CRCOG Organics Recycling Program · Methods/Timeline . The survey was created for households in...

CRCOG Organics Recycling Program

Survey Final Report

JULY 2015

Centre Region Council of Governments Organics Recycling Program Survey Final Report

A group of students from the Community, Environment, and Development Capstone Course was paired with Centre Region Council of Governments through the Sustainable Communities Collaborative organized by the Penn State Sustainability Institute. The students were asked to help create a survey that measured residents’ interest in an organics recycling program offered by CRCOG. The project began in February 2015 and concluded in May with the students’ final presentation to the CRCOG Public Safety and Environmental Committee. A final report was completed after the survey closed on June 1, 2015. This final report outlines the purpose, methods, and results of the project.

Penn State CED Student Contact Information Charlie Costanzo [email protected] Laura Gebhart [email protected] Amy Hopf [email protected] Chelsea Kahle [email protected]

Project Purpose Centre Region Council of Governments wanted to measure household interest in an expansion of CRCOG’s recycling program to include organics collection. The region would include households in Benner, College, Ferguson, Harris, and Patton Townships. The survey assessed households’ current recycling practices, current organics recycling practices (e.g. backyard composting), and their interest in participating in an organics recycling program similar to the State College Borough organics recycling program.

The information from the survey can help determine the practicality of an organics recycling program based on the region’s household interest in such a program.

CRCOG ORP FINAL REPORT !2

Methods/Timeline The survey was created for households in Benner, College, Ferguson, Harris, and Patton Townships in order to gauge interest in an organics recycling program offered by CRCOG. Survey questions were designed to collect information on household location, including in which township and in relation to the Regional Growth Boundary, size of the household, household’s current recycling and organics recycling practices, and the interest and likelihood that the household would participate in a weekly curbside organics recycling program provided by CRCOG. The survey was drafted by Penn State CED students and revised and edited in collaboration with Regional Refuse and Recycling Administrator, Pam Adams, the Public Services and Environmental Committee, and a Regional Organics Committee.

The survey was available to the entire population living within the five Townships, limited to one response per household. This allowed for broad promotion of the survey, with an opportunity to educate the public about organics recycling. The survey was uploaded to Survey Monkey, with the survey link made available on the CRCOG website. Paper versions of the survey were also available in township buildings. The survey was promoted on the CRCOG website, in Ferguson Harris and Patton Township E-Newsletters, on C-NET, in the Centre Daily Times, Centre County Gazette, the Centre Region Parks and Recreation Active Guide, and on bookmarks handed out at various local events.

Project Timeline February: Students met with Pam to determine project goals

Created project timeline March: Drafted Organics Recycling survey

Survey edits and revisions Students met with Regional Organics Committee, attended PSE Committee Meeting Survey finalized and uploaded to Survey Monkey

April: Survey opened to the public Survey advertised, responses collected Student presented project to Sustainable Communities Collaborative

May: Students presented project details to CRCOG PSE Committee Feedback gathered for a final report

June: Survey closed to the public Data analysis by CED student

July: Final Report completed by CED student CRCOG ORP FINAL REPORT 3

Results: Survey Respondents Total Households in Benner, College, Ferguson, Harris, and Patton Townships: 22,409

Number of Respondents: 733

Response Rate: 3.27%

Note: Total Households includes multi-family units which have dumpster service and do not participate in curbside refuse and recycling program. The residential refuse and recycling program includes 15,100 households, which is who this survey was geared towards. And adjusted response rate is 4.8% and is included in the chart below.

Table 1: Survey Respondents by Township

Township Number of Respondents

Total Households

Proportion of Township

Households

Adjusted Total Households

(67% of total)

Adjusted Proportion of

Township Households

Benner 31

1,778 1.74% 1,198 2.59%

College 114

4,054 2.81% 2,732 4.17%

Ferguson 240

7,704 3.12% 5,191 4.62%

Harris 174

2,110 8.25% 1,422 12.24%

Patton 170

6,763 2.51% 4,557 3.73% Other/Don't Know 4

Total 733

22,409 3.27% 15,100 4.85% Respondents were fairly evenly dispersed among the five townships. Benner Township had the fewest respondents, which accounted for 4.3 percent of survey respondents and 1.74 percent of all households in Benner Township. Similarly, 1.74 percent of the households in College Township were represented in the survey. The 114 survey participants who lived in College Township account for 15.6 percent of all survey participants. Ferguson Township had the largest representation in the survey, accounting for 32.9 percent of participants. The population accounts for 3.12 percent of the households in Ferguson Township. Harris Township had the largest representation of township households, representing 8.25 percent. The respondents from Harris account for 23.9 percent of all participants in the survey. Lastly, Patton Township was represented by 23.3 percent of survey respondents. The 170 participants represented 2.51 percent of households in Patton Township. In total, the 733 survey household participants represented 3.27 percent of all households in the five townships. The pie chart below represents the proportions of survey participants represented by each township.

