Table of Contents

Recycling Services People's Panel Consultation

This report contains a written summary of the findings of a survey commissioned by Environmental Services, Birmingham City Council.

The purpose of the research was to consult with residents of Birmingham to investigate levels of participation in recycling, awareness and attitudes towards recycling; customer satisfaction with current recycling services; and motivations and barriers to recycling.

A 12-page structured questionnaire was mailed out to all 2,249 members of the Birmingham People's Panel in November 2006. This was the first consultation exercise with the refreshed and extended People's Panel, following retirement and recruitment exercises during Summer 2006.

Panel members are selected on a random basis, and monitored to ensure broad representative-ness of the Birmingham population as a whole. However, it must be noted that panel members, due to the way they are recruited, tend to be more engaged and informed than the wider public.

An introduction to the Birmingham People's Panel is provided as appendix 1.

Survey Results

The findings suggest that the majority of Birmingham residents now engage in recycling practices to at least some degree.

11% of respondents indicated that they currently recycle most of their household waste, 40% indicated that they recycle `as much as possible' and a further 41% indicated that they recycle some of their household waste.

Only 4% said that they recycle none of their household waste, whilst 4% were unsure or did not provide a response.

Recycling Behaviour

When prompted regarding materials recycled, only 3% said `none of these'. Residents were most likely to mention paper as a material that they recycle (89%), followed by garden waste (75%), glass (69%), clothes and textiles (62%), and then shoes (47%).

Tins, cans or scrap metal (38%) are slightly more likely to be recycled by our sample than plastic bags (35%), then plastics (25%), and mobile phones or batteries (21%).

Timber and electrical goods are each recycled by around 18% of respondents. 12% indicated that they recycle building materials, and 11% metal foil.

Two types of materials are recycled by fewer than 10% of residents: aerosols (6%); and food/organic waste, which only 1% of respondents said that they recycle currently.

Kerbside Collection

Just over a third (36%) of residents surveyed described themselves as to some extent dissatisfied with the current range of materials collected for recycling from their kerbside. However, half (50%) of residents felt satisfied to a greater or lesser degree, and only 14% said neither/nor or that they were unsure/unable to answer.

The proportion of households who say that they put out each type of material for kerbside collection on every occasion or on most occasions are listed as follows;

Among the relatively small group of residents never putting paper out for kerbside collection (19%) the most mentioned reason for non usage was `have not received a recycling bag or box (44%), followed by `prefer to recycle paper in other ways' (28%), and `didn't know there was a scheme in my area (24%).

The slightly larger group of residents never putting green waste out for collection (36%), are significantly more likely to feel certain that there is no scheme in their area: 41% say `no scheme in my area' when asked why they do not put out green waste for collection, whilst 21% say that they `prefer to recycle green waste in other ways' and 20% say that they `didn't know that there was a scheme in my area'. 9% said that they `had no garden'.

The significant 63% of residents who say that they never put out multi materials for collection (cans, plastics, glass) tend again to feel certain that there is ` No scheme in (their) area' (63%) or that they have not received a container (35%), whilst 25% say that they did not know that there was a scheme in their area.

Those using the paper kerbside collection service were asked about the container used. 50% of residents said they used a bag provided by the Council, 23% used their own box or bag, and 17% used a box provided by the Council. 6% said that the container used would vary.

When asked about the container they would prefer to use for paper, the most popular response was a plastic box (44%), which was also the most popular container for multi-materials (58%) whilst for green waste the most popular response was a plastic sack (44%). Preferences were more missed when it came to containers for kerbside collection of textiles: 33% said plastic sack, 28% plastic bag and 15% plastic box.

Each kerbside collection service was explored in more depth through questions relating to satisfaction with a number of aspects of the service. Below are listed the proportion of households who say that they are very or fairly satisfied with each aspect;

Respondents were less likely to be able to respond in relation to friendliness/attitude of collection staff across the different materials collected, impacting proportions very or fairly satisfied with this aspect. This is not the case with all other aspects. For example, only 1% said `don't know' in relation to levels of satisfaction with the place where the container is returned after a paper collection. Dissatisfaction levels are shown in graphical format in the main body of this report.

Recycling Banks

73% of residents interviewed said that they do use recycling banks. 26% said that they do not.

Residents interviewed were most likely to use glass recycling banks.

Among self-declared users of recycling banks, only 9% say that they never take glass to recycling banks, and 19% never take textiles to recycling banks. 26% say that they never take paper to recycling banks, whilst 40% never take tin cans to recycling banks.

Listed below are the proportions of recycling-bank-users who say that they are very or fairly satisfied with each aspect of the service they were questioned on:

Whilst 49% felt that the number of recycling banks in their area was about right, 45% considered that there were not enough. Only 1% felt that there were too many recycling banks.

