible to

say whether the increases would have happened naturally anyway.


101

Glass

Figure 5.4: Tonnages Collected of Glass in Total

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33

Week

To

nn

es

Co

llect

ed

Chingford

Richmond

Wandsworth


When the figures for the glass material streams are combined, no significant

trends can be seen. In order to see if any particular colour of glass followed a

significant trend, each was analysed individually; the only colour appearing to

follow a trend was green glass, as shown in figure 5.5:


102

Green Glass

Figure 5.5: Tonnages Collected of Green Glass

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

1.60

1.80

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33

Week

To

nn

es

Co

llec

ted

Chingford

Richmond

Wandsworth


From looking at Figure 5.5 it does appear that green glass collections increased

slightly after the scheme was launched in Richmond. However, this trend was

apparent before the launch of the scheme and it is not possible to say which

factors were contributory to this trend.

Materials that were not incentivised were also analysed and it was evident that

paper & card was the only other material to have shown increased collection

tonnages:


103

Paper & Card

Figure 5.6: Tonnages Collected of Paper & Card

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33

Week

To

nn

es

Co

llec

ted

Chingford

Richmond

Wandsworth


As shown by Figure 5.6, it is evident that the tonnages of paper & card

collected were seen to increase following the launch of the incentive scheme in

Richmond. As paper & card was not a material stream included in the incentive

scheme it is unlikely that this increases can be attributed to the incentive

scheme.

Total Tonnage by Trial Site

Tonnages collected at Richmond appeared to increase throughout the trial,

however, following the introduction of the individual incentive scheme tonnages

collected appeared to be higher and to increase at a steeper rate. However, this

change is predominantly due to an increase in paper & card as the tonnages

collected for this material were considerably higher than for other material

streams. In week 21 Richmond saw the addition of two Eurobins for paper &

card collections, which are more likely to be responsible for the higher tonnages

collected than the incentive scheme.


104

At Chingford and Wandsworth, very similar tonnages appear to have been

collected before and after the launch of the scheme.

Figure 5.7: Total Tonnages Before and During the Incentive Scheme

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Week

To

nn

es

co

lle

cte

d

Chingford

Richmond

Wandsworth

Individual Incentive scheme launched

The relationship between each store’s tonnages and the total collected was

analysed in order to establish which stores appeared to be more influential over

the tonnages collected. It was found that Richmond was the only site

considered to have a significant positive correlation with the total tonnages

collected (correlation co-efficient of 0.92), principally due to the levels of paper

collected. As paper was not incentivised and there are many influential factors

that would have affected the tonnages collected it is not possible to attribute

any changes in the tonnages collected to the individual incentive scheme.

5.2 Community-Based Reward Schemes

As with the individual incentive scheme, it should be noted that other factors

may have influenced the tonnages collected during the incentive period, in

addition to the incentive scheme, and therefore any changes commented upon

in this section cannot be attributed to the incentive scheme alone.


105

5.2.1 Selected Trial Sites and Stores

In order to compare whether either type of scheme had a greater impact on

recycling rates than the other, three trial sites and stores were nominated for

participation in the individual incentive scheme and three for the community-

based reward scheme. The following sites and Sainsbury’s stores were chosen

for the community-based reward scheme:

Haringey (Low affluence area)

Kingston (High affluence area)

Winchmore Hill (Low affluence area)

5.2.2 Details of the Community Incentive Scheme

The Concept

The community scheme offered an incentive to the local community to raise

money for the Youth Sports Trust by collecting increased amounts of glass and

plastic bottles. The calculation was made by comparing the average weekly

collection during the first 3 months of the trial, with the average weekly

collection during the incentive period. The difference was applied to a donation

scale and funds given to the Youth Sports Trust.

The Rewards

The donation scale applied to collected tonnages stated that for every 5%

increase up to 50%, £75 was donated. For increases over 50% an additional

bonus of £250 was donated. The following sums of money are to be donated to

the Youth Sports Trust:

Table 5.2: Community Sums to be Donated

Glass Containers (maximum £1,000 per

store)

Plastic Bottles (maximum £1,000

per store) Harringey £675 £1,000 Kingston £150 £1,000 Winchmore Hill £75 £675


106

Promotion of Scheme

The following promotional activities were used in each store:

In store promotional methods, including shelf talkers (20 per store), till

dividers (20 per store) and leaflets at checkouts/customer services (500 per

store)

Posters on banks (6 x A2)

Leafleting of customers at the front of stores

Photocalls carried out with 2 Boroughs running the community schemes

Local press releases

Figure 5.8: Example poster promoting community incentive

5.2.3 Impact on Recycling Rate

To assess whether the community-based reward scheme positively impacted

recycling rates, analyses were carried out on a number of levels. Firstly, the

overall tonnage of material collected at the three trial sites combined, secondly

the overall tonnages collected per individual material, and finally both total and

individual material tonnages at each specific site. This three pronged

approached aimed to establish:

Whether the total tonnage of material collected from the three trial sites

increased

Which, if any, material streams experienced increased recycling rates

Which, if any, trial sites experienced increased recycling rates

It should however be noted that other factors will have been acting upon the

tonnages collected during this time, as well as the incentive scheme and

therefore any changes remarked upon in this section cannot be attributed to

the incentive scheme alone.


107

Overall Tonnage

The total tonnage of all materials combined from the three trial sites

experienced a steady increase in the run-up to the launch of the community-

based reward scheme. Following the launch of the scheme tonnages collected

are seen to increase at a similar rate; this is illustrated below in Figure 5.9.

