January 2009 PHASE 1 REPORT and proposal for Phases 2 and 3

Using Community Based Social Marketing to increase recycling in multi-family buildings

prepared by futureproof

Using Community Based Social Marketing to increase recycling in multi-family buildings: Report of Phase One and Proposal for Phases Two and Three.

Prepared for Metro Vancouver, January 2009

This report uses landscape format for easier reading on a computer monitor, and is laid out for double-sided printing, should printing be required. A plastic binding is discouraged as it is a barrier to recycling. And, of course, this report uses a modern typeface that is illegible unless printed on 100% post-consumer recycled paper.

The original of this report was printed on unused paper reclaimed from the blue bin.

futureproof a Think and Do Tank.

2

3

Executive Summary Overall recycling rates in Metro Vancouver have plateaued at about 55% of waste diverted from landfill. However, multi-family buildings, which house about 50% of the population, only divert 20% of their waste. Furthermore, 61% of the garbage from multi-family is actually recyclable or compostable. Metro Vancouver recognizes that achieving the goals of the Zero Waste Challenge, with the implied goal of 100% waste diversion and the short-term goal of 70% diversion, will require new approaches. Futureproof Consulting was contracted to conduct a pilot project employing Community Based Social Marketing (CBSM) to increase recycling rates at two Metro Vancouver Housing Corporation sites.

Why use CBSM? Research shows that common attempts to modify behaviour are not as successful as their frequency of use might indicate. For example, campaigns which use newspaper advertisements or direct mail have very little impact on behaviour. It is also understood that attitudes reported through surveys may not align with actual behaviour. Incentive programs tend to only work while the incentive is offered, which has long-term budgetary implications. Incentives can also be counter-productive and reduce participation because they transform the behaviour from one motivated by altruism to one motivated by selfishness.

Community Based Social Marketing tries to uncover both the barriers to the desired behaviour, like lack of storage space, as well as the benefits of the desired behaviour, such as increased social status, a sense of belonging, or saving money. CBSM uses findings from the social sciences to craft interventions that actually change behaviour, and tests those interventions with a pilot project.

The results of these pilot studies are then used to implement meaningful and effective broad-based initiatives.

What did we learn about barriers to recycling?

1) We observed multiple infrastructure deficiencies in the recycling system.

• Many residents reported never receiving recycling information. • Surveys found 22 different languages spoken at the two pilot sites, yet all recycling

information is produced only in English. • Recycling signage was out of date and up to one-third of the recycling totes were

missing.

4

• In total, the recycling system volume is only one-tenth the volume of the waste-to-landfill system—greatly at odds with Metro Vancouver’s goal of 70% diversion.

2) Many residents are recycling incorrectly, contaminating the stream with Styrofoam, or, in Port Coquitlam, glass.

3) Residents profess strong environmental values—they want clean water, clean air, and to preserve a good future for their children. At the same time, surveys reveal very strong resistance to reducing waste through buying second-hand goods.

4) Some residents do not see recycling in isolation, and commented they would recycle more if, for example, there was strong community participation.

We propose a basic package to correct the infrastructure deficiencies before beginning CBSM interventions. This will consist of providing more recycling totes and yard waste bins where needed, an information booklet and fridge magnet, and a blue bag to store recycling.

After measuring the impact of this package, we will implement CBSM interventions one at a time, measuring the changes in waste diversion at each step, likely in the following order:

• Work with “block captains” to begin forming on-site ownership of waste diversion and make connections to the benefits of recycling.

• Provide prompts, such stickers on kitchen garbage cans, to remind people to recycle. • Install feedback systems to inform residents of the progress of their diversion efforts

and the impacts that has on conserving resources. • Request personal commitments to engage social norms and the desire to work with the

group. • Create an exchange centre to facilitate re-use of furniture, clothing and electronics and

to collect hazardous wastes like batteries, electronics and pharmaceuticals. Systemic changes will also be necessary or helpful to meet the Zero Waste Challenge goals: • Standardize what is recyclable across Metro Vancouver to reduce confusion, as well as

implementing standard colour-coding and iconography. • Require all haulers operating in Metro Vancouver to provide data on garbage and

recycling weights and volumes. • Change bylaws to make recycling mandatory, not optional, in multi-family buildings.

5

• Provide new residents of Metro Vancouver Housing Corporation with a recycling kit specific to their region. Update and replenish kits as needed.

• Translate core recycling materials and resources to reflect demographics of the region. • Target ethnic media with recycling stories aimed at changing social norms. • MVHC could facilitate future surveys and focus groups by making extra efforts to

maintain phone lists with current information. • Implement a feedback system to ensure missing or broken totes are replaced in a

timely fashion. As results from the CBSM interventions come in, we hope to initiate projects at other Metro Housing sites, and with private property management companies. These projects should not require the same level of focus groups and survey testing, yielding results in less time and at a lower cost.

7

Table of Contents Executive Summary .................................................................................................................. 3 Introduction to futureproof ....................................................................................................... 8 Introduction to this Project........................................................................................................ 9 Why CBSM?........................................................................................................................... 10 Description of Sites................................................................................................................. 11 Demographics ......................................................................................................................... 11 Existing Infrastructure ............................................................................................................ 12 Literature Review.................................................................................................................... 13 Stakeholder Interviews............................................................................................................ 15 Focus Groups .......................................................................................................................... 15 Language Survey .................................................................................................................... 16 Data Collection ....................................................................................................................... 17 Survey Delivery ...................................................................................................................... 18 Survey Findings ...................................................................................................................... 19 Package of Interventions......................................................................................................... 26 Municipalities ......................................................................................................................... 30 Metro Vancouver .................................................................................................................... 30 Metro Housing Corporation.................................................................................................... 30 Waste Haulers ......................................................................................................................... 31 Building Management............................................................................................................. 31 Community Development....................................................................................................... 31 CBSM Interventions ............................................................................................................... 34 Project Expansion ................................................................................................................... 36 References............................................................................................................................... 37 Appendices.............................................................................................................................. 39

8

Introduction to futureproof Lyndsay Poaps is a facilitator and consultant specializing in civic engagement, organizational development and youth. A former Park Board Commissioner for the City of Vancouver, Lyndsay received the prestigious Action Canada Fellowship in public policy and a Masters in Public Policy from Simon Fraser University. She was a founder and Co-Director of Check Your Head, an organization that engages youth in critical thinking through educational workshops and campaigns and is currently the Democratic Spaces coordinator for the Vancouver Public Spaces Network. Ruben Anderson is a Regenerative Systems consultant, and speaks and writes about Urban Permaculture. He recently consulted as an Advisor on Design and Sustainability to the City of Vancouver’s Sustainability Group and Vancouver’s EcoDensity Initiative. He works with developers, green builders and community groups to integrate opportunities for sustainable behaviour into urban life. He is currently teaching Sustainable Design in the Emily Carr University Continuing Studies Program. Our team brings a range of skills relevant to implementing a complex and innovative project such as this. These include: • Strategic planning, policy analysis, sustainability consulting and communication; • Project management, consultation, facilitation and stakeholder engagement; • Qualitative and quantitative research skills, such as survey design, in-depth interviews,

focus groups, research design, data analysis and proficiency with SPSS, the industry-standard software for statistical analysis;

• Whole-systems design, product design and testing.

