Truscott Research Fax Pro forma - City of Norwood Payneham and ...

ZERO WASTE SA
BIO BASKET PILOT SURVEY
NORWOOD PAYNEHAM & ST PETERS
PRELIMINARY RESEARCH REPORT
May 2009
197 Payneham Road
St Peters SA 5069
Phone (08) 8363 9399
Mobile 0416 020 555
Fax (08) 8363 1076
maggie@
truscottresearch.com.au
N&M T Pty Ltd
ACN 082 514 967 atf
N&M Truscott Trust t/a
TRUSCOTT RESEARCH

CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION....................................................................................1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY........................................................................2
SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS ..............................................................9
COMMENTARY ...................................................................................14
Awareness of Bio Basket system .........................................................14
Types of waste used for Bio Basket system.........................................15
Placement of Bio Basket bags..............................................................17
Disposal of lawn clippings and garden prunings...................................18
Use of compost bin/system ..................................................................20
Use of green kerbside organics bin ......................................................21
Increased level of awareness...............................................................23
Use of Bio Basket system ....................................................................24
Reasons for not using the Bio Basket system ......................................25
Continuing use of the Bio Basket system .............................................26
Reasons for stopping use of the Bio Basket system ............................27
Number of corn starch bags used in Bio Basket system ......................28
Prompts for changing bag in Bio Basket system ..................................30
Difficulty in using Bio Basket system ....................................................31
Extent of use of the Bio Basket system ................................................32
Household use of the Bio Basket system .............................................33
Problems or shortcomings with Bio Basket pilot...................................34
Incidence of capacity issues.................................................................36
Benchmark rating of three bin system ..................................................38
Rating of Bio Basket system.................................................................40
Rating of collection frequency - residual waste bin...............................42
Rating of collection frequency - green kerbside organics bin ...............44
Overview ratings collection frequencies. ..............................................45
Predicted future use of Bio Basket system...........................................47
Cost perceptions ..................................................................................49
Predicted future use - if refill bags cost $15/150...................................52
Predicted future use - if 150 bags were provided free
and further refill bags cost $15/150 ......................................................53
Comments............................................................................................54
QUESTIONNAIRE................................................................................55
APPENDIX – TABULATIONS [bound separately]

INTRODUCTION
Truscott Research was commissioned by Zero Waste SA to undertake
a study of residents in areas which had been included in a pilot of a
system to reduce the amount of waste going to landfill.
The Bio Basket System involves householders separating food scraps
out of the waste stream. Residents were asked to put food scraps into
compostable bags fitted into the Bio Basket, which is designed to sit on
a kitchen bench. When full, the bags are placed in the green kerbside
organics bin and are composted rather than going to landfill.
The survey was carried out 3 months after the commencement of the
pilot period, with interviews taking place during May 2009.
566 interviews took place with residents of the Norwood Payneham and
St Peters council area, with the two pilot areas being in the suburbs of
Kensington and St Peters.
Nine other South Australian Councils are also participating in this pilot.
Area specific reports are being produced for each Council and, at the
end of the survey period [July 2009] there will be an aggregate report
which will also examine differences between council areas and other
variants such as residual waste bin collection frequency.
In addition to this survey, a number of other methods are being used to
evaluate the pilot.
A questionnaire was developed which was designed to:
gauge awareness and understanding of the Bio Basket system;
determine patterns of use;
identify barriers to using the system and difficulties encountered by
users;
examine future use intentions;
examine other aspects of behaviour relating to household waste –
use of green kerbside organics bins, composting and disposal of
green waste.
PRELIMINARY REPORT Page 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AWARENESS AND UNDERSTANDING OF THE BIO BASKET
SYSTEM
566 residents (respondents) of the pilot area were interviewed 3
months after the start of the trial period.
Awareness of the Bio Basket system was almost universal –98%
Whereas there was widespread awareness that fruit and vegetable
scraps can be placed in the Bio Basket (69% of those aware of the
system), awareness that other types of food waste can be included
was much lower:
Fruit, vegetable scraps 69%
Leftovers – mixed food scraps, processed food etc 50%
Tissues, paper towels 35%
Meat scraps 29%
Bones 22%
Tea bags, coffee grounds 22%
The great majority of respondents (93%) were correct in saying that
the bags from the Bio Basket should go in the green kerbside
organics bin.
PRELIMINARY REPORT Page 2

PATTERNS OF USE
85% (482) of all respondents indicated that they have used the Bio
Basket system.
Almost all of these (452 - 80% of all respondents) were still using it
at the time of interview.
For respondents who were still using the system at the time of the
survey, the number of bags used per week ranged from 1 to 14,
with a mean of 3 bags per week.
65% of current users change the bag when it was full. 14% of
current users change the bag every 2-3 days.
Almost half of current users claimed to use the system for
everything possible (49%). A further 23% used it for most
things. Only 2% said that they hardly used the system.
In 43% of the households where the Bio Basket system was used,
the system was used by everyone. 31% of households had only
one user but most of these (22%) were single person households.
PRELIMINARY REPORT Page 3

PREDICTED FUTURE USE
The proportion of those who had already used the Bio Basket
system who indicated they were likely to continue was high (452 -
73%), with only 9% saying they would be unlikely to continue.
Amongst 84 non-users, the response was quite different. 17% of
this subgroup said they were likely to use the system in the future,
while 73% said they would be unlikely to do so.
PREDICTED FUTURE USE
Very likely Quite likely Don't know Quite unlikely Very unlikely
Users
Non-users
6%
11% 11% 11%
74%
61%
14%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
% of respondents
Overall, 74% (415) pronounced themselves likely to use the system
if it is continued.
3%
3%
6%
PRELIMINARY REPORT Page 4