Figure 5.9: Pre and Post-incentive Growth Trends (total tonnage)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Week

To

nn

es c

olle

cted

Pre-Incentive Tonnages

Incentive Tonnages

Community-based incentive scheme launched

Tonnage by Material

In order to establish if any particular materials experienced upward or

downward trends following the introduction of the reward scheme, each

individual material was analysed. As with the individual incentive, the scheme

incentivised plastic bottle and glass recycling and as such these materials are of

particular interest.

It appeared that the materials collecting a higher average weekly tonnage after

the incentive scheme was launched were plastic bottles and paper & card, as

shown in the graphs below. Once again, these increases cannot be directly

attributed to the incentive scheme.


108

Figure 5.10: Plastic Bottle Tonnages for Community Reward Scheme

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33

Week

To

nn

ag

e C

olle

cte

d

Haringey

Kingston

Winchmore hill


In particular, the Haringey and Kingston sites show increased tonnages of

plastic bottles collected following the launch of the community incentive

scheme. However, it is also evident that this trend was exhibited at the

beginning of the trials and too many factors are influential to attribute this

increase to the reward scheme alone.

In terms of the impact on glass collection levels, only Haringey saw a general

rise in the tonnages of total glass collected. Once again this trend was evident

prior to the reward scheme’s launch. Each colour stream of glass was also

analysed; no particular stream illustrated any significant increases in tonnage

collected.

Materials that were not incentivised were also investigated and it was found

that paper & card illustrated an upward trend in tonnages collected, as shown

in Figure 5.11. An increase in tonnages is apparent following the introduction of

the reward scheme, particularly in Kingston. It is difficult to attribute this

increase directly to the reward scheme and certainly the peaks around weeks

28-30 are due to increased consumption over the festive period.


109

Figure 5.11: Tonnages Collected of Paper & Card

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33

Week

To

nn

es C

oll

ecte

d

Haringey

Kingston

Winchmore hill


Tonnage by Trial Site

Figure 5.12 illustrates the tonnages collected before and during the incentive

scheme launch at the three participating trial sites. The Kingston site shows an

increasing total tonnage collected before the scheme was launched that

becomes more pronounced during the incentive scheme. This increase in

tonnage can be mostly attributed to an increase in paper & card collections.

Winchmore Hill appears to show a decline in the tonnages collected before the

community reward scheme launch, followed by a slight rise. Haringey exhibits a

different pattern again, showing a steep rise in collected tonnages before the

scheme’s launch followed by a slightly less pronounced increase in tonnages

during the reward scheme.


110

Figure 5.12: Site Tonnages Collected Before & During Community-based Reward Scheme

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Week

To

nn

es

co

lle

cte

d

Haringey

Kingston

WinchmoreHill


If the relationship between each store’s tonnages and the total collected is

analysed, it shows that all the trial sites show a significant positive relationship

between their own and the total tonnages collected. However, Kingston was

found to exhibit the strongest relationship (correlation co-efficient of 0.88).

5.3 Comparison of Individual vs. Community

Figure 5.13 illustrates the tonnages collected from the two sets of stores before

and during both incentive schemes. It appears that prior to the launch of the

schemes, the community-based reward scheme sites were collecting tonnages

at a slightly steeper rate. However, following the introduction of the two

incentive schemes, tonnages collected at the two sets of sites appear to

increase at similar levels. This could suggest a slightly greater impact from the

Individual Incentive Scheme, however it should once again be noted that due to

the nature of the trial, it is not possible to directly attribute tonnage increases

to one particular factor. It is expected that many factors would have influenced

the tonnages of material collected including seasonal trends, varying levels of

recycling awareness and Borough characteristics.


111

Figure 5.13: Total Tonnages Collected Before and During both Incentive Schemes

0

5

10

15

20

25

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Week

To

nn

es

Co

llect

ed

community

individual

Incentive schemes launched

5.4 Conclusions on the Impact of Incentive Schemes

From this trial, no robust evidence was found to show either type of incentive

scheme positively (or negatively) impacted the levels of tonnages collected.

This was predominantly due to the fact that it was not possible to directly relate

any changes in tonnages to the introduction of incentives. Factors such as the

new banks themselves, site changes and seasonality can all affect tonnages.

There is however a significant amount of evidence to suggest that incentives

can influence collection levels19, however realistically, this trial was too small

scale to support existing studies.

An important conclusion that can be drawn is that consumer awareness is

critical. Within a retail environment there are multiple sources of information

trying to sell goods and services to the consumer; recycling messages easily

get lost in the background.

19 See various work undertaken by Prof Tucker at Paisley University


112

To suitably raise awareness, a more direct approach is needed to engage non-

recyclers and encourage existing recyclers to participate more. Messages

should be targeted at specific groups, with a variety of rewards that are

suitable to each group e.g. electronic goods like iPod’s are more attractive to

younger people. Promotion with the store, but in the local vicinity would

increase the available target audience.


113

6. Key Research Questions Answered

In this section of the report, a number of questions are answered that are key

to the outcome of the trial and the future development of front of store

recycling. These are:

Did recycling rates increase with the new FOSR facilities?

How does existing infrastructure influence the new FOSR facilities and

recycling rates?

How do the characteristics of an area influence the level of success?

Did incentives encourage an increase in recycling?

What are the principle barriers to introducing FOSR and how could they be

overcome?

What would you do differently?

These questions are answered in turn below.

6.1 Did Recycling Rates Increase with the New FOSR

Facilities?

This question is answered in two parts, firstly whether higher recycling rates

were achieved using the rescape™ banks and secondly whether the introduction

of these banks impacted the kerbside or bring recycling levels for the authority

as a whole.

Detailed information on the introduction of the new-style rescape™ banks can

be found in Section 4 of this report.