9

Introduction to this Project Metro Vancouver has achieved enviable recycling rates through conventional communication and public engagement campaigns. However, diversion rates have plateaued with about 55% of waste being diverted from the landfill. This means Metro Vancouver’s Zero Waste Challenge, with the implied goal of 100% waste diversion and the short-term goal of 70% diversion, will require new approaches. Particularly challenging is that multi-family buildings, which house approximately 50% of the population of Metro Vancouver, only recycle about 20% of their waste. Furthermore, 61% of the multi-family garbage is actually recyclable or compostable.1 Futureproof Consulting was contracted to conduct a pilot project employing Community Based Social Marketing to increase recycling rates in Metro Vancouver Housing Corporation multi-family units. Studies have found that traditional campaigns such as newspaper advertisements and direct mail have very little impact on behaviour.2 Additionally, the respondents’ attitudes may not align with their actual behaviour. Thus, it would not be uncommon to find households that profess great love for the environment, who drive a hybrid car and buy organic food, and yet do not recycle aggressively because they do not perceive they have enough room in their home to sort and store recycling.3 Incentive programs are often seen as a way to increase participation; however, they tend to work only while the incentive is offered, which has long-term budgetary implications. Incentives can also be counter-productive and reduce participation because they transform the behaviour from one motivated by altruism to one motivated by economics.4 Claims are often made that recycling must be made convenient, but studies show that if people believe they should continue in a boring or inconvenient task, they will find ways of 1 Sheltair Group and Kelleher Environmental. Metro Vancouver Multiple Family Buildings Waste Diversion Study (Burnaby, BC: Metro Vancouver, 2007) 9. 2 Tom Crompton, (16 October 2008), Weathercocks and Signposts: strategies for change report. World Wildlife Fund wwf.org.uk/strategiesforchange>. 6. Doug McKenzie-Mohr and William Smith. Fostering Sustainable Behaviour (Gabriola Island: New Society Publishers, 1999) 9. 3 Crompton 27. 4 Ori Brafman and Ron Brafman. Sway: The Irresistible Pull of Irrational Behavior (New York: Doubleday Business, 2008) 140-142.

10

making it fun and more convenient themselves.5 This shows the necessity of activating people’s values and self-image in order to convince them the task is worth doing.

Why CBSM? Community Based Social Marketing (CBSM) uses quantitative analysis to test techniques that change behaviour to achieve social goals. CBSM tries to uncover both the barriers to the desired behaviour, like lack of storage space, as well as the benefits of the desired behaviour, such as increased social status, a sense of belonging or financial savings. CBSM uses research from the social sciences to craft interventions that are tested through pilot projects. Data is then collected and analysed to determine whether the intervention had any impact. If the impact is not measurable, or is not as great as desired, another intervention is tried. It must be stressed, however, that CBSM techniques are applicable to projects outside of recycling, and the barriers and benefits uncovered in this project may be useful in other work. As an example, many municipalities are experiencing new challenges as global manufacturing slows and prices for commodities retreat. Therefore, success in increasing recycling rates also increases the challenges of selling the diverted materials. But CBSM can also be used to reduce consumption, thus reducing the total amount of material in the waste stream. The CBSM approach can be very effective at creating programs specific to a location, rather than relying on best practices. In fact, best practices are often not best; they may have worked well someplace else but may not transfer to local conditions. At worst, they are years out of date by the time the project is completed, written up, presented publicly, then implemented in another city. In contrast, pilot projects are a low-cost, alternative way to take risks and experiment with new ideas. If results from the pilot are encouraging, the project can be scaled up for further testing and subsequent broad-scale implementation. Pilots can also be politically palatable. In the event of a project 'failure', no great investment in time or money has been lost. It must be stressed, however, that failure is a very important part of successful pilot projects. Fail fast, fail often and fail forward is the operating principle that encourages multiple, small-scale tests to enhance knowledge and understanding. Knowing what does not work is an essential tool for knowing what does. 5 Edward Deci, Richard Koestner, and Richard Ryan. “Extrinsic Rewards and Intrinsic Motivation in Education: Reconsidered Once Again,” Review of Educational Research, 373-4.

11

Description of Sites Metro Vancouver lies in the southwest corner of British Columbia. It includes 22 municipalities from Bowen Island to Maple Ridge, covers an area of approximately 2800 km2,and is home to 2.2 million people. The two sites participating in this pilot project are in the Municipalities of Surrey and Port Coquitlam. Kingston Gardens is in Surrey, which is south of the Fraser River and has a population of 452,000, while Meridian Village is in Port Coquitlam, north of the Fraser, with 55,000 people.

Kingston Gardens is built on four hectares (10 acres) of land and has considerable open space landscaped with turf and conifers. A notable feature is a storm water catchments area which hosts waterfowl in the rainy season. This residential site is comprised of 192 town homes arranged in four semi-circles. At the time of this report 30 units were unoccupied as they are undergoing building envelope remediation. Kingston Gardens has a very engaged community association that is proactive and representative of the community.

Meridian Village lies on six hectares (15 acres) and is built less tightly than Kingston Gardens. 148 townhouses are spread around six cul-de-sacs, with 64 additional units in one apartment building. The site also contains a child care centre used by families from Meridian and the community at large. Again, there is generous lawn, and very large cedar trees. In contrast to Kingston Gardens, Meridian Village has no community association or community organizing and a number of years ago, voluntarily gave up their community space in favour of a child care facility.

Demographics Metro Vancouver Housing Corporation (MVHC) manages 51 sites in four districts with a total of 3,314 units. Sites range in size from 15 units to 202. Of these, 14 sites are comprised of 30 units or less, 28 sites are 31-99 units and nine sites have 100 or more units. The two sites participating in this pilot project are the largest in the MVHC portfolio. Each housing site has an agreement with the province regarding the types and level of subsidy it can provide to its residents.

Kingston Gardens operates under a subsidy agreement which dictates 30% of the units will be rented as Rent Geared to Income (RGI), where the charge for rent is 30% of income. The remaining 70% of the units are rented as Low End of Market (LEM) units.

12

At Meridian Village the subsidy is fully funded by MVHC. Most units are categorized as LEM, however if the economic situation of residents change they can apply on a case-by-case basis for RGI subsidy.

It is very difficult to assess whether or not the two pilots sites selected for this project are representative of Metro Vancouver Housing sites. MVHC does not keep or collect any demographic data on its residents. Research reveals there is little comparable data suitable for extrapolation to MVHC residents. BC Housing collects some demographic information on its RGI tenants, but does not collect data on residents using other subsidy models. Discussions with MVHC staff indicate that these sites do reflect the different levels of community engagement within the portfolio of housing.

