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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

. 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
Page 1 and 2: ZERO WASTE SA BIO BASKET PILOT SURV
Page 3 and 4: INTRODUCTION Truscott Research was
Page 5 and 6: PATTERNS OF USE 85% (482) of all r
Page 7 and 8: All respondents who had used the sy
Page 9 and 10: BARRIERS TO USING THE SYSTEM AND DI
Page 11 and 12: SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS A total of 5
Page 13 and 14: In each of the households included
Page 15: six or more five four three two one
Page 19 and 20: Placement of Bio Basket bags Those
Page 21 and 22: DISPOSE OF LAWN CLIPPINGS AND GARDE
Page 23 and 24: Use of green kerbside organics bin
Page 25 and 26: Increased level of awareness Respon
Page 27 and 28: Reasons for not using the Bio Baske
Page 29 and 30: Reasons for stopping use of the Bio
Page 31 and 32: Another way of looking at usage is
Page 33 and 34: Difficulty in using Bio Basket syst
Page 35 and 36: Household use of the Bio Basket sys
Page 37 and 38: 83% of former users cited problems
Page 39 and 40: INCIDENCE OF CAPACITY ISSUES FORTNI
Page 41 and 42: RATING - EXISTING 3 BIN SYSTEM [MEA
Page 43 and 44: RATING - BIO BASKET SYSTEM [MEAN SC
Page 45 and 46: RATING - COLLECTION FREQUENCY RESID
Page 47 and 48: RATING - COLLECTION FREQUENCY - GRE
Page 49 and 50: Predicted future use of Bio Basket
Page 51 and 52: Cost perceptions All respondents we
Page 53 and 54: Respondents were invited to comment
Page 55 and 56: Predicted future use - if 150 bags
Page 57: BASKET ISSUES Need a stronger bask

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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?