6.1.1 Did Recycling Rates Increase with rescape™ Banks?

The analysis employed to answer this question looked at the data on three

levels:

Total tonnages collected

Individual material tonnages collected

Tonnages collected at each trial site


114

Total Tonnages

Figure 6.1 below illustrates a gradually increasing trend in the overall weekly

tonnages collected following the installation of the new-style rescape™ banks

showed. However, this trend is only indicative and can not be taken as

statistically significant.

Figure 6.1 Total Tonnage and Paper & Card Tonnage Collected with New-Style Banks

9

14

19

24

29

34

39

4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32

Week

To

nn

ag

e

Paper & Card

Total

This graph also shows that the tonnages for paper & card collected correlates

highly (0.91) with that of the total tonnage of materials collected. This is not

surprising and simply reflects the fact that paper & card was the dominant

material, in terms of weight, to be recycled.

Individual Material Tonnages

The total tonnage of recyclate collected was broken down and analysed by

material, to identify whether any material specific increases were achieved. The

results are shown in Figure 6.1 for paper & card and Figure 6.2 for the

remaining materials.


115

Figure 6.2: Individual Material Tonnages Collected with New-Style Banks

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29

Week

To

nn

ag

e

Brown Glass

Cartons

Clear Glass

Green Glass

Metal Cans

Paper & Card

Plastic Bottles

These graphs appear to show that paper & card, plastic bottles and cartons all

show increasing recycling rates; clear glass, metals cans and green glass

remained fairly constant. This is in stark contrast to the majority of bring trends

identified throughout the London Boroughs involved in the trial, which are in

decline.

Plastic bottles and cartons were not collected at any of the trial sites before the

installation of the rescape™ banks, therefore increases in recycling rates are

likely to be linked with increasing levels of public awareness in addition to the

new facilities.

Trial Site Tonnages

Haringey, Kingston and Richmond trial sites all appeared to experience

increases in the total tonnages of materials collected over the six months

following the installation of the rescape™ banks. Chingford, Winchmore Hill and

Wandsworth all showed a fairly flat, although undulating, trend.


116

6.2 Have Existing Local Authority Collections Influenced the

New FOSR Facilities’ Recycling Rates?

Local authority recycling collections in the six boroughs included in the FOSR

trial can be divided into four categories: kerbside, bring, CA and estates

recycling. In considering whether the collection infrastructures of the boroughs

have influenced FOSR trial recycling rates, relationships between the tonnage

levels collected during the trial and the collection formats have been analysed,

along with any impact of changes made to the collections during the trial

period. Relationships between individual material streams are also considered

where relevant.

This question is answered in two parts

1. Influence of kerbside collections, including estates recycling

2. Influence of bring recycling, including CA sites

It should however be noted that the recyclers using the various FOSR trial sites

may not reside within the respective Borough, therefore the relationships and

observations suggested below should be read with caution.

Further, more detailed information on the trial local authorities can be found in

Section 3 of this report.

6.2.1 Influence of kerbside and Estates Recycling

Table 6.1 provides a summary of kerbside and estates recycling in each

Borough, along with some of the characteristics of the Boroughs, such as

number of households and affluence levels. A more comprehensive version of

this table that includes bring and CA site data can be found in Appendix 10.


117

Table 6.1: Borough Characteristics and Kerbside (including Estates) Recycling Infrastructures

Relationship Between Kerbside Coverage and Trial Tonnages in Each Borough

Correlations were carried out for each site to determine whether a relationship

existed between kerbside tonnages collected during the trial and those collected

from the rescape™ sites. Only one site was found to have a significant

correlation; Haringey revealed that as kerbside collected tonnage increased so

too did trial tonnage. No one particular material was thought to be responsible

for this correlation and due to the small volume of data these tests were

performed on, the significance of this test is not high. It should therefore be

concluded that no significant relationship exists between kerbside collections

and FOSR tonnages.

Despite no correlation, it is likely that the very high tonnages collected on

kerbside in Wandsworth have influenced the very low tonnages collected at the


118

Wandsworth FOSR site and the low tonnages collected on kerbside in Kingston

have influenced the high tonnages collected at the Kingston FOSR site. If data

had been able to be provided on a weekly basis from the authorities, the

correlations performed would have been more significant in their findings and

may have produced different results.

Relationship Between Estates Recycling and Trial Tonnages in Each Borough

Correlations were also carried out on trial tonnages and tonnages collected by

estate banks (only available for Richmond, Wandsworth and Winchmore Hill.)

The only site found to have a significant result was Winchmore Hill, implying

that as estate collections increased, so too did the tonnages collected from the

rescape™ trial site. Again, if data had been provided on a weekly basis from the

authorities, these correlations performed would have been more significant in

their findings and may have produced different results, therefore questioning

their reliability.

Relationship Between Recycling Rate and Trial Tonnages in Each Borough

Finally, the recycling rate in each authority was considered and compared to

the total tonnages collected by the rescape™ banks. It did appear that in

general the authorities with the higher rate of recycling collected higher

tonnages during the trials. However, Kingston appeared to be an exception to

this with a recycling rate of only 13.35%, but collecting the second highest

tonnages during the trials.

Changes within the Borough

The following figure outlines changes in kerbside and estates recycling

infrastructure in the Boroughs during the trial. A comment regarding impact on

trial tonnages is given for each.


119

Table 6.2: Changes in Kerbside and Estates Recycling Infrastructure

Local Authority Factors Comment


Kerbside increased from fortnightly to weekly in September 2005

Cardboard added to kerbside in September 2005.

Overall tonnages collected remain reasonably steady throughout trial, after an initial increase. No obvious impact of kerbside increase on trial.