All residents interviewed were asked the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with six statements regarding the recycling bank service. Their responses are summarised below. These figures exclude those who did not provide a valid response. Full responses (including those respondents who did not provide a valid response) are detailed in the main body of this report.:

Information and Communication about Recycling

Respondents were asked to indicate which type/types of information out of ten types they would like to receive from the Council. Reponses suggest that there is a demand for more education on this subject, with 8 of the 10 types of information in demand by well over a third of respondents.

The highest proportions of respondents would like the Council to tell them about special items for recycling e.g. fridges/computer/batteries, and information on who to contact if there is a problem, query or request, as detailed below.

When questioned about the means by which they would like to receive information about recycling services in their area, 84% of residents confirmed that they would like a `leaflet through my door', making this significantly the most preferred information channel. 28% said `leaflet left with my kerbside collection box/bag', 27% said the Birmingham Council website, and 25% posters or adverts across the city. 24% mentioned an article in the council newspaper.

Contact with the Council regarding Recycling

42% of respondents said that they had contacted the Council at some point about recycling services. More respondents had not (55%), whilst 3% did not respond.

Among those who had contacted the Council about recycling, the most usual motivation for this was said to be to request more bags or a replacement container (47%), followed by to report a missed collection (31%). But 22% of respondents said that they had contacted the Council for general information about recycling and waste, 18% to find out about the service in their local area, and 17% to find out when the next collection would be.

There was general satisfaction with how the Council had dealt with these queries (61%), whilst 18% were very dissatisfied and 14% fairly dissatisfied.

Attitudes towards Recycling

Birmingham residents appear most likely to consider themselves `fairly committed to recycling household waste', 48% of respondents selecting this label as most appropriate to themselves. A still significant 35% of respondents interviewed described themselves as extremely committed to recycling household waste. 13% felt that they were neither committed nor uncommitted, whilst only 1% felt that they were not at all committed to recycling household waste.

Committed respondents were allowed to select a number of reasons why they felt it was important to recycle household waste. 59% mentioned that it helps preserve the environment. 31% mentioned the importance of materials being re-used and 30% that it reduces the use of landfill sites. 27% said that it is the right thing to do, and just under 27% said that not wasting raw materials was important. 26% said that one reason was to reduce pollution, whilst 25% said to protect children's or grandchildren's future. 24% said that they disliked being wasteful.

The small group of (29) respondents describing themselves as uncommitted to recycling or with no opinion, were asked the reasons why. Half were unable to provide a reason, whilst perceived lack of facilities to store waste and lack of time to separate waste were each mentioned by 4 of these respondents (14%). Not having the resources to separate waste and not having collections for recyclable items were each mentioned by 2 respondents, or 7% of those who consider themselves non-committed.

Conclusions

The findings from this postal survey suggest that the majority of residents are now engaged in recycling to at least some degree. More than 9 out of 10 of those interviewed recycle at least some of their household waste. Environmental concerns are the key motivator.

Findings on attitudes to recycling appear positive (even when the potential increased level of engagement of People's Panel members is accounted for). More than 8 out of 10 respondents consider themselves committed to recycling household waste and 4 in 10 have been proactive enough to contact the Council about recycling. Only 2% of respondents chose the `none of these' option when asked which of a list of subjects they would like the council to tell them more about.

Overall, residents are most likely to say that they recycle paper, followed by green waste and then glass. But there is significant variation in terms of materials recycled through each distinct recycling channel. In terms of the kerbside collection service, paper is most likely to be recycled and then green waste is more likely than glass. In contrast, recycling banks are used by the highest proportion of respondents for glass, followed by textiles, paper, and fourthly cans.

People appear keen to increase the range of materials that they recycle: The most sought after type of recycling information concerns special items for recycling e.g. fridges or batteries. Residents are less likely to be satisfied with the range of materials covered by kerbside collections overall (50% satisfied) than they are with a range of aspects associated with the collection of specific materials e.g. 80% are satisfied with the frequency of collection for paper, 72% with the frequency of collection for multi material and 68% for green waste.

Among the small minority not involved in recycling to any extent, the process of storage and separation appears to be the largest stumbling block. However, many were unable to provide a reason why they did not recycle, indicating that the issue has simply not yet become top of mind for these residents.

Around half of those using recycling banks describe their local facility as satisfactory, whilst over 70% of paper, green waste and multi material kerbside collection users describe themselves as satisfied with these services. Attitude battery responses suggest that, if there were a choice between divestment in banks versus kerbside collections, the preference would be to divest in banks. However, the statement that was met with more agreement than either of these options reflected a policy whereby the Council continues to provide the current number of recycling banks and invests more in the kerbside collection service (75% agreed).

One in four residents agreed that it would be acceptable for the Council to reduce the frequency general household waste is collected if the recycling service was improved. Whilst not a green light from all respondents, this shows some degree of willingness to decrease reliance on general household waste collection.

