Residents are resistant to four-weekly collections – what does the data say?

Danette O’Hara looks at why residents tend to object to less frequent residual waste collections, and explores whether the numbers stack up to support this kind of service change.

When compiling research on local authority waste and recycling collections, it was shocking to find that more councils collect general waste weekly (55) than on a three- or four-week basis combined (33 and 4, respectively). That doesn’t account for those collecting multiple times a week (6), all based in the very centre of London. Why do we need to have general waste collected so frequently – and what is going into these bins?

There has been considerable public backlash against reductions in the frequency of general waste collections. Critics claim that fewer black bin collections increase fly tipping, or that it is inconsiderate to those with children in nappies, without checking whether this is the case.

Following sentiment rather than data

A prime example of public perception driving decision making is Basildon Borough Council, which changed from weekly collections in single-use bags to fortnightly collections in wheelie bins for general waste and reusable bags and a box for recycling: splitting the recycling into paper and card, plastic and cans, and glass. Following some issues – and numerous complaints about the change – this service change went back to consultation.

Basildon’s public consultation offered little information behind the changes and the financial or environmental impacts, and provided limited alternatives. The options presented were keeping fortnightly wheelie bin collections, or reverting to weekly collections (either wheelie bin or single-use sacks).

While clearly the wrong decision financially and environmentally, Basildon accepted the consultation outcome and will return to weekly collections.

Dealing with media pushback

A few months later, Bristol City Council launched its consultation around changing the city’s general waste collection frequency. Some media claimed this was unecessary since Bristol had one of the best recycling rates in the UK (45%). This is true for a core city but not compared to the national average, which was not made clear. The average recycling rate across the UK is 44%: this ranges from 16% for inner London to 73% in Wales.

A petition opposing the consultation suggested there would be a “disproportionate impact on larger families and households”. This ignored the intended provisions for additional capacity to those with need). Bristol City Council’s public consultation was more thorough than Basildon’s, in that it provided more information. Yet it didn’t clarify the benefits and exceptions, leading to misinformed responses (such as the petition mentioned above).

Had Bristol employed stronger messaging around benefits (using clear, impartial data), could it have made a compelling case for change?

Bristol’s collections frequency remains up in the air. This suggests we are missing the mark around how we communicate important service changes. To get councils onside and making these bold decisions, we need to put clear and compelling messaging front and centre.

The real data behind collection frequency

Looking at the data, a disconnect between public perception and the actual public benefit from reduced collections becomes clear. The average recycling rate for those on weekly collections is 36%. This increases to 44% with fortnightly collections and 57% with a three-weekly general waste collection.

Four-weekly waste collections, meanwhile, deliver an impressive (but still with plenty of room for improvement) 60% recycling rate.

Bury Council was the first to switch to a three-weekly collection (from fortnightly). The first year of the change saw its recycling rate increase from 39% to 49%.

Seeing the benefits of service change

Conwy County Borough Council introduced three-weekly collections for general waste in 2016 and trialled four-weekly collections for 10,000 households. By 2018, the whole county adopted four-weekly collections, and saw a 30% reduction in general waste. Conwy supports this by collecting a wide range of materials for recycling, including textiles, small electricals and nappies and incontinence products.

Generally, the rationale for reducing general waste collection frequency is that it prompts residents to recycle more. To further encourage this, some councils have switched to weekly recycling collections using Trolibocs. These stackable boxes have less capacity (acceptable for weekly collections) and, combined, require the space of a single wheelie bin. Often paired with kerbside sort, this aids the separate collection of multiple materials in one vehicle. Other councils, meanwhile, have opted for multiple wheelie bins but collect these less frequently.

The recycling reality

Commonly only 20-40% of general waste bins are non-recyclable in the UK (with the exception of Wales). The remainder (up to 80%) can be kerbside recycled, dropped at a collection point, or taken to household recycling centres. Better, some of the material could be donated for reuse, repaired or repurposed, keeping materials higher up the waste hierarchy.

When working in a local council’s waste team, I wanted to highlight that a lot of general waste was recyclable. Just 10% of the material added to general waste bins in the authority had no recycling option. 33% could have been added to recycling bins, 43% to garden waste collections and 13% taken to recycling centres/collection points.

The staggering thing about this is that it is not that different elsewhere across the country. The data shows that most of us could cope with less general waste capacity if materials went in the correct bin.

The statistics mentioned above support both the idea of weekly food collections and far less frequent general waste collections. The experiences of Bristol City Council and Basildon Borough Council show we need resident communications around proposed service changes handled well from the outset. This means giving clear rationale for change, clarifying that needs will be met, and highlighting additional benefits that service change brings.

We can learn from those who have already taken this less frequent route, implementing changes well, and promote these examples so a positive narrative around collections frequency becomes the dominant one.

Author

Danette O’Hara | Consultant

Having worked with a number of organisations across various sectors – including in waste minimisation for a local authority and reuse for an environmental charity – Danette has a wealth of knowledge and a holistic knowledge of waste and resource strategy.