THE CASH for TRASH
CONTEST

Interim Report
July, 2003

This report summarizes the planning, execution, results, and analysis of the 2003 Cash for Trash Contest.

A fun and exciting recycling education program conducted by the Berkeley Ecology Center and the City of Berkeley, the 2001 contest awarded $6,500 to 16 recycling households.  Starting the first Monday in May, the 2003 contest ran daily for six weeks, ending on June 13.  In conjunction, presentations were made to Berkeley groups interested in learning about waste reduction and recycling.

Funded by Alameda County Waste Management Authority, this innovative program grabbed national attention in both 1988 and 2001.  Popular because it is fun and rewards people for recycling, it also met the City and the Authority’s goals – both previous times the volume of material recycled increased by 10% for more than a year.  This year, after receiving special recycling training, 450  “Champions of Recycling” helped spread the word.

Salient points:

• Trial Run of Contest collected and sorted the refuse of more than 450 volunteer ‘Champions of Recycling’ for 30 working days between March 24^th and May 2^nd
• Contest ran 30 consecutive working days from May 5^th to June 13^th
• Average daily recycling tonnage increased from 29.72 tons/day in April 2002 to 32.62 tons/day in April 2003 (+10%); and from 31.62 tons/day in May 2002 to 32.76 tons/day in May of 2003 (+4%).
• Service and recycling bin requests increased from 128 in April 2002 to 202 in 2003 (+58%); and from 106 in May 2002 to 204 in May 2003 (+92%)
• There were a total of seven Contest winners over the six week Contest of 30 collection days, compared to the three that 2001’s six month, 20 collection day Contest awarded

• A fairly detailed wastestream analysis was made possible by the sorting methods
• Press interest was low
• Residents indicating that they wished to be removed from the Contest were fewer, roughly half of the previous (2001) number. Negative reactions were altogether rare.

Personnel:

Materials Used

For collection and sorting:

Safety gear

Lessons learned

Berkeley’s waste contains less yard debris or other recyclables than expected. Volumes were generally low, with odd stand-outs (see Appendix, exhibit K). Putrescibles/food and plastic film were the largest components; during the springtime pre-Contest, paper tissue and towels made up more of the refuse volume than later during the Contest (see Appendix, exhibits L, M).

Here is some of what future Cash for Trash staff will need to know:

Daily instead of weekly refuse collection (as was done in the previous Contest) was effective in providing a clearer picture of the wastestream and a rapid refinement in techniques. Promotional and other resources were consumed in a more efficient manner, and public interest in the Contest and its goals grew until its conclusion – as contrasted by the previous Contest where interest waned significantly after a few months. The intensity of the Contest seemed also to produce more winners, seven in 30 collection days as opposed to three in 20. The actual sorting of the materials became routine and detailed; and the separation of Champions/Contestants refuse from bulk amounts (as is found in refuse trucks) and expedient sorting likely led to more confident data due to moisture content and decomposition.

Compressing the Contest led to some challenges. While public awareness was good, press attention was minimal. World events certainly played a part in dulling the press’ interest, but it’s also possible that the duration of the Contest didn’t allow for curiosity to pique. Some residents expressed disappointment when the Contest was over, hoping for a chance to win. Constant early hours and long days led to staff weariness, and during the second phase additional part-time staff aided in the sorting and provided relief. While a five-day schedule was optimal for detailed sampling, it led to material volume fluctuations in the field. Thus especially during the pre-Contest, volunteers were many during the days of the week when we collected from high-density neighborhoods (e.g. Thursdays), but fewer during the lower density ones, (e.g. Mondays).

Apprehension about low turnouts for a large scheduled community event led the staff to a technique of creating or attending smaller events to spread the message. Recycling Operations Manager Dave Williamson spoke at many local groups’ regular meetings, and thereby reached more than the target number of residents. A total of 400 residents were addressed.

This technique is valid. Future staff may wish to use it to develop links with segments of the Berkeley community that are as-yet under-represented (e.g. the Indian community).

Volunteer Champions of Recycling were recruited in various ways (see figure 1, below). It became evident that face-to-face explanation was the most effective method. A problem with using the Farmers’ Markets and like events was that they seemed to draw from the same neighborhoods. Therefore a mix of methods is of importance, and including the targeted leafleting for low-participation areas especially so.

Preparing for the Contest

Brochure

We reproduced a high quality, bi-lingual brochure outlining the Contest, specifying the rules and how to win (see Appendix, exhibit A). Some changes to the Spanish text were made to make the verbiage more colloquial. It also had contact information and a form with which a resident could opt out of potential selection for the Contest. A brochure was bulk-mailed to every address in the city in early April. In addition, quantities were available for use in informational and recruitment activities.

pre-Contest Recruits

‘Champions of Recycling’ were recruited in various ways (see figure 1), the most effective of which was tabling at the markets and events. Leafleting door to door was deemed too time consuming due to the compressed nature of the Contest schedule, but was used for target areas where our maps showed a paucity of volunteers. When a new address was recruited, a blue dot was stuck to a corresponding spot on a map of Berkeley (see figure 3). This facilitated targeting recruitment to get a good geographic spread, and made routing the collection easier.