CRCOG ORP FINAL REPORT 4

In all five townships, most respondents (73.67%) lived within the Regional Growth Boundary (RGB). Survey participants were able to determine their location in relation to the Regional Growth Boundary using the following map.


Location of Respondents by Township

Patton23.3%

Harris23.9%

Ferguson32.9%

College15.6%

Benner4.3%

Areas within the RGB are more densely populated, considered urban areas. Areas outside the RGB—less densely populated areas—were considered rural areas. Out of the 733 survey respondents, 540 were located in an urban area and 184 households were located in a rural area. Seven respondents did not know where their household was located in relation to the Regional Growth Boundary, and two responded “Other,” citing “historic downtown Boalsburg” and “townhouse” in the write-in space.

Table 2: Urban versus Rural Respondents

Number of Respondents Proportion of Households

Urban 540 73.67%

Rural 184 25.1%

Don’t Know 7 0.95

Other 2 0.27


Location of Respondents in Relation to the Regional Growth Boundary

Other0.3%

Don’t know0.95%Rural

25.1%

Urban73.7%

Respondents were also asked whether their household used a septic tank or public sewer for water treatment. The question tied in with the household’s relation to the Regional Growth Boundary and proximity to public utilities. Households within the RGB are more accessible to public services and may be the focus of future implementation of an organics recycling program. A majority of respondents (86.1%) used the public sewer, comparable to the 73.7 percent of households that were located within the RGB.


Household Water Treatment System

I don't know1.8%

Septic tank12.1%

Public Sewer86.1%

Results: Household Information Out of the 733 households that participated in the survey, 92.18 percent lived in single-family homes. Only 3.98 percent lived in multi-family homes with four units or less, and 2.33 percent lived in multi-family homes with five or more units. Eleven households (1.15% of respondents) responded “Other”, which included responses such as “condo,” “townhouse,” or “2 unit carriage house”.

Most participants (41.56%) reported two people living in the household. The next highest proportion of respondents reported four people living in the household (22.77%), and 17.42 percent of households having three people living in the household. All other responses accounted for less than 10 percent of respondents.

Table 3: Household Type

Type of Household Number of Households Proportion of Total

Single-family home 672 92.18%

Multi-family home with 4 units or less

29 3.98%

Multi-family home with five units or more

17 2.33%

Other 11 1.15%


Residents’ Household Type

Single-family home

Multi-family home with 4 units or less

Multi-family home with 5+ units

Other

Proportion0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

1.15%

2.33%

3.98%

92.18%

Table 4: Number of People Living in Household

Number of People Number of Households Proportion of Total

1 59 8.09%

2 303 41.56%

3 127 17.42%

4 166 22.77%

5 53 7.27%

6 15 2.06%

7 4 0.55%

8+ 2 0.27%


Number of People in Respondents’ Household

Prop

ortio

n

0%

12.5%

25%

37.5%

50%

Number of People in Household1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8+

0.27%0.55%2.06%7.27%

22.77%

17.42%

41.56%

8.09%

Results: Recycling Practices Respondents were asked a series of questions to gauge households’ current recycling practices. Participants were asked the method by which their household recycles, their recycling frequency, composting practices, and items composted.

The results from the question revealed that 97.12 percent use the curbside red recycling bin. The red recycling bin is distributed for use in the Centre Region’s recycling program. In addition to evaluating participants’ recycling practices, it was used to eliminate ineligible survey participants. Respondents who use the blue/brown totes likely live in apartment complexes that would not be eligible for participation in the organics recycling program, which would be offered to single-family residences. Over 47 percent of respondents also recycle at drop off locations, and 7.42 percent cited “Other” recycling methods, which included backyard composting, taking recycling to a different location (e.g. work, Penn State campus), teracycle, by mail, or grocery stores. Five respondents, or 0.69 percent of respondents said they do not recycle at all.


Q: How do you recycle at your home?

Curbside red recycling bin

Blue/Brown totes

Drop off recycling locations

Don't Recycle

I don't know

Other

Proportion of Respondents0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

7.42%

0%

0.69%

47.39%

2.2%

97.12%

Considering 99.31 percent of survey participants responded that they utilize some sort of recycling method, the following question was used to gauge how often that population recycled. Participants were given a scale to measure how often their household recycles, ranging from never to always. The results show that 97.7 percent of the respondents recycle somewhat frequently or always.

Respondents who answered that their household recycled very infrequently or never were asked a follow-up question about why they do not recycle. Half of the respondents answered they do not recycle or recycle infrequently because they do not have a container, while 16.67 percent answered they had no time, and 33.33 percent answered “Other”, with reasons such as confusion with pick-up times and confusion about what items to recycle.


Q: How often do you recycle?

Never

Very infrequently

Somewhat infrequently

Occassionally

Somewhat frequently

Always

Proportion of Respondents0% 22.5% 45% 67.5% 90%

86.4%

11.3%

0.7%

0.6%

1.0%

0.1%

Reasons for not recycling or recycling infrequently

Too hard

No time

No container

Other


33.33%

50%

16.67%

0%

Results from the following questions indicate households’ composting practices and current disposal of household organic materials.

