vVEPA
United Sta'ts
Fnvironmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water &
Waste Management
Washington DC 20460
SW825
December 1979
Solid Waste
Multimaterial
Source Separation
in Marblehead and
Somerville, Massachusetts
Citizen Attitudes Toward
Source Separation
Volume V
:V
^--
1 -
-------
An environmental protection publication (SW-825) in the solid waste
management series. Mention of commercial products does not constitute
endorsement by the U.S. Government. Editing and technical content of this
report were the responsibilities of the State Programs and Resource Recovery
Division of the Office of Solid Waste.
Single copies of this publication are available from Solid Waste
Information, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH 45268.
-------
MULTIMATERIAL SOURCE SEPARATION
IN MARBLEHEAD AND SOMERVILLE, MASSACHUSETTS
Citizen Attitudes toward Source Separation
Volume V
This report (SW-825) was prepared
under contract no. 68-01-3964
for the Office of Solid Waste
|-;'-'- ~: .-,.- >-! prrsteoKcfi Agency
Chicago, iii.uL.., 60504
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
1979
-------
MULTIMATERIAL SOURCE SEPARATION REPORT SERIES
This volume is one in a series of reports about the
demonstration of multimaterial source separation in
Marblehead and Somerville, Massachusetts. The series
presents the key results of demonstration programs
initiated and funded by the U.S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency in 1975. Intended to provide local
governments and the interested public with useful
information for planning, implementing, and operating
their own source separation programs, the reports in
the series cover a range of issues related to source
separation. The reports are:
The Community Awareness Program in Marblehead
and Somerville, Massachusetts (SW-551)
Collection and Marketing (SW-822)
Composition of Source-Separated Materials and Refuse (SW-823)
Energy Use and Savings from Source-Separated Materials
and Other Solid Waste Management Alternatives for
Marblehead (SW-824)
Citizen Attitudes toward Source Separation (SW-825)
Any suggestions, comments, or questions should be
directed to the Resource Recovery Branch (WH-563),
Office of Solid Waste, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, B.C. 20460.
Resource Planning Associates, Inc. conducted the
studies and prepared this series under contract no.
68-01-3964.
U..S. Qvvirc^rnfr't":! Pretr^tfDfl Agency
-------
Acknowledgements
From January 1975 to February 1978, Resource Planning
Associates, Inc. (RPA), conducted an extensive program
of telephone and field surveying to determine citizen
attitudes toward source separation in Marblehead and
Somerville, Massachusetts.
It would be extremely difficult to acknowledge the
great number of people who contributed to the success
of this study. However, we would like to thank the
following people for their help: Mr. Raymond Reed,
Marblehead Board of Health; Mr. Ugaletto, Commissioner,
Somerville Department of Public Works; Mr. John Madama,
Somerville School Department; Mr. David Grebow and Ms.
Joelle Brown, Environmental and Education Services
(subcontractor to RPA for the field surveys); Ms.
Penelope Hansen and Mr. Stephen E. Howard, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Henri-Claude Bailly, Project Director
Lawrence Oliva, Project Manager
-------
Contents
CITIZEN ATTITUDES TOWARD
SOURCE SEPARATION
3 Citizen Participation
7 Storage and Collection
of Source-Separated Materials
Appendix A Program Background
Appendix B Survey Results
-------
CITIZEN ATTITUDES TOWARD SOURCE SEPARATION
Communities across the nation are seeking solid-waste-
disposal alternatives that conserve material and energy
resources. Source separation, one of several approaches
to resource recovery, involves homeowners in a process
of separating their household waste into recyclable
components, such as paper, cans, and glass, and refuse.
The source-separated materials are then collected and
sold for reprocessing. Source separation can alleviate
many solid-waste-disposal problems because recyclable
materials represent over 5U percent of the weight and
55 percent of the volume of municipal refuse.
In 1976, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
awarded 3-year grants to the communities of Marblehead
and Somerville, Massachusetts, to demonstrate the
source separation of paper, cans, and glass by residents.
The communities commissioned Resource Planning Associates,
Inc. (RPA), to assist them in designing and implementing
their programs during the first 2 years of the grants.
For the third year, EPA engaged RPA to assess the
results of the two programs and to study the attitudes
of residents of the communities toward source separation.
Marblehead and Somerville were selected for the demonstra-
tions for several reasons. First, Marblehead had
conducted a relatively successful municipal curbside
source-separation program for 3 years before the start
of the new program; Somerville had no previous source-
separation experience. Second, Marblehead is an
affluent suburban community in the Boston metropolitan
area with a population of 23,000; Somerville is an
urban community adjacent to Boston with a population of
90,000. Marblehead's median income is much higher and
its population density much lower than Somerville's.
Both source-separation programs implemented under the EPA
grants were designed to collect paper, glass, and metals
at curbside using specially designed compartmentalized
collection vehicles, but some specific requirements of the
programs differed. Marblehead residents were asked to
-------
separate materials into three categories and to place
their materials at curbside on different days than
their refuse. Somerville residents were asked to
separate materials into two categories and to place
their materials at curbside on the same day as their
refuse.
EPA has commissioned RPA to conduct studies and to
prepare a series of reports about the two demonstration
programs. The reports concern the collection and
marketing of source-separated materials, citizen
attitudes toward source separation, the composition of
the source-separated materials and refuse, the energy
requirements of source separation vs. other solid-waste-
management alternatives, and the community awareness
programs developed to encourage participation in the
source-separation programs.
This report presents the results of four independent
surveys conducted by RPA and Environmental and Education
Services on citizen attitudes toward source separation.