All respondents who had used the system or considered
themselves likely to use the system in the future (496), were asked
if they would be prepared to pay for re-fill bags at a cost of $15 for a
roll of 150 bags on an on-going basis. 50% (246) were prepared to
pay this cost, 38% were not. 12% were not sure. The people
responding positively represent 43% of the total sample.
65% of respondents who used more than 3 bags/week in the pilot
felt it likely they would continue to use the system if council
supplied only enough free bags for 3 bags to be used a week and
they had to pay $15 for a roll of 150 additional bags.
However, 55% are not prepared to pay anything extra for this
system through their council rates.
Residents were generally happy with the three bin system and the
bio basket. They were also generally happy with the green
organics collection frequency. However, the fortnightly residual
waste bin collection was less well accepted.
RATINGS
3 BIN SYSTEM
[8.0]
BIO BASKET
[7.6]
FREQUENCY -
RESIDUAL
WASTE [6.2]
FREQUENCY -
GREEN
ORGANICS [8.0]
13%
22%
18%
1 TO 5 6 TO 7 8 TO 10
21%
39%
10%
12%
14%
67%
67%
70%
47%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
39% (220) have had residual waste capacity issues - 25% (139) every
fortnight.
PRELIMINARY REPORT Page 5

PRELIMINARY REPORT Page 6

BARRIERS TO USING THE SYSTEM AND DIFFICULTIES
ENCOUNTERED BY USERS
49% (277) of current and former users felt there were no problems
with the Bio Basket system. Of the 49% (277) who indicated
specific problems, there were two main areas of concern; the fact
that the green kerbside organics bin was smelly (26%) and the
fortnightly collection of the waste bin (25%).
66% of current users and 23% of former users found the system
very easy to use (304 in total). Most of the remainder indicated that
it was quite easy (121) Only 7% (32) of current users, but 37% (11)
of former users found using the system difficult. 27% of former
users said very difficult.
Current users
(n=452)
Former users
(n=30)
USE OF BIO BASKET SYSTEM
everything possible most things
selected items fruit and veg
hardly used
50%
23% 17%
23% 18% 9%
27% 13% 20%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
% of users
When those respondents who have never used the Bio Basket
system (84) were asked why they had not, the major response was
wanted to keep food scraps for own compost, or animals at
29%(24). No major negative perceptions of the system were
apparent.
Among the small group of people (30) who had stopped using the
system, reasons cited included didn’t want rotting food in kitchen
(47%), green kerbside organics bin smelly (23%) and use own
compost bin (10%).
PRELIMINARY REPORT Page 7

OTHER ASPECTS OF BEHAVIOUR RELATING TO HOUSEHOLD
WASTE
99% (560) of respondents have a green kerbside organics bin.
88% (495) of respondents who have a green kerbside organics bin
put this bin out fortnightly, 5% (26) do so monthly and 7% (39) less
than monthly.
74% (334) of current users of the Bio Basket system and 52% (17)
of former users indicated that this experience had made them more
aware of what can be put in the green kerbside organics bin.
85% (482) of all respondents regularly dispose of lawn clippings or
garden prunings in their green kerbside organics bin. The other
relatively popular response was compost bin (19% - 110); and 9%
(51) have no garden.
26% of respondents (152) own a compost bin or compost system
and 23% (133) claimed to use it on a regular basis.
PRELIMINARY REPORT Page 8

SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS
A total of 566 residents were interviewed across the pilot area. 258 of
these were in Kensington and 308 in St Peters.
It was agreed to approach every householder in the pilot areas, which
included a total of 1028 dwellings. Up to 3 calls were made at each
address over a two week period in May 2009.
A refusal rate of 3% was recorded, which we regard as an excellent
level of cooperation. Other reasons for not obtaining an interview at
specified addresses included: vacant dwellings, locked gates, dog
warnings, residents not answering the doorbell and not speaking
English to a sufficient standard.
In the resultant sample, 61% of respondents live in a traditional
detached house, 23% in a unit/flat, 12% in a townhouse or cottage and
2% each for courtyard homes and maisonettes. We understand that
this is close to the profile of the study area.
There were differences between the two suburbs, as shown in the table
below, with St Peters being predominantly traditional housing, while
more diversity was apparent in Kensington.
Q 37 Residence type
Kensington
[n=258]
St Peters
[n=308] Total (n= 566)
Traditional detached house 35% 82% 61%
Unit or flat 35% 13 23%
Townhouse or cottage 23% 2% 12%
Older maisonette 3% 1% 2%
Courtyard home 2% 2% 2%
PRELIMINARY REPORT Page 9

67% (380) of respondents reported owning their home, while 32% (183)
were renting. Again, this is in line with the council area as a whole.
Further questioning revealed that respondents had lived at their current
address for up to 64 years, with a mean period of residence of 11 years.
Almost one half of respondents (47% - 262) have been living at their
current address for no more than 5 years. A further 20% have been
there for between 6 and 10 years. Therefore overall two thirds of all
residents (67% - 372) have been living at their current address for no
more than 10 years. The figures for each area are shown in the table
below.
Q 36 Years at current address
Kensington
[n=256]
St Peters
[n=306]
0-5 years 59% 37%
6-10 years 18% 21%
11-20 years 13% 18%
21-30 years 5% 10%
31-40 years 3% 6%
41-50 years 1% 4%
More than 50 years 1% 4%
PRELIMINARY REPORT Page 10

In each of the households included in the sample, the person selected
for interview was the person identified as the one who is most involved
with dealing with the household’s waste and recycling.
The following table details the gender and age profile of respondents.
67% (374) of respondents were at least 40 years of age and 58%
(329)were female.
Q 31 & 32 Gender and age profile:
GENDER SAMPLE CENSUS *
Males 42% 47%
Females 58% 53%
AGE GROUP
Up to 29 19% 26%
30 to 39 15% 17%
40 to 49 20% 16%
50 to 59 19% 13%
60 to 69 14% 11%
70 and over 14% 17%
* SOURCE – ABS Community Profile – 2006 Census – Local
Government Area - pilot areas may not be typical of this.
PRELIMINARY REPORT Page 11