Participants who answered that they backyard composted were asked a follow-up question about what items they composted. Of households that reported composted “Other”, they included items such as leaves, paper, and pet waste.


Items backyard composted

Food scraps

Yard trimmings

Other


10.93%

88.52%

76.78%

Q: Do you currently backyard compost?

Yes

No

Sometimes

I don't know

Not applicable


1.92%

0%

13.74%

47.8%

36.54%

Use of a kitchen sink garbage disposal is another method used to dispose of organic kitchen waste. Over 68 percent of respondents answered that they currently use a kitchen sink garbage disposal and 31.4 percent responded that they did not use a kitchen sink garbage disposal.

No Summary of Recycling Practices:

Most survey participants used the curbside red recycling bin to recycle items at their households. Over 86 percent of respondents said that they always recycle. The 1.1 percent of households that reported they do not recycle or recycle infrequently said they do so because of lack of a container, lack of time, or because of confusion about recycling methods or proper items to recycle. Just over half (50.28%) of respondents said they backyard composted or “sometimes” backyard composted. Of those respondents, 76.78 percent composted food scraps and 88.52 percent composted yard trimmings. It is important to note that according the Centre County Recycling and Refuse Authority, the number of households participating in curbside red bin recycling in the Centre Region is 90%.

CRCOG ORP FINAL REPORT 13

Organics Recycling Program The following data reviews respondents’ opinions about an organics recycling program. Respondents were asked about their likelihood of participating in the program considering it would allow households to recycle yard trimmings and food scraps.

A large proportion of participants responded that they would be very likely to participate in the organics recycling program considering it would allow households to recycle yard trimmings.


Q: How likely are you to participate considering the program allows you to recycle YARD TRIMMINGS?

Very unlikely

Somewhat likely

Unsure

Somewhat likely

Very likely


70.15%

13.76%

3.03%

5.09%

7.98%

Similarly, over 71 percent of respondents answered that they would be very likely to participate in an organics recycling program given that the program would allow households to recycle food scraps.

Over 80 percent of survey participants reported they would be somewhat likely or very likely to participate in the organics recycling program considering it would allow households to recycling yard trimmings and food scraps.


Q: How likely are you to participate considering the program allows you to recycle FOOD SCRAPS?

Very unlikely

Somewhat likely

Unsure

Somewhat likely

Very likely


71.53%

13.07%

2.61%

3.44%

9.35%

Results: Program Concerns Respondents were given the opportunity to share their level of concern about specific issues regarding an organics recycling program, as well as an opportunity to write in any other program concerns. Concerns were provided based on feedback from the State College Borough organics recycling program. Concerns included a lack of time for separating food waste from non-compostable kitchen waste, lack of space to store organic recycling, concerns about cleaning storage container, odors from separated organic waste, general public health issues such as food-borne illness, fear that household pests may be attracted to organic waste stored indoors, fear that pests and animals may be attracted to organic waste stored outdoors.

The charts below display respondents levels of concern for each issue.

Table 5: Respondents’ Levels of Concern

Very Concerned

Moderately Concerned

Slightly Concerned

Not at all Concerned

Unsure

Lack of Time 28 3.88% 45 6.23% 122 16.90% 521 72.16% 6 0.83%

Lack of Space 67 9.28% 109 15.10% 186 25.76% 356 49.31% 4 0.55%

Cleaning Container

76 10.53% 108 14.96% 204 28.25% 329 45.57% 5 0.69%

Odor 100 13.85% 126 17.45% 235 32.55% 256 35.46% 5 0.69%

Public Health Issues

47 6.51% 62 8.59% 142 19.67% 458 63.43% 13 1.80%

Household Pests 109 15.10% 133 18.42% 194 26.87% 278 38.50% 8 1.11%

Outdoor Pests 155 21.47% 159 22.02% 208 28.81% 195 27.01% 5 0.69%



Lack of Time

Very concerned

Moderately concerned

Slightly concerned

Not at all concerned

Unsure

Proportion0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

0.8%

72.2%

16.9%

6.2%

3.9%

Lack of Space

Very concerned


Slightly concerned


Unsure


0.6%

49.3%

25.8%

15.1%

9.3%


Cleaning Container

Very concerned


Slightly concerned


Unsure

Proportion of Respondents 0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

0.7%

45.6%

28.3%

15.0%

10.5%

Odor

Very concerned


Slightly concerned


Unsure


0.69%

35.46%

32.55%

17.45%

13.85%



Very concerned


Slightly concerned


Unsure


1.8%

63.4%

19.7%

8.6%

6.5%

Household Pests

Very concerned


Slightly concerned


Unsure


1.11%

38.5%

26.87%

18.42%

15.1%

For all issues except for the concern about attracting outdoor pests, the majority of respondents answered that they were “not at all concerned.” Comparing all issues, respondents were slightly more concerned about odor from separated organic waste, attracting household pests, and attracting outdoor pests, specifically bears.