The surveys contained questions on citizen participation
in source-separation programs, and on citizen attitudes
toward storing source-separated materials, procedures
used by the cities to collect materials, and other
issues such as mandatory vs. voluntary programs.
Because the four surveys were conducted at different
stages of the source-separation programs, questions on
these issues differed slightly from survey to survey.
The first two surveys were conducted by telephone; 75
to 100 residents in each town were selected at random
from the telephone directory and interviewed. The
first survey was conducted in 1975, during the planning
of the source-separation programs, to determine whether
residents would participate in such a program. The
second survey was taken in late 1975, just before the
source-separation programs began. It was designed to
find out if residents in both communities had heard of
the new programs and if they would participate. Residents
were also asked their opinions on mandatory vs. voluntary
participation.
A third survey was conducted in December 197b, 1 year
after the start of the source-separation programs, to
gain more information about participation in the
programs. The survey consisted of personal interviews
with residents and inspections of the source-separated
materials and refuse set at curbside for collection.
-------
The interviews were conducted with residents in person
and by telephone to find out how often they participated
in the program, their reasons for or against participating,
the most effective media for communicating information
on the program, and if future programs should be
voluntary or mandatory. In Marblehead, 5U residents
were personally interviewed, and the source-separated
materials and refuse placed in front of 299 homes were
examined over a 3-day period to determine whether
residents actually source-separated materials and what
materials they source-separated. The neighborhoods
examined were chosen at random. In Somerville, 100
telephone interviews were conducted using the same
questions as in the Marblehead survey. Source-separated
materials and refuse placed in front of 452 houses were
also examined over a 2-day period in neighborhoods
scheduled for collection.
The fourth survey was conducted by telephone in December
1977, 2 years after the start of the source-separation
programs. Interviews were conducted with residents to get a
final overview of their participation in the programs, their
attitudes toward source separation in general, and such
issues as collection frequency, mandatory vs. voluntary
participation, storage of materials, and publicity for
the program. Over 150 questionnaires were completed
during the interviews, and 100 were randomly selected
and tabulated.
Although the four surveys covered many different aspects of
the programs, they revealed the attitudes of Marblehead
and Somerville residents regarding two major issues:
Citizen participation in source-separation programs
Storage and collection of source-separated materials.
Appendix A to this report provides background on the
communities' source-separation programs; Appendix B
contains the results of each survey; and Appendix C
presents the questionnaires used in the surveys.
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
The surveys taken in Marblehead and Somerville revealed
that citizens were willing to participate in source-
separation programs. Residents felt that source separa-
tion was a good idea, that it benefits the environment,
-------
and that it may provide the community with additional
revenues. There was a slight discrepancy, however,
between the attitude of the residents toward participat-
ing in the programs and their actual level of participation,
During the surveys, residents also commented on mandatory
vs. voluntary participation in the programs, and on the
effectiveness of the various public relations and
public education efforts used to encourage participation.
Attitudes Toward Participation
In every survey, residents supported the concept of
source separation. In Somerville, 77 percent of the
residents surveyed before the program began said that
source separation was a good idea, and 82 percent said
they would participate in the program. In 1977, 2
years after the program began, the number of people who
approved of source separation had increased to 88
percent. In the 1977 survey, 94 percent of Marblehead
residents surveyed were in favor of source separation.
About 50 percent of residents surveyed in both towns in
1977 said that the most important reason for recycling
was that it benefits the environment. Approximately 33
percent of the residents cited financial benefits for
the communities as the most important reason.
Residents were also asked about any problems that they
felt might limit their participation in the source-
separation programs. Marblehead residents were asked
what the major problems were with their original
program, in which source-separated materials were
collected monthly: 33 percent cited the storage space
required; 29 percent cited infrequency of collection;
22 percent cited the confusing schedules; and 16
percent cited the need to prepare the materials by
washing bottles or removing labels from cans. faith the
new program, many of these problems were eliminated;
the frequency of collection was increased from once a
month to once a week on a regularly scheduled basis,
and special preparation of materials was no longer
required. However, 21 percent of Marblehead"s residents
contacted during the fourth survey felt the new program
was "inconvenient."
Somerville residents, who had no previous source-
separation experience, were asked before the program
-------
began what they perceived as the major problems with
participating in the program. Fifty-nine percent felt
that storing source-separated materials would create
sanitation problems and fire hazards. However, after 2
years of program operation, only 3 percent of the
residents surveyed said that sanitation or fire hazards
were problems. During the fourth survey, 28 percent of
Somerville's residents felt that the major problem with
the program was its inconvenience.
Actual Participation
The percentage of residents in Somerville and Marblehead
that participated in the source-separation programs was
less than the percentage of residents who endorsed the
concept. Interviews with Marblehead residents in 1976,
1 year after the program began, indicated that 90
percent said that they were participating. This
percentage increased to 96 percent 1 year later.
However, inspections of curbside trash conducted at the
same time as the 1976 interviews showed that only 74
percent of the residences placed source-separated
materials out for collection.
Interviews of Somerville residents showed that in 1976,
69 percent of those surveyed claimed to participate;
this figure dropped to 63 percent in 1977. In 1976, 40
percent of the trash sites inspected showed actual
participation. If the high number of multifamily
housing units in Somerville is accounted for, the
actual participation rate of households was between 17
and 23 percent.
It is apparent that the interviews with residents
inflated participation rates. Most residents in both
communities felt source separation was a good idea, and
evidently did not want to admit to an interviewer that
they did not participate. A more accurate estimate of
citizen participation was obtained from the curbside
trash surveys. However, the trash surveys underestimat-
ed participation by about 10 percent, since they were
conducted during one week and some residents put
materials out for collection less often than weekly.