Fig. 1. Champions recruited by method

Sustainable Living 101

During the first half of the Pre-Contest, a class was offered to all who had volunteered as Champions of Recycling, and any interested party that demonstrated the sorting methods used for the refuse and explained the best ways for aBerkeleyresident to recycle. This prepped them to win the class and was meant to get them to spread the word. It was held at the Refuse and Recycling yard on Gilman, and presided over by last time’s Contest coordinator, Portia Sinnott.

Community Events

During the Pre-Contest (and into the Contest) several small events were scheduled with community groups.

Recycling Operations Manager Dave Williamson conducted eight trainings, recruiting Champions and explaining the Contest and its goals at the following events and locations:

• Chinese-American Community Church
• South Berkeley Senior Citizens Center
• North Berkeley Senior Citizens Center
• South Berkeley YMCA
• South Berkeley Neighborhood Development Corporation Mixer
• Francis Albrier Community Center
• Bahia After School Program
• South Berkeley Domino Tournament
• San Pablo Park Neighborhood Association
• Alcatraz Neighborhood Watch Committee

This was more effective in reaching targeted low participation neighborhoods and greater numbers of people than the previous Contest’s larger party. Over 400 people were addressed about the contest.

Trial Run

Collection procedure

The Cash for Trash staff met at the recycle yard at 5 o’clock a.m.and set empty 1 cubic yard bulk bags (see Appendix, exhibit B for a photo) in the recycling program pickup. The list of Champions for that weekday was extracted from the database and printed out. This was used along with recycling program route maps (see Appendix, exhibit H) to navigate the streets and collect the trash.

Each address’ refuse was set in a separate bulk bag which was tied shut and labeled with the container volume, date, and address on a paper sale tag tied to the corner. It was then loaded on the truck and tied down for transit. Addresses whose garbage was unavailable for any reason were returned to the Champion pool for collection the following week.

When the truck capacity was reached, staff returned to the base for additional bulk bags. They continued collection as time allowed until the available addresses were exhausted or the refuse made unavailable due to collection by city staff. From 10 to 25 set-outs were collected, depending on staff, availability, and timing.

Sorting procedure

Once the material was in the yard, staff doned Tyvek coveralls, rubber and nitrile gloves, dust masks and safety glasses and dumped the trash onto a table (see Appendix, exhibit C for photo).

There it was picked apart by hand into curbside totes, into as many as 12 categories (see Appendix, exhibit D for an explanation). The totes and their contents were weighed on 11-pound kitchen scales and the address, container volume, and weights (and any information about recyclable items) were written down on weight sheets (see Appendix, exhibit E).

The materials were then disposed of, with plastic and paper separated for later examination (see Appendix, exhibits L & M for analysis of these data). When all the bags were sorted the work area was cleared and the bulk bags folded for the next day’s collection. Maps and a list of Champions were prepared for the following collection day. Administrative actions, like arranging advertising and recruiting were also taken at this time.

Data capture

The data (i.e. address, container volume, weights, and comments) was transferred from the weight sheets through forms into an MS Access database (description follows). Those physical weight sheets and champion lists were filed for potential reference.

Database construction and procedures

The Champions of Recycling were recruited through various methods (figure 1) and their data captured to an MS Access database, consisting of one main ‘preContestChampions’ table and one subsidiary ‘doNotReview’ (see Appendix for db table fields and their purposes). The ‘preContestChampions’ table initially contained only demographic data about each Champion; later the weights and contents of their sorted refuse was entered. The ‘doNotReview’ table contains information about those who contacted the staff to decline to participate.

Staff entered the demographic data from sign-up sheets from the events; emails and phone calls; and postcards returned from the solicitations (see Appendix, exhibit F) sent by US mail to a list of 4500 supporters (who had recently requested recycling bins) or delivered to homes in targeted neighborhoods where participation was deemed light.

Queries made on the ‘preContestChampions’ table extracted to a MS Excel spreadsheet were the daily source for the list of Champions to be collected, based on route day (e.g. Monday, as discerned from address), and collected or not-collected status. Further queries produced lists for mapping Champions and their dispersion throughout the City’s neighborhoods (see figure 3).

The data entry was done through a series of MS Access forms (see figure 2). Periodic and current analysis of these data was done in MS Access using reports and MS Excel using formulae and charts.

Fig. 2. Champions data-entry form

Feedback letters

Feedback letters (see Appendix, exhibit I) containing material weights and comments were extracted by query from the database and sent to the Champions. Included was an explanation of the 12 categories of garbage, suggestions on how to recycle more, and a gift membership in the Ecology Center

Champion distribution

Fig. 3. Blue dots represent volunteer ‘Champions’ households

Champion Distribution by day of the week

Resulting data from Champion sample (see Appendix for daily percentages)

Fig. 4. Percentage of refuse, all days Champions

Contest

Selection of Contestants

The Contest participants were extracted from a table ofBerkeleyaddresses provided by contractor KP printing. Portia Sinnott, of contractor Micro Services Plus organized these into day and route. 20 per day were randomly selected, randomly assigned a priority number using an algorithm that Portia derived and set into a spreadsheet. The priority number was implemented for the contingency of multiple winners for a single Contest day. This spreadsheet was the basis for each day’s collection. (see Appendix, exhibit G)