Additionally, participants were given the option to answer “Other” if they had any additional concerns regarding the organic recycling program. Forty-two respondents filled in the “Other” portion. Recurring concerns included access to an organics recycling container and attraction of bears. These are areas that should be taken into consideration and addressed with education and implementation processes.


Outdoor Pests

Very concerned


Slightly concerned


Unsure


0.7%

27.0%

28.8%

22.0%

21.5%

The following question considered households’ current practices that may discourage participation in an organics recycling program.

“Currently backyard compost” and “Use kitchen sink garbage disposal” had the two highest proportion of responses. The proposed organics recycling program would allow households to recycle items that cannot be composted in the backyard or put in a garbage disposal (e.g. bones, pet waste). This indicates that additional education may be necessary to inform what additional items can be composted with the program that cannot be disposed of using backyard composting or a kitchen sink garbage disposal.

Over 50 percent of participants answered that they had no reasons for not participating in an organics recycling program. From the 8.88 percent of respondents who selected “Other”, respondents submitted reasons such as attracting pests, the inability to generate enough organic waste, and concerns about odor.


Q: Provide the reason(s) you may be unlikely to participate in a weekly

curbside organics recycling program.

Currently backyard compost

Use kitchen sink garbage diposal

See no benefit

Seems too complicated

Already use leaf and brush program

I don't know

None

Other


8.88%

52.98%

3.33%

14.15%

4.44%

2.64%

18.03%

20.94%

When asked whether participants would be willing to pay a nominal fee for the organics recycling program, 25.1 percent responded “Yes” and 42.16 percent responded “Yes, depending”. Twenty-four percent said they were not willing to pay a nominal fee, 7.21 percent responded “I don’t know” , and 1.39 percent had no preference.


Q: Would you be willing to pay a nominal fee for the organics recycling program in addition to

your current Refuse & Recycling collection rate?

No preference 1.39%

I don't know 7.21%

No 24.13%

Yes, depending 42.16%

Yes 25.10%

Survey participants were asked how important they believed it was for the CRCOG to implement an organics recycling program. Regardless of willingness to participate, it was important to gauge respondents’ support of an organics recycling program. As shown in the chart below, the majority of participants responded positively to the importance of the program. Over 83 percent responded that the program was either moderately important, somewhat important, or extremely important.

Lastly, survey participants had the opportunity to provide open-ended feedback about how their township could make it easy for them to participate in an organics recycling collection program. Recurring suggestions included providing an organics recycling container, keeping costs low, making the program “easy”, and provide proper instructions and education about the program and how to properly recycle. Many respondents took the opportunity to submit positive remarks about the proposed program.


Q: How important do you believe it is for the CRCOG to implement a curbside organics recycling program?

Not at all important

Low importance

Slightly important

Neutral

Moderately important

Somewhat important

Extremely important

Proportion0% 12.5% 25% 37.5% 50%

48.13%

24.27%

11.37%

4.99%

3.47%

4.02%

3.74%

Results: Respondents from within the Regional Growth Boundary

Given that an organics recycling program may be first implemented in the more accessible areas of the region within the Regional Growth Boundary (RGB), it was necessary to investigate any discrepancies between responses from households located within the RGB compared to all survey respondents. The majority of survey respondents (73.67%) indicated that their household was located within the RGB. The following data compares the responses from households located within the RGB compared to results from all survey participants.

Compared to all respondents, a slightly higher proportion of respondent households within the RGB were either somewhat likely or very likely to participate in the organics recycling program considering households could recycle yard trimmings. While 13.78 percent of respondents from within the RGB said they were somewhat likely participate, 13.76 percent of all sure participants said they were somewhat likely to participate. Just over 74 percent of respondents living within



Very unlikely

Somewhat likely

Unsure

Somewhat likely

Very likely


74.67%

13.78%

1.86%

4.1%

5.59%

70.15%

13.76%

3.03%

5.09%

7.98% All RespondentsUrban Respondents

the RGB said they were very likely to participate, while 70.15 percent of all survey participants said they were very likely to participate.

A slightly higher percentage of respondents answered that they were likely to participate in an organics recycling program considering it would allow households to recycle food scraps. While 84.6 percent of all respondents answered positively to participating in the program, 87.52 percent of respondents located within the RGB responded positively. When broken down, 13.07 percent of all participants said they were somewhat likely to participate and 71.53 percent said they were very likely to participate. Just over 12 percent of respondents located within the RGB said they were somewhat likely to participate, and 75.42 percent were very likely to participate.



Very unlikely

Somewhat likely

Unsure

Somewhat likely

Very likely


75.42%

12.1%

2.23%

2.61%

7.64%

71.53%

13.07%

2.61%

3.44%


Levels of concern from respondents located within the RGB varied only slightly from all respondents. The top bolded rows of each section represents results from respondents located within the RGB; results from all respondents are located in the rows immediately below the bolded sections.