The main written report which follows explores the findings in more detail, including analysis by different sub-groups of respondents. A separate data report is available which provides cross tabulations of survey data by variables including age, gender, accommodation type etc.

Recycling Services in Birmingham

Recycling began in Birmingham in 1981 with a few banks around the City. There are now over 400 sites across Birmingham, and the amount recycled continues to grow. In 2001/02 the City Council recycled over 39,000 tonnes, achieving a recycling rate of 8.34%. In 2005/06 the City Council recycled over 85,500 tonnes, reaching a recycling rate of just under 17%.

In 2008/09, the City Council hopes to be recycling 24% of all household waste in the city.

Improving the recycling service is one of the City Council's priorities. Providing the most appropriate services to help residents to recycle is a key concern. As well as consulting with residents the Council is also working hard to raise awareness and maximise participation in recycling.

This report presents the results and findings of consultation undertaken with members of the Birmingham People's Panel on recycling issues.

BMG has experience in similar consultations, outside of and within Birmingham. Ongoing since 2006, BMG has been assisting the Birmingham Strategic Partnership to undertake a wide programme of public consultation in preparation for a draft climate change strategy for the city. This process has involved both quantitative and qualitative methods, and has assessed views of young people, faith groups, businesses and many other key stakeholders.

The main objectives of this recycling-specific consultation are to establish a quantitative measurement of opinion on and awareness of recycling services in Birmingham.

This information will be used to inform and influence decisions concerning the recycling service. There is the potential for this to be measured again via a repetition of the survey in the future to measure changes in attitudes and behaviours.

Quantitative Postal Research

A quantitative research methodology was applied to establish hard-line data.

A 12-page structured postal questionnaire was designed by Birmingham City Council and BMG Research, comprising of 38 questions. The questionnaire asked about levels of participation in recycling, awareness and attitudes towards recycling; customer satisfaction with current recycling services; and motivations and barriers to recycling.

One open-ended question was included, which invited non users of recycling services to describe why they were not involved in recycling at the time of interviewing.

The questionnaire is shown in appendix 2.

The target population consisted of all 2,249 members of the Birmingham People's Panel. This was the first consultation piece with the refreshed and extended People's Panel, following retirement and recruitment exercises during Summer 2006. (See appendix 1 for detail on the People's Panel).

Questionnaires were bar-coded with a unique reference number to monitor the response rate and track which respondents had returned a completed questionnaire.

A number of questions were asked about the respondent's household within the questionnaire. A further set of demographics-related questions, asked previously of panel members, was also drawn upon as required to provide relevant data breakdowns.

One thousand and forty two full and valid interviews were completed by members of the People's Panel during November and December 2006.

Graphs and tables are used throughout this report to assist explanation and analysis. In all cases, results shown reflect unweighted data and bases are given. Where results exclude invalid responses e.g. `don't know' where an attitude rating scale is required, this is stated. Although occasional anomalies may appear due to `rounding differences', these should not be more than -1/+1%.

Respondent Profile

The following table summarises the key characteristics of respondents within the sample.

Table 1

Respondent profile (All respondents)

Recycling Behaviour

The findings suggest that the majority of Birmingham residents now engage in recycling practices to at least some degree.

11% of respondents indicated that they currently recycle most of their household waste, 40% indicated that they recycle `as much as possible' and a further 41% indicated that they recycle some of their household waste.

Only 4% said that they recycle none of their household waste, whilst 4% were unsure or did not provide a response.

Figure 1

When those not providing a response are excluded from the sample base, the proportion of those who recycle increases from 94% to 96%.

Participation in recycling appears to vary by age, with younger respondents less likely to say that they recycle than those in older age groups. The largest proportion of those who say that they recycle at least some of their household waste are in the 65+ age bracket, as shown in Figure 2 overleaf.

Figure 2

100% of retired respondents to this survey say that they recycle. But respondents in employment of some kind are more likely to say that they recycle (96%) than those who are unemployed or not working for any reason (93%). 91% of students and trainees say that they recycle at least some of their household waste.

98% and 99% of respondents in detached and semi-detached houses respectively are engaged in recycling, decreasing to 97% and 95% of those in end-terrace and mid-terrace houses respectively. A relatively small group of respondents live in flats, and therefore conclusions specific to these should be treated with caution. Nevertheless it may be significant that the proportion of respondents engaged in recycling decreases to 79% where the respondent lives in a flat.

Materials Recycled

Residents were most likely to mention paper as a material that they recycle (89%), followed by garden waste (75%), glass (69%), clothes and textiles (62%), and shoes (47%).

Tins, cans or scrap metal (38%) are followed by plastic bags (35%), plastics (25%), and mobile phones or batteries (21%) in terms of the proportions of residents recycling these materials.

Timber and electrical goods are each recycled by around 18% of residents. 12% of residents indicated that they recycle building materials, and 11% metal foil.