The discrepancy between the number of people who said
they participated in the programs and those who actually
participated can be overcome by an active, ongoing,
public information campaign. The campaign would be
-------
designed to convince those people who are in favor of
source separation but who do not regularly participate
to become more involved in the program.
Mandatory vs. Voluntary Programs
Participation in the Marblehead source-separation
program was mandatory, while the Somerville program
allowed for participation on a voluntary basis. In
general, residents interviewed believed that mandatory
source-separation programs would result in greater
participation than voluntary programs. Eighty percent
of those interviewed in Somerville in the first survey
felt that a source-separation program should be mandatory.
This figure dropped to 51 percent in the second survey
and to 28 percent in the third. Clearly, the longer
Somerville residents were involved with the program,
the less willing they were to participate. This was
largely because of problems with the program itself;
collections were not made on a regular basis and
residents became unwilling to cooperate with the
program. However, in the fourth survey, 77 percent of
Somerville residents said they would participate if
their program was made mandatory. In Marblehead, which
had a higher level of participation than Somerville, 60
percent of the residents interviewed in the third
survey preferred a mandatory program.
A national survey of other types of collection programs
conducted by EPA found that mandatory programs generally
resulted in higher participation rates than did voluntary
programs, given similar socioeconomic characteristics
of residents, collection frequency, and publicity
campaigns.* The survey found that 59 percent of the
mandatory programs had participation rates of 50
percent or more, while only 19 percent of the voluntary
programs had 50-percent participation rates. In
addition, the survey found that most communities with
mandatory programs do not encounter problems in enforcing
their regulations. Having a mandatory program seems to
increase participation rates even if little time and
money is spent to actually enforce sanctions against
nonparticipants.
* U.S. EPA, Separate Collection Programs; A National
Survey, 1978.
-------
Public Relations
and Public Education
Intensive community awareness campaigns were planned
and implemented in both communities at the beginning
of each program to convince citizens of the benefits
of source separation, to instruct them on how to
participate, and to create and maintain interest in
the programs. Newspapers, radio, cable television,
community letters, and special calendars were used to
convey this information.
In the third survey, residents were asked to name the
public information mechanism that they felt was most
effective. Forty-one percent of Marblehead residents
and 3b percent of Somerville residents felt that the
community letter distributed by Marblehead's Board of
Health and Somerville's mayor was most effective. The
purpose of the letter was to make citizens aware of the
benefits of source separation and to instruct citizens
on source-separation procedures and schedules.
The next most effective medium, as perceived by 34
percent of Marblehead residents and 26 percent of
Somerville residents, was the local newspaper. Local
and regional newspapers provided coverage of the
programs through news articles, editorials, and
advertisements; they also conveyed general information
related to recycling and the source-separation programs,
and printed instructions for residents.
Few residents in either community wanted to be contacted
by phone or be visited by a city representative to have
collection dates and program instructions explained to
them. Although personal contact is probably the most
effective public education method, 63 percent of
Marblehead residents and 91 percent of Somerville
residents interviewed in the fourth survey said that
they preferred to have written instructions on the
programs sent to them, including either frequent
mailings explaining collection dates or calendars
showing collection dates and instructions on source
separation.
STORAGE AND COLLECTION OF SOURCE-SEPARATED MATERIALS
Marblehead and Somerville residents indicated that they were
willing to store source-separated materials in their homes
between collection days. They were also flexible with
-------
respect to how frequently source-separated materials were
collected, but preferred to have the materials collected on
the same day as their refuse. Residents also felt that
special containers for storing source-separated materials
would make source separation more convenient.
Collection
Frequency
Seventy-three percent of Marblehead residents interviewed
said that they would participate in a source-separation
program if the collection schedule was changed from once a
week to once every 2 weeks. Marblehead residents were
accustomed to having materials collected less often than
once a week because their previous program had once-a-month
collection. Forty-one percent of Somerville residents
were also willing to have collection frequency reduced.
As residents became familiar with the source-separation
programs, they found that they were generally able to
store materials for 2 weeks. Storage space, which was
perceived to be a major problem by residents in earlier
surveys, was found not to be a real problem after some
experience with the program. In the fourth survey, 80
percent of Marblehead residents said they did not have
problems with storing source-separated materials for 2
weeks. Almost 57 percent of Somerville residents said
that they could store materials for 2 weeks. However,
90 percent of Somerville residents live in apartments
or duplexes, compared to 30 percent in Marblehead;
these multifamily dwellings usually have less storage
space than single-family homes.
Same-Day
Collection
In the fourth survey, residents said that they preferred to
have source-separated materials collected on the same day as
refuse. In Marblehead, where collection of source-separated
materials and regular refuse is on different days, 59
percent of the residents would prefer same-day collection,
1b percent preferred collection on different days, and 23
percent had no preference. In Somerville, where collection
of source-separated materials and regular refuse is on the
same day, 72 percent of the residents said they preferred
same-day collection, 13 percent would prefer collection on
different days, and 14 percent had no preference.
-------
Methods
of Storage
Many residents said that a special wastebasket divided into
three grocery-bag-sized sections, or a garbage can divided
into sections, would make storage and collection of
source-separated materials easier.
In Marblehead, 68 percent of the residents source-separate
cans and glass in trash cans and wastebaskets, and 39
percent put paper in bags or bundles. Of Somerville residents,
44 percent source-separate cans and glass in cardboard boxes
and also put paper in bags or bundles. Regular refuse in
both communities is stored primarily in paper or plastic
bags. Source-separated materials generally are put at
curbside in the same containers that they are stored in.
