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 the latest bit of 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). And that is not even accounting for those that collect multiple times a week (6), which are 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. Many critics claim that fewer black bin collections will increase fly tipping, or that it is inconsiderate to those with small children in nappies, without looking at the data or the details to see if this really is the case.

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 Borough Council’s public consultation offered no reasoning behind the changes, provided no information on the financial or environmental impacts, and gave very limited options as alternatives: the general waste frequency options presented were either to stick with the change to fortnightly collections with the wheelie bin, or revert to a weekly collection (either with the wheelie bin or returning to single-use sacks).

Despite the Council knowing it was the wrong decision, both financially and environmentally, it accepted the consultation outcome and is planning to go from fortnightly rubbish collections back to weekly.

A few months later, Bristol City Council launched its consultation around changing the city’s general waste collection frequency. Some in the media claimed this wasn’t needed as Bristol already had one of the best recycling rates in the UK at 45%; this is true for a core city but not when compared to the national average, a reality which was not made clear in the newspaper article. The average recycling rate across the UK is 44%, and this ranges from 16% for inner London to 73% in Wales.

A petition was raised in opposition to the consultation which included claims that there would be a “disproportionate impact on larger families and households” (ignoring that provisions were to be included for additional capacity to those with need). Although Bristol City Council’s public consultation was more thorough than Basildon’s, in that more information was provided, the benefits and exceptions were still not made clear enough, leading to misinformed responses (such as the petition mentioned above).

If the messaging around the benefits had been stronger from the outset, and if it had been backed by clear and impartial data, could Bristol have made a far stronger and more compelling case to the public, media and politicians?

With the Bristol changes still up in the air, it is clear we are still missing the mark in how these important changes are being communicated. To get councils onside, and making these bold decisions, we need clear and compelling messaging to be front and centre.

The real data behind collection frequency

When we look at the data, the 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% for those on fortnightly collections, 57% for those that have a three-weekly general waste collection, and an impressive (but still with plenty of room for improvement) 60% for those with four-weekly general waste collections.

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

Conwy County Borough Council introduced three-weekly collections for general waste in 2016, as well as trialling four-weekly collections for 10,000 households. By 2018, the whole county had adopted the four-weekly collections, and as a result have seen a 30% reduction in general waste. Conwy supports this offering 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, or stackable boxes, which have less capacity (acceptable for a weekly collections) but take up a similar amount of space as a single wheelie bin. This is often paired with kerbside sort, aiding the separate collection of multiple materials in one vehicle. Other councils, meanwhile, have opted for multiple wheelie bins but collect these less frequently.

It is common, to find that only 20 to 40% of the general waste bin is non-recyclable – no matter where you are in the country (with the exception of Wales). The remainder (up to 80%) is suited for either kerbside recycling, dropping off at a collection point, or taking to a household recycling centre. Better still, some of the material could even be donated for reuse, repaired or repurposed, keeping materials higher up the waste hierarchy.

When I was working in the waste team of a local council, I wanted to highlight to residents that much of their general waste could in fact be recycled. For this authority, just 10% of the material added to the general waste bin had no recycling option: 33% could have been added to the recycling bin, 43% to the garden waste collection and 13% could have been taken to recycling centre or collection point.

The most staggering thing about this is that it is not that different elsewhere across the country; the data shows that the vast majority of us would be able to cope with less general waste capacity if we placed materials in the correct bin.

The statistics mentioned above support both the idea of weekly food collections and far less frequent general waste collections. Learning from the experiences of Bristol City Council and Basildon Borough Council, we need to ensure that resident communications around proposed service changes are handled well from the outset: giving clear rationale for changes, being clear that needs will be met, and highlighting the additional benefits that service changes can bring.

We also need to 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.