Two types of materials are recycled by fewer than 10% of residents, - aerosols (6%) and food/organic waste which only 1% of residents said that they recycle currently.

Figure 3

Among those who recycle most or as much as possible of their household waste, 99% say that they recycle paper, 89% recycle garden waste, 85% recycle glass and 69% say that they recycle clothes and textiles. But a comparatively low 58% of this group say that they recycle cans/tins or scrap metal, 30% recycle mobile phones or batteries, and only 10% recycle aerosols. 1% recycle food/organic waste, the same proportion as of those who recycle some or none of their household waste.

Glass recycling habits appear to vary more by working status than some other materials (perhaps reflecting greater usage of recycling banks by certain groups, suggested in figures 13 and 14 below). Whilst 69% of the total sample say that they recycle glass, this increases from 42% of students/trainees and 57% of unemployed residents to 70% of employed residents and a significant 79% of retired respondents.

Kerbside Collection

The following statistics show the proportion of households who say that they put out each type of materials for kerbside collection on every occasion or on most occasions;

The green waste kerbside collection service appears to have a greater proportion of occasional users than either the paper or multi material services. As illustrated in Figure 4, only 5% of respondents say that they put out paper for collection `as and when needed' and 3% put out multi material waste for collection `as and when needed', compared with 19% for green waste.

Figure 4

Satisfaction with the Breadth of the Kerbside Collection Service

As shown in Figure 5, just over a third (36%) of residents interviewed describe themselves as to some extent dissatisfied with the current range of materials collected for recycling from their kerbside. However, half (50%) of residents feel satisfied with the range of materials to a greater or lesser degree, only 11% saying neither/nor.

4% of residents either responded `don't know' or did not provide a response on their satisfaction with the current range of materials collected at kerbside. This may provide insights in itself as an indicator of uncertainty over materials recycled. The proportion is lower among those in detached houses (2%) than among those living in flats, for example (20%), who may be less familiar.

Figure 5

Perhaps unsurprisingly, those who recycle more of their household waste tend to be more satisfied than others with the current range of materials collected from kerbside. 64% of those who recycle most or as much as possible of their household waste are satisfied with the range of materials collected, compared with 34% of those who recycle some or none.

Satisfaction with Aspects of the Kerbside Collection Service

Each kerbside collection service was explored in more depth through questions relating to satisfaction levels across a number of aspects. Listed below are the proportions of households using each kerbside collection service who say that they are very or fairly satisfied with each aspect;

As detailed, satisfaction levels are well over 50% for the majority of aspects mentioned. The paper kerbside collection service tends to achieve highest proportions of satisfied users, the highest statistic overall being the place where paper is collected from (87%), followed by time of paper collection (84%) as well as the place where green waste is collected from (84%).

Respondents were less likely to feel able to respond in relation to friendliness/attitude of collection staff across all materials collected, and a higher percentage of `don't know' responses impacts on the proportions who are very or fairly satisfied with this aspect. For example, 29% of respondents replied don't know when asked about the friendliness/attitude of paper collection staff.

This is not the case with other service aspects. Indeed, the lower satisfaction level with where the kerbside container is returned after a collection is impacted by the 41% of respondents who say that they are very or fairly dissatisfied with this, and only 1% said `don't know'

Satisfaction levels have been listed above. Levels of dissatisfaction are analysed below from the perspective of each material type collected (figures 8, 9 and 11), in order to highlight any potential problem areas.

Containers for Kerbside Collection

As shown in Figure 6, plastic sacks tend to be the container of preference for green waste and textiles, whilst plastic boxes are the clear preference for multi material collections, and also paper.

Figure 6

In most cases there is a clear favourite, but preferences were more mixed when it came to containers for kerbside collection of textiles: 33% said plastic sack, 28% plastic bag and 15% plastic box.

All residents interviewed were asked for their container preferences, irrespective of how much or little of their household waste they recycled. There were no significant differences between those who recycle most/as much as possible and those who recycle less of their household waste.

As shown in Figure 6, when all residents were asked about the container they would prefer to use for paper kerbside collection, the most popular response was a plastic box (44%). However, this is not the type of container that users of the service are most likely to use currently. 50% of paper collection service users said they use a bag provided by the Council, 23% use their own box or bag, and 16% use a box provided by the Council. 6% said that the container used would vary.

Paper Collection Service Usage/Non Usage

89% of residents say that they put out paper for kerbside collection - 61% on every occasion, 13% on most occasions, 2% less often than this and 5% `as and when needed' (1% unsure or refusing).

Among the relatively small group of residents who never put paper out for kerbside collection (19%), the most mentioned reason for this was `Have not received a recycling bag or box' (44%), followed by `Prefer to recycle paper in other ways' (28%), and `Didn't know there was a scheme in my area' (24%).

38% of residents whose accommodation type is a flat gave `Didn't know there was a scheme in my area' as a reason for not using the paper kerbside collection service, compared to the average of 24%.