Survey participants were also asked to indicate their household type.
The sample was split into families (41%), couples (20%) and singles
(38%). As with type of residence, there were also significant
differences between the two suburbs.
Q 33 Household type
Families Total Kens’ton
[n=256]
St Peters
[n=306]
Couple with children 33% 18% 45%
Single parent with children 8% 11% 6%
Couples
Young couple, no children 7% 12% 3%
Older couple, no children at home 13% 7% 18%
Singles
Lone person household 27% 37% 19%
Group household of unrelated adults 11% 14% 8%
The number of people living in each household ranged from 1 to 9, with
a mean of 3. The vast majority of households (90%) contained fewer
than five people, with a trend towards larger households in traditional
housing, compared with non-traditional (e.g. flat/unit, courtyard or
duplex). Half of those in non-traditional housing (47%) live alone
The chart on the next page details the distribution for St Peters and
Kensington, and for traditional and other housing.
PRELIMINARY REPORT Page 12

six or more
five
four
three
two
one
1
2
3
4
5
6 or more
NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN HOUSEHOLD
4%
4%
1%
3%
4%
4%
2%
3%
8%
10%
9%
11%
4%
8%
16%
17%
17%
16%
16%
16%
18%
17%
16%
19%
23%
22%
29%
30%
29%
27%
27%
ALL
Traditional housing
Other
28%
30%
29%
37%
St Peters
Kensington
ALL
47%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
PRELIMINARY REPORT Page 13

.
COMMENTARY
Awareness of Bio Basket system
Almost all (98%) of the people interviewed were aware that the Bio
Basket system was being pilotled in their area.
Awareness was almost universal among owner occupiers.
Conversely, awareness was lower – but still very high - for non-users of
the system (86%), tenants (96%) and younger respondents (96%).
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
AWARENESS OF BIO BASKET TRIAL
98% 100% 99%
96%
99%
96%
86%
ALL User Non-user Owners Tenants aged 60+ aged

Types of waste used for Bio Basket system
Those respondents who were aware of the pilot in their area (554) were
asked to name the types of waste the system was designed for.
The top response was fruit and vegetable scraps at 69%.
Half of the sample mentioned leftovers – mixed food scraps,
processed food etc (50%)
Also relatively frequently cited were tissues and paper towels (35%),
meat scraps (29%), bones (22%) and tea bags and coffee grounds
(22%).
There were significant differences between the areas, as shown in the
table below.
Q3 Can you tell me what types of waste it is designed
for? (Inc. multiple responses, unprompted)
BASE: respondents aware of pilot(n=554) Total Kensington St Peters
Fruit, vegetable scraps 69% 56% 80%
Leftovers – mixed food scraps,
processed food etc 50% 37% 60%
Tissues, paper towels 35% 28% 41%
Meat scraps 29% 22% 35%
Bones 22% 15% 28%
Tea bags, coffee grounds 22% 19% 25%
All sorts of food scraps 18% 33% 5%
Bread, cereals 8% 10% 7%
Dairy - yoghurt, cheese 5% 4% 6%
Other* 23% 16% 28%
Can’t say/don’t know 3% 6% 1%
*Includes eggs shells, oyster shells, hair.
PRELIMINARY REPORT Page 15

99% of users of the system were able to name something that should
go into the Bio Baskets.
14% (10) of non-users were not able to name anything, with a further
13% (9) of this segment unable to nominate anything more specific than
‘food scraps’.
PRELIMINARY REPORT Page 16

Placement of Bio Basket bags
Those respondents who were aware of the pilot (554) were asked to
say where the bags are supposed to be placed when full.
The great majority of these respondents - 93% - were correct in saying
that the bags should go in the green kerbside organics bin.
Awareness of the correct place for the full compostable bags for tenants
(90%) was still relatively high, and it was only below par amongst nonusers
(75%).
% of respondents aware of trial
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
PLACE FULL BAGS IN GREEN ORGANICS BIN
93%
ALL
96%
User
Non-user
7% of respondents gave other answers.
75%
traditional
95%
other/units,flats
89%
1% thought the Bio Basket bags should go in the compost bin
and another 1% indicated they should go in the garden.
2% thought the bags should go in the recycling bin.
1% thought they should go in the residual waste bin.
3% of respondents did not know where the bags should go.
These results were consistent across all other subgroups.
PRELIMINARY REPORT Page 17

Disposal of lawn clippings and garden prunings
Next, all respondents (566) were asked what they use to regularly
dispose of lawn clippings or garden prunings, from the following list:
.Green kerbside organics bin
.Garbage bin
.Garden contractor takes it away
.Hessian bag/bale
.Compost bin/garden.
By far, the top response was green kerbside organics bin at 85%.
Other relatively popular responses were spread on garden or in
compost bin (19%), and garden contractor takes away (5%).
22% use more than one method of disposal.
1% did not know what happened to their clippings and prunings.
The chart on the next page shows these results and also highlights
differences by housing type. Mulch and compost bins were more
prevalent for those in traditional housing (29%) compared with residents
of other housing (3%).
PRELIMINARY REPORT Page 18

DISPOSE OF LAWN CLIPPINGS AND GARDEN
PRUNINGS
Green organics bin
Home Compost bin
No garden or lawn
Garden contractor
Hessian bag/bale
Garbage bin
Other
Don’t know
3%
1%
5%
6%
4%
1%
1%
0%
1%
1%
2%
1%
1%
0%
1%
1%
0%
9%
19%
23%
Further segmentation revealed that:
29%
ALL
75%
Traditional
housing
Other
85%
92%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
NB: includes multiple responses
There are 9% of respondents with no garden; 13% in Kensington
and 6% in St Peters.
21% of respondents who rent do not have a garden.
The green kerbside organics bin is used for lawn
clippings/prunings by a higher proportion of home owners (91%
compared with 73% of renters) and users of the Bio Baskets (88%
compared with 70% of non-users).
Garden contractors were more common for former users of the
bio basket system.
Use of garden contractors also increased with age, as did use of
a compost bin or mulch. This increased from 12% for under 40’s
to 28% for over 60’s.
PRELIMINARY REPORT Page 19