Results from respondents located in the RGB show that slightly fewer respondents are “very concerned” about outdoor pests. Otherwise, there is little variation between the levels of concern from respondents located within the RGB compared to levels of concern from all respondents.

Table 6: Comparing Levels of Concern of Respondents within the RGB Compared to All Respondents

Very Concerned


Slightly Concerned


Unsure

Lack of Time18 3.36% 31 5.79% 86 16.07% 395 73.83% 5 0.93%

28 3.88% 45 6.23% 122 16.90% 521 72.16% 6 0.83%

Lack of Space51 9.53% 78 14.58% 136 25.42% 267 49.91% 3 0.56%

67 9.28% 109 15.10% 186 25.76% 356 49.31% 4 0.55%

Cleaning Container

52 9.72% 81 15.14% 148 27.66% 251 46.92% 3 0.56%

76 10.53% 108 14.96% 204 28.25% 329 45.57% 5 0.69%

Odor72 13.46% 92 17.20% 174 32.52% 193 36.07% 4 0.75%

100 13.85% 126 17.45% 235 32.55% 256 35.46% 5 0.69%


34 6.36% 43 8.04% 98 18.32% 349 65.23% 11 2.06%

47 6.51% 62 8.59% 142 19.67% 458 63.43% 13 1.80%

Household Pests78 14.58% 97 18.13% 142 26.54% 211 39.44% 7 1.31%

109 15.10% 133 18.42% 194 26.87% 278 38.50% 8 1.11%

Outdoor Pests105 19.63% 120 22.43% 158 29.53% 147 27.48% 5 0.93%

155 21.47% 159 22.02% 208 28.81% 195 27.01% 5 0.69%


Differences in responses between all respondents compared to respondents located within the RGB are minimal. The charts below display the small differences that exist between the two groups.


Q: Provide the reason(s) you may be unlikely to participate in a weekly curbside organics recycling

program.



See no benefit



I don't know

None

Other

Proportion0% 15% 30% 45% 60%

8.99%

57.12%

2.43%

13.11%

4.12%

1.87%

17.98%

18.16%

8.88%

52.98%

3.33%

14.15%

4.44%

2.64%

18.03%

20.94%All RespondentsUrban Respondents


Q: Would you be willing to pay a nominal fee for the organics recycling program in addition to your current

Refuse & Recycling collection rate?

Yes

Yes, depending

No

I don't know

No preference

0.00% 12.50% 25.00% 37.50% 50.00%

0.94%

6.74%

21.91%

46.63%

26.78%

1.39%

7.21%

24.13%

42.16%

25.1%All RespondentsUrban Respondents



Low importance

Slightly important

Neutral


Somewhat important

Extremely important

Proportion0% 15% 30% 45% 60%

51.5%

22.47%

13.11%

3.75%

3.18%

3.37%

2.62%

48.13%

24.27%

11.37%

4.99%

3.47%

4.02%


Results by Township The following data displays the variation in responses by township. Data was analyzed from key questions about respondents’ opinions regarding an organics recycling program and their willingness to participate.

Benner Township Total Households in Benner Township: 1,778

Number of Respondents from Benner: 31




Very unlikely

Somewhat likely

Unsure

Somewhat likely

Very likely

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

70%

6.67%

3.33%

0%

20%

70.15%

13.76%

3.03%

5.09%

7.98%All RespondentsBenner


Very unlikely

Somewhat likely

Unsure

Somewhat likely

Very likely

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

60%

13.33%

6.67%

3.33%

16.67%

71.53%

13.07%

2.61%

3.44%


* bolded text represents data from Benner Township respondents

Table 7: Comparing Levels of Concern of Respondents from Benner Township Compared to All Respondents

Very Concerned


Slightly Concerned


Unsure

Lack of Time 1 3.45% 0 0.00% 7 24.14%%

21 72.41% 0 0.00%

28 3.88% 45 6.23% 122 16.90% 521 72.16% 6 0.83%

Lack of Space 2 6.90% 5 17.24% 9 31.03% 13 44.83% 0 0.00%

67 9.28% 109 15.10% 186 25.76% 356 49.31% 4 0.55%

Cleaning Container

2 6.90% 5 17.24% 8 27.59% 13 44.83% 1 3.45%

76 10.53% 108 14.96% 204 28.25% 329 45.57% 5 0.69%

Odor 3 10.34% 8 27.59% 10 34.48% 7 24.14% 1 3.45%

100 13.85% 126 17.45% 235 32.55% 256 35.46% 5 0.69%


3 10.34% 4 13.79% 7 24.14% 15 51.72% 0 0.00%

47 6.51% 62 8.59% 142 19.67% 458 63.43% 13 1.80%

Household Pests 7 24.14% 5 17.24% 6 20.69% 10 34.48% 1 3.45%

109 15.10% 133 18.42% 194 26.87% 278 38.50% 8 1.11%

Outdoor Pests 10 34.48% 5 17.24% 5 17.24% 9 31.03% 0 0.00%

155 21.47% 159 22.02% 208 28.81% 195 27.01% 5 0.69%



Q: Provide the reason(s) you may be unlikely to participate in a weekly curbside organics recycling

program.