Collection procedure

The collection of Contestants’ refuse was similar to that of the Champions. The differences were the addition of the priority number to the information captured on each bag’s tag, and the attachment of a permission slip (see Appendix, exhibit J) to each prospective Contestant’s refuse container. The permission slip alerted the resident that his or her refuse had been intercepted and why, with contact information including the email address (CashForTrash@ecologycenter.org) and telephone number for allowing Contest staff to open the bag for sorting. In the case that random Contestants were also Champions from the pre-Contest, permission was taken as granted. Collection staff occasionally encountered residents at the point of interception, and all in that situation agreed to participate.

Sorting procedure

Sorting the Contestants’ garbage was likewise similar to sorting that of the Champions. A general tolerance of 1% by weight for recyclables was used to make determination of a finalist. In the event of a sort yielding a prospective winner, the sorted material was held aside so that all the staff could evaluate it. Recycling Operations Manager Dave Williamson was final arbiter.

Data capture

Weights, container volume, and content comments were captured, as in the pre-Contest; only the addition of the priority number was different.

Database construction and procedures

The database for the Contest was structured similarly to that of the pre-Contest, and the ‘doNotReview’ table from that db was imported into the new one. While the pre-Contest Champions had given names and contact information at the time of their signup, and so were already in the ‘preContestChampions’ table, Contestants’ info was gathered from the permission slips. Thus Contestants were added at the time of their sorting, rather than at the time of volunteering. Data entry was done through forms very similar to those in the pre-Contest (see figure 5).

Figure 5, Data entry form for Contest weights by address

Feedback letters

As in the pre-Contest, feedback letters containing material weights and comments were extracted by query from the database and sent to the Contestants along with an explanation of the 12 categories of garbage, suggestions on how to recycle more, and a gift membership in the Ecology Center.

Distribution of Contestants

Fig. 6. Contestant distribution. Both green and red dots represent Contestants

Contestant Distribution by day of the week

Resulting data from Contestant sample (see Appendix for daily percentages)

Fig. 7. Percentage of refuse, all days Contestants

Winners

Press attention

The Berkeley Daily Planet ran a short story about the Contest and its’ first winners (Weekday Edition May 20 – 22, 2003; page 3). Contest staff was interviewed by two other news organizations, which did not result in stories.

The Contest ran 2x3 column-inch advertisements for the whole pre-Contest and Contest (figure 8) in the San Francisco Chronicle’s Friday East Bay section (on that day once a week); The Berkeley Daily Planet (published twice a week); the Berkeley Voice (likewise twice a week); and the East Bay Express (published weekly on Wednesday).

Fig. 8. Newspaper advertisement

A sign publicizing the Contest (designed by Celery Graphics and produced by Roadway Displays, figure 9) graced the exterior of the City of Berkeley’s refuse-collection trucks for the duration.

Fig. 9. Truck sign

Conclusion Tonnages

Recycling tonnages overall increased. Totals will be delineated in a final report.

A large, detailed sample provides an interesting snapshot ofBerkeley’s wastestream. In the charts comparing the Champions, Contestants, and AWCMA’s 2000 analysis of Berkeley’s waste (see Appendix, exhibit N), some notable differences emerge. In both the Champions and Contestant samples, the amount of Yard Debris was 2%; Berkeley 2000 data shows 14%. This suggests that current efforts to divert yard waste are very effective.

The Other Organics category (in the AWCMA data combined textiles, wood, putrescibles, and soil) was larger in the current sample than the 2000. This may suggest that Berkeley residents’ refuse has become more concentrated in materials that are not collected for recycling at the curb.

Champions’ refuse shows a significantly lower paper content (15%) than Contestants’ (22%), but the proportions of other materials is similar, despite the fact that Champions’ refuse was 19% smaller by weight than Contestants’.

Further analysis of the bulk sorted paper and plastic (retained from the pre- and Contest individual sorts) was undertaken (see Appendix, exhibits L & M).

Champions’ plastic contained 13% recyclable containers, and Contestants’ contained 23%. This may indicate that while awareness of the recyclability of PET and HDPE containers is good, confusion about acceptability or some other factor is still in effect. As shown in the proportional charts (exhibit N), the percentage of plastic in the sample is greater now than in 2000; low-mass film was more than a third (37%) of the plastic refuse collected. Efforts to divert film may prove useful if the trend toward increased usage continues.

Champions’ paper weighed less than the Contestants’ as noted above, and it contained less newsprint (14% vs. 16%) and corrugated cardboard (13% vs. 19%), but significantly more tissue and paper toweling (22% vs. 8%). It is possible that the pre-Contest collection netted more tissue by being during early spring and allergy season; or that like the question of ‘Other Organics’ an otherwise small amount is apparently magnified by the non-presence of more traditional materials.

Click here to view the appendix

Click here to view day-by-day percentage totals for the pre-Contest

Click here to view day-by-day percentage totals for the Contest