Use of compost bin/system
26% (152) of respondents own a compost bin or compost system and
most of these (23% - 133) claimed to use it on a regular basis.
As illustrated below, regular use was higher for owners (29%)
compared with tenants (11%) and for respondents in traditional houses
(32%) compared with other dwellings (9%). Use was also more
prevalent in St Peters.
40%
20%
0%
OWNERSHIP & USE OF COMPOST BIN / SYSTEM
3%
23%
ALL
Regular Ever
4%
Owners
29%
2%
Tenants
11%
4%
Traditional house
32%
2%
Other dwelling
9%
2%
Kensington
17%
4%
St Peters
29%
PRELIMINARY REPORT Page 20

Use of green kerbside organics bin
99% of respondents have a green kerbside organics bin. There was
very little differential between segments, the only one of significance
was that 6% of non users of the bio basket system did not have a green
kerbside organics bin.
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
OWNERSHIP OF GREEN ORGANICS BIN
99% 100%
99% 100%
94% 98% 98%
ALL
User
Non-user
Owners
Tenants
Traditional house
Other dwelling
PRELIMINARY REPORT Page 21

88% of respondents who have a green kerbside organics bin put this
bin out fortnightly, 5% do so monthly and 7% less than monthly.
Fortnightly use was highest for bio basket users and lowest for non
users. Only two thirds (68%) of non users put their organics bin out
fortnightly and one quarter (25%) put it out less often than monthly. For
users of the system, 92% indicated that their bins were put out
fortnightly and only 4% less often than monthly.
A smaller proportion of tenants, respondents aged under 40, those in
housing other than traditional houses, took up the opportunity for
fortnightly collection of the green kerbside organics bin.
There was also a difference between the areas with St Peters (95%)
having a higher presentation rate than Kensington (80%).
PRESENTATION FREQUENCY OF GREEN
ORGANICS BIN DURING PILOT
ALL
Kens
St P
Own
Rent
All Users
Non-user
Fortnightly Monthly Less often
68%
80%
88%
82%
95%
91%
92%
6%
6%
7%
5%
25%
13%
3%
11%
4%
7%
3% 2%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
% of respondents with a green organics bin N=560
5%
4%
PRELIMINARY REPORT Page 22

Increased level of awareness
Respondents who had used, or were still using, (482) the Bio Basket
system were asked if this use had made them more aware of what can
be put in the green kerbside organics bin.
74% (334) of current users and 52% (16) of former users did think this
use had made them more aware.
Current
Former
INCREASED AWARENESS ALLOWABLE ITEMS GREEN
ORGANICS BIN
Yes Not sure No
52%
74%
31%
23%
17%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
% OF USERS
The change in the level of awareness was highest in Kensington (80% -
171) and lowest amongst former users (52% - 16).
3%
PRELIMINARY REPORT Page 23

Use of Bio Basket system
It is to be noted that both St Peters and Kensington had a fortnightly
collection of their residual waste bin.
85% (482) of all respondents indicated that they have used the Bio
Basket system.
The use is relatively constant across all sectors, with the range being
from 81 to 90%.
Use increases with number of people in the household, with a
significant difference between households of 3 or more people and
smaller households.
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
85%
ALL
Owners
87%
Tenants
USE OF BIO BASKET SYSTEM
82%
88%
81% 81%
Male
Female
Sole/grp
Couples
87%
Families
89%
81% 82%
One
Two
90%
Three +
PRELIMINARY REPORT Page 24

Reasons for not using the Bio Basket system
The 84 respondents who have never used the Bio Basket system were
asked why they had not.
The top response was wanted to keep food waste for garden or
animals at 29%. If all responses are aggregated for those who do not
have food waste to put in any bin, 39% of those who never used the
system had no need for it.
A full list of responses is given in the table below.
[NEVER USED BIO BASKET SYSTEM]
Q11 Can you tell me why this was so? (Inc. multiple
responses)
BASE: never used Bio Basket (n=84)
Wanted to keep food waste for own
compost/worms/chickens 29%
Not aware/new resident 18%
Didn’t want odours, flies, rotting food in kitchen 11%
Not home enough/ eat out 10%
Bio Basket does not fit in kitchen/no room 5%
Use insinkerator 2%
Didn’t understand how to use 1%
No green kerbside organics bin 1%
Other [single responses]* 11%
Not interested 18%
Don’t know/no explanation 8%
PRELIMINARY REPORT Page 25

Continuing use of the Bio Basket system
All respondents who had used the system (482) were asked if they
were still using it.
94% were still using it (452 - equivalent to 80% of all respondents).
6% were not (30).
This response pattern was repeated across all segments.
PRELIMINARY REPORT Page 26

Reasons for stopping use of the Bio Basket system
The small group of respondents (30) who were no longer using the
system were asked why they had stopped.
The overwhelming response related to either the bio basket (67%) or
the green kerbside organics bin (23%) being smelly, attracting flies etc.
[NO LONGER USING BIO BASKET SYSTEM]
Q13 Can you tell me why this was so? (Inc. multiple
responses)
BASE: no longer using Bio Basket (n=30)
Didn’t want odours, flies, rotting food in kitchen 67%
Found green kerbside organics bin smelly,
attracted flies/fortnightly collection not frequent
enough 23%
Use own compost bin/worms/chickens 20%
Didn’t want to be part of the audit 17%
Ant / mouse / cockroach problem 13%
Found bags awkward to fit into basket 7%
Fortnightly collection residual waste not
frequent enough 3%
Subgroups were too small to analyse.
PRELIMINARY REPORT Page 27