Existing Infrastructure Both Surrey and Port Coquitlam use 96 gallon wheeled totes to collect recycling. Port Coquitlam is single-stream, so all recyclables go in one tote. Surrey is transitioning to single-stream from a three-stream system, but is currently separating Mixed Paper, Newsprint and Containers. Surrey’s recycling is contracted to International Paper Industries, and is collected weekly. The City of Port Coquitlam collects recycling at Meridian every two weeks. Kingston Gardens is divided into four clusters, Kingston One through Kingston Four. Each cluster has garbage and recycling located at the end of each group's parking lot, for a total of eight dumpsters. Each dumpster should be accompanied by three recycling totes, for Mixed Paper, Newspaper and Containers. However, 33% of the totes were missing when this pilot project started, and the signage on the remaining totes was often old, missing or illegible. Meridian Village has town homes arranged in six cul-de-sacs and a 64 unit apartment building. There is one dumpster in each cul-de-sac and at the apartment building. The City of Port Coquitlam collects recycling in a single stream, and will give totes to townhouse developments at a ratio of one tote for three townhouses. At the beginning of this project the ratio for townhouses was approximately correct but the apartment building had only six totes. Furthermore, the distribution of totes has become quite uneven. Some households have taken over one tote and keep it on their step, meaning other households have no totes nearby. Recycling information is difficult to read at Meridian because it is moulded into the plastic of the totes. At both sites, recycling information is presented primarily in English, which presents obvious challenges to those who have difficulty with the language. Garbage dumpsters are emptied three times per week at each site, whereas recycling is only collected weekly in Surrey and bi-weekly in Port Coquitlam. Calculations of volumes and

13

frequency of tipping show that the recycling stream has only 10% of the capacity by volume of the landfill stream. Anecdotal reports, observations, and findings from the focus groups revealed the recycling system is overwhelmed, with materials spilling out of over-full totes at both sites. Some residents reported giving up on recycling because the totes are always full. The problem of missing or broken totes likely involves many stakeholders. There does not seem to be a functioning feedback loop to ensure replacement of missing totes, whether the feedback is from residents to haulers or municipalities or even from truck drivers to their own organizations. Metro Vancouver Housing Corporation Managers requested new totes from MVHC, the municipality, and the hauler on several occasions and were unable to get new totes. This raises concerns about value as well—haulers may have been charging for full pick-up while actually providing only two-thirds the service. Metro Vancouver staff was able to have new totes delivered to Kingston Gardens to bring the infrastructure up to the base level of three totes for each dumpster. Twenty-one additional totes were delivered to Meridian, which increased the available totes by 40% and reduced the number of overflowing totes. This change is being tracked in the recycling data collection. It must be stated that if the intermediate goal of 70% waste diversion to recycling is to be achieved a much larger percentage of the waste system capacity must be devoted to that purpose. Currently, 90% of the system capacity is devoted to garbage, and 80% of the waste collected is landfilled. In order to achieve the goals of the Zero Waste Challenge the ratios must be inverted, with regularly emptied dumpsters used for recycling and small totes used for garbage.

Literature Review The literature review for this project was conducted across a broad range of fields, is detailed in the bibliography, and includes previous studies conducted by or for Metro Vancouver, CBSM research and social marketing reports. Metro Vancouver is contributing important work with this project as most of the recycling literature discusses single-family homes; significantly less looks at multi-family complexes. In addition, much of the work has focused on those who are traditionally seen as holding the levers of power—the governments, haulers and building managers. In contrast, our research has been mostly focused on those who actually have to sort and take out the trash—the residents.

14

Highlights of findings from the literature search are: • Personal contact from neighbours helps create the most durable change.6 • Economic incentives are not durable; if the incentive is removed, the behaviour tends

to stop. In addition economic incentives are not 'infectious', meaning behaviour change caused through economic incentives will not spread change to other behaviours. For example, offering a rebate on compact fluorescent bulbs will not cause people to question their water consumption.7

• Economic incentives trigger a different part of the human brain than do appeals to altruism. Studies have shown that these two parts of the brain cannot function at the same time. Therefore, economic arguments actually block altruistic behaviour and may result in behaviour that is much less desirable than before the incentive was offered.8

• Behaviour change caused by triggering altruism or other social norms is durable and is more likely to be infectious.9

• Unity-with-others is a strong benefit and should be reinforced.10 • Participants need to be assured that recycling is beneficial and that the material

collected is being put to good use, not being landfilled.11 • Women tend to lead in recycling behaviour.12 • Leaders or early adopters need to be encouraged to not give up; to set the example for

others who are not recycling yet.13 • The frequency of collecting recyclables does influence most residents’ recycling

behaviour. The programs with a more frequent weekly collection schedule led many 6 McKenzie-Mohr 79. 7 McKenzie-Mohr 111. Brafman 132-148. 8 Brafman 140-142. Deci 9 Crompton 32. 10 Catherine Kalinowski, Gary Lynne, and Bruce Johnson. “Recycling as a Reflection of Balanced Self-Interest: A Test of the Metaeconomics Approach.” Environment and Behavior. 11 Informa. Multi Residential Recycling System Improvements. (Toronto: Association of Municipal Recycling Coordinators, 2007) 45. 12 Informa 71. 13 Carol Werner and Eeva Makela. “Motivations and Behaviors that Support Recycling,” Journal of Environmental Psychology 375.

15

recyclers to increase their recycling; they perceive biweekly collection to be too infrequent for the amount of recyclables they have.14

• Participants need basic information,15 but this must not be confused with using education campaigns to try to elicit change.16

• Residents experience different barriers and benefits and can sometimes be divided into psychographic as well as ethnic segments. Providing different messaging and interventions to each segment can be very effective.17

• Use of first languages tends to increase the attention certain groups will give to the communications material.18

Stakeholder Interviews Meetings were held with the following groups to set goals for the pilot project, build relationships, and gather knowledge that may not be captured in reports: • Metro Vancouver Corporate Relations • Metro Vancouver Policy and Planning • Metro Vancouver Housing Corporation • Metro Vancouver Housing Corporation building managers • Community Association members.

Focus Groups Six focus groups were held over three evenings in October 2008. Residents were selected at random from a phone list provided by the Metro Vancouver Housing Authority. These phone lists were found to be quite outdated, with nearly 20% of phone numbers out of service or connecting to people no longer residing at the complexes. Each evening was divided into a group of passionate recyclers and a group of less active or non-recyclers. One evening was spent at Kingston Gardens while two evenings were spent at Meridian Village—one evening for townhouses and one for apartment dwellers. 14 City of Waltham. (17 October 2008). “Focus Group Research: How to Conduct It & How to Contract For It,” Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection <http://www.mass.gov/dep/recycle/reduce/focgrprh.p df> 33. 15 Angus Reid Group iv. 16 McKenzie-Mohr 7-11. 17 Angus Reid Group 43. 18 Angus Reid Group 37.

16

Key findings from the focus groups were consistent with the findings of studies previously undertaken for Metro Vancouver by Informa and Angus Reid: • Inconvenience is seen as the main barrier to recycling. The main reason cited for

inconvenience is that recycling containers are not emptied often enough and so are frequently overflowing, are contaminated with non-recyclables and are often stuffed with inappropriately processed recycling such as cardboard boxes which have not been flattened or bulk newspapers dropped off by carriers.

• Leaving a healthy world for our children is seen as the main benefit of recycling. • Overall, residents are dissatisfied with the recycling information they have received.

Many remarked that they had never received specific information from their respective municipalities, or from Metro Housing.

• Many residents felt their home municipality does not treat them as well as residents of single-family homes i.e. Single Family homes are given individual blue boxes and receive collection schedules from the municipality. They suggested this discouraged them from participating more strongly in recycling programs.

• Both recyclers and non-recyclers are somewhat knowledgeable about what can be recycled, but lack some specific and up-to-date information concerning what is recyclable in their municipalities. However, residents at Meridian Village were generally unaware of Port Coquitlam's single stream system, even though that system has been in place since 2003.

