<< Previous Page | Page 3 of 4 | Next Page >>

4. MAIN FINDINGS

4.1 CLASSIFICATION

As noted above (see Section 2), quotas were set on age, working status within sex and home ownership. Around half the sample were working, of whom three quarters were full time. A quarter were retired and 14% not seeking paid work, with 5% unemployed and 5% studying.

In line with quota requirements, almost three quarters owned their own home or had a mortgage (72%). Around one in eight rented from the council (13%) or from a private landlord (11%). All these figures closely replicated the profile of the national sample last year.

Similarly, half the sample had one car (48%), a third had two or more, with 21% having none. Property type was varied with the majority of people living in houses and just 15% in flats. Just over a third lived in semi-detached housing and a quarter in a detached (25%) or terraced house (23%).

Respondent Classification

4.2 WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL

4.2.1 Awareness

Whether ever think about what happens to rubbish

Just over a third ever thought about what happens to their rubbish when they put it in the bin (36%). This was significantly higher among those who recycled frequently (43% frequent recyclers vs. 21% of non-recyclers), plus green consumers, those who favoured being billed for waste collection separately from Council Tax and those who remembered publicity about recycling and waste disposal facilities in their local area. It was also marginally higher among the 35-54 age group (41% vs. 31% of under 35s).

Whether know what happens to rubbish

Slightly more, 40%, said they knew where the majority of their waste went their refuse collectors took it away. This was a figure almost identical to last year, when this question was also asked.

Knowledge was highest among men and those aged 35-54 (both 48%), plus significantly higher among homeowners, those with two or more cars, with teenage children and house dwellers. Those who recycled most often and remembered publicity they had seen about recycling and waste disposal facilities were also more likely to give this answer.

Perception of where waste goes

Of those who said they did know where their waste went, the vast majority supposed it was landfill (75%). A significant minority said recycling (22%) and 15% incineration. Each of these mentions were down on last year (when respondents were more likely to give more than one answer), but the ratio between them remained similar.

In reality, 84% of waste goes to landfill, 9% is incinerated and 7% is recycled (DETR/Welsh Office Municipal Waste Survey 1996-7). Thus the expectations people have of how their waste is disposed of do not match the real situation.

Who takes away domestic refuse

As last year, most thought the council took away their domestic refuse (71%), with a quarter thinking a private company or combination of the two (25%). Older people were slightly more likely to believe that the private sector was involved (29% of over 55s vs. 20% of 18-34s), as were those who recycled frequently.

Estimate of waste collection and disposal costs per household per year

When asked how much they thought waste collection and disposal costs, four cost options were available to respondents. There was increased uncertainty this year compared to last with fewer willing to make an estimate (58% vs. 37% in 1997 did not know). However, as previously seen, the vast majority making an estimate assumed a higher than actual cost. Only 6% (compared with 13% in 1997) accurately estimate an annual cost of £50 per household.

Older people aged 55 or over were least likely to give an estimate, but when they did, were more likely to give a lower estimate (only 15% said £200 compared to 32% of under 35s). Respondents who were working were also more likely to give this answer (29% vs. 19% of non-workers). Interestingly, those who failed to support the idea of charging per bag for rubbish collection were less likely to make an estimate of its cost.

4.2.2 Attitudes - Methods of Disposing of Domestic Waste

Methods of disposing of domestic waste considered acceptable

Methods of disposing of domestic waste considered acceptable in general/for locality - Summary table

Respondents were asked which of a list of methods, in general and for their locality, they considered acceptable for waste disposal. Whereas recycling was universally acceptable for both, there were significantly less viewing landfill and incineration as acceptable for their locality, as in general.

In general, as last year, recycling (89%) was most likely to be acceptable, followed by composting (67%), incineration (60%) and landfill (37%). Mentions of composting were slightly lower than last year though a slight change in the question wording may explain this more than any real change in attitudes.

Rating of methods of waste disposal for respondent's locality

When asked to rate these methods for their locality, a ten point scale was used where ten equated to being very acceptable. Recycling was once again the most highly favoured with a mean score of 8.8; indeed over half (52%) gave it the maximum rating of ten. Over nine in ten gave it a rating in the acceptable half of the scale (92%), a figure very close to the 89% who rated it as acceptable in general. Though all sub-groups rated it highly, the highest ratings were given by those with children (61% giving it a rating of ten).

Opinions on incineration were fairly evenly divided: 46% rated it on the acceptable half of the scale for their locality compared to 61% who viewed it as acceptable in general. Incineration scored lowest as a local method among the 18-34s (with a mean score of 5.1 vs. 6.2 for the over 55s), plus those in work, frequent recyclers and green consumers. One in ten considered it very unacceptable for their area (10%).

Landfill was the least acceptable with a mean score of 4.1; over one in five (21%) gave it the minimum rating of 1, whereas only slightly more (25%) gave it a rating of anything over 5 (i.e. on the acceptable half of the scale). This compared with 37% who considered it acceptable in general, suggesting for both landfill and incineration, a clear discrepancy between what people consider acceptable generally and what they consider acceptable for the area they live in.