Age tabulations provide some interesting comparisons among non users of paper kerbside collections. Figure 7 shows how respondents in the younger age groups were most likely to consider that they had not received the relevant container for paper collections.

Figure 7

Residents not leaving paper out for collection in the older age groups appear more likely to be recycling paper themselves: 49% of those aged 55 to 64 and 52% of those aged 65+ say that they `prefer to recycle paper in other ways', whilst fewer than 20% of those aged under 45 give the same reason.

Paper Collection User Satisfaction

Satisfaction levels are well over 50% for the majority of aspects associated with the paper collection service, as detailed on pages 16 and 17.

On a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is very dissatisfied and 5 is very satisfied, the `kerbside paper collection service overall' achieves 3.95. This ranges from 3.91 among employed respondents and 3.92 among unemployed respondents, to 4.08 among retired respondents.

Dissatisfaction with the paper collection service is most likely to relate to the place where the container is returned after a collection, or the container itself. Dissatisfaction across all aspects of service (prompted) is illustrated in Figure 8.

Figure 8

The proportion of residents dissatisfied with the time of collection increases from 4% overall to 12% of 18 to 34 year olds. Older residents tended to express greater satisfaction across most of these service aspects, whilst those in the 18 to 34 age group were often the most likely to express dissatisfaction.

When asked about the container they would prefer to use for paper, the most popular response was a plastic box (44%). However, this is not the type of container that users of the service are most likely to use currently. 50% of service users said they use a bag provided by the Council, 23% use their own box or bag, and 16% use a box provided by the Council. 6% said that the container used would vary.

Green Waste Collection Service Usage/Non Usage

20% of residents put out green waste on every occasion and 22% on most occasions, whilst a further 19% say that they put out green waste `as and when needed' and 3% `less often than this'.

As shown in figure 4 above, responses suggest that a higher proportion of users of the green waste collection service do not use the service on every occasion than is the case for users of the paper or the multi material collection service.

Among the 36% of respondents who never put green waste out for collection (36%), 41% say that this is because there is `No scheme in my area' whilst 21% say that they `Prefer to recycle green waste in other ways' and 20% say that they `Didn't know that there was a scheme in my area'.

9% i.e. just under 1 in 10 of those who do not put green waste out for collection said that they have no garden.

Green Waste Collection User Satisfaction

On a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is very dissatisfied and 5 is very satisfied, the `kerbside green waste collection service overall' achieves a rating of 3.82 among respondents. This rises to 3.98 among retired respondents.

The rating is 3.61 among respondents who recycle none or some of their household waste, increasing to 3.96 among those who recycle most or as much as possible of their household waste. This echoes the trend identified above, whereby those who recycle more and are more engaged with the recycling service tend also to be more satisfied with the service.

Where dissatisfaction with the green waste collection service exists, this is most likely to relate to the frequency of collection or reliability of the service, as shown in Figure 9. The order here is quite different to that associated with the paper kerbside collection service, illustrated in Figure 8.

Figure 9

For green waste the most popular container specified was a plastic sack (44%), followed by a wheeled bin (26%) and then a plastic bag (17%). Those preferring a plastic box are relatively very low (5%) as shown in Figure 6 above.

Multi Material Collection Service Usage/Non Usage

35% of panel members interviewed say that they put out multi material waste (cans, plastics, glass) for kerbside collection - 23% on every occasion, 7% on most occasions, 1% less often than this and 3% `as and when needed' (2% unsure or refusing).

The proportion of residents who say that they never put out multi material waste for collection (63%) is significantly higher than those who never put out green waste (36%) or paper (19%).

The proportion of residents who say that they never put out multi material waste rises to 77% where the respondent's accommodation type is a flat, as illustrated in Figure 10.

Figure 10

Non users tend to feel certain that there is `No scheme in (their) area', 63% saying this. This is an even higher proportion than the green waste collection service (where 41% of non users consider that there is `no scheme in my area').

The second reason given by non users of multi material collections was that they have not received a container (35%), whilst 25% say that they `did not know that there was a scheme in their area' i.e. they entertain the likelihood that there is a service, but admit that they had not been aware of it.

Respondents over 65 years of age were slightly more likely to say that they had not received a container for multi material waste (41% of non users) than the average (35% of non users).

Multi Material Waste Collection User Satisfaction

On a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is very dissatisfied and 5 is very satisfied, the `multi material waste paper collection service overall' achieves a rating of 4.07 among respondents.

This compares with 3.95 for paper and 3.82 for green waste, but it must be noted that the rating derives from a smaller base, due to a lower number of service users in the sample (364).

On the same scale, where 1 is very dissatisfied and 5 is very satisfied, the `multi material waste paper collection service overall' achieves a rating of 4.22 among those who recycle most or as much as possible, compared to 3.69 among respondents who recycle some or none of their household waste.

