Oxford City Council Talkback

Survey 3 Report

December 2008


Executive Summary

The Talkback panel is a group of residents broadly representative of the City of Oxford, who complete surveys up to four times a year on a variety of local issues.

The autumn Talkback survey asked the panel for their views on the current recycling arrangements in Oxford, as well as proposals for future options. A final section asked respondents for their views and experiences of communication with the waste and recycling team.

The survey was sent to members by post and by email, as instructed by individual members. SRA received 577 responses by the deadline, representing an overall response rate of 60%.

Results

Section 1: Current Arrangements

  • Over 70% of respondents had all bins and boxes, with the exception of blue wheelie bins, which only 26% of the panel had.
  • 26% found the current system complex –chiefly relating to confusion over collection days and which items could be recycled.
  • 31% had difficulty storing their current containers, but 43% found that their current containers did not provide sufficient capacity for their waste and recycling needs.
  • 64% of respondents had issues with the waste and recycling service in their street, mainly relating to boxes and sacks blowing away or over spilling, or untidiness by refuse collectors.
  • 68% would not prefer a wheelie bin for garden waste and only 9% would be prepared to pay for one.
  • Around half of respondents used a composter, but only 25% of these respondents found that it catered for all garden waste.
  • Only 10-15% of respondents were dissatisfied with waste services, recycling banks, green and blue boxes and garden waste sacks. However, a number of issues were raised in relation to the frequency of collections, the state of recycling banks, capacity of and damage to boxes, and the durability of garden waste sacks.
  • Half of respondents had heard of the reminder services, but only 5% had used them. However, many panel members took the opportunity to sign up through the survey.
  • The top ranked priorities were more frequent collection for refuse and recycling that could cause sanitation issues, a greater range of items that could be recycled, and more information about the service and what happens to waste and recycling materials.

Section 2: Options for the future

  • The Council’s proposal for food waste collections received a mixed reception with an average rating of 6 out of 10. Most respondents supported the intention, but a number feared that there would be a sanitary threat if food waste was allowed to stand for two weeks.
  • 54% of respondents supported the provision of three wheelie bin for all waste and recycling needs. Respondents from North Oxford and respondents from ACORN category 1 disproportionately supported this idea.
  • Respondents had varied space for wheelie bins, and 14% had no space for any at all. However, 66% of respondents had space for at least two bins.
  • 65% supported the idea of one bin for all dry recycling.
  • 78% of respondents favoured a charge of £10 for moving three bulky items. However, over one third of the panel did not answer this question. The chief reasons given against charging were the danger of fly tipping and the problems for those on low incomes, or without cars.

Section 3: Communication

  • Just under half of respondents had contacted the Council in the last year about waste and recycling.
  • There were no particular standout reason for this contact, but rather a combination of factors around missed collection times, problems with containers and complaints about refuse collectors.
  • The vast majority of respondents contacted the Council by telephone.
  • Satisfaction ratings for the way the query was dealt with averaged at 6.87 out 10.

Contents

Talkback 2008 Survey 3 December 2008

1.1 Background

1.2 The Panel

1.3 Methodology

1.4 Data

1.5 Areas

1.6 The Survey

Section 1: Waste and Recycling Services

Section 2: Options for the future

Section 3: Communications

Appendix A- Panel Demographics

Appendix B- Questionnaire

Appendix C- Frequencies

Talkback 2008 Survey 3 December 2008

1.1 Background

The Talkback panel is a group of residents broadly representative of the City of Oxford, who complete surveys up to four times a year on a variety of local issues.

1.2 The Panel

The Panel was refreshed in May 2008 prior to the survey. There are 963 members, although there are still shortages of younger respondents and it would be advisable to boost the numbers of members from different ethnic groups. The demographic details of the panel are shown in appendix A.

1.3 Methodology

The survey was sent to members by post and by email, as instructed by individual members. SRA received 577 responses by the deadline, representing an overall response rate of 60%.

Demographics details of the response are shown in appendix A.

1.4 Data

Data have been analysed and cross tabulated by key demographic details including age group, ethnicity, disability, area, sex and employment. In addition results were cross tabulated by ACORN grouping. The ACORN classification is based on a variety of demographic details and groups households into the following categories:

1.Wealthy Achievers

2.Urban Prosperity

3.Comfortably Off

4.Moderate Means

5.Hard-Pressed

6.Unclassified

Where there are significant differences shown in ACORN cross tabulations these are noted in the results. ACORN classifications for the panel are shown in Appendix A.

Percentages are valid percentages (i.e. the percentage calculated not including those who did not answer the question). Where differences by demographic profile are highlighted, these are statistically significant differences.