In Somerville, most residents store source-separated materials
outside or in basements along with regular refuse. In
Marblehead, most residents place source-separated materials
in basements or garages. Regular refuse is stored in
garages and outside.
-------
Appendix A
PROGRAM BACKGROUND
As part of its evaluation of different types of resource-
recovery programs, EPA selected Somerville and Marblehead,
Massachusetts for demonstration studies of source
separation. This appendix provides demographic informa-
tion about Marblehead and Somerville and describes how
their source-separation programs operate.
DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
Marblehead is an affluent suburban community in the
Boston metropolitan area with a population of 23,000
and a density of 5,200 persons per square mile.
Seventy percent of the families live in single-family
homes. Fifteen percent of the families rent their
homes or apartments, and 85 percent own their residences.
The median income is $12,600 per year, and the median
education level is 13.2 years.
Somerville is an urban community also within the Boston
metropolitan area, with a population of 90,000 and a
density of 22,600 persons per square mile, one of the
highest in the nation. Single-family homes house 10
percent of the families in Somerville; most of the
remaining people live in two- , three-, and four-
family homes. Sixty-five percent of the families rent
their homes or apartments, and 35 percent live in
their own homes. The median income is $^,600 per year,
and the median education level is 11.6 years.
11
-------
PROGRAM BACKGROUND
Salient demographic characteristics of the communities
and their source-separation programs can be summarized
as follows:
Somerville Marblehead
Population yO,000 23,OOU
Land area (sq mile) 4 4.5
Population density
(persons/sq mile) 22,bOO 5,200
Housing: Single-family 10% 70%
Multi-family 90% 30%
Median income (per year) $9,600 $12,600
median education (years) 11.6 13.2
PROGRAM DESCRIPTIONS
Although Marblehead has had an organized source-
separation program since 1972, that program offered
only monthly collection for each of four materials. One
week paper was collected, the following week cans, the
next week clear glass, and the fourth week green glass.
Duri'ng certain holidays, no materials were collected.
The collection schedule was confusing and residents
were required to carefully prepare materials by washing
bottles, removing labels and rings, and so on. The
publicity for the program was also limited.
On January 12, 1976, Marblehead initiated a new,
substantially improved collection program: Recycle
Plus. The new multi-materials program was preceded by
extensive public education/public relations activities
and offered a much better collection service.
12
-------
PROGRAM BACKGROUND
Although source separation was mandatory in Marblehead
under the old program, and still is, participation
since January 12, 1976, has more than doubled. This
indicates both the difficulty of enforcing source-
separation legislation and the importance of good
public relations to encourage voluntary participation.
In Marblehead, residents place three bundles -- flat
paper, clear glass and cans, and colored glass and cans
at the curb for collection on source-separation
days, which are different than regular trash collection
days. As in Somerville, no other preparation is
necessary. Special crews with three-compartment trucks
pick up the materials. In addition to the weekly
collection of source-separation materials, Marblehead
has open bins at the site of the former town landfill
for residents who wish to bring their materials. The
success of Recycle Plus helped the town to reduce the
frequency of the remaining mixed-household-refuse
collection from twice per week to once per week. The
town also was able to reduce its mixed-refuse equipment
and labor needs.
In Somerville, collection of source-separated materials
began on December 1, 1975. At that time, Somerville's
residents could put flat paper and a mixture of clear
glass and cans at the curbside next to their regular
refuse on the regular weekly collection day. In 1976,
Somerville added colored glass to its glass ana can
mixture. No preparation was necessary except to sort
waste into the source-separation categories. The
paper and glass and can mixtures were then picked up
by special town crews. Somerville is paid by the ton
of source-separated materials delivered, based on the
current secondary materials market. Participation in
the program by Somerville residents is voluntary, and
the major inducement to source separation has been a
public education/public relations program.
Somerville suspended its source-separation program
for the winter early in December 1976, as a result of
collection problems caused by severe weather. The
program was again suspended during the winter of
1977-1978.
The political leadership in Somerville changed in January
1977, and it was not until April 24, 1977, that
13
-------
PROGRAM BACKGROUND
Somerville was able to resume the source-separation
program.
On May 10, 1978, Somerville was notified by the company
that buys its glass and cans th'at it would no longer
buy colored mixed glass or cans mixed with glass. The
last load of glass and cans left Somerville May 13, and
there have been no collections of these materials since
then. Paper collections are continuing as usual.
Salient features of the two programs can be summarized
as follows:
Somerville
Marblehead
Program name
Materials collected
"Somerville Saves" "Recycle Plus"
Recyclables collec-
tion frequency
Refuse collection
frequency
Recycling crews
Refuse crew
Collection vehicles
Disposal cost
per ton
Flat paper
Cans and mixed
glass
Weekly
WeeKly
Two 3-man crews,
one 4-man crew
Nine 3-man crews
Compartmentalized
trucks with rear-
loading hydraulic
buckets; 2 compart-
ments
$9.4u
Flat paper
Cans and clear
glass
Cans and colored
glass
Weekly
Weekly
Two 3-man crews
Four 3-man crews
Compartmentalized
trucks with rear-
loading hydraulic
buckets; 3 compart-
ments
$18.9b
14
-------
Appendix B
SURVEY RESULTS
15
-------
Results of First and Second Survey Marblehead
Initial Attitudes Toward Source Separation
(in percent)
First Survey
What do you feel are the major problems
with the current recycling program7
Material preparation requirements 16
Infrequency of collection 29
Storage space required 33
Confusing schedule 22
Would you prefer a system of one trash
collection and one recyclables collection
per week7
Yes 51
No 49
Second Survey
Did you receive a letter from the city about
a new refuse collection system7
Yes 77
No 23
16
-------
Results of First and Second Survey Somerville
Initial Attitudes Toward Source Separation
(in percent)
First Survey
Do you know what recycling is?