Where dissatisfaction with the multi material waste collection service exists, this is most likely to relate to the place where the container is returned after a collection, and how clean and tidy the street is left after a collection, as illustrated in Figure 11.

As shown, dissatisfaction with where the container is returned is more likely than dissatisfaction with where the container is collected from. This is also clearly the case with the paper collection service (shown in Figure 8). (This aspect was not included in the question with regards the green waste service)

4% of service users overall say that they are very or fairly dissatisfied with the place where multi material waste is collected from. This increases to 23% of service users in flats. 23% of service users in flats also say that they are dissatisfied with where the container is returned to. The base is very small here (3 of 13). Further research would be required to confirm or deny the suggestion that living in certain accommodation types increases dissatisfaction with the place where containers are collected from and returned to.

Figure 11

A plastic box was by far the most likely container to be preferred for multi-material waste collections among respondents interviewed (58%), as illustrated in figure 6 above.

Motivation to Increase Usage of Kerbside Services

Respondents were asked to select which, out of a list of factors, would encourage their usage or increased usage of kerbside collection services. They were asked to think specifically about services for paper, green waste and cans/plastics/glass, irrespective of whether or not there was such a service in their area. The results, in order of significance, are shown in Table 2.

As shown, the existence of a service in itself, and the reliability of this service are deemed likely to motivate more than 1 in 2 of those interviewed to use these kerbside services, or use them more. Consistent collections, and collections from the doorstep are likely to motivate usage or increased usage by more than 2 in 5 respondents.

Younger respondents were particularly likely to say that increased frequency of collection would encourage their usage/increased usage (42% of 18 to 34s, compared with 32% of the total sample).

Few respondents selected staff attitude (7%), or assistance moving the container (7%) although both of these were considered likely to encourage usage by higher proportions of over 65s (10% and 12% respectively).

Table 2

Factor(s) which would encourage the respondent's household to use any of the kerbside collection services at all/more

(All respondents)

Recycling Banks

Recycling Bank Usage

73% of residents interviewed say that they do use recycling banks, whilst 26% say that they do not (1% not providing an answer). Where the household has usage of a car or van the likelihood of respondents using recyclng banks increases by a significant degree, as shown in Figure 12.

Figure 12

Working status breakdowns also reflect some differences. Employed and retired residents interviewed appear more likely to take materials to recycling banks than either students or those unemployed/not in employment.

Figure 13

There was no significant difference between households where a member has some form of disability, and those where there is no disability in the household.

80% of respondents who say that they recycle most or as much as possible of their household waste say that they use recycling banks to a greater or lesser extent. This compares with 64% of those who say that they recycle some or none of their household waste.

Respondents who take one type of material to a recycling bank do not necessarily take all types of material to recycling banks (whether due to lack of facility or due to their own recycling behaviour). Figure 14 shows the responses of those who say that they do use recycling banks, when questioned about specific materials.

Tin cans are least likely to be taken to banks (55% of bank-users never take cans) whilst glass is most likely (only 9% of bank users never take glass). Textiles are most likely to be taken on an occasional basis, whilst paper and glass have the highest proportion of very regular users - 16% and 15% of users take paper and glass respectively to banks at least once a week.

Figure 14

Recycling Banks User Satisfaction

Overall, only 22% of those who make use of recycling banks say that they are dissatisfied with `recycling banks overall', whilst 49% are satisfied, and 25% say neither/nor i.e. that they are neutral.

1% of respondents answered don't know with regards recycling banks overall, and 3% provided no response. These figures increase to 10% don't know and 2% non response with regards `how often the banks are emptied', suggesting a lack of familiarity with this aspect. Uncertainty was lower with regards the remaining two aspects - `the range of material you can take' and the `cleanliness of the area around recycling banks'.

Respondents were most likely to express dissatisfaction with the cleanliness of the area around recycling banks. 22% of respondents said that they are very dissatisfied with this, and 37% that they are fairly dissatisfied with this.

Grouped responses for each aspect are illustrated in figure 15.

Figure 15

On a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is very dissatisfied and 5 is very satisfied, the rating for each aspect (excluding invalid responses) is given below:

In terms of the number of recycling banks in a local area, the view is split between those who feel that the number is `about right' (49%) and those who feel that there is not enough (45%). 5% were unsure/did not respond.

Younger residents were more likely to consider that there are not enough recycling banks (61% of 18 to 34s) whilst those aged 65 or over are particularly likely to think that the number is about right (63%).

58% of respondents without the use of a car/van feel that there are not enough recycling banks, whilst only 40% of those with one car feel the same.

Respondents were asked to indicate the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with a number of statements concerning recycling banks. Responses are summarised in Table 3. The unsure column shows the percentage of respondents who select `don't know' or who do not provide a response.