1.5 Areas

Where reference is made to the area of responses, this corresponds to the area committees run by Oxford City Council. The wards in each area are listed below.

Area / Wards
North / Summertown, Wolvercote, St Margarets, North
North-East / Marston, Headington, Headington Hill & Northway, Barton and Sandhills, Quarry and Risinghurst, Churchill
East / St Clements, St Mary’s, Iffley Fields
South-East / Rose Hill and Iffley, Littlemore, Blackbird Leys, Northfield Brook
Central / Jericho and Osney, Carfax, Hollywell, Hinksey Park
Cowley / Cowley Marsh, Lye Valley, Cowley

1.6 The Survey

The autumn Talkback survey asked the panel for their views on the current recycling arrangements in Oxford, as well as proposals for future options. A final section asked respondents for their views and experiences of communication with the waste and recycling team.

Section 1: Waste and Recycling Services

The first section of the survey asked panel members about their experiences of the current arrangements for waste and recycling. Initially the survey asked respondents to give some detail of their living arrangements in order to contextualise their answers to subsequent questions.

Subsequent section of this report will cross-reference these details with answers given to the survey. Any statistically significant differences are noted in the commentary.

What type of property do you live in?

Tenure: Do you..

How many occupants live in your property?

Adults:

Children:

What bins do you currently have?

The majority of the panel had all bins and boxes, with the exception of the blue wheelie bin, which only 26.5% of respondents had (the Council charge for this bin). Those in the Central (85.2%) and Cowley (86.5%) area were significantly less likely to have a blue wheelie bin than other areas.

The second part of this section asked panel members to give their experiences of the current recycling system.

Do you find the current system complex?

26.4% of the panel found the current system complex and this did not vary significantly by demographic profile.

If yes, why do you find the current system complex?

The majority of the panel found two main aspects of the recycling system to be complicated. Firstly, different days for collection of different material meant that several respondents either have trouble remembering or completely forget to put out their recycling:

“Because it is a fortnightly collection, I constantly have to refer to your timetable, which I don't always have to hand, to find out what combination of boxes, sacks and compost bag is applicable.”

Secondly, there was confusion over what materials could go in what box. For some this was a case of understanding the current system. However, others appeared to understand the system, but wondered about the logic behind it. The distinction between different types of paper and plastic was a particular bugbear. For example:

“There seems to be no logic to putting plastic bottles with cardboard and tins.”

“Conflicting advice (are yoghurt pots recyclable or not?) Distinguishing types e.g. kinds of paper waste.”

“The distinction between types of paper - office, magazines, brochures, directories, junk mail etc - is not self-evident.”

“I don't mind it being complex - I think it is very important to recycle - but distinguishing between suitable and unsuitable plastics (also for non-collected recycling going to the recycling centre) is difficult.”

Finally, some respondents questioned why they had to separate their recycling for two main reasons. Firstly, some respondents had experience of ‘one-box’ recycling:

“Having to separate recycling - I have lived in other areas where all recycling goes into one bin.”

Secondly, some respondents felt that the refuse collectors were not careful enough when collecting their recycling:

“I see the bin men tip all the recycled material I separate into the same bin. Why segregate if this is the case?”

Do you find it difficult to store all the containers you currently have for waste and recycling?

31.2% of respondents found it difficult to store their waste and recycling containers—this remained relatively consistent across the demographic profile of respondents, and also did not vary significantly by type of house or the number of occupants.

Do the containers that you currently have provide you with enough room your waste and recycling needs?

88.9% of private sector tenants felt that they didn’t have enough room in their containers for their waste and recycling needs, indicating that many private sector landlords may not be providing sufficient receptacles. 64.7% of full-time students (many of whom are private sector tenants) also complained that they could not fit their recycling into the bins provided.

If no, please explain why.

The main concern of respondents was the capacity to recycle plastic. Many respondents found that they did not have room in their blue box, and several objected to paying for a blue wheelie bin:

“Plastic containers do not flatten easily so boxes overflow.”

“Because we are now in the pattern of recycling more plastic, we often run out of room in our small blue box (and therefore have to 'bin' containers we could be recycling). We are thinking about getting a blue wheelie bin - but they take up a lot of room.”

“Blue boxes (2) fill up. Can't afford (£20 for new bin). (Should be free like the green wheelie bin).”

“I have 3 blue boxes and still not enough room but refuse to pay £20 for a blue wheelie.”

There were two other problems repeatedly highlighted. Firstly, respondents noted that their capacity varied according to season –for example in summer there was a greater need for container to hold garden waste. There was also a problem around holiday times:

“In summer the green garden bag is not big enough, especially for woody prunings.”

“Can be difficult to manage over a holiday if gap becomes a month.”