See no benefit



I don't know

None

Other

0% 17.5% 35% 52.5% 70%

3.45%

62.97%

0%

10.34%

6.9%

6.9%

13.79%

20.69%

8.88%

52.98%

3.33%

14.15%

4.44%

2.64%

18.03%

20.94% All RespondentsBenner



Yes

Yes, depending

No

I don't know

No preference

0.00% 12.50% 25.00% 37.50% 50.00%

3.45%

10.34%

27.59%

34.48%

24.14%

1.39%

7.21%

24.13%

42.16%





Low importance

Slightly important

Neutral


Somewhat important

Extremely important

0% 12.5% 25% 37.5% 50%

44.83%

27.59%

0%

10.34%

10.34%

0%

6.9%

48.13%

24.27%

11.37%

4.99%

3.47%

4.02%

3.74% All RespondentsBenner

Q: How would you prefer to receive information regarding organics recycling?

Township newsletter

Township website

COG website

Billing insert

Social Media

Email

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

31%

24%

41%

17%

31%

72%

College Township Total Households in College Township: 4,054

Number of Respondents from College: 114




Very unlikely

Somewhat likely

Unsure

Somewhat likely

Very likely

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

72.81%

17.54%

2.63%

3.51%

3.51%

70.15%

13.76%

3.03%

5.09%

7.98%All RespondentsCollege


Very unlikely

Somewhat likely

Unsure

Somewhat likely

Very likely

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

71.93%

11.4%

2.63%

1.75%

12.28%

71.53%

13.07%

2.61%

3.44%


* bolded text represents data from College Township respondents

Table 8: Comparing Levels of Concern of Respondents from College Township Compared to All Respondents

Very Concerned


Slightly Concerned


Unsure

Lack of Time 5 4.42% 9 7.96% 19 16.81% 79 69.91% 1 0.88%

28 3.88% 45 6.23% 122 16.90% 521 72.16% 6 0.83%

Lack of Space 15 13.27% 20 17.70% 27 23.89% 51 45.13% 0 0.00%

67 9.28% 109 15.10% 186 25.76% 356 49.31% 4 0.55%

Cleaning Container

15 13.27% 21 18.58% 34 30.09% 43 38.05% 0 0.00%

76 10.53% 108 14.96% 204 28.25% 329 45.57% 5 0.69%

Odor 23 20.35% 17 15.04% 33 29.20% 39 34.51% 1 0.88%

100 13.85% 126 17.45% 235 32.55% 256 35.46% 5 0.69%


9 7.96%%

9 7.96% 21 18.58% 72 63.72% 2 1.77%

47 6.51% 62 8.59% 142 19.67% 458 63.43% 13 1.80%

Household Pests 22 19.47% 23 20.35% 27 23.89% 39 34.51% 2 1.77%

109 15.10% 133 18.42% 194 26.87% 278 38.50% 8 1.11%

Outdoor Pests 29 25.66% 32 28.32% 19 16.81% 33 29.20% 0 0.00%

155 21.47% 159 22.02% 208 28.81% 195 27.01% 5 0.69%







See no benefit



I don't know

None

Other

0% 15% 30% 45% 60%

11.5%

50.44%

4.42%

13.27%

2.65%

1.77%

15.04%

20.35%

8.88%

52.98%

3.33%

14.15%

4.44%

2.64%

18.03%

20.94% All RespondentsCollege



Yes

Yes, depending

No

I don't know

No preference

0.00% 12.50% 25.00% 37.50% 50.00%

0.88%

8.85%

26.55%

42.48%

21.24%

1.39%

7.21%

24.13%

42.16%





Low importance

Slightly important

Neutral


Somewhat important

Extremely important

0% 15% 30% 45% 60%

54.87%

17.7%

12.39%

2.65%

3.54%

4.42%

4.42%

48.13%

24.27%

11.37%

4.99%

3.47%

4.02%

3.74% All RespondentsCollege


Township newsletter

Township website

COG website

Billing insert

Social Media

Email

0% 15% 30% 45% 60%

41.82%

23.64%

56.36%

18.18%

30%

50%

Ferguson Township Total Households in Ferguson Township: 7,704

Number of Respondents from Ferguson: 240




Very unlikely

Somewhat likely

Unsure

Somewhat likely

Very likely

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

69.04%

14.64%

3.35%

5.86%

7.11%

70.15%

13.76%

3.03%

5.09%

7.98%All RespondentsFerguson


Very unlikely

Somewhat likely

Unsure

Somewhat likely

Very likely

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

71.13%

14.64%

1.67%

2.51%

10.04%

71.53%

13.07%

2.61%

3.44%


* bolded text represents data from Ferguson Township respondents

Table 9: Comparing Levels of Concern of Respondents from Ferguson Township Compared to All Respondents