• Participants understand the role of recycling and believe recycling helps to improve the environment, but want assurances that their efforts are creating real benefits.

Language Survey A language survey (see Appendices) was delivered to determine if future communications can be conducted solely in English. The intention was to collect language data in advance of doing more detailed surveys, in case the language survey showed multilingual surveys would be necessary. Conducting a language survey is time-consuming but the literature search showed that using first languages can greatly increase the attention some ethnic communities will give to communications.19 Metro Vancouver Housing Corporation communicates with its renters in English only and does not collect data on the mother tongue of their residents. Anecdotal 19 Angus Reid Group iv.

17

information from building managers indicated that many residents did not speak English in the home. The language survey was formatted as a door hanger, and was left on the front door of every residence. The door hanger was printed with the date the surveys would be collected on, a few questions about first languages and whether someone in the home could translate important documents. The survey was printed in six languages, with checkboxes for mother tongue in twelve languages. The return rate from Kingston Gardens was 20.5% while Meridian Village returned 27%. While this is an excellent return rate for many types of survey it is inadequate to determine whether language is a barrier for residents. Out of all the language surveys collected only two respondents did not have someone in the home who could translate English language documents. Follow-up with residents revealed that many assumed the door hanger was junk mail, as they receive many notices and flyers throughout the week. Since the response to the language survey was too low, the question of what language is spoken in the home was asked again in the general survey. Collecting contact and language information could be done when new residents move in, and would be valuable for all subsequent CBSM projects. Language data could be as simple as a check box or space for applicants to fill in their mother tongue. If correct protocol was followed regarding privacy regulation, a system to update contact information would be very useful for subsequent projects requiring community engagement.

Data Collection Metro Vancouver samples the waste stream to collect data for each municipality and the region as a whole. However, this data does not track the waste stream by complex or building, so it cannot be used to gauge whether CBSM interventions are working at the scale of this pilot project. The garbage haulers contracted by Metro Housing Authority collect tipping weights for garbage. This information, which is collected and recorded for each individual dumpster every time it is emptied, is invaluable. However, in order to show changes in recycling behaviour, it is necessary to also measure the recycling. To date there has been no recycling data collection comparable to the data collected for garbage. International Paper Industries, the hauler in Surrey, has no plans to equip their recycling trucks to collect data. The City of Port Coquitlam has discussed equipping trucks to collect recycling data, but has not made immediate plans to do so.

18

Futureproof began collecting recycling weights with a bathroom scale while estimating volumes by eye. Data collection to this point has shown recycling rates of about 12%--lower than the regional average for multi-family buildings. To reduce costs, a resident at Meridian Village has been hired to collect bi-weekly recycling data and a resident from Kingston Gardens may soon take over data collection there. Preliminary talks have been held with Gateway Properties, a private property management company, regarding the inclusion of some of their buildings as control groups. This may become extremely important in order to track region-wide changes caused by downturns in the economy or shifting social norms rather than CBSM interventions. There may also be opportunities to test several specific CBSM interventions concurrently in different buildings, which would greatly increase the speed of verifying their effectiveness.

Survey Delivery A survey (see Appendices) was conducted to test findings from the focus groups and the literature search. Survey questions were reviewed by other survey writers, and then the survey was field tested. In order to find the most cost-effective method of delivering the survey while still achieving a high survey response rate, three delivery methods were tested in a private apartment building. The first method was to offer a free recycling bag and ask the resident to fill out the survey, returning one hour later to pick up the survey. The second method was the same drop-off and pick-up method, but without the incentive of the free bag, and the third was to deliver the survey as a personal interview. Someone who is well trained in delivering surveys can get more nuanced data by conducting personal interviews. However, delivering the surveys in person took over ten minutes per survey and was deemed too time-intensive. The low quality of the phone lists also made telephone surveys impossible. The highest return rate in testing was for the survey drop-off, without the incentive of the recycling bag. There were no consistent difficulties with the question wording so the survey was piloted with five residents at Meridian Village, using the drop-off and pick-up method. Again, no consistent problems were found with the question wording, so final copies were printed and delivery began to all residents at Meridian Village in early December.

19

The second delivery method was used; knocking on the door, and if a resident answered, asking them to fill out a recycling survey for Metro Vancouver which would be picked up in about one hour. This was repeated over four nights to capture people on different schedules. The surveys were folded and delivered inside an envelope boldly printed with the Metro Vancouver logo and METRO VANCOUVER RECYCLING SURVEY. Each survey and envelope was labelled to correspond with the unit number. One or two respondents were uncomfortable with answering demographic questions on a survey that could be traced back to them. This was predicted, but was felt to be necessary in order to later reconnect with respondents who indicated a willingness to volunteer, as well as to residents who experienced a language barrier. We found the best time for delivery to be between the hours of 7:00 and 9:00 p.m. We also delivered surveys on a Saturday afternoon to try to capture shift workers or other people who may not have been home weekday evenings. At Kingston Garden there was a significant number of children, ranging from approximately nine years of age to teenagers, who translated the survey for their parents and helped complete it. Including printing, envelope stuffing, training, travel time to the site, and with some casual labour to speed survey delivery, about 70 person-hours were required for survey delivery at Meridian Village. 116 surveys were gathered from a population of about 200 households. Kingston Gardens is a more compact development, so a similar number of surveys were collected with only 45 person-hours. Kingston Gardens had a significantly higher response rate, which may be attributable to the higher level of community engagement seen at that site. When new complexes are added to this pilot project a sample of the population may be sufficient for reference against this body of data. This will further speed the data collection process and reduce costs.

Survey Findings The survey was completed by 238 of 364 households, giving a response rate of 65%.20 The average length of stay was 6.8 years, with some residents having lived as little as two months on site and the longest 32 years. Respondents were overwhelmingly female at 68.1% which is consistent with BC Housing data. There is an overrepresentation of female heads of households in BC Housing units in general, and in households who pay Rent Geared to 20 This figure accounts for the 30 vacant units under construction at Kingston Gardens.

20

Income specifically. Average household size is 2.97 people and, while 68.1% of respondents speak English in the home, the remaining respondents speak one of 21 other languages. 45.6 % of respondent households have an average annual household income of less then $35,000.21 In contrast, the average household income in Metro Vancouver is approximately $73,258 annually.22 When asked about the highest level of education completed, 37% of respondents indicated having only completed high school, with college completion, at 34.9%, being the next largest group of respondents. Other findings are: • 96 % of households surveyed self-report as recyclers and of these recyclers, 49.6 %

claim to recycle “Always”, 32.8 % describe themselves as “Frequent” recyclers and 15.9 % of those surveyed identify as “Sometimes/Seldom” recyclers.

• The majority of respondents (59 %) reported that they take out their recycling “Whenever the bag is full”.

• While a majority of respondents believe they do know what to recycle in their city, at both Meridian Village and Kingston Gardens incorrect materials, such as Styrofoam, are being placed in the blue bins—22.4% report that they recycle Styrofoam in the blue bin.

• Port Coquitlam’s single stream collection system prohibits the collection of glass, however, 26.3 % of Meridian Village respondents report recycling glass in the blue bins.

• The City of Surrey currently does not collect milk cartons or drink boxes in their recycling systems. Yet 62.9 % of respondents from Kingston Gardens report that their household recycles drink boxes and 50.5 % report recycling paper milk cartons in the blue bins where they are not accepted.