Cardboard tonnages vary throughout trial and no obvious impact of this launch

Haringey No changes made. Kingston No changes made. Richmond Kerbside Plastic Bottle Trial

(2350 households) August 2005

Kerbside Cardboard Trial (2350 households) August 2005

Estates Recycling incentive

Plastic Bottle tonnages increased throughout the FOSR trial, no obvious impact of plastic bottle trial

Slight increase in paper & card tonnage throughout FOSR trial, no obvious impact of cardboard trial

No obvious impact on FOSR tonnages during the incentive

Wandsworth Estate banks rolled out generally during trials

Tonnages collected are low compared to other sites, but cannot conclude over impact of estate banks.

Winchmore Hill, Enfield

Door-knocking campaign to encourage kerbside recycling.

Tonnages at trial site gradually increase over study, but no obvious impact of campaign on tonnages collected.

6.2.2 Influence of Bring and CA Recycling

Table 6.3 provides a summary of bring and CA recycling in each authority,

along with some of the characteristics of the Boroughs, such as number of

households and affluence levels. A more comprehensive version of this table

that includes kerbside and estates recycling data can be found in Appendix 10.


120

Table 6.3: Borough Characteristics and Bring (Including CA) Recycling Infrastructures

Relationship Between Bring Site Density and Trial Tonnages in Each Borough

The total tonnages collected at each trial site were compared with the bring site

density in each authority. It was found that based on this small sample of data,

there was a significant negative correlation between the two variables

indicating that as site density increased the tonnage collected at the trial site

declined. This relationship could be a result of authorities offering a more

comprehensive recycling service resulting in residents having a better

awareness of this and as such higher recycling levels form the trial sites.

However, as the correlation is based on a low sample base the significance of

this statistical test is brought into question.

Relationship Between Number of Bring Sites and Trial Tonnages in Each

Borough


121

By conducting correlations between the tonnages collected at the trial sites

compared to that collected by bring sites in each authority, it was possible to

establish that no significant relationship could be identified between these two

variables. However, if data had been provided on a weekly basis from the

authorities, these correlations performed would have been more significant in

their findings and may have produced different results.

Competition with other Bring Banks/CA Sites in the Local Vicinity

From a survey of the authorities’ recycling facilities provided locally, it appears

that those sites of high affluence (Richmond, Kingston and Wandsworth) were

able to provide a more comprehensive service. Within these authorities more

materials were collected at the local bring and CA sites and as such were

considered to offer a greater level of competition with the rescape™ banks.

The following figure outlines changes in bring and CA recycling infrastructure in

the Boroughs during the trial. A comment regarding impact on trial tonnages is

given for each.

Table 6.4: Changes in Bring & CA Recycling Infrastructure

Local Authority Factors Comment

Haringey DEFRA sponsored incentive scheme for bring recycling.

Gradual increase in tonnages collected throughout trial noted, but no obvious impact of incentive reported.

Kingston Street recycling bins banks installed from October 2005.

Bring banks updated to 1,100litre in October 2005.

Slight levelling off of collected tonnage nearer the trial end; however this cannot be solely attributed to bank changes in the Authority.

Richmond Investment into bring facilities, especially cardboard.

Collected tonnages at the trial site are seen to increase throughout the period, especially in paper & card and therefore this appears not to have impacted the trial.


No changes made.

Wandsworth No changes made.

Winchmore Hill, Enfield

No changes made.


122

Have Existing Local Authority Collections Influenced the New FOSR Facilities’

Recycling Rates?

From the information provided by the Borough Councils, there was no evidence

that local authority collections affected recycling rates at the new rescape™

banks.

This said, in Wandsworth where the highest kerbside tonnages are collected,

the lowest rescape™ tonnages were recorded. Further more in Kingston which

collects the lowest kerbside tonnages, the second highest rescape™ tonnages

were recorded.

6.3 How do the Characteristics of an Area Influence the

Level of Success?

There are many external characteristics, or socio-demographics, (in addition to

various collection infrastructures) that can affect levels of bring recycling,

whether at FOSR or at a local authority recycling site. What is certain is that

different combinations of factors work best for different sites; it is difficult to

say if any one factor on its own has a significant effect.

The factors have been considered are listed below, however it should be noted

that the recyclers using the various FOSR trial sites may not reside within the

respective Borough and therefore the relationships and observations suggested

should be read with an element of caution.

Affluence

Population density

Population size

Home ownership

Proximity to central London

Local Events

Table 6.3 provides a summary of information on Borough characteristics and

recycling infrastructures.


123

6.3.1 Affluence

Three of the Boroughs participating in the trial were considered to be of high

affluence (Kingston, Richmond, Wandsworth) and three of low affluence

(Enfield, Chingford, Haringey), as detailed in Section 3.1 of this report.

It was anticipated, due to the higher volumes of waste generally produced by

more affluent households, that the collection tonnages would be higher from

the more affluence areas. This was true of two of the high-affluence sites

(Kingston and Richmond), but the third high-affluence site (Wandsworth)

recorded the lowest overall tonnage for the trial despite having the largest

population. However, Wandsworth Borough Council reported the highest

recorded tonnages collected on kerbside; highlighting the point made above

that it is not one single factor, but a combination of factors that determines

performance.

If individual materials are considered, Richmond and Kingston are in the top

three for every material stream and Wandsworth lies bottom for every material.

The low-affluent Winchmore Hill site in Enfield however, recorded the highest

overall tonnage for all colours of glass.

Figure 6.3 illustrates the tonnages by material collected from the high affluence

and low affluence sites, highlighting the lack of correlation.