Yes 80
No 20
Would you separate newspapers and glass
and cans (i e , bundle newspapers and clean
glass and cans) from your trash if the city
were to collect these items and sell them
for extra revenue?
Yes 82
No 18
Would you separate and store newspapers
and cans/glass if city law required it?
Yes 80
No 20
Why would you not store newspapers7
Lack of storage space 41
Fire hazard 18
Sanitation 41
Have you ever saved newspapers for
paper drives7
Yes 75
No 25
Do you now separate newspapers from
the rest of your trash7
Yes 50
No 50
Do you have space to store newspapers
for a month7
Yes 49
No 41
If the city could receive over $100,000 a
year from recycling, would that amount
of money make recycling worthwhile to you7
Yes 86
No 14
Second Survey
Did you receive a letter from the city
about a new refuse colfection system7
Yes 69
No 31
Do you like the idea of the recycling
program "Somerville Saves"7
Yes 57
No 43
Do you think a city ordinance requiring
recycling would make more people recycle7
Yes 51
No 49
17
-------
Results of Third Survey Somerville/Marblehead
Participation Range (in percent)
Somerville
Marblehead
How often do you set out materials to be recycled7
every week
less often
not at all
55
14
31
72
18
10
What single factor is the most important reason why you recycle7
town saves money 26
benefits environment 37
city requirement 4
the neighbors recycle 3
other 30
33
34
19*
1
13
What medium was most effective in getting you involved7
newspaper
mailings
word-of-mouth
posters
other
26
35
23
1
15
34
41
23
0
2
What is the single major reason why you do not recycle7
inconvenience
don't care
not enough materials to recycle
recycling costs money
don't know what I'm supposed to do
Given that Somerville/Marblehead has a recycling program,
do you feel it should be
mandatory
voluntary
no opinion
10
3
7
0
13
26
62
14
60
20
20
0
0
60
30
10
"Recycling is mandatory under the Marblehead bylaws.
18
-------
Results of Third Survey Somerville/Marblehead
Participation Range
Somerville
Sample size 452
Do recycle 40%
Do not recycle 60%
Type of Recyclable Material
Cans/glass only 34%
Paper only 38%
Both 28%
Method of Packaging*
Cans/glass trash can
bag
box
other
Paper: bag
loose
trash can
box
tied
Marblehead
299
74%
26%
30%
21%
49%
66%
18%
13%
3%
59%
13%
12%
9%
6%
Method of Packaging*
Bag
Box
Trash can
Tied
51% (paper and cans/glass)
20%
15% (predominantly glass)
14%
"Marblehead data only
**Somerville data-day 1 only.
19
-------
Results of Third Survey Somerville/Marblehead
Daily Breakdown of Trash Survey Results
(Number and percentage of respondents)
Somerville
Do recycle
Do not recycle
Total
Marblehead
Do recycle
Do not recycle
Total
Day 1
53
85
138
8
10
18
%
38
62
100
44
56
100
Day 2
130
184
314
107
38
145
%
41
59
100
74
26
100
Day 3 %
105 77
31 23
136 100
20
-------
D
ro
0)
.c
_OJ
JC
k.
CD
S>
^
0) CD
T!
'E.i
a> tl
c *i
c *
(U +"
\U tmm
£0
3 M-
co o
II
0 =
1 1 tf\
^. \JJ _ ,
M- ° U
^ -§.05
2 OJ CL
OJ oj c
CC h- ^
D
ro
CD
£
CD
.0
^
CO
^
_CD
>
CD
E
o
in
vt
+*
C
CD
o
c
o
Q.
tfl
= CD
.
u
CD
CC
-
0
CD
CD
(^
O
i_
CD
tn d
4-1 O3
C Q.
cu
"° -1
§ °
Q. "^
60 -> CO
Q) do;
^ CO
! 1 > a
k- i ~ CO
3 r ^ CD
5 < "a c
° 5 S o
^ ^^ vLT
JS P ° ^
E cc 5 E
5 < o D
C Q. I Z
"to
4-»
O
1- - <
r- CN o r-. en
LO t- CN >-
o o o o ^j
0
00 00 «- 00 LO
LO ,- CN ^~
CD co oo oo en
OO * ^ CN
O O O O LO
O CN
r~- ro < en ^t
LO r- CN
r^
CD
Q_
ro
Q_
~O
CD
O
>
0
CD
i
CD ^
£ V D «
0 1$ 0 CD
Q. CD > c
E - 5 > R
*- CD O C - CD
^5 i | S =i -^ 2
g, > > ° ro ^ o
ro ,n, r: ^ ^_. j_j ,
^ > > c3 o E i
§ ^^^2 ^ |
^ ± Z
OO CD O
OO CD O
o o ^r
LO LO
O O CD
CN 00 C30
LO LO O
00 CO 0
CD 't r^
00 CD 00
LO LO 00
CM r- CD
1^
"O
CD
CJ
^
0)
CD
O
41
CO
^
ro
u
~o
c
CD
CO
CO
CC
~Er>
"~~i
CO °
CD -h-
£ =5 co
X Q. CD
O CO
0. =! C
£ ° a
o to
o -8 s
S go
^ CO '^1
ti cu 0 -tr CD
c ^ ^. cj Q
CD > z -y
o g E
m O Z!
cx I Z
m
O 00 CD <- LO
CD <- v- ^
O O O O CN
O
oo oo r-- r- oo
CD <- «-
* r^ co oo o
00 v- ^- 00
o o o o ^t
'- OM
^r < ** > CD
LO r- CN *-
o-
co
CO
_5
cr
X)
CC
c
CD
CJ
"0
CD
CJ
>-
CJ
0
^
^
d;
CO ?t
CD ^
CO co .