As summarised in the Executive Summary above, the statement with which the highest proportion of respondents agree is `The Council should continue providing the current number of recycling banks and invest more in the kerbside collection service' (71% agree).

The statement with which the highest proportion of respondents disagree is `The Council should not provide any recycling banks and invest in the kerbside collection only' (70% disagree). However, this is followed closely by `The Council should invest more in recycling banks and less in the kerbside collection service' (68% disagree).

Table 3

Respondents in the 18 to 34 age group appear more likely than respondents in any other age group to agree that `It would be acceptable for the council to reduce the frequency general household waste is collected if the recycling service was improved'. 27% agree to this, whilst proportions among other age groups range from 58% to 65% in agreement.

Ratings are provided for each statement in the accompanying data report (where 1 is equivalent to strongly disagree and 5 is equivalent to strongly agree).

Information and Communication about Recycling

Information from the Council on Recycling

Respondents were asked to indicate which type/types of information out of ten types they would like to receive from the Council. Reponses suggest that there is demand for more education on this subject, with 8 of the 10 types of information in demand by well over a third of respondents.

The highest proportions of respondents would like the Council to tell them about special items for recycling e.g. fridges/computer/batteries, and information on who to contact if there is a problem, query or request, as detailed in figure 16.

Figure 16

In many cases, respondents aged 65 years or older appeared less likely to want the Council to tell them about these issues, including information about reducing, reusing and recycling waste (34%) and information about recycling kitchen waste (29%).

Those who would like the Council to tell them more about the days and times of kerbside collections increases from 47% of the total sample to 65% of 18 to 34 year olds. This suggests that (whilst the younger age groups tend to be less actively involved in using kerbside and recycling bank services currently than older residents) there may potential to increase their usage through information and communication.

Figure 17

When asked about the means by which they would like to receive information about recycling services in their area, 84% of residents confirmed that they would like a `leaflet through my door', making this significantly the most preferred information channel (multiple responses accepted).

28% said `leaflet left with my kerbside collection box/bag', 27% said the Birmingham City Council website, and 25% posters or adverts across the city. 24% mentioned an article in the council newspaper.

16% mentioned another local newspaper, 15% TV or radio, and 11% community notice boards.

Older respondents aged 65+ were less likely to mention the Birmingham City Council website (14%, compared to a total sample average of 27%).

Contacting the Council on Recycling

42% of respondents said that they had contacted the Council (ever) about recycling services. More respondents had not (55%), whilst 3% did not respond.

31% of respondents living in a rented accommodation had contacted the Council about recycling, compared with 45% of home owners.

Retired respondents appear particularly likely to have contacted the Council about recycling (53%) compared with slightly fewer of those unemployed/not in work (48%) and significantly fewer of those in employment (38%).

Reasons for contacting the Council about the recycling service are illustrated in figure 18. The most usual motivation to contact the Council about recycling, was said to be to request more bags or a replacement container (47%), followed by to report a missed collection (31%). But 22% of respondents said that they had contacted the Council for general information about recycling and waste, 18% to find out about the service in their local area, and 17% to find out when the next collection would be.

Making a complaint was a less significant moitivation to contact the Council about recycling than requests for information or assistance/reporting of missed collections.

Figure 18

There was general satisfaction among respondents with how the Council had dealt with these queries (61%), whilst 14% were fairly dissatisfied and 18% very dissatisfied.

Where respondents had previously made an enquiry that was a general request for information, these respondents were likely to be generally satisfied with how the Council had dealt with the enquiry (73%). Likewise, a high proportion (68%) were satisfied where the respondent had contacted to find out when the next collection would be (68%). Enquirers were less likely to be satisfied with how the Council had dealt with their enquiry when they had reported a missed collection (55%) or requested more bags/a replacement bag or container (57%). These breakdowns must be treated as a guideline only, since respondents were allowed to pick multiple topics in relation to their most recent contact with the Council on recycling, and therefore their dissatisfaction may not in every case relate to this specific topic.

Attitudes towards Recycling

Birmingham residents appear most likely to consider themselves `fairly committed to recycling household waste', 48% of respondents selecting this label as most appropriate to themselves. A still significant 35% of respondents interviewed described themselves as extremely committed to recycling household waste. 13% felt that they were neither committed nor uncommitted, whilst only 1% felt that they were not at all committed to recycling household waste.

Figure 19

The proportion of respondents who consider themselves not at all committed to recycling household waste rises from the total sample average of 1%, to 5% of residents living in flats. (A further 10% of those in flats had no opinion about this).

The proportion of respondents who consider themselves extremely committed to recycling household waste rises from the total sample average of 35%, to 54% where respondents say that they recycle most or as much as possible of their household waste.

Gender breakdowns showed no significant differences in terms of self-declared commitment to recycling household waste. In terms of ethnicity, respondents of white ethnic origin were more likely to say that they are very or fairly committed to recycling household waste (85%) than respondents of Asian origin (72%) and respondents of black origin (61%).