124

Figure 6.3: Tonnages by Material for High and Low Affluent Sites

(excluding paper)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

paper & card green glass clear glass brown glass plastic metal cans cartons

To

nn

es C

olle

cte

d

High affluence

Low affluence

The quantity of paper and card collected from the ‘affluent sites’ is significantly

higher; this is predominantly due to the levels of paper and card collected at

Richmond, although Kingston also collected significant quantities. One

explanation for this could be the quantity of larger/thicker broadsheet papers

read in these areas. However, higher levels of commercial dumping of paper,

for example, could also be responsible and without further research it would be

an incorrect presumption. Once again high-affluence Wandsworth collected the

lowest tonnage for paper & card.

In conclusion it can be stated that no direct correlation between affluence and

levels of materials collected can be identified from this trial. However, it should

be noted that as the tests were performed on a low number of samples, the

results obtained are of a low significance.

6.3.2 Number of Households and Population Density

The number of households, population density and total tonnage collected from

the FOSR trial for the six boroughs are as follows:


125

Table 6.5: Borough Household and Population Density Figures

Council No of Households

Population Density

Total Trial Tonnage

Chingford, Waltham Forest 117,000 5674.7 131.0

Haringey 96,000 7202.8 89.5

Kingston 61,426 3958.9 159.4

Richmond 78,407 2983.1 222.2

Wandsworth 93,714 7716.4 38.0

Winchmore Hill, Enfield 124,719 3403.1 163.7

Number of Households

From the FOSR trial data, there is a negative correlation of 0.7 between the

number of households in the local authority areas and the overall tonnage

collected from each of the areas. This is illustrated in Figure 6.4. Winchmore Hill

is an outlier of this relationship; when the data was analysed without this site,

the negative correlation increased to 0.8. It should be noted that as the tests

were performed on a low number of samples, the results obtained are of a low

significance and therefore the results should be considered with caution.

Figure 6.4: Correlations of Tonnages Collected and Households in Each Borough

0.00

50.00

100.00

150.00

200.00

250.00

40000 50000 60000 70000 80000 90000 100000 110000 120000 130000

Number of Households

To

nn

es C

olle

cte

d

Kingston

Richmond

Waltham Forest

Haringey

Enfield

Wandsworth


126

Once again, other factors are likely to have influenced this correlation, such as:

Kerbside service available – Wandsworth collects the highest tonnage on

kerbside.

Local bring site competition – Wandsworth has two competitive bring sites

nearby.

Population Density

The population density of each Borough was compared to the tonnage of

material collected at each trial site; it was established that as density increases,

the volume of recyclate collected decreases (correlation co-efficient of -0.95),

as shown in Figure 6.5.

Figure 6.5: Correlations of Tonnage Collected and Population Density in Each Borough

0.00

50.00

100.00

150.00

200.00

250.00

2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000

Population Density (people/km2)

To

nn

es C

olle

cted

Richmond

Enfield

Kingston

Waltham Forest

Haringey

Wandsworth

Additional influential factors to consider include:

Population density increases with the percentage of population living in flats

(correlation of 0.95).

Flatted properties generally have less room to store recyclate.

Flats are less accessible for kerbside collections, potentially reducing

awareness of recycling.

Richmond/Kingston have the highest level of car ownership facilitating

transportation of recyclate.


127

In conclusion, it can be stated that in this trial significant negative correlations

were found between the total tonnage collected at each trial site and both the

number of households and the population densities of the areas. However,

these correlations should be treated cautiously as other factors may have

caused of influenced these correlations that have not been investigated here

and a low sample base has been used in the tests.

6.3.3 Home Ownership

The percentage of owned property in each Borough was compared to the

overall tonnage of material collected at each site. A strong positive correlation

was established (correlation co-efficient of 0.8), indicating that as property

ownership increases, so too does the tonnage collected (Figure 6.6). It should

be noted that as the tests were performed on a low number of samples, the

results obtained are of a low significance and therefore the results should be

considered with caution.

Figure 6.6: Correlation of Tonnage Collected and Property Ownership in Each Borough

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

0.00 50.00 100.00 150.00 200.00 250.00

Tonnes Collected

Ow

ned

Pro

per

ty (

%)

Wandsworth

Haringey

Waltham Forest

Kingston

Enfield

Richmond


128

Additional influential factors to consider include:

High levels of property ownership suggests higher income levels which tends

towards increased consumerism and recyclable waste.

Higher property ownership is generally found in areas of more mature

residents and it has been previously found that it is older members of the

population that actively partake in recycling.

In conclusion, it can be stated that in this trial a significant correlation was

found between the total tonnage collected at each trial site and the level of

property ownership in each area. However, this correlation should be treated

cautiously as other factors may have caused of influenced the correlation that

have not been investigated here and a low sample base had been used to carry

out these tests.

6.3.4 Proximity to Central London

Figure 6.7 below illustrates the tonnages by material (excluding paper)

collected from the three sites situated closer to the centre of London and the

three sights located further from the centre.

Figure 6.7: Tonnages Collected by Material and by Proximity to Central London

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Brownglass

Cartons Clearglass

Greenglass

Metalcans

PlasticBottles

To

nn

es C

olle

cted

Close

Far

From the graph above it appears that all materials (including paper & card

which is not illustrated due to large tonnages) were collected in higher volumes


129

at those sites located further away from Central London. One possible reason

for this could be that those sites further away from town are likely to have

residents that use cars; transporting material to the banks is easier.

It is interesting to note that central location was a more consistent influencing

factor than low affluence in this trial.

6.3.5 Holidays and Events

The data recorded in the FOSR trial shows a high number of peaks in material

tonnages over the Christmas and New year period, but no other correlations to

events and holidays were identified, as illustrated on the timeline below:

Figure 6.8: External Events and Holidays Occurring During the Trial

Period

Due to the availability of monthly weather reports only, no analysis has not

been carried out on this.