• Only 12.2 % of respondents indicated that they would not drop off any of the items at a central location on site for recycling/exchange. (Batteries, Books, Furniture, Clothes, Electronics/Computers)

• If respondents had to compost the majority (47.8 %) would prefer “compost be picked up by the City, while 34.2 % would like “to compost at a community garden on site”.

• 40.6 % of respondents reported never having received information about recycling from their municipality.

21 28.7 % of respondents declined to reveal their average annual household income. 22 Median income for the region was $55,231 according to 2006 Census data. Statistics Canada via Metro Vancouver Key Facts http://www.metrovancouver.org/about/statistics/Pages/KeyFacts.aspx, 2006.

21

When respondents were asked “Do you notice if your neighbours recycle?” 58.8 % of those surveyed responded yes. This is noteworthy because research on recycling shows the success of the blue box system in single family homes is partially due to individuals putting out the recycling in order to be seen by neighbours as conforming to social norms; to not recycle holds some shame. Multi-family residents in general do not have the same recycling practices (no individual blue box, no personalized pick up day) and it was assumed that they did not experience the same neighbourly pressure to recycle as a result. Not surprisingly, respondents overwhelmingly believe that participating in the recycling programs is good for the environment. Substantial barriers do exist among respondents concerning convenience of recycling. In particular respondents indicated that they do not have enough room for storage of recyclables and that recycling bins are often full. In general, respondents were not discouraged from recycling by the non-recycling habits of their neighbours and believe their municipality is taking recycling seriously.

Table 1

Strongly Agree

%

Moderately Agree

%

Slightly Agree

%

Slightly Disagree

%

Moderately Disagree

%

Strongly Disagree

%

I don’t know what to recycle in my city.

4.8 9.6 16.6 11.8 16.6 40.6

I am afraid of recycling the wrong thing.

7.7 11.2 18.9 11.6 19.7 30.9

I don’t have room to store recycling.

19.4 20.3 18.5 7.3 12.1 22.4

The recycling bins are often full.

36.9 20.2 17.6 9.9 7.7 7.7

Participating in the recycling program is good for the environment.

83.6 2.9 5.5 1.3 1.7 5.0

I am discouraged because my neighbours don’t recycle.

2.6 6.9 14.7 13.4 13.8 48.7

My city doesn’t take recycling seriously.

7.8 11.3 15.2 14.3 21.2 30.3

22

The survey also tested the preliminary findings from the focus groups. A frequent comment in focus groups was that residents felt that they would not put the energy in to recycling at a higher rate because they did not feel that effort was being put into improving the housing complex or their suites. However, it is important to note the survey results, in which more respondents chose I would recycle more if there was strong community participation (27.4 %) versus I would recycle more if my suite was better maintained (20.7 %) or I would recycle more if I was treated the same as a single family home (17.7 %). In this survey, the values of respondents were also tested. Consistent with other values based research survey results show that most respondents strongly agree with the statement “I want to leave a better world for my children and future generations.” Second to that was the strong agreement with the statement “It is important to protect our forests”. Respondents were somewhat less emphatic about their agreement with the statement “I am worried about the impact our society has on the natural world”, with only 64.7 % of respondents strongly agreeing. Clearly, reinforcing messaging that emphasizes how recycling will help to leave a better world for future generations will be important.

Table 2 Strongly

Agree %

Moderately Agree

%

Slightly Agree

%

Slightly Disagree

%

Moderately Disagree

%

Strongly Disagree

% I am concerned about water pollution 66.8 17.6 9.7 2.1 2.5 1.3

Air pollution is a concern for me 60.3 25.3 8.0 1.7 2.5 2.1

I want to leave a better world for my children and future generations.

86.1 7.1 3.4 0.8 0.4 2.1

We should conserve natural resources. 75.6 15.8 6.8 0 0.4 1.3

I am worried about the impact our society has on the natural world.

64.7 20.9 10.6 2.1 0.9 0.9

We need to protect wildlife habitat. 79.4 14.3 4.6 0 0.4 1.3

It is important to protect our forests. 81.9 11.8 4.2 0 0.4 1.7

23

Respondents were questioned about their support or opposition on a variety of waste reduction strategies. In general, there is overall support for the waste reduction strategies. The greatest support came for choosing products in packaging that can be recycled with 63 % strongly support this option. Respondents were less supportive of a waste reduction strategy that involves buying less (30 % strongly support) and respondents were even less supportive of strategies that include buying second hand items with only 19.5 % of respondents strongly supporting this option. Given the current downturn in the commodities market that is affecting the recycling markets, it may be necessary to re-examine these options in order to make them more accepted by residents.

Table 3 Strongly

Support %

Moderately Support

%

Slightly Support

%

Slightly Oppose

%

Moderately Oppose

%

Strongly Oppose

% Buying products in refillable containers. 50.5 27.4 15.6 2.1 1.7 3.0

Buying products with minimal packaging.

57.6 26.7 10.2 1.3 2.1 2.1

Choosing products in packaging that can be recycled

63.0 23.5 8.8 2.5 0.8 1.3

Buying second –hand items. 19.5 22.5 30.5 11.9 7.6 8.1

Composting food and garden waste. 41.5 28.2 20.5 5.6 3.4 0.9

Growing food in community gardens. 32.9 26.9 23.5 8.1 4.3 4.3

Buying less stuff. 30.0 22.7 29.6 5.6 6.9 5.2

24

25 Phase Two

26

CBSM takes a scientific approach; changes must be made one a time, and be measured against a control group to determine if that intervention has any impact. However, we propose to start with a package of interventions to establish a baseline, before testing subsequent interventions individually. There are two reasons for this: the first is time pressure—Metro Vancouver wants results, the residents are eager for change and the consultants do not want to die of old age on this project. The second reason for implementing a package is that the literature, site visits, focus groups and surveys suggest there are some basic, common-sense needs. For example, many residents report not knowing what can be recycled in their municipality and 41% of respondents reported never receiving information on recycling from their municipality. This package is seen in a similar way as replacing missing totes—the goal is to answer the question of what recycling behaviour would be if the system were operating as it should be, but without the benefit of CBSM interventions. In other words, if residents have enough room to put their recyclables and easy access to information about what is recyclable and other existing waste reduction programs, what would their recycling behaviour be? After implementing this package, data on changes in the recycling and garbage rates must be collected for at least two months before the CBSM interventions can begin. This evaluation period can be used to prepare messaging and materials for the CBSM interventions.

Package of Interventions • Provide a detailed booklet of what can be recycled in each municipality. This booklet

will be multilingual where necessary, but will rely mostly on photographs and icons to communicate. The booklet will also detail existing services such as the large-item pick up service offered by IPI in Surrey. Residents need only call the company to arrange pick up of furniture, white goods and tires.

• Provide yard waste totes at Meridian Village. Port Coquitlam allows food waste in their yard waste bin, so this will be a very easy way to test the impact of organic waste diversion on the waste stream. This will also divert grass clippings and other plant materials that are currently going to landfill.

• Residents at Meridian Village need special notice that they are on a single-stream system. The transition to single-stream happened in 2003 but there is still confusion about the system, with many people wanting to do their part by sorting recyclables into three streams. This notice can also introduce the composting system.

27

• Provide a fridge magnet as a simple reference. This will be iconographic and will provide a web address for further information.