“MOSTLY it's fine, there are some weeks when one or other of the containers is full to bursting (e.g. after a birthday)”

Finally, some respondents had problems keeping their bins from week to week:

“I used to have 2 green and 2 blue boxes but every time I do this, either neighbours nick them or waste collectors take them back!”

How would you rate your current understanding of what goes into which container?

Over 80% of the panel rated their understanding of the current arrangements for waste and recycling as ‘quite’ or ‘very’ good. Private sector tenants’ (55.6%) were significantly more likely to rate their understanding as ‘very good’, compared to those from other tenures.

However, it should be noted that other questions highlighted areas of confusion for many of the panel, and that whilst their self-reported understanding was good, there were still many areas which were unclear to respondents.

Are there any issues with waste and recycling on the street you live on (e.g. the lids blue recycling bins or garden sacks blowing away in the wind etc.)

People living in their own house (66.7%) were significantly more likely to feel that there were issues with the waste and recycling collection in their street compared to those in shared houses (36.4%). Respondents from BME communities were also significantly less likely to feel there was a problem in their street compared to white respondents.

If yes, please explain what these are:

In general there were three main issues raised in relation to this question. Firstly, several problems were noted due to the lightweight nature of garden sacks:

“Green sacks are always blowing across gardens and owners trying to find them.”

“I have lost 4 garden waste sacks in 2 years, costing me £36. The garden waste is collected every second Friday. When I get home - around 10p.m- I find my 2 waste sacks lying on the open forecourt in front of my house. The bin collectors do not stuff the bags into the available waste bin so they blow away.”

Secondly, there were some problems with recycling boxes. In particular it was noted that the lids were blown away or misplaced over time, and as a consequence lightweight material could escape:

“Blue box lid does blow off. Recycling waste gets blown about; or scattered by waste collectors; or even blown to me from my neighbours!”

“Some people can't fit lids on the recycling boxes, so empty plastic bottles and cardboard end up all over the street on collection day. Some people don't know which bins to put out when - they end up with rubbish in their garden for a week.”

Finally, respondents noted that there was a problem with the mess created by waste and recycling collection, and several people felt that the refuse collectors did not tidy up after themselves. In addition there were some complaints that boxes and bins were not returned to the correct addresses:

“Dene Road a complete mess on bin day, garden sacks on road, paper and plastic blowing about. Need a person to follow and tidy.”

“If the operatives used 'common sense' and replaced lids on boxes and green bags put inside i.e. an emptied container then we would end up with the right container/bag that we had left out.”

However, there was also some recognition that the refuse collectors had a difficult job in this respect and that the elements often conspired against an orderly collection:

“Things get blown away because it is windy!! Bin men cannot always secure empty boxes/sacks in positions where they are not affected by the wind.”

Would you prefer to put your garden waste in a wheelie bin rather than a sack as you currently do?

Only 32.5% favoured this option. Respondents renting from the Council or a Housing Association (51.8%) were significantly more likely than average to want a wheelie bin.

Would you be prepared to rent a wheelie bin (at around £35) for garden waste?

Respondents from the panel did not favour paying a rental charge for a wheelie bin for garden waste. This did not vary significantly by demographic group.

Do you use a home composter?

Almost exactly half of the panel used a home composter –those in ACORN group 5 (37%) were significantly less likely than other groups to use one.

If yes does it cater for all your garden waste?

Of those who responded to this question (308 respondents), only 24.7% found that a composter took care of all their garden waste. This did not vary significantly across demographic groups.

Are there any materials you are unsure of how to recycle?

Nearly half of the panel were unsure whether or how to recycle some items. Tenants in Council or Housing Association properties (73.2%) were significantly more likely than those in other tenures to feel that they knew how to recycle all items.

If yes, please explain why.

Several items were highlighted in this section including:

  • Batteries
  • Old paint
  • Car batteries
  • Magazines and glossy Junk mail
  • Electrical goods
  • Kitchen waste (e.g. peelings)
  • Cartons (e.g. for fruit juice)
  • Plastic bags
  • Polystyrene
  • Tetrapacks

In addition there was general confusion over different types of plastics. For example:

“Some clear plastic containers and some white plastic pots have no marking about recycling”

“Some food-contaminated containers are not OK to recycle, but it is not always clear on the packaging if this is the case. Some companies are better at stating this than others.”

The range of items raised in this section indicated a considerable variance in knowledge of recycling. Equally, respondents were unsure whether their knowledge was in fact true or ‘myth’:

“We are constantly puzzled by soft plastics and plastic paper cartons. The situation is not helped by the fact that the daughter in Sydney and the friend in the US whose apartment we occasionally use have completely different categories.”