§ % I I
Q. CD > c
co > CD 0
CD J^ > > n
*- CD o c ro d
"s 1 1 ^ =5 f : ^
g> > > ° ro "ro 'o
03 ;r ^T ^ ^ ^
f £ S S o S i3
g m^^z o f
CD ^ =i
Q- ~ Z
O O
CN CO
O O
LO LO
0 O
o
r~ oo
^r LO
CN CO
^ LO
r^ oo
CD 00
CO
CD
CO
C
O
o
CO
CD
"o
CD
CJ!
CD co
t; CD o
£ > z
CJ
cu
Q_
21
-------
D
re
9)
x:
0>
s
CD
f~
£
'E
4>
o
00
en
C
D
C
O
a
tn
~ 03
< CC
in
QJ
"o
g S1
O a>
Z CC
t.
a;
"o
>-
u
V
CC
tn
C
a>
o
c
o
a
tn
= 0)
< CC
(/)
w
09
u
c £
O CD
Z CC
in
a>
u
s-
u
03
CC
O
o
=f
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
00
00
CD
(^.
.z:
oo
ca
^
CD
ID
CD
CD
*~
_j
O
>~
^1
o
3 oo
a. CD
oo
0 §
5- Q.
£ £
£ °
o I
g E
o ZJ
X Z
vT O O O CD CD
CD CD
LO LO O O O 00
CN F^
OO < O O CD CD
CD en
0 0 O 0 0 LO
^t CD en
o o o o o oo
O 00
"
CD ^t O O O CN
O CD
r^
CO
E
CD
Cb
o
Q.
o
oo
c
O
CD
N
C
CD
CO
o
$ V
« g ^
« - ° «
§ ^ > ^ i
&^^o^~ g g
2 CDCD>0)T3 (u Q.
> CD i_ D CI - oo
**- >ga)crcD t-> o)
O CD > CD ^
CD CD ro " -t o> CD^O
CT 0 CU CD -C S °
CD o u y. ^ i_
t gcccS^ 3 a)
£ HOO "< o -D
o *" c
03 ° =>
cL Q Z
LO LO ^t-
cn
o o o
0
LO LO *
en
^t CD *t
en
00 P- <-
en
UO LO OO
en
srcentage of responses
Yes
No
: yes, with whom7
lumber of responses
CL ^
LO LO
OM 1^
0 0
LO LO
CN r-^
O O
o
0 O
O
0 0
o
oo
ercentage of responses
Place of business
Service organizatior
Q_
u Q
tO CD
ro "^
+_, o
° I
"-D5
CD
.
'
ra
D-
c
0
V)
c
u
c
CD
~D
C
O
a
CD
CC
CD
13
CT
O
CD
a
2
CD
"o
>
o
CD
o
o
22
-------
o
0)
.c
_Q)
re
|
0)
E
o
CO
vt
Q
D
C
o
a
^ 0)
o
c o
O a>
Z CC
*2
a)
o
u
a>
CC
^
C
0)
o
c
o
a
= m
. i-
CD ^ > ^
D) - -C O
c° CO CZ > ^
-t-' CD O O S 0)
g > Z Q co- ^
o ₯ E
u ^ ^
Q_ _ Z
co CN CD "vj" ^f en CN CN ^t" ^
CN ^- CO
OOOOOOOOO sj-
CN ^ CN CN
CN ^- CO
OCOrCDCNCN- CNCN i
CN CM CO *- CO
CN CO <- ^- CO
o^'cfcDCO' < roco
CN ^- CO <-
QJ
CJ
CJ
CD
CO 1
0 ~
* ' ^
E5 o
CD T3
CP ^ " °
o c £ >"
CD ~Jr >
6 E | ^
co 2 0 I c
^ CD ^*- C ^^ Q^ CD " " nj
O Jr- ^ QJ v£Z QJ --* QJ -^ co
CD CDd-C^CD "^cn ^O ;_;
^- -*-J CD i ^ 'm
O ^."^O0^, QJco _C t QJ vr_
C! Cl 1~* ^ t CD -*-^
£ ucjcjcct/ozir
-------
D
cu
01
.c
01
J3
CO
IE
QJ
>
0)
E
O
C/3
C
01
o
o
Q.
(A
= O)
< oc
c/)
^
"o
5 "
O O!
z cc
cu
u
u
o>
CC
+-<
c
O!
T3
C
O
Q.
en
~ CD
(/)
01
U
O 01
Z CC
V)
1_
u
u
01
CC
CJ)
CJ)
CO
CD
CJ)
,
^
O
CN
,
LO
0)
CJ
CJ
CD
^
0
*
you prefe
responses
~a H_
O i-
5 .8
g E
O =>
I Z
LO ^f O O i CN
CJ) O
O O O O O -*-1
Q. c^l^ > ^
m Q CD £ " O M-
I III ll 1 1
CJ CD E
CD "^ -^
0- § Z
CM r- "~ "~ "~ 5 CO
OOOOOOOOLOOOLOO O
LO CM CN
CM « ft CO
^COCOCOCMCO- r^' o- o
CM %)- ^
<- -3- CM
OCD-vTOOCD^-OroCNOCNCMCM
|S
2 O
CD TO
CD CD
? "0
m S
^ CD i-
CD CJ CD
"° o!