13/06/2005 31/01/2006

01/07/2005 01/08/2005 01/09/2005 01/10/2005 01/11/2005 01/12/2005 01/01/2006

25/12/2005Christmas17/10/2005 - 21/10/2005

half term

07/07/2005London bombings

29/08/2005Bank holiday

31/01/2006Trial complete

26/09/2005incentive schemes launched

20/06/2005 - 03/07/2005Wimbledon

13/06/2005Banks installed

21/07/2005 - 25/07/2005Ashes at Lords

08/09/2005 - 12/09/2005Ashes at Oval

28/08/2005 - 29/08/2005Notting Hill Carnival

12/11/2005Rugby Twickenham

26/11/2005Rugby Twickenham

11/08/2005 - 15/08/2005ashes old trafford

25/08/2005 - 29/08/2005ashes trent bridge

04/08/2005 - 08/08/2005ashes edgebaston

22/07/2005 - 05/09/2005Summer holidays


130

6.4 What are the principle barriers to introducing FOSR and

how could they be overcome?

This project was focussed on the introduction of rescape™ style units rather

than the wider concept of FOSR. With this in mind, the following barriers and

solutions were identified:

6.4.1 Frequent and Regular Servicing of Banks

The sites must be serviced on a regular basis to ensure the prevalence of

overflowing materials is minimised. Clearly the more frequently banks need to

be serviced, the higher the operational costs. Contracts with service providers

need to have Service Level Agreements that stipulate minimum number of

collection days with emergency call-out facilities for times when volumes are

exceptionally high.

6.4.2 Levels of Servicing of Charity Banks

The servicing of the charity banks found alongside the rescape™ banks in this

trial, remained the responsibility of the charities or their subcontractors. In

general Service levels were lower and less frequent than those provided by

Christian Salvesen in this trial. A similar Service Level Agreement needs to be

agreed with Charity service providers so there is no negative impact. An

alternative solution would be to have an agreement where one contractor

manages all the banks on site.

6.4.3 Proximity to and Availability of space at Front of Store

Proximity to the front of the store is imperative to maximise use of the banks,

however the location of the unit has to be balanced against demands from the

retailer in terms of car park layout and space available.

It is also important that the space available for the banks is sufficient, as this

affects the collection capacity of the units (i.e. the number or size of banks).


131

Capacity needs to be sufficient to store the collected materials and minimise the

number of visits to collect material and the associated costs, without

compromising the requirement to reduce overflow.

6.4.4 Cost of Collection of Lightweight Materials

The consumer survey shows one of the key attractions of FOSR is the range of

materials collected. However, the economic report shows the potential cost

impact to the collector for certain lightweight materials. The choice of which

materials to be collected should complement existing bring and kerbside

collection and still provide a viable operating model for the collection

contractor.

6.4.5 Infrastructure and Operational Costs

The two main cost drivers for FOSR are the cost of infrastructure and the

ongoing cost of collection. In respect to the infrastructure, various financing

options can be adopted that spread these costs over a number of years. The

cost of collection is dependent on a number of different factors, such as the

number of times each site is visited, the volume of material to be collected, the

type of material collected, the proximity of suitable recyclers for the material

and the end market value. Achieving a positive economic position is a fine

balance and may require external subsidies to incentivise the investment

required to initiate this approach to FOSR.

6.5 What would you do differently?

If a further trial was to be carried out, with the same budget, the project team

would consider changing the following:


132

6.5.1 Cardboard Collections

Cardboard is very light and takes up significant volume which leads to higher

costs due to the number of collections required and the low value of the

material. The added disadvantage of cardboard collections was it jamming the

chutes due to large pieces of cardboard being deposited in one piece. If

cardboard has to be collected it should be collected separately from paper. If it

is removed from collections signage directing consumers to the nearest point

where they can deposit it is required.

6.5.2 Signage and Iconography

Much clearer information is needed on what can and cannot be deposited in the

banks to decrease the level of contamination. This may also be an opportunity

to engage the public.

6.5.3 Capacity of Units

Rather than building a standard 10 bay unit at all the sites, the capacity of each

set of banks should be matched to the previous collection infrastructure.

6.5.4 Choice of Sites

Proximity of sites should have been one of the selection criteria when the sites

were initially proposed. If all the trial sites were relatively close this would

assist the logistics operations.

6.5.5 Duration

Looking at results over a longer period would have been more beneficial, but

this would involve a much greater understanding of how decisions on trial

format impacted costs and how the trial would have to change to accommodate

a longer duration.


133

6.5.6 Incentives

It may be possible to run both types of incentive at each site over a shorter

period to gauge which is preferential. Investigating whether there is a marginal

level of prize value, by offering different prizes on the individual scheme, may

also be beneficial. With respect to the community incentive, careful

consideration of the beneficiary for the money is required - would it be better to

opt for a more localised community group or charity?

The biggest change to carrying out incentives would be the effort committed to

raising awareness levels; more targeted promotional activity using a number of

different media.


134

7. Economic Model for Sainsbury’s

For the purposes of economic modelling the following data refers to expected

average tonnages on a roll-out of rescape™ to 50 stores that share the same

characteristics as those within the trial in terms of location and demographic /

ACORN profile. The assumption is made that the selected stores are relatively

close together such that route density allows the logistic function to operate at

maximum efficiency. The significant difference in material selection from the

trials is the removal of cardboard. The exclusion of cardboard - which is high

volume and low weight – is to avoid any distortion within the figures. The

inclusion of cardboard within any wide scale roll-out would result in the increase

in the number of times would need to be emptied. Yet the amount spent on

emptying the bins would be reflected in the actual weight of material collected.