Number of corn starch bags used in Bio Basket system
Respondents who have used the Bio Basket system (482) were asked
to indicate how many corn starch bags they would use in an average
week.
The dark green columns in the chart below represent the aggregate
response. The most frequent response was three bags per week (28%
of current and former users). However 41% indicated changing less
often than this – once (16%) or twice (25%) a week.
31% (149) change bags more than three times a week. There are 14%
(67) who use 5 or more bags a week.
The chart below also highlights different usage patterns when we
compare single person households and those with three or more
persons.
NUMBER OF TIMES BIO BASKET EMPTIED / WEEK
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
16%
33%
10%
25%
31%
16%
Total sole person Three + people
28%
22%
29%
15%
7%
19%
16%
5%
24%
1 2 3 4 5 or more
PRELIMINARY REPORT Page 28

Another way of looking at usage is to compare average usage across
segments. Overall, an average of 3.1 bags per week was recorded.
Respondents living in traditional houses had a slightly higher average
weekly bag consumption than those in non-traditional housing (3.4
compared with 2.6).
The number of bags used per week also varied across household type,
with families (including two people, single parent households) having
the highest average bag use per week (3.7).
4
3
2
1
0
NUMBER OF CORN STARCH BAGS PER WEEK
[Mean]
3.7
3.1 3.1
3
2.5
2.2
Total
Unrelated
Couples
Families
One
Two
3.7
Three +
Traditional
3.4
PRELIMINARY REPORT Page 29
2.6
Other
HOUSEHOLD PEOPLE IN H'HOLD DWELLING
current users
Further segmentation showed the following variations:
In terms of age, those between 40 and 59 had the highest usage
(3.5) and those 60 and over had the lowest (2.8).
St Peters had a higher average usage (3.3) than Kensington (2.9) as
would be expected with the higher proportion of families in St
Peters.
For current users (3.1) and those who had ceased (3.2), the average
was very similar.
Analysing only current users, the number of corn starch bags used
per week increased with the size of household from an average of
2.5 per week for lone person households to an average of 3.7 per
week for those with 3 or more people.

Prompts for changing bag in Bio Basket system
Respondents who have used the Bio Basket system (482) were asked
to indicate what prompted them to change the bag.
As shown below, 66% of current users and 50% of former users
changed the bag when it was full.
15% of current users and 3% of former users changed the bag every 2-
3 days.
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
66%
50%
PROMPT FOR CHANGING BAG
15%
3%
When full Every 2-3
days
14%
30%
Starts to
smell
Current users Former users
10%
4%
3%
1%
3%
0%
Daily After dinner After each
meal
These results were consistent across all other segments.
PRELIMINARY REPORT Page 30

Difficulty in using Bio Basket system
Respondents who have used the Bio Basket system were asked to
indicate how easy or difficult they found it.
Responses were recorded using the following scale:
very easy quite easy quite difficult very difficult
A ‘don’t know’ category was also used.
66% of current users and 23% of former users found the system very
easy to use.
37% of former users found it difficult to use. This includes a component
of 27% who found it very difficult.
Former users
Current users
EASE OF USING BIO BASKET SYSTEM
Very easy Quite easy Don't know
Quite difficult Very difficult
23%
23% 17% 10%
66%
25%
27%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
These results were again consistent across all other categories.
PRELIMINARY REPORT Page 31
2%
5%
2%

Extent of use of the Bio Basket system
Respondents who had used the Bio Basket system (482) were asked to
indicate which of the following statements best describes their use of
the system:
I used the Bio Basket for everything possible
I used the Bio Basket for most things
I used the Bio Basket for selected items only
I used the Bio Basket for fruit and veg only
I hardly used the Bio Basket
Half of current users claimed to use the system for everything
possible (50%). A further 23% used it for most things. There were no
current users who said that they hardly used the system.
23% of former users had used the system for everything possible, a
further 17% used it for most things. However, 20% of former users
had hardly used the system at all.
Current users
(n=452)
Former users
(n=30)
USE OF BIO BASKET SYSTEM
everything possible most things
selected items fruit and veg
hardly used
50%
23% 17%
23% 18% 9%
27% 13% 20%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
% of users
Once again there were no significant differences between other sectors.
PRELIMINARY REPORT Page 32

Household use of the Bio Basket system
Respondents were asked to indicate the number of people in the
household who use or have used the system.
As already reported, in 15% (84) of households, there were no users.
22% (125) of the sample were single person households where that
person was a bio basket user.
There were another 9% (50) of households with a single user.
However in 43% (245) of cases, it was reported that all household
members use the bio basket.
HOW MANY HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS
USE BIO BASKET
everyone [2+
person
h'holds]
43%
one person
only [2+
person
h'holds]
9% some
11%
single person
houshold
22%
none
15%
PRELIMINARY REPORT Page 33

Problems or shortcomings with Bio Basket pilot
Current and former Bio Basket users were asked if they thought there
were any problems or shortcomings with the pilot.
49% felt there were no problems.
Of the 51% who indicated specific problems, the two most often
mentioned were bin smelly (27%) and fortnightly collection of waste
bin insufficient (26%).
A relatively small proportion mentioned problems in or around the bio
basket itself.
A comprehensive list of responses follows.
Q 19 Were there any problems or shortcomings with
the pilot? (Inc. multiple responses) [N = 482]
Bin smelly 27%
Fortnightly collection of waste bin 26%
Didn’t want odours, flies, rotting food 9%
Fortnightly collection of green organics 8%
Ant problem 4%
Lid broken 4%
Bag problem 3%
Didn’t understand how to use/brochure 3%
Missed collections/couldn’t follow 2%
Bin too small 2%
Other 1%
Not interested 1%
NO PROBLEM 49%
PRELIMINARY REPORT Page 34