Very Concerned


Slightly Concerned


Unsure

Lack of Time 7 2.94% 16 6.72% 44 18.49% 169 71.01% 2 0.84%

28 3.88% 45 6.23% 122 16.90% 521 72.16% 6 0.83%

Lack of Space 21 8.82% 36 15.13% 60 25.21% 120 50.42% 1 0.42%

67 9.28% 109 15.10% 186 25.76% 356 49.31% 4 0.55%

Cleaning Container

21 8.82% 40 16.18% 63 26.47% 112 47.06% 2 0.84%

76 10.53% 108 14.96% 204 28.25% 329 45.57% 5 0.69%

Odor 29 12.18% 49 20.59% 74 30.09% 85 35.71% 1 0.42%

100 13.85% 126 17.45% 235 32.55% 256 35.46% 5 0.69%


11 4.62% 18 7.56% 51 21.43% 153 64.29% 5 2.10%

47 6.51% 62 8.59% 142 19.67% 458 63.43% 13 1.80%

Household Pests 36 15.13% 48 20.17% 66 27.73% 85 35.71% 3 1.26%

109 15.10% 133 18.42% 194 26.87% 278 38.50% 8 1.11%

Outdoor Pests 44 18.49% 49 20.59% 80 33.61% 62 26.05% 3 1.26%

155 21.47% 159 22.02% 208 28.81% 195 27.01% 5 0.69%







See no benefit



I don't know

None

Other

0% 15% 30% 45% 60%

7.56%

50%

5.04%

14.71%

6.72%

2.1%

21.01%

18.49%

8.88%

52.98%

3.33%

14.15%

4.44%

2.64%

18.03%

20.94% All RespondentsFerguson



Yes

Yes, depending

No

I don't know

No preference

0.00% 12.50% 25.00% 37.50% 50.00%

1.26%

5.46%

25.63%

40.34%

27.31%

1.39%

7.21%

24.13%

42.16%





Low importance

Slightly important

Neutral


Somewhat important

Extremely important

0% 12.5% 25% 37.5% 50%

49.58%

21.85%

11.34%

5.04%

3.78%

4.62%

3.78%

48.13%

24.27%

11.37%

4.99%

3.47%

4.02%

3.74% All RespondentsFerguson


Township newsletter

Township website

COG website

Billing insert

Social Media

Email

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

34%

20%

48%

17%

35%

78%

Harris Township Total Households in Harris Township: 2,110

Number of Respondents from Harris: 174




Very unlikely

Somewhat likely

Unsure

Somewhat likely

Very likely

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

72.67%

11.63%

3.49%

4.65%

7.56%

70.15%

13.76%

3.03%

5.09%

7.98%All RespondentsHarris


Very unlikely

Somewhat likely

Unsure

Somewhat likely

Very likely

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

70.35%

26.86%

2.33%

5.23%

5.23%

71.53%

13.07%

2.61%

3.44%


* bolded text represents data from Harris Township respondents

Table 10: Comparing Levels of Concern of Respondents from Harris Township Compared to All Respondents