OJ C
U O CD -P OJ
> -Q -MO) JK; 75
CD 03 CD ^ CD ?T~
i- IM O CD O
o ^ o +*J 52^
ij C~ fj ^ i
i CD ^3
o ^- ^ -^ >- CD O
tn^CD'-P^ -*-1 U>-
^ n~ Q ^^~ Q- o ^- CJ § ^
LO ii. Q ^- O ^- "Jl^ Q- _Q ₯1 O CD Q
M 13 ^o CZ CI ~*^ ^ O "^ ^ ^ CD
Q-, CO^>Q_-i-'Oc/)^^"rDCDO _^° M-
g Z -I co Z) T _i O ^ Q < h- ^ ^^ ^
CD ~ ~O ^
Q_ O CJ Z
CD <
^- CO
o o
o *-
- CO
en
CD
c
o
Q.
LO
CD
15
CD
0)
2 £ o
V >^
CJ
CD
Q_
U D LLJ
o
a
24
-------
D
re
o>
jz
V
-Q
h.
ro
0!
'>
-
0
0>
CC
D
C
O
a.
w)
= 0)
O
= £
O a>
z cc
V)
a>
0
£
0)
cc
CN
en
-
5
LO
r^
CD
CT>
LO
-Q
cu
CJ
^
CJ
CD
4-
° ^
(~ ^
> o^
COLLECTION FREQUENC
Would you recycle if collecti
materials were every two wef
Number of responses
co r^ o ro
r- <- .- a>
o o o -
o
co r- o CN
r-- > en
<- en o LO
* ro CN r~-
cn sj- r~. CD
<- ^f ro
r^ r~^ CD O3
xf ro <- LO
_^
CD
CD
CD 5
CD S-D
CD a §
g OD S^
£"5. "= ^
S E _g c
" ro ^ 0
-o x c E
d CU >r
5 !_ ° ^
« £ J3 ^
S ro -<_
-=1-5,0
Percentage of responses
Yes
No
Don't know
Would you recycle if paper, (
collected on different weeks
on the first and third weeks,
and cans on the fourth week
Number of responses
oo CD ro o
ro ro CN en
0 O O .-
o
oo en ro en
ro ro CN oo
< CJ> O CD
xT ro CN r^
en ^ r~- CD
< - C
ro CD
en S:
^^ cp
TI! ^i-
c t:
ro -Q
Percentage of responses
Yes
No
Don't know
Would you prefer recyclables
collected on the same day or
Number of responses
en oo ro
LO i CN
o o o
o
CO 00 -3-
LD < r\i
CN CO *t
r^ < i
00 CD CD
00
co in r^
CD <- <-
Percentage of responses
Same
Different
No preference
= < CD CJ
>
u
c
0>
s
a-
£
U-
c
o
o
V
"5
O
c
0
»
c
0>
E
0
O
CD
CJ
CD
O
CJ
CD
ro
ro
ro
^
CD"
"D
"
CD
15
ro
o
>
0)
t.
o
CO
CD
E
CD
c
c
o
GO
CD
C
E
E
c
CJ
O
_Q
C
V
CD
CD
CD
Q_
E
ro
oo
CD
_C
r-
b
D
CD
CJ
CD
"o
CJ
CD
ro
en
(D
ro
u
>
o
CD
"D
CT3
^:
to
ro
ro
s
_o
ro
CJ
>
s
-Q
c
ro
_c
ro
^_
ro
D
en
CD
T3
ro
CD
^
CD
_Q
ro
2
c
01
>-
ro
c
4-1
CD
CD
5
C
C
-Q
CD
I
O
CJ
25
-------
"D
ra
0)
^^
0)
JD
m
2
«
'E
0)
O
GO
*-
C
D
C
O
a
= £
L
"o
c &
O a>
z cc
s?
a>
u
o
a>
EC
Z
c
0)
a
c
o
a
vt
= a>
< OC
t/i
OJ
u
jL >-
O Q>
z tr
tn
^
"o
u
a>
DC
O
0)
CM
CO
CO
CO
CO
LO
CM
CO
T)
CD
CO
CO 00
O O O CN
0
LO CO CD CD
LO CO CO
co r^ o co
r- CM co
O CM CO LO
r^ CM CN
LO O") CD CO
r^ < LO
CD
3 ID
o
CD w
CD P
Percentage of responses
Yes
No
Don't know
Would you recycle if the program w
(in Marblehead) / mandatory (in Sor
Number of responses
xt CO CN
O)
O 0 0
o
st CO CN
O)
r- r-~ co
r- «
O CO CN
CO CO
CO
Percentage of responses
Yes
No
Don't know
ents on Mandatory vs. Voluntary:
The Marblehead program is mandatory
Somerville's program is voluntary.
E
E
*s o
<. CO O
LO
CO
^
=1-
CO
^j-
CD
CO
LO
Q
,_
o <^-
"5 >
CJ '>
_Q -Q
CO i
co O
LEVEL OF SEPARATION
Would you be willing to separate gla
recycling, for example, clear, green
Number of responses
LO ^t < "st
r-- CM co
000 0
o
*
CD CO «- ^t
r^ CN CD
r~- ^ CN o
st -3- <- CO
LO O LO CM
CM LO CM
O O) <- CO
LO CO «- CN
CD
E
o
oo
c
CD
O
CD
CD
Percentage of responses
Yes
No
Don't know
If yes, would you be willing to sepai
Number of responses
CD <- CO
CO <-
000
CO - CO
CO <
r~ co o
05
o o o
o
"
CD ^ O
CD
Percentage of responses
Yes
No
Don't know
>
-------
a
ro
.c
o>
.C
re
2
'E
V
O
4-1
C
0)
o
c
0
Q.
crt
= U
0)
"o
s-
O)
CC
3
C
o
c
o
Q.