83% of former users cited problems or shortcomings, compared with
49% of current users.
The responses of these two segments are contrasted below.
PROBLEMS OR SHORTCOMINGS WITH THE TRIAL
60%
40%
20%
0%
53%
25%
47%
23%
Smelly bin Fortnightly
collection of
waste bin
insufficient
40%
Didn’t want
odours, flies,
rotting food in
kitchen
Former
Current
13%
7% 7%
Fortnightly
collection of
green organics
bin insufficient
PRELIMINARY REPORT Page 35

Incidence of capacity issues residual waste bin
All residents in the City of Norwood Payneham St Peters pilot areas had
fortnightly residual waste collection during the pilot and were asked
whether they experienced capacity issues with their residual waste bin
during the pilot.
Frequently - every fortnight
At least once per month
Seldom, not enough to be an ongoing concern (they managed)
Rarely – only once or twice
39% (220) indicated that this had been a problem for them at least
once during the pilot period.
25% (142) claimed to have had a problem every fortnight.
61% (345) reported that there were no capacity problems.
The percentages for those reporting no capacity problems ranged from
45% for those with three or more in the household, to 82% for sole
occupants.
With the age groups, it was the older age group, over 60 who had the
least capacity problems (75%). The groups between 40 and 59, and
under 40 both had the same proportion of 58%.
Conversely it was those with three or more in the household (55%) and
families (54%) who had the highest incidence of capacity issues.
For those who had constant (every fortnight) capacity issues it was also
households with 3 or more (40%) and families (39%) who had the most
frequent problems.
Segmented results appear in the chart overleaf.
PRELIMINARY REPORT Page 36

INCIDENCE OF CAPACITY ISSUES FORTNIGHTLY
COLLECTION RESIDUAL WASTE BIN
ALL
Kens
St P
under 40
60 plus
Own
Rent
trad/SAHT
other
Former
Current
13%
16%
16%
14%
25%
23%
26%
28%
32%
25%
31%
28%
33%
31%
39%
43%
37%
Ever Fortnightly
44%
42%
42%
45%
50%
0% 20% 40% 60%
PRELIMINARY REPORT Page 37

Benchmark rating of three bin system
All respondents were asked to rate the three bin system for waste,
recyclables and green organics, as it was before the pilot.
They were asked to use the following ten point scale:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Poor Excellent
A ‘don’t know’ response was also allowed.
31% gave a rating of 10.
A total of 66% gave a rating of 8 out of 10 or better.
A further 21% gave a rating of 6 or 7.
This leaves 13% who gave a rating in the lower half of the
scale [1-5].
The average rating given was 8.0.
The mean varied from 6.8 for former users to 8.2 for those respondents
over 60.
There were no significant differences between gender, type of housing
or tenure.
RATING 3 BIN SYSTEM
200
160
120
80
40
0
6 5 3 4
53
32
84
116
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
RATING
The chart over the page details the segmentation results that are
below average (rating 1 to 5), above average (rating 6 to 7) and very
positive (rating 8 to 10).
PRELIMINARY REPORT Page 38
80
175

RATING - EXISTING 3 BIN SYSTEM [MEAN SCORE]
TOTAL [8]
Kens [7.7]
St P [8]
under 40 [7.6]
40-59 [8]
60 plus [8.7]
Own [8.2]
Rent [7.7]
trad/SAHT [8.2]
other [7.7]
All Users [8]
Non-user [8.2]
Former [8.4]
Current [8]
13%
16%
10%
17%
14%
7%
10%
10%
19%
18%
12%
14%
13%
12%
1 TO 5 6 TO 7 8 TO 10
12%
21%
18%
20%
19%
19%
10%
7%
23%
25%
24%
28%
23%
24%
67%
72%
81%
60%
67%
71%
71%
76%
80%
55%
58%
58%
65%
64%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
PRELIMINARY REPORT Page 39

Rating of Bio Basket system
Respondents were asked to rate the Bio Basket in terms of assisting
with recycling of food waste.
This question was asked of all respondents – including those who had
never tried the system.
They were asked to use the same scale as in the previous question:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Poor Excellent
A ‘don’t know’ response was also allowed.
A total of 67% gave a rating of 8 out of 10 or better.
A further 10% gave a rating of 6 or 7.
This leaves 22% who gave a rating in the lower half of the
scale [1-5]. Of these 11% gave the lowest rating of 1.
The average rating given was 7.6. The means ranged from 3.6 for
former users to 8.3 for current users.
200
160
120
80
40
RATING BIO BASKET
0
57
10
12
13
37
24
30
82
195
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
RATING
The chart on the next page summarises results for key subgroups.
However, with the exception of user status, segmentation did not reveal
significant differences.
PRELIMINARY REPORT Page 40
83

RATING - BIO BASKET SYSTEM [MEAN SCORE]
TOTAL [7.6]
Kens [7.7]
St P [7.5]
under 40 [7]
40-59 [7.1]
60 plus [7.6]
Own [7.5]
Rent [7.8]
trad/SAHT [7.5]
other [7.7]
All Users [8]
Non-user [3.8]
Former [3.6]
Current [8.3]
22%
21%
24%
31%
29%
24%
24%
20%
24%
21%
17%
13%
1 TO 5 6 TO 7 8 TO 10
9%
10%
11%
10%
7%
10%
11%
9%
9%
11%
10%
12%
69%
77%
67%
69%
66%
69%
60%
59%
67%
70%
67%
68%
73%
78%
17%
13%
15%
10%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
PRELIMINARY REPORT Page 41