Those least favourable towards landfill as a local solution were the under 35 age group (3.8 mean score vs. 4.4 for the over 55s). This also applied to those working, in rented accommodation, flat dwellers and 'green consumers'.

Composting scored 7.2 with 68% rating it between six and ten, but like recycling this was virtually identical to its score as a method in general. Homeowners, those with two or more cars, house dwellers, frequent recyclers, green consumers and those who remembered publicity about recycling and waste disposal all rated it more highly as a method for their locality.

A similar question was asked last year, this time rating waste disposal methods on a ten point scale from excellent to very poor. Although comparison is difficult, the mean scores for landfill and incineration were slightly higher this year than last while for composting the score was lower and for recycling the same as last year.

4.2.3 Attitudes - Transportation of Waste

Awareness of any larger recycling plants, landfill sites or incinerators in the local area

A third of respondents said they were aware of any recycling plants, landfill sites or incinerators in their local area (33%) - a slight fall from last year (39%). This was highest among homeowners, house-dwellers and those with two or more cars, and, not surprisingly, those who remembered seeing any publicity in their local area over the last year about recycling or waste disposal facilities.

Whether waste should be transported out of area or local facilities built

There was also a fall in the proportion saying that if there were no facilities in a local area it was better to build them locally (from 68% to 62%). Those aged 35-54 were the most likely to favour this solution (70%, vs. 54% of over 55s) together with those groups we can most easily view as 'pro-environment' (those who recycled frequently, 'green consumers' and who agreed with charging waste collection per bag), as well those most likely to be wealthy (homeowners, house-dwellers and those with two cars)

How far waste should be transported

The majority in favour of transporting waste out of the area in no local facilities exist tended to favour greater distances than last year. Whereas 17% in 1997 thought the waste should be transported over 20 miles, this year it was 30%. Correspondingly, fewer chose the shortest distance band of up to 5 miles (13% vs. 22%).

There were no significant differences between sub-groups.

4.2.4 Attitudes - Charging For Waste Collection

Whether prepared to have the costs of waste/refuse collection and disposal billed separately from council tax

In a new question, just under half said they would be prepared to have the costs of waste/refuse collection and disposal billed separately from council tax (47%). This was highest among those aged 18-34, in work, with two or more cars and 'green consumers' (58% vs. 39% of non-'green consumers').

Agreement with charging waste collection per bin or per bag

In addition, as last year, respondents were asked whether they agreed with waste collection being charged per bin or per bag to encourage recycling. For the fist time a majority (57%) agreed with the idea compared to 48% in 1997. This may well be due to the widespread coverage of the issue given by the national media in 1998.

As for other issues, support was higher among those aged 18-34, in work, with two or more cars, 'green consumers' and those who were prepared to be billed separately (72% of those who were prepared to be billed separately agreed strongly or slightly vs. 43% of those who were not). Disagreement was highest, however, among those who never recycled (44% disagreed strongly or slightly vs. 29% of frequent recyclers).

4.3 RECYCLING

4.3.1 Behaviour

Materials ever recycled

Consistent with 1997, nine out of ten say they recycle (90%, vs 89% last year). Those living in flats, with no car and in rented accommodation were the groups least likely to give this answer (83%, 84% and 85%).

All respondents were asked which materials they ever recycled. The figures were much the same as last year, apart from a sharp rise in the mention of tin foil (from 17% to 27% this year); in addition 31% recycle plastics (up from 3% last year when it was not prompted).

Once again paper and magazines were most frequently mentioned, (86%), and were followed by glass, (79%), clothes (71%), cans and cardboard (both 55%). Apart from plastic and tin foil, no other material was mentioned with any frequency.

Virtually all of the materials were recycled by more of those who recycle every 1-2 weeks, who re-used materials and who said information from their children's school about rubbish and recycling had influenced their household (though the base size for this is too small to be statistically significant). Most of the materials had also been recycled by more over 55s, those who remembered publicity about local recycling facilities and, to a lesser extent, those who owned their own home and who had some environmental concern (those who said they did think about what happened to their rubbish when they put it in the bin). Glass had been recycled by more of those with cars, cans by more of those with children and clothes by more women.

The frequency of recycling was a little lower than last year's survey as people are tending to recycle on a fortnightly rather than a weekly basis - weekly recycling has reduced from 41% to 34% although those recycling at least every two weeks is little changed. Around a third did recycle but said they did so once a month or less (34%).

Those who were environmentally concerned (i.e. who said they thought about where their rubbish goes) were the most likely to recycle once or twice a week (68% vs. 50% of those who were not ), together with those with two or more cars (64% vs. 50% of those with none). Other groups more likely to recycle frequently were those owning their own homes, house-dwellers, green consumers, those who remembered seeing publicity about recycling or waste disposal facilities and those who also ever re-used materials.