• Provide a blue bag for collecting and transporting recycling. Metro has bags with a three-stream graphic printed on the bag, which will be suitable for Kingston Gardens. Existing bags will be modified or new bags made to show the single-stream system for Meridian Village.

• Provide contact emails in the booklet and on the fridge magnets so residents can ask specific questions about recycling. These questions will help pinpoint areas of confusion or special interest, and will guide improvements to the booklet, fridge magnets and other materials for later phases of this project.

• Build a landlord kit of all of the above items to be given to each new tenant, with a system to ensure the kit is delivered and that building managers can get new kits as needed.

28

29 Systemic Changes

30

While the package is being prepared, delivered and evaluated, work can begin on understanding and changing systemic barriers.

Municipalities • As has been noted in earlier Metro Vancouver reports, there is confusion caused by the

lack of standardization of what can be recycled across municipalities. Standardizing recyclables across the region will reduce that confusion, as will implementing standard colour-coding. 23

• Recycling data is currently very coarse. In order to have a greater understanding of changes in waster diversion, working with waste haulers to collect data on garbage and recycling weights and volumes would provide very useful data for future programs.

• Recycling must be required, not optional, in multi-family buildings.24

Metro Vancouver • Continue working with municipalities to standardize what is recyclable across the

region. • Consider creating a set of recycling icons as a regional standard. Ideally, these would

be tested for clarity across cultures. • Coordinate and produce recycling kits for new residents. Update kits as needed. This

process will be easier and less costly after recyclables are standardized. • Collect and analyze new data generated from haulers. • Translation of materials must be dramatically increased. • Recycling stories aimed at changing social norms can be tailored to different cultures

and shared in ethnic media sources.

Metro Housing Corporation • Require all contract haulers to collect recycling weights and volumes. • New-hire Building Managers should be interested in sustainability, and be willing to

work on new sustainability projects as they are implemented. • Update phone lists to ensure current contact information is on file. Develop a system to

maintain the list. 23 Sheltair Group 38. 24 Sheltair,Group 27.

31

• It may be a difficult to collect demographic information on residents. However, it should not be onerous to collect information on language spoken in the home, which will be useful for future communication material.

• Work with haulers and municipalities to build a feedback system that will ensure missing or broken totes are replaced in a timely fashion, and ask for rebates on reduced collection from missing totes.

• Provide core materials and resources in multiple languages.

Waste Haulers • Work with MHA and private building managers to repair infrastructure as needed. • Collect data on garbage and recycling waste.

Building Management • Collect and update contact information and language data. • Give out recycling kits to new residents and ensure kits are replenished and updated as

needed.

Community Development • All building managers, whether private or working for MVHAC, will have better

success if the community feels engaged and active. Newsletters, movie nights, recycling captains and workshops for children could all help build community and increase engagement with recycling.

32

33 Phase Three

34

After collecting data on the impact of the initial package of interventions, the CBSM interventions will begin. These interventions have been chosen based on the results of literature review, the focus groups and the surveys. The order may have to be changed based on feedback from stakeholders, but would likely be implemented roughly as suggested below. After each intervention at least six weeks or two months will be required to collect data in order to measure the effectiveness of that intervention.

CBSM Interventions • Identify and support a network of “recycling captains”, who will become the liaisons

between Metro Vancouver and the residents regarding recycling. • Target female heads of household with support and custom messaging regarding waste

reduction strategies. • Gather public commitments to recycle. A visible, public commitment may be as simple

as a sticker beside the doorbell. An outreach worker would knock, tell the resident that they are gathering pledges to recycle, and if the resident pledges, attach a sticker on the door jamb. This would make public the resident’s participation in the social good of recycling and increase social pressure on those that do not recycle

• Install recycling prompts inside kitchen and bathroom garbage cans. This will help remind residents to recycle instead of throwing something away.

• Install large billboards at complex entrances that are printed with messages such as "Kingston Gardens recycles. Do you?" While this is ostensibly targeted at non-residents, it will send a strong message of the social norms of the community and increase pressure on those who do not recycle.

• Provide general feedback on recycling on the billboards, through a thermometer or other graphic. Metro's goal of 70%, the recycling rate at the start of the project, and the current recycling rate should all be shown. This will inspire competitiveness and communicate social norms.

• Provide specific feedback to residents on the impacts of recycling, through a newsletter, notice or handout. For example, tell them how many trees their paper recycling saved, and how many more trees could be saved if residents recycled the other 60% of their waste. Residents consistently express scepticism that recycling has actual benefits and, if it does, they want to know what those benefits are.

• Create a central exchange center at each complex for residents to leave unwanted furniture, clothing, and books. This could also be a collection point for e-waste, household hazardous waste, batteries and pharmaceuticals. This reduces the waste

35

stream at a higher level than recycling, re-use. This will also have benefits of saving money for the residents and capturing toxics such as e-waste and pharmaceuticals that may be landfilled because the recycling process is too difficult.

• Install large stickers on dumpsters that say LANDFILL or "STOP-for your children, RECYCLE". This will be noticed when residents drive in or throw out their garbage, and will remind them to recycle. This is less proximate to the sorting behaviour than the prompts on kitchen garbage cans, but will provide some value. LANDFILL stickers help communicate the idea that you can’t throw anything away, because there is no away.

• Build community through newsletters, movie nights, recycling captains and workshops for children. Communication about recycling will best come from neighbours, but first the community must be comfortable talking to each other.

• Reduce dumpster size and frequency of pick-up or reverse the collection systems—recyclables into a big dumpster, garbage into a little tote. This more accurately communicates the goals of the Zero Waste Challenge.

• Provide web links to high levels of detail about what is recyclable, what happens to recycling, the impact of recycling and how much their municipalities recycle. The Recycling Council of British Columbia is a good resource, and Metro Vancouver also has a project underway.

• Build community gardens to provide a natural spot to compost or use compost generated by the complex. Gardens are also powerful teaching tools to show children about life cycles and nature as a foundation of why recycling is important. Gardens can also be strong community builders.

• Activate concern for children's future by doing Then and Now photos. Images could show changes in forest cover, water pollution, loss of fish habitat, air pollution or other changes. • Use words like “choose” to activate feelings of self-determination • Strong messages are:

o desire to leave a better world for the next generation o care for the environment o diminishing landfill space o less garbage means reduced incineration

• Be clear why recycling is beneficial. Give feedback on the number of trees saved, tonnes of Greenhouse Gases not emitted, fish habitat preserved.

Messaging

36

• Some messaging may need to be retired in favour of communicating the current situation. For example, a campaign could focus on reducing consumption and re-using over recycling. Recycling is the most basic and least effective thing you can do—it is still important—we must not stop—but it is the least effective.

• Many people act in ways economists would call irrational, from a sense of wanting to do the right thing. Possible messages might point out they are actually doing the wrong thing. E.g. You want to give your children pure, safe water, but that bottled water actually leaks plasticizers that disrupt their endocrine system.

• Try to link values to the bigger picture, e.g. “For the planet means for your children”.

Project Expansion To most effectively use time, the evaluation periods can be used to expand the pilot project. Expansion should also be phased, initially adding three to five new complexes, followed by a phase that adds the rest of complexes within Metro Housing Authority. New sites can be started with focus groups and survey of a portion of the population as a comparison against the survey results from this phase.