Rating of collection frequency - residual waste bin
Respondents were also asked to rate the collection frequency of their
residual waste bin. For residents in this pilot area, it was a fortnightly
collection.
They were asked to use the same ten point scale:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Poor Excellent
A ‘don’t know’ response was also allowed.
This question produced a result which was markedly less favourable
than the previous two ratings questions.
A total of 47% gave a rating of 8 out of 10 or better.
A further 14% gave a rating of 6 or 7.
This leaves 47% who gave a rating in the lower half of the
scale [1-5], of these, 19% gave the lowest rating of 1.
The average rating given was 6.2.
The lowest mean was 3.4 for former users, and the highest (6.7) was
for current users. There were insignificant differences between areas,
housing type or tenure.
200
160
120
RATING COLLECTION FREQUENCING RESIDUAL WASTE BIN
80
40
0
109
31
17
21
46
30
46
76
PRELIMINARY REPORT Page 42
47
140
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
RATING

RATING - COLLECTION FREQUENCY RESIDUAL
WASTE BIN [MEAN SCORE]
TOTAL [6.2]
Kens [6.2]
St P [6.2]
under 40 [6.3]
40-59 [5.8]
60 plus [6.7]
Own [6]
Rent [6.6]
trad/SAHT [6.1]
other [6.4]
All Users [6.5]
Non-user [4.6]
Former [3.4]
Current [6.7]
1 TO 5 6 TO 7 8 TO 10
39%
39%
40%
37%
44%
35%
42%
35%
40%
38%
35%
33%
63%
7%
13%
77%
14%
15%
13%
21%
12%
14%
14%
13%
15%
15%
6%
58%
47%
47%
48%
42%
44%
45%
52%
46%
50%
50%
53%
31%
13%
10%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
PRELIMINARY REPORT Page 43

Rating of collection frequency - green kerbside organics
bin
Finally, in this series of questions, respondents were asked to rate the
collection frequency of their green kerbside organics bin.
They were asked to use the following ten point scale:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Poor Excellent
A ‘don’t know’ response was also allowed.
A total of 70% gave a rating of 8 out of 10 or better, with 40%
giving a rating of 10.
A further 12% gave a rating of 6 or 7.
This leaves 18% who gave a rating in the lower half of the
scale [1-5].
The average rating given was 8.0. The means ranged from 6.8 for
former users to 8.2 for current users.
This positive approval rating showed no appreciable differences
between sectors, with the exception of previous users who have tended
to be more negative on all the ratings questions.
250
200
150
100
50
RATING COLLECTION FREQUENCY GREEN ORGANICS BIN
0
20 17 10 14
43
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
16
RATING
48
85
82
223
PRELIMINARY REPORT Page 44

RATING - COLLECTION FREQUENCY - GREEN
ORGANICS BIN [MEAN SCORE]
TOTAL [8]
Kens [7.9]
St P [8.1]
under 40 [8.1]
40-59 [7.7]
60 plus [8.2]
Own [7.9]
Rent [8.2]
trad/SAHT [7.9]
other [8.1]
All Users [8.1]
Non-user [7.4]
Former [6.8]
Current [8.2]
18%
17%
19%
16%
21%
17%
19%
17%
19%
17%
17%
16%
1 TO 5 6 TO 7 8 TO 10
25%
37%
12%
14%
10%
14%
9%
12%
13%
10%
11%
12%
11%
11%
13%
10%
70%
69%
71%
71%
67%
75%
68%
74%
70%
71%
72%
73%
62%
53%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
PRELIMINARY REPORT Page 45

Overview ratings collection services
As can be seen by the chart below there were similar patterns, but
significant differences, between the ratings given by respondents to
each collection method.
The 3 bin system was the collection with the highest customer
satisfaction rate, with a mean of 8.0. It attracted the least number of
responses under 4 with 18, one third the figure of the next highest, the
green organics bin.
The green organics bin also had a mean rating of 8.0. It attracted the
highest numbers giving a rating of 10, with 223.
The bio basket had a mean of 7.6, in the superior range.
The residual waste bin with a mean of 6.2 was the lowest rating. It
attracted 178 ratings below 5. The fortnightly collection of the residual
waste bin also attracted the greatest number of comments with 170
specific comments about the frequency of collection at Q. 30 Do you
have any changes you would suggest or do you have any other
comments about the system?
250
200
150
100
50
0
RATINGS COLLECTION SERVICES
3 Bin System Green Organics Bin Residual Waste Bin Bio Basket
109
116
20
6
84
57
53
4346
48 46
31
37 32
17 21
30 30
17 10 14
16 24
10 12 13
5 3 4
85
76 82 82 83
80
47
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
175
223
140
195
PRELIMINARY REPORT Page 46

Predicted future use of Bio Basket system
All respondents were told that the pilot was coming to an end and asked
to indicate the likelihood of their using their bio basket on an on-going
basis
Responses were recorded using the following scale:
very likely quite likely quite unlikely very unlikely
A ‘don’t know’ response was also used.
74% of respondents felt it likely they would continue to use the system,
including 60% who considered it very likely.
22% of respondents stated they would be unlikely to continue to use
the system, including 17% who considered it very unlikely.
4% were uncertain.
As would be expected, the proportion of those who had already used
the Bio Basket system who indicated they were likely to continue was
high (73%), with only 9% saying they would be unlikely to continue.
Amongst non-users, the response was quite different. 17% of this
subgroup were likely to continue using the system, while 73% said they
would be unlikely to continue.
This is shown in graph form on the next page.
PRELIMINARY REPORT Page 47

PREDICTED FUTURE USE
Very likely Quite likely Don't know Quite unlikely Very unlikely
ALL
Users
Non-users
Former users
0%
6%
60%
11% 11% 11%
3%
13%
13%
73%
14%
70%
62%
4%
5%
14%
17%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
% of respondents
3%
3%
6%
PRELIMINARY REPORT Page 48