A new question asked where respondents generally recycled. The largest proportion said they used recycling banks at a supermarket (40%) - thus showing how recycling has come to fit into everyday routines for many people. Even more conveniently, close to a quarter used kerbside collection services (23%). Around one in five went to recycling banks at a council tip (18%) or elsewhere (20%).

Those with a car were more likely to use the supermarket facilities (42% vs. 33% of those with none). Respondents who recycled frequently were more likely to use a kerbside collection service (27% vs. 14% who recycled less often) showing the importance of kerbside collection services in encouraging recycling. This reinforces the findings last year, where 88% of those presently without one said they would recycle more if they were using a doorstep collection scheme.

Whether compost organic waste

As last year, a third of the sample said they composted organic waste (32%). There were major differences between sub-groups, however, correlating with the varying numbers viewing composting as an acceptable method of waste disposal (see Section 4.2.2).

For example, older people were far more likely to compost organic waste (44% of over 55s vs. 19% of 18-34s). Figures were also higher among those not working, homeowners, with two or more cars and those who re-used materials, plus far higher among house-dwellers (who are more likely to have access to a garden), frequent recyclers and those who said they thought about where their rubbish goes.

Materials that re-use

Another new question asked which items, if any, respondents re-used. Four in five re-used at least one of the specified materials (81%), most commonly plastic bags (54%) and glass jars/bottles (50%). One in five said they re-used plastic containers/bottles (20%) while fewer re-used clothes or rags (13%), paper or newspaper (7%), or cardboard or cardboard boxes (5%).

There was a strong correlation between recycling and re-use - (68% of non-recyclers reuse materials compared with 84% of those who did re-use materials). This applied particularly to glass jars/bottles, plastic containers and paper/newspaper. Women were more likely to re-use plastic bags and less likely to re-use nothing, and younger people were more likely to re-use plastic containers/bottles.

Whether fact that a product made from recycled materials would affect purchasing decision

People also promote recycling, of course, when they buy products made from recycled materials. Another new question found that for two in five, the fact that a product was made from recycled materials would affect their decision about buying it (40%).

This was highest among 18-34s, those who were prepared to be billed separately for waste disposal, and most of all, those who were environmentally concerned (i.e. those who said they thought about where their rubbish goes - 54% vs. 32%). Additionally, it was higher among those who recycled frequently, who remembered seeing local publicity about recycling facilities, who re-used materials, who agreed with charging waste collection per bag or bin and for who information about rubbish and recycling their children had received at school had influenced their household.

How buying decision affected if product made from recycled materials

What was most important, however, was how the fact that a product was made from recycled materials affected the purchasing decision. Of those for whom it would make a difference, three quarters described how it would influence them in a very positive way (74%). A significant proportion specifically explained that this was because they wanted to help the environment or reduce waste and pollution (29%).

Those who ever re-used materials and those who were environmentally concerned (i.e. who said they thought about where their rubbish goes) were most likely to make such a comment (e.g. 79% of environmentally concerned respondents vs. 70% of others). Those aged over 55 were least likely to make such a comment (66% vs. 77% of others).

One in five indicated that if a product was made from recycled materials it would affect them positively but with certain qualifications (19%). These consisted of its cost (10%), quality (5%) and whether the product was actually something that they needed (5%).

Another 8% indicated that if a product was made from recycled materials it would affect them negatively. The comments either generally stated that they would not buy products made from recycled materials or asserted that they were too expensive or of inferior quality. These were most likely to come from those in rented accommodation (15% vs. 5% of homeowners), plus those who never recycled and never re-used materials.

4.3.2 Education and Publicity

Presence/age of children and awareness/influence of their education

One third of survey respondents had children (34%), with a good spread of children's ages across the sample. Just over a quarter had children aged 5-14 (27%) and just over half of these (56%) were aware they had received information at school about rubbish and recycling.

Almost two thirds of these, in turn, said this information had influenced their household (63%). This equates to about 10% of the whole sample and 35% of those with children of school age. Information given about rubbish and recycling as a part of children's education, therefore, represents an effective way of influencing large numbers of parents, in most cases relatively early in their adult lives.

Awareness of any Local Publicity over Past Year about Recycling or Waste Disposal Facilities

Local publicity through advertisements or editorial in local papers, mail shots, fliers and other media of course represent another method of informing and educating the public. Half the sample remembered seeing some publicity in their local area over the last year about recycling or waste disposal facilities (49%), a slight increase on 1997 (44%). Recall was highest among those who recycle every 1-2 weeks (53% vs. 36% of those who never recycle), as well as green consumers, those with two or more cars and over 55s (52% vs. 43% of under 35s).

Changes would like Local Council to make regarding waste disposal

Finally, the opportunity was given for respondents to state any changes they would like their local council to make relating to waste disposal and recycling. The main changes suggested were more recycling sites, separate bins for recycling items and more frequent collections.

Back to Top