The following calculations estimate the weekly costs under the following

categories:

Cost of Collection

Cost of Handling and Logistics

Table 7.1: Estimated Average Collection per Store per Week

Material

Number of Bin lifts (per week)

Full weight of Eurobin (tonnes)

Collected weight fullness (%)

Tonnage of material collected (week)

*Tonnage of material collected (month)

Cartons 1.4 0.026 100% 0.04 0.15 Brown Glass 0.65 0.464 70% 0.21 0.84 Green Glass 2.53 0.370 85% 0.79 3.18 Clear Glass 1.34 0.473 79% 0.50 2.00 Metal Cans 0.86 0.061 100% 0.05 0.21 Paper & magazines 7.10 0.260 100% 1.85 7.38 Plastic Bottles 7.31 0.027 100% 0.19 0.79 TOTAL (weekly) 21.19 - - 3.63 *TOTAL monthly) - - - - 14.55 TOTAL (yearly) 1101.88 188.76

* Monthly figures have been extrapolated from the weekly figures by multiplying by 4 – i.e. the average number of weeks within a month.

Tonnage reduced for paper by 20% to take into account cardboard

element.

Weight of Eurobin for paper increased in line with previously supplied

figures from the bin supplier.


135

The impact of removing card from the materials collected is shown by the

reduction in number of bin lifts from 29.52 to 21.19.

Capital Costs (per annum for 50 sites) £150,000*

(* based on the full value of the units being written off over a 10 year period –

i.e. full capital costs value would be £1,500,000)

Operations / Logistics (per annum for 50 sites) £594,620

(*Figures provided by Valpak were based on a ‘per weekly basis’. These have

therefore been multiplied by 52 in order to provide an approximate yearly

overall figure).

Total cost £744,620

Total cost per annum for a single site (£744,620 / 50 sites) =

£14,892.40

These figures represent the operational costs for the collection service, as well

as the capital costs for the rescape™ units and Eurobins bins, and therefore do

not include the following costs:

Bailing and separation equipment

Rent for land and buildings

Table 7.2: Type of Material, Percentage of Total Tonnage and

Corresponding Value (based on percentage of material present and

overall cost per tonne per annum per site) for Sainsbury Trial Sites

Total cost per annum per site (£)

Total tonnage per annum per site (tonnes)

Cost per tonne per annum per site (£)

14,892.40

188.76

78.90


136

As well as the costs involved in any wide scale roll out of the Rescape Banks, there would

be revenue generated from the sale of the materials collected. This would depend upon the

amount and mix of the different materials collected as well as level of separation. Table 7.3

indicates the potential benefit based upon the material collected at the trail sites using

value per tonne from current materials pricing reports.

Material Tonnage of

material

collected

(month)

Value of collected

material

(£ per tonne)

(all figures from WRAP

Materials Pricing Report

[May 2007] unless

otherwise referenced)

Potential value of

material collected

(month)

Cartons

0.15 tonnes

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Brown Glass

0.84 tonnes

Amber Glass

£23 - £27

£19.32 - £22.68

Green Glass

3.18 tonnes

Green Glass

£15 - £22

£47.70 - £69.96

Clear Glass

2.00 tonnes

Clear Glass

£25 - £34

£50 - £64

Metal Cans

0.21 tonnes

Aluminium Secondary20

£1,095.48 - £1,097.99

Loose light steel scrap21

£40 - £65

£230.06 - £230.58

£8.40 - £13.65

Paper and Magazines

7.38 tonnes

Mixed Papers

£45 – £63

£332.10 - £464.94

20 Materials Recycling Week (June 1 2007) – Non-ferrous London Metal Exchange prices – May 29 21 Ibid – MRW Ferrous Guide Price – Grade 5C

Material

Percentage of total tonnage per annum per site of material specified

Amount of cost per tonne per annum per site (£) of material specified

Cartons 1.10% £0.87 Brown Glass 5.79% £4.57 Green Glass 21.76% £17.17 Clear Glass 13.77% £10.86 Metal Cans 1.38% £1.09 Paper & Magazines 50.96% £40.21 Plastic Bottles 5.23% £4.13


137

Plastic Bottles

0.79 tonnes

Mixed HDPE

£190 - £205

Clear PET

£120 - £175

Coloured PET

£50 - £90

Mixed Polymers/bottles

£90 - £160

£150.10 - £161.95

£94.80 - £138.25

£39.50 - £71.10

£71.10 - £126.40

TOTAL (monthly)

14.55 tonnes £497.02 - £1,014.11*

TOTAL (yearly)

174.60 tonnes £5,964.24 -

£12,169.32*

Table 7.3: Type of Material, Tonnage of Material Collected (per month),

Value of Collected Material and Potential value of collected material if

sold for Sainsbury’s Trial Sites

*Please note the difference between the two figures is due to the lowest

possible value of any item being realised versus the highest possible value

being realised. For example, plastic bottles could be sold for £39.50 per tonne

or £161.95 per tonne depending on sorting.

Any sales value placed on the material collected for recycling should be viewed

as being indicative only. It is likely that any large scale roll-out of the rescape™

units would involve Sainsbury’s negotiating - on both a local and national level -

the sale price of collected material with its logistics / waste management /

waste processor partner. A large part of these negotiations would revolve

around specifying the best possible sale price for the materials collected. For

example, Sainsbury’s may be able to negotiate a higher price per tonne for

plastic bottles (HDPE, PET and mixed), glass, steel and aluminium based on its

corporate profile and promise of volume in terms of business.


138

8. Conclusions

The introduction of rescape™ banks at front of store presented a positive

alternative to existing collection infrastructure.