Cost perceptions
All respondents were reminded that: during the pilot, the food waste
system was provided at no direct cost to residents.
They were then asked: If Council implemented the system, what
statement best describes your thoughts on costs? (Understanding
there may be a cost increase with the introduction of a new
service)
Not concerned – found the system very good and think it
should be implemented regardless of cost
Willing to pay $15 - $20 a year as part of rates
Willing to pay $10 - $15 a year (as part of rates)
Willing to pay $5 - $10 a year (as part of rates)
Willing to pay no more than $5 a year (as part of rates)
Not willing to pay any extra
The last option was the most common answer – chosen by 55%.
In each segment the most frequent response was not willing to pay
any extra.
This answer was given by 68% of those over 60 but only 42% of those
under 40.
There was no appreciable difference by gender or type of housing, or
area.
The following chart details the sector analysis:
PRELIMINARY REPORT Page 49

WILLINGNESS TO PAY
TOTAL
under 40
40-59
60 plus
Own
Rent
All Users
8% 11% 8% 8% 8%
12%
9%
7% 10% 8% 7% 8%
10%
9%
14%
11% 10% 6% 5%
13%
9%
5%
2% 8% 10%
7%
9%
11%
12%
11% 10%
13% 10% 9% 9%
Implement at any cost
Willing to pay $15 - $20
Willing to pay $10 - $15
Willing to pay $5 - $10
Willing to pay

Respondents were invited to comment further [Q27]
There were 259 comments made, which are summarised below:
ONLY IF . .
Bins collected weekly (5 comments).
Only to cover costs of bags (5 comments).
Important to be responsible for own waste (1 comment)
NO BECAUSE . .
COUNCIL / RATES ISSUES:
Rates are high enough, they should cover the cost (53 comments).
We paid for weekly pick-up, now fortnightly, no rebate given (53
comments also- different respondents to previous comment).
Council saving money with reduction in landfill, saving should fund
program(15 comments)
Council and companies should not be benefitting ( 10 responses).
Council benefits from recycling – less waste goes to landfill (9
comments).
Part of garbage pick-up anyway (13 comments).
Charging too much for the service (5 comments)
If paying for service don’t want to pay for bags (3 comments).
DON’T USE IT:
Do own composting (31 responses).
Don’t use it (25 responses)
CAN’T AFFORD:
Am pensioner (14 comments)
Can’t afford increase (13 comments)
LESS POPULAR RESPONSES:
Not up to me to pay (2 responses)
Poor Quality product (1 comment)
PRELIMINARY REPORT Page 51

Predicted future use - if refill bags cost $15/150
All respondents who had used the system or considered themselves
likely to use the system in the future (496) were asked if they would be
prepared to pay for re-fill bags at a cost of $15 for a roll of 150 bags on
an on-going basis.
50% (248) were prepared to pay this cost, 38% were not. 12% were
not sure.
The people prepared to pay the cost represent 44% of the total sample.
There were no significant differences between sectors other than a
variation by age; those over 60 were slightly less likely to pay this cost,
and those under 40 were slightly more likely to.
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
TOTAL
50%
51%
Kens
WILLING TO PAY $15 FOR 150 BAGS
56%
48% 49% 48%
42%
St P
under 40
40-59
60 plus
Own
53%
Rent
trad/SAHT
47%
54%
other
PRELIMINARY REPORT Page 52

Predicted future use - if 150 bags were provided free and
further refill bags cost $15/150
The 145 users who used more than 3 bags a week in the pilot were
asked to indicate the likelihood of them using the system on an ongoing
basis if the council supplied only enough free bags for 3 bags to
be used a week and they had to pay $15 for a roll of 150 additional
bags. Responses were recorded using the following scale:
very likely quite likely quite unlikely very unlikely
A ‘don’t know’ response was also used.
65% of respondents felt it likely they would continue to use the system,
including 55% who felt it very likely.
24% of respondents felt it unlikely they would continue to use the
system, of these 19% were very unlikely.
No heavy (4+ bag) user felt it unlikely they would continue before told of
this extra cost.
10% were not sure if they would continue to use the system.
WILLING TO PAY $15 FOR 150 BAGS AFTER FIRST
150 BAGS
Very likely
56%
Quite likely
10%
Very unlikely
19%
Don’t know
10%
Quite unlikely
5%
PRELIMINARY REPORT Page 53

Comments
Before completing the interview, respondents were asked if there were
any changes they would suggest or if there were any other comments
they would like to make.
Respondents made 380 comments. They are summarised below.
COLLECTION FREQUENCY
An overwhelming number of comments mentioned collection frequency
of bins.
The red bin should be collected weekly - totalled 168 comments,
plus 2 respondents who thought there should be 2 red bins provided
to families.
The green bin should be collected weekly was mentioned 37 times,
and the yellow bin needs weekly collection, 17 times.
Another comment was also made that respondents take rubbish to
another household because they did not have enough capacity.
In all, there were 227 comments made identifying the need for more
frequent collection for each bin.
BAG ISSUES
The need for free bags was mentioned as a separate comment 9
times.
A preference for handles or ties on corn starch bags was cited 11
times.
The bags are too small was mentioned 6 times, and that they were
too large, once.
The need for better availability of bags was mentioned 4 times.
PRELIMINARY REPORT Page 54

BASKET ISSUES
Need a stronger basket was the most common response about
baskets, with 14 responses.
Need a bigger basket was also mentioned 12 times.
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
The most common response here was that it was the right thing to do, a
good system for the environment, with 37 responses.
There were a number of single responses, including:
No benefit to recycling
Effort and inconvenience not justified
Having to clean recycling bin wastes water.
INFORMATION, COMPLIANCE ISSUES
These were mainly single response comments.
Pick up date sticker for bins
More information on what can go in yellow bin
Need reminders of what can go in bins.
PRELIMINARY REPORT Page 55