37

References Angus Reid Group. GVRD Waste Reduction Reuse & Recycling Attitudes Residential

Telephone Survey. Burnaby, BC: Greater Vancouver Regional District, 1996.

Brafman, Ori, and Ron Brafman. Sway: The Irresistible Pull of Irrational Behavior. New York: Doubleday Business, 2008.

Crompton, Tom. “Strategies for Change” Weathercocks and Signposts: strategies for change report. World Wildlife Fund, 2008. <wwf.org.uk/strategiesforchange> (16 October 2008).

Deci, Edward L., Richard Koestner, and Richard M. Ryan. “Extrinsic Rewards and Intrinsic Motivation in Education: Reconsidered Once Again.” Review of Educational Research. 71.1 (Spring 2001): 1-27.

Gartner Lee Ltd. Multi-Family Buildings Waste Audit. Burnaby, BC: Greater Vancouver Regional District, 2006.

Informa. Multi Residential Recycling System Improvements. Toronto, ON: Association of Municipal Recycling Coordinators, 2007.

Kalinowski, Catherine M., Gary D. Lynne, and Bruce Johnson. “Recycling as a Reflection of Balanced Self-Interest: A Test of the Metaeconomics Approach.” Environment and Behavior 38:3 (2006): 333-355.

McKenzie-Mohr, Doug, and William Smith. Fostering Sustainable Behaviour. Gabriola Island: New Society Publishers, 1999.

Meadows, Donella. “The Sustainability Institute” Leverage Points: Places to Intervene in a System. The Sustainability Institute, 1999. <http://www.sustainabilityinstitute.org/pubs/Leverage_Points.pdf>(17 October 2008).

Pollard, Stephan, and Jennie Popp. “Optimizing Multi-Family Recycling Systems, Part 1.” Resource Recycling (December 2006): 42-45.

Pollard, Stephan and Jennie Popp. “Optimizing Multi-Family Recycling Systems, Part 2.” Resource Recycling (January 2007): 22-24.

Pollard, Stephan, and Jennie Popp. “Optimizing Multi-Family Recycling Systems, Part 3.” Resource Recycling (February 2007): 27-30.

38

Sheltair Group and Kelleher Environmental. Metro Vancouver Multiple Family Buildings Waste Diversion Study. Burnaby, BC: Metro Vancouver, 2007.

Technology Resource Inc. (TRI). Solid Waste Composition Study. Burnaby, BC: Metro Vancouver, 2008.

Waltham, City of. “Focus Group Research: How to Conduct It & How to Contract For It.” Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, 2003. <http://www.mass.gov/dep/recycle/reduce/focgrprh.pdf> (17 October 2008).

Werner, Carol M. and Eeva Makela. “Motivations and Behaviors that Support Recycling.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 18 (1998): 373-386.

39

Appendices

Map of Metro Vancouver

Map of Kingston Gardens

Map of Meridian Village

Focus Group Questions

Focus Group report

Language Survey

Recycling Survey

Survey Envelope

Appendices

40

41

42

43

44

Focus Group Script for Recyclers The purpose of this study is to increase waste diversion in multi family residences. The Focus Groups are to Evaluate Barriers to participation in recycling in Metro Vancouver MF units. General Protocol • a response is obtained from each participant on every question, and each person has an

equal opportunity to share their views and perspectives; • the discussion is focused on the topic/question at hand, and is commenced and

completed on time (1.5 hour meeting duration); • each participant has a pen/pencil and paper; • the note-taker records the full range of responses for each focus question, enabling

frequencies to be easily determined for the purposes of preparing the meeting summary;

• the note-taker and facilitator keep an eye out for gender and other potential demographic differences in response to the focus questions.

1.0 OPENING REMARKS AND INTRODUCTIONS (5 minutes) Hello, my name is Lyndsay Poaps and I am a consultant with a local firm, Future Proof of Vancouver. My job is to chair the meeting. My colleague, Ruben Anderson will be taking notes during the meeting. Before we start, I'd like to thank you all for coming and we look forward to hearing your ideas and perspectives during the meeting. So why have we asked you here? We’d like to get a sense of what residents know and think about recycling. We would also like to know what you believe the City of Port Coquitlam can do to make it easier to participate in recycling. Before we start, I'd like to bring a few things to your attention… First, this meeting is one of several that are being conducted with Meridian Village residents on this topic. Second, I'm not an employee of Metro Vancouver, and am unlikely to be able to answer any questions you may have that go beyond this specific project. If you do have specific

45

questions you'd like to ask Metro Vancouver of the City of Port Coquitlam, we will take your name and number after the meeting and have one of their representatives contact you in the next few days. Third, we will be taking notes and tape recording the session. For most questions we will also be asking you to jot down your responses on the provided paper prior to sharing them with the group. You should know that anything you say or write will be treated in confidence. We will use our notes, your written responses and the recording to prepare our report on this meeting, and no names will be used. So, please feel free to speak frankly. As you know, we chose you randomly to take part in tonight's meeting. This is to help us make sure we hear from typical people from Meridian Village, not just from people who already know everything about recycling. Finally, in just a minute, I'm going to ask you a series of questions. Be assured…there are no right or wrong answers…just your opinions, ideas and perspectives. INTRODUCTIONS Please tell me your name, the number of people in your household, and the area you live in. FOCUS QUESTIONS When you hear the word recycling what do you think of? How much do you recycle? What motivates you to do recycle or why do you recycle? If you don’t recycle as much as you could, what has stopped you? Is there anything that you can think of that would lead you to recycle more than you do now? Give people a minute to write down their answers, and then ask each person to share their response. [10 minutes] CONVENIENCE OF RECYCLING How convenient is it to recycle? If you don’t find recycling convenient, what would make it more convenient? How do you overcome the barriers to inconvenient recycling?

46

How frequently does the city pick up your recycling? Have you had any problems with recycling pick up? I.e frequency, skipped pick ups, mess? How has this impacted your recycling habits? KNOWLEDGE OF RECYCLING Do you feel that you have enough information about what can and cannot be recycled in the blue bins? What types of items can and cannot be recycled in your city's recycling program? Read off actual list. After reviewing this list, are you surprised to learn of specific items that can or cannot be recycled? How did you first learn about your city's recycling program? Do you think your city provides you with enough information regarding its recycling program? Why or why not Do you recall receiving materials from the city about what is recyclable? Have you kept those materials? What would be the best way for you to receive information? email. internet, mail. YARD WASTE RECYCLING Do you feel that you have the information you need about composting yard waste?¸ What types of items can be recycled in your city's yard waste program? What types of items cannot be recycled in your city's yard waste program? What type of information would be useful for you to have about composting? When does the city pick up yard waste? Do you compost your food waste? If no: Would you like to compost your food waste if facilities where available? Why don’t you compost your food waste? What would make it easier to compost your food waste?

47

GENERAL Do you expect your neighbors or friends to recycle? Why or why not? What do you think would motivate your neighbours to recycle? Do friends, family, colleagues or neighbours expect your household to recycle? Whose opinion do you care about most when it comes to recycling? In your opinion, what is the most important thing that will motivate encourage people to recycle as much as they possibly can? Do you have any additional comments that you would like to share? 6.0 CLOSING REMARKS (1 minute) On behalf of Metro Vancouver, I would thank to thank you for participating in this meeting. We appreciate your answers and perspectives. These will be very helpful in further development of Metro Vancouver’s recycling program. Based in part on what we learn from these discussions, we will be testing a revised recycling program in Meridian Village If the pilot is successful in diverting more waste, we then plan to deliver the revised program to the remainder of the City. Metro is very interested in your opinions and perspectives on the topic of recycling. The feedback we receive from you will help us to develop the best possible recycling program.