Very Concerned


Slightly Concerned


Unsure

Lack of Time 6 3.53% 8 4.71% 32 18.82% 123 72.35% 1 0.59%

28 3.88% 45 6.23% 122 16.90% 521 72.16% 6 0.83%

Lack of Space 10 5.88% 23 1353% 43 25.29% 91 53.53% 3 1.76%

67 9.28% 109 15.10% 186 25.76% 356 49.31% 4 0.55%

Cleaning Container

16 9.41% 23 13.53% 47 27.65% 82 48.24% 2 1.18%

76 10.53% 108 14.96% 204 28.25% 329 45.57% 5 0.69%

Odor 17 10.00% 27 15.88% 58 34.12% 66 38.82% 2 1.18%

100 13.85% 126 17.45% 235 32.55% 256 35.46% 5 0.69%


9 5.29% 17 10.00% 28 16.47% 112 65.88% 4 2.35%

47 6.51% 62 8.59% 142 19.67% 458 63.43% 13 1.80%

Household Pests 16 9.41% 33 19.41% 53 31.18% 67 39.41% 1 0.59%

109 15.10% 133 18.42% 194 26.87% 278 38.50% 8 1.11%

Outdoor Pests 32 18.82% 36 21.18% 58 34.18% 43 25.29% 1 0.59%

155 21.47% 159 22.02% 208 28.81% 195 27.01% 5 0.69%







See no benefit



I don't know

None

Other

0% 15% 30% 45% 60%

7.65%

57.06%

2.35%

9.41%

2.94%

2.35%

15.29%

23.53%

8.88%

52.98%

3.33%

14.15%

4.44%

2.64%

18.03%

20.94% All RespondentsHarris



Yes

Yes, depending

No

I don't know

No preference

0.00% 12.50% 25.00% 37.50% 50.00%

2.35%

5.88%

20.59%

46.47%

24.71%

1.39%

7.21%

24.13%

42.16%





Low importance

Slightly important

Neutral


Somewhat important

Extremely important

0% 12.5% 25% 37.5% 50%

47.65%

25.88%

13.53%

5.29%

2.35%

2.35%

2.94%

48.13%

24.27%

11.37%

4.99%

3.47%

4.02%

3.74% All RespondentsHarris


Township newsletter

Township website

COG website

Billing insert

Social Media

Email

0% 17.5% 35% 52.5% 70%

28%

23%

45%

16%

42%

66%

Patton Township Total Households in Patton Township: 6.763

Number of Respondents from Patton: 170




Very unlikely

Somewhat likely

Unsure

Somewhat likely

Very likely

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

66.67%

13.69%

2.38%

6.55%

10.71%

70.15%

13.76%

3.03%

5.09%

7.98%All RespondentsPatton


Very unlikely

Somewhat likely

Unsure

Somewhat likely

Very likely

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

74.4%

8.33%

3.57%

4.17%

9.52%

71.53%

13.07%

2.61%

3.44%


* bolded text represents data from Patton Township respondents

Table 11: Comparing Levels of Concern of Respondents from Patton Township Compared to All Respondents

Very Concerned


Slightly Concerned


Unsure

Lack of Time 9 5.36% 12 7.14% 18 10.71% 127 75.60% 2 1.19%

28 3.88% 45 6.23% 122 16.90% 521 72.16% 6 0.83%

Lack of Space 19 11.31% 25 14.88% 46 27.38% 78 46.43% 0 0.00%

67 9.28% 109 15.10% 186 25.76% 356 49.31% 4 0.55%

Cleaning Container

22 13.10% 19 11.31% 52 30.95% 75 44.64% 0 0.00%

76 10.53% 108 14.96% 204 28.25% 329 45.57% 5 0.69%

Odor 28 16.67% 25 14.88% 58 34.52% 57 33.93% 0 0.00%

100 13.85% 126 17.45% 235 32.55% 256 35.46% 5 0.69%


15 8.93% 14 8.33% 33 18.64% 104 61.90% 2 1.19%

47 6.51% 62 8.59% 142 19.67% 458 63.43% 13 1.80%

Household Pests 28 16.67% 23 13.69% 40 23.81% 76 45.24% 1 0.60%

109 15.10% 133 18.42% 194 26.87% 278 38.50% 8 1.11%

Outdoor Pests 40 23.81% 36 21.43% 44 26.19% 47 27.98% 1 0.60%

155 21.47% 159 22.02% 208 28.81% 195 27.01% 5 0.69%







See no benefit



I don't know

None

Other

0% 15% 30% 45% 60%

11.38%

52.1%

1.8%

19.76%

3.59%

3.59%

19.76%

22.75%

8.88%

52.98%

3.33%

14.15%

4.44%

2.64%

18.03%

20.94% All RespondentsPatton



Yes

Yes, depending

No

I don't know

No preference

0.00% 12.50% 25.00% 37.50% 50.00%

0.6%

9.58%

23.35%

41.32%

25.15%

1.39%

7.21%

24.13%

42.16%





Low importance

Slightly important

Neutral


Somewhat important

Extremely important

0% 12.5% 25% 37.5% 50%

41.32%

30.54%

10.78%

5.39%

2.99%

5.39%

3.59%

48.13%

24.27%

11.37%

4.99%

3.47%

4.02%

3.74% All RespondentsPatton


Township newsletter

Township website

COG website

Billing insert

Social Media

Email

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

39%

17%

44%

20%

36%

74%

Conclusions There were no significant deviations in the data when broken down by townships. Overall, survey participants had a positive response to an organics recycling program. Information regarding program concerns, current household practices, and interest in the program should be taken into consideration if further steps are taken to implement an organics recycling program.

Only a proportion of all households in the region were represented in this survey. According to the data, most of the survey participants recycle. The data may be representative of all households in the region, meaning most households recycle, or it may suggest that households that currently recycle were more inclined to participate in the survey. It cannot be assumed that the practices or opinions of non-participants match those of the survey participants.

It is important to be aware of the portion of the households that did not participate in the survey. Yet, despite the potential that people interested in composting and recycling were more interested in participating in the survey than were residents not interested in these topics, the relatively large number of responses suggests that there are a large number of residents in the COG who are interested in having a roadside composting program. In many ways, the number of respondents expressing such an interest is more important than the percentage of respondents doing so.



Contact Information Penn State Students

Charlie Costanzo, [email protected]

Laura Gebhart, [email protected]

Amy Hopf, [email protected]

Chelsea Kahle, [email protected]

Penn State Professor

Tim Kelsey, [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]




Appendix Survey Instrument


CRCOG Organics Recycling Program · Methods/Timeline . The survey was created for households in...

Documents

Transcript of CRCOG Organics Recycling Program · Methods/Timeline . The survey was created for households in...