Unitary construction is easy to build and maintain.

Standardised approach that was bright clean and well lit, allowing plenty of

scope for messaging and interaction with consumers.

The banks offered a smaller collection capacity than the previous

infrastructure, but occupied a significantly smaller footprint.

The location of banks is key to awareness and limiting fly tipping.

The impact of the individual and community incentives was inconclusive

Whether individual or community, incentive schemes needs to work hand in

hand with a targeted awareness campaign.

To maximise their effects, incentives should fill the specific needs of a targeted

audience.

Particular thought needs to be given how awareness can be promoted in-store,

given all the other messages that are being directed at the consumer.

The pay scale and how this awarded needs to be easily understood and

regularly updated to inform consumers of progress.

The selection of materials needs to take into account both consumers

requirements and the cost effectiveness of collections, whilst maintaining an

adequate service level.

Mixing paper with cardboard increases the volume collected and thus the

number of pick-ups required. This drives up the cost and reduces the potential

revenue. The solution would be to collect these materials separately.

Consideration needs to be given to whether green and amber glass are

collected separately from clear glass; separating the materials will provide a

higher revenue, but has storage and collection implications, both in terms of

cost and space availability.


139

The collection of lightweight materials like plastic bottles, metal cans and

cartons is expensive due to the volumes they take up, however their inclusion

can have a positive effect on the volumes deposited of other materials, which

may in turn offset these costs.

If provision is made for collection of plastic bags, receptacles need to be bigger

to cope with the high volumes of plastic bags that are deposited. Consideration

should be made as to whether plastic bags should be collected alongside the

other materials.

Operational service level needs to be consistent in delivery and appropriate to

the type of collection infrastructure installed at the site.

Similar service levels need to be agreed with the parties responsible for

collection of charity banks and textiles as well as the parties responsible for

clearing up fly tipping.

The use of a logistics operator in the collection of materials was a qualified

success.

The use of fixed body vehicles picking up full bins of materials allowed greater

flexibility in organising the number of visits required to each site as each

vehicle could in theory collect all seven different material streams at each visit.

The collection method resulted in low noise levels enabling 24 hour collection,

if required, without significantly impacting local communities.

To enable efficient operation by one operator, sites need to be closely located

to provide route density. Further more a bulking point should be found in close

proximity to reduce travelling distances and times.

This approach also enables the retailer to look at opportunities to optimise

vehicle movements in and out of the store, possibly utilising principles of

reverse logistics for waste material.

The project provided an opportunity for retailers to work with local authorities

and demonstrate a commitment to recycling.

The rescape™ design allows the retailer to brand the unit in their corporate

colours which demonstrates their greater ownership of the collection activities.

This is important from a Corporate Social Responsibility aspect.


140

Front of store activities allow the retailer to work much closer with the local

authority to develop mutually beneficial approaches to increasing the rates of

recycling.

As the initial capital costs for the implementation of the infrastructure are

relatively high, consideration needs to be given as to how to incentivise

retailers to make this type of investment.

Recycling rates appeared to increase with the introduction of rescape™ banks

The overall recycling rate of materials collected throughout the six months

following the installation of rescape™ banks appears to have followed an

increasing trend.

This seems to have been driven by increasing tonnages of paper & card,

however plastic bottles showed the highest individual material growth rate.

On an individual site basis, Haringey, Kingston and Richmond trial sites

appeared to show considerable increases in overall tonnages.

There was no visible impact on other local recycling rates.


that the introduction of the rescape™ banks affected any of their recycling

collection rates.

Existing local authority collections did not appear to influence the new FOSR

facilities’ recycling rates.


that local authority collections affected recycling rates at the new rescape™

banks.

This said, in Wandsworth where the highest kerbside tonnages are collected,

the lowest rescape™ tonnages were recorded. Further more in Kingston, which

collects the lowest kerbside tonnages, the second highest rescape™ tonnages

were recorded.


141

Appendix I: Written Approval from Local Authorities


142

Appendix II: Benchmarking Sheets


143

144

Appendix III: Benchmarking Schedule

145

Appendix IV: Cleanliness of Trial Sites (Benchmarking)

146

Appendix V: Recycle Now Iconography

147

Appendix VI: Iconography Specification


148

Appendix VII: Trial Tonnages by Site and by Material


149


150


151


152


153


154


155


156


157


158


159


160


161


162

Appendix VIII: Trial Weeks & Dates


163

Appendix IX: Trial Borough Characteristics


164

WRAP and Valpak believe the content of this report to be correct as at the date of writing this report. However,

factors such as prices, levels of recycled content and regulatory requirements are subject to change and users of

the report should check with their suppliers to confirm the current situation. In addition, care should be taken in

using any of the cost information provided as it is based upon numerous project-specific assumptions (such as

scale, location, tender context, etc.).

The report does not claim to be exhaustive, nor does it claim to cover all relevant products and specifications

available on the market. While steps have been taken to ensure accuracy, WRAP cannot accept responsibility or

be held liable to any person for any loss or damage arising out of or in connection with this information being

inaccurate, incomplete or misleading. It is the responsibility of the potential user of a material or product to

consult with the supplier or manufacturer and ascertain whether a particular product will satisfy their specific

requirements.

The listing or featuring of a particular product or company does not constitute an endorsement by WRAP and

WRAP cannot guarantee the performance of individual products or materials. For more detail, please refer to

WRAP’s Terms & Conditions on its web site: www.wrap.org.uk.

Documents

Front of Store Recycling Sainsbury’s Trial Sainsburys FINAL_0.pdf · A ‘man-in-a-van’ was employed to visit the sites on days when collections were not scheduled to record fill