48

Focus Group Script for Non-Recyclers 1.0 FOCUS QUESTIONS When you hear the word recycling what do you think of? What prevents you from recycling now? What would make it easier for you to start recycling? Why do you think it is important to recycle? 2.0 GENERAL Do you notice whether or not your neighbours or friends recycle? Do friends, family, colleagues or neighbours expect your household to recycle? Whose opinion do you care about most when it comes to recycling? What do you believe is most likely to motivate your neighbours to recycle? What is the single most important thing to motivate people to recycle as much as they possibly can? 3.0 KNOWLEDGE OF RECYCLING Do you feel that you have enough information about what can and cannot be recycled? What types of items can and cannot be recycled in your city’s program? After reviewing this list, are you surprised to learn of specific items that can or cannot be recycled? How did you first learn about your city’s recycling program? Do you think your City provides you with enough information regarding its recycling program? Why or why not? Have you kept City materials about what is recyclable? What other information do you need about recycling? Have you had any problems with recycling pick-up? Ie: frequency, skipped pick-ups, mess. What would you do if you wanted to have an old appliance, TV or computer picked up?

49

4.0 CONVENIENCE OF RECYCLING How convenient is it to recycle? If you don’t find recycling convenient, what would make it more convenient? Is there anything else that would help you recycle? In your opinion, what is the most important thing that you believe will motivate/encourage people to recycle as much as they possibly can? 5.0 COMPOSTING Do you feel that you have the information that you need about composting yard waste? What types of items can be composted in the yard waste program? What types of items cannot be composted in the yard waste program? Do you compost your food waste? If no, would you like to compost your food waste if facilities were available? What prevents you from composting your food waste? What would make it easier to compost your food waste? Do you have any additional comments that you would like to share?

50

Community Based Social Marketing Pilot Project Focus Groups Summary–October 2008

Futureproof consulting was contracted to conduct a pilot project employing Community Based Social Marketing to increase recycling rates in Metro Vancouver multi-family units. As part of this project, six focus groups in total were held during the week of October 6th-10th, 2008, which investigated the following; • Barriers and Benefits to recycling • Residents Motivation to recycle • Convenience of recycling in their housing complex • Knowledge of the recycling program in their city • Social expectations concerning recycling

Residents were filtered during the selection process and the focus groups were divided between those who recycle and those who recycle very little or not at all. Four focus groups were conducted at Meridian Village, in Port Coquitlam, two for residents in the apartment building and two for residents of the town homes. Two focus groups were conducted at Kingston Gardens, in Surrey, which is comprised entirely of town homes. Attempts were made to ensure that there was gender, age and ethnic diversity among participants however this was limited by the demographics reflected in the residents who live at the sites. • Inconvenience is seen as the main barrier to recycling. The main reason cited for

inconvenience is that recycling containers are frequently full, are not emptied often enough, are contaminated with non-recyclables and are full with inappropriately processed recycling such as cardboard boxes which have not been flattened or bulk newspapers dropped off by carriers.

• Leaving a healthy world for our children is seen as the main benefit and motivation for recycling.

futureproof a Think and Do Tank.

Study Objective

Key findings

51

• Overall, residents are dissatisfied with the information they have received from their respective municipalities. Many remarked that they had never received specific information from their municipality or Metro Housing regarding recycling.

• Most residents felt that they were treated poorly compared to residents of single-family homes.

• Both recyclers and non-recyclers are somewhat knowledgeable about what can be recycled, but lack some specific and up-to-date information regarding the recycling in their municipalities. However, residents at Meridian Village were uninformed regarding Port Coquitlam's single stream system, even though that system has been in place since 2003.

• Participants understand the role of recycling and believe recycling helps to improve the environment, but want assurances that their efforts are creating real benefits.

Both active and less active recyclers cite protecting the planet for their children and grandchildren as the main reason for recycling. Recyclers believe it is an important component of protecting the environment. Active recyclers also felt that recycling is "the right thing to do".

We are going to bury ourselves in garbage We are running out of landfill, running out of space

Some recyclers noted the financial incentives associated with recycling and its contribution to creating jobs as reasons for recycling. The need to reduce our carbon footprint and the finite nature of natural resources were also cited as reasons for recycling among participants.

Motivations

52

In general, participants in all six focus groups find recycling to be inconvenient. All residents, but especially in the apartment building, cited lack of space in their home to sort and store any recycling as a major barrier to convenience. Some type of bag or purpose-designed box for the apartment was desired to improve convenience.

There is no space in apartments—I take it down two or three times a week. It would be great to have a bag to carry recycling down with Bins are too full, even if it is just two days after the bins are emptied

Recycling totes are not seen as big enough to deal with the volume of recyclables and many participants noted unflattened cardboard boxes frequently cause a problem. Residents felt for recycling to be taken seriously it needs to be on par with garbage collection. Totes fill up quickly and residents feel discouraged.

I will only try to put it (recycling) out so many times, and then I will just throw it in the garbage.

All participants, recyclers and non-recyclers, felt they did not have enough information about recycling and they were unsure where to get it. Most residents reported having never received recycling information from Metro Housing, Metro Vancouver or their municipality. Participants indicated they learned to recycle by looking at what neighbours were doing or looking in the bins to see what was being put in. Almost all of the participants wanted something like a fridge magnet to provide details about what is recyclable in their municipality. Many noted that the signage on the recycling totes is inadequate, illegible or non-existent.

There is a sign on top of the bin but it is really hard to read. Residents at Meridian Village were ill-informed about the City’s single stream recycling system even though that system has been in place since 2003. In particular, the residents of the apartment building were unaware that the system had moved to single stream and felt the reason they did not have facilities for multiple recycling streams was because they were seen as less important than single-family home dwellers. Finally, there was a notable lack of awareness of the numbering system used to sort plastics.

Convenience

Knowledge

53

The majority of participants who recycle expect that their neighbours would be involved in recycling and see it as everyone's responsibility.

We bought it we might as well recycle it. I am responsible for getting rid of it properly.

While recycling is seen as something everybody should be doing, participants were loathe to pressure their neighbours. Social pressure to recycle was most commonly felt from mothers and children or was self-enforced, from a sense of recycling being the right thing to do. Community involvement was seen as very important to increasing recycling rates. They felt that support and encouragement would best come from a neighbour rather than an outsider. Participants were clear that they did not see recycling in isolation, and so attempts to increase one stream or another are greeted cynically. Their living conditions are also seen as a factor.

People aren't getting their places painted, why should anybody participate (in recycling)?

Not seeing recycling in isolation was also reinforced by the interest expressed in composting. Though it was not the focus of the discussion, many residents expressed the desire to compost, and to use the compost locally, perhaps in a community garden. Lack of composting was seen as an indication that Metro Vancouver is not serious about waste reduction. When asked what would most motivate their neighbours to recycle, participants responded: • increase convenience • communicate what a difference recycling makes • charge people for garbage • fine people for not recycling properly

Social expectations

Miscellaneous findings

54

56

58