Respondents who said that they were committed to recycling household waste were allowed to select a number of reasons why they felt that it was important. The highest proportion - 59% - mentioned that it helps preserve the environment. These are listed in Table 4.

31% mentioned the importance of materials being re-used and 30% that it reduces the use of landfill sites. 27% said that it is the right thing to do, and just under 27% said that not wasting raw materials was important. 26% said that one reason was to reduce pollution, whilst 25% said to protect children's or grandchildren's future. 24% said that they disliked being wasteful.

Table 4

Reasons why respondent feels that it is important to put waste out for recycling (Where very or fairly committed to recycling household waste)

The small group of (29) respondents describing themselves as not committed to recycling or with no opinion on their level of commitment, were asked to give the reasons why they did not feel that recycling was an important issue for them. This was the only open-ended (unprompted) question in the questionnaire.

Half of this group were unable to provide a reason (14 not filling this part in and 1 saying `no particular reason'). Perceived lack of facilities to store waste for recycling, and perceived lack of time to separate waste were each mentioned by 4 of these respondents (14%).

Not having the facilities to separate waste was mentioned by 2 of these 29 respondents (7%). A further 2 (7%) mentioned their perception that there were no collections for recyclable items.

Introduction to the Peoples' Panel

The current People's Panel (March 2007) consists of 2,249 members, but it is intended to increase this to 2,500 in order to provide opportunities for robust consultation with residents at a more local level.

The Panel will be proportionally representative of the population of the city, with around 250 members in each district. It is broadly representative of the city in terms of:

On joining the panel, respondents will have completed a detailed recruitment questionnaire covering key information about them and their household. The areas covered include:

Not only does this demographic information allow us to ensure the panel is representative of the people of Birmingham, but it also allows us to target particular groups for specific consultation exercises.

The recruitment questionnaire also allows members to indicate other methods of consultation that they would be prepared to take part in, so the Peoples' Panel can also be used be used in a variety of other ways, from conducting focus groups and workshops to telephone interviews. Advantages of the Panel include:

By agreeing to join the Panel, residents are agreeing to participate in up to a maximum of 6 postal surveys a year.

Management of the Panel

BMG Research, based in Birmingham, manages all aspects of the panel on the Council's behalf, as well as providing advice and recommendations on all consultation methods and needs.

For all consultation exercises BMG requires a research brief giving the background to the project and outlining its aims and objectives. From this brief, along with detailed discussions with all relevant BCC staff, BMG will devise a research proposal detailing recommendations on how best to meet the research objectives in a timely and cost effective manner. BMG can, if you wish, help develop the brief with you.

Your brief should include:

Ideally BMG need 5 working days to respond to a research brief (larger projects will require longer).

BMG Research, 7 Holt Court North, Aston Science Park, Birmingham B7 4AX

BIRMINGHAM CITY COUNCIL PEOPLES' PANEL

RECYCLING QUESTIONNAIRE NOVEMBER 2006

Please read these instructions carefully before completing the questionnaire:

BMG Research, FREEPOST BM1078, Birmingham, B7 4BR

If you would prefer a large print version, or someone to help you complete the questionnaire, please call the BMG Helpline on 0800 358 0337.

«BMG_ID»*BARCODE*

Please tick one only.

IF YOU ANSWERED `NEVER' IN QUESTION 4 PLEASE GO TO QUESTION 7. ALL OTHERS GO TO QUESTION 5.

Please tick one only on each row.

NOW GO TO QUESTION 8.

NON USERS OF THE KERBSIDE PAPER COLLECTION SERVICE PLEASE ANSWER QUESTION 7.

ALL PLEASE ANSWER.

PLEASE NOTE YOU MAY NOT CURRENTLY RECEIVE ALL THE KERBSIDE

COLLECTION SERVICES LISTED.

IF YOU ANSWERED `NEVER' IN QUESTION 8 PLEASE GO TO QUESTION 10.

ALL OTHERS GO TO QUESTION 9.

NON USERS OF THE KERBSIDE GREEN WASTE COLLECTION SERVICE PLEASE ANSWER QUESTION 10.

ALL OTHERS GO TO QUESTION 11.

ALL ANSWER

Please tick one only.

IF YOU ANSWERED `NEVER' IN QUESTION 11 PLEASE GO TO QUESTION 13.

ALL OTHERS GO TO QUESTION 12.

NON USERS OF THE KERBSIDE MULTI MATERIAL (CANS, PLASTICS, GLASS) COLLECTION SERVICE PLEASE ANSWER QUESTION 13. ALL OTHERS GO TO QUESTION 14.

ALL ANSWER

ALL ANSWER

Please tick one only on each row.

Please tick one only on each row.

Please tick one only on each row

.

Please tick all that apply.

Please tick all that apply.

Please tick one only.

Please tick all that apply.