= O)
< DC
0>
u
5 u
O HI
Z CC
h-
0)
If
0!
CC
0
r-
o
o
CN
LO
0
CM
LO
CO
CD
_Q
03
"cj
CJ
£?
GO
ro
T3
c
ro
GO
C
LLI o
IALS STORAG
you store your
of responses
Z 2 S
in
- r- ro en r--
o o
< r~- co cj) r-^
LO ^ i < r^
CT) CM ^ LO CO
CM " CN f LO CO
CM < q- < LO
GO
CD
15
ro
CJ
CJ
i-
i_
CD
Gi-
ro
CL
GO CO i_
CD ^ ^
C 0 ° "
o i^E >- %
& -^T3 £ §
£ ro r5 ro 2 §-
M_ CJ ^ 0 GO «
c jz 2-Q ^ -
8, £ 5! S1 ^ o
2 - 5 "-° o -
c cccc ^ |
o 5 E
CD" ° ~
rl I Z
Sr^ CM co LO r--
CN < CO
0 O
Sr~- CN ro LO r-~
CM < CO
o CD r- co o ^j-
^ co <- LO
0 O
o CD r-- co o ^j-
^t M > to
GO
CD
O
"O -
₯ ro
ro c
0 OJ
-° m
TD
CJ CD
o -§
J3 73
CD >
_£ cj
GO CD
-D i-
11 I
0 g CD S
& GO' 0 S
- ro " §
R ^ GO
*; - ° OJ ^ CD
O u , ^3 CJ u i
CJ CD E
>-
O
£^
*-
o
O~) Oi
o
0) ^
00
I c°
GO CD -^
Percenta
In tl-
In a
> < CD U
coco
CN
CM O O
CM
CMOO
CM
27
-------
D
(U
0!
£
CD
.a
k_
ro
^
_0)
'>
1
O
CO
S
c
03
Ti
C
0
Q.
">
cu
C
U
= 0
O a>
Z CC
SC
0)
u
>-
u
a>
CC
i
0)
w
c
O
Q.
CA
= 01
u
S "
O (D
Z CC
(A
w
_Q)
o
>
U
CD
CC
CO
CO
^
CM
CO
0
CD
CO
r-
LO
fv
eo
O
_D
J^
0)
'CD
^
^
^
>
CO
CD
C
'ro
c
O
CJ
re storage
responses
TO H-
-c o
=! CD
O -Q
> E
O 3
Q Z
CD «* r-~
OT r-
o o
o
CD xt CD
ro r^
CN CO CD
<- CO LO
00 CO
0
CN CO CO
< CO LO
E
CD
,Q
p
CL
CD
CO
^
CD
CD
5
o
5
^_
£
CO £
CD CD
"? Q. co
S ro CD
R & c
8 50
£ g &
4- c CD
O H- k-
S, S°
TO oo Ol ^ s
+-" CD O TO ZJ CD
§ >z 05: 1
! CO i_ -.
r2 J2° Z
LD LO T-
CN r-- co
O O i-
o
LO LO O
CN r^ co
O O CD
CN CO LO
00 CO
0
- O) LO
CN r~ LO
E
CD
n
o
Q-
CD
^v
CD
CD
3
o
^
1-
o
C/J
CO
CO
en ~ci.
CD
£ T3 en
o g 8j
t s I
i- CD hr
M- 0 ^
O H- ^
CD ° ^
cn cp u
TO oo cn^- i-
-^ CD O CD Z3 CD
£ >z o ° -?
o -f ^ E
1 CO S^ i
£ ^° i:
CO "NT CO
CO CD 3-
00 0
O
CD ^ CO
CO CD xf
co r-~ r~-
CO CD *-
co r- ^-
CO CD
co r- CD
CO CD <-
r-
CO £;
CD W
fl JD co
0 2 |
CD CD Q_
*"~ CD LO
"0 r? ^
S, oo
CO oo in ^-
c £° .2 3
8 > > E
o ^
Q. § Z
xt to r~- -3-
^ CO .-
o o o o
^t LO r^- ^j-
^ CD <-
r^ LO o co
r- CD <
o o o o
0
CN en o o
^ CD «-
CD
_a
ro
o
>-
u
CD
i_
O c
M C_
tn "
br. -Q
C £
CD CO °-
% c >
a> Q. O ro
LO co O -t-1
£ CD CD C
X CD cn cn CD
Q- CJ CD CD co
CO , i_ 1 ^-.
QJ g 0 0 -D
H_ ^ oo c/5 CD
O CD M- H- "N
CD > 0 0
c^ ~ V ^
cn R 0 0 CD
£ " CD co b
g - -I-ILL
O
CD
Q_
Q LU LJ_' O
28
-------
o
CO
0)
.c
01
_Q
CO
2
£
'E
O)
E
o
c
0>
T3
C
O
Q.
=1 0>
< CC
(/»
k.
"o
C o"
O QJ
Z CC
(A
O>
u
u
01
CC
C/}
c
03
T3
C
O
o
t/t
01
< CC
vt
o>
0
c ^
O 09
Z CC
CA
^
o
9)
CC
^j-
OJ
<-
CO
OJ
o>
CN
j-^
^J
*o
CD
CD
0
4-^
CO
CD
^
CD
E
CT
c
of the follow!
sier?*
responses
> CD 0
-S E 5
"^ CD d
^J -*-^ C
0 CD 3
§ E Z
01 co r-- o o T-
sT «- <- 01 00
o o o o o ^
o
O) co r-- o o o
CO <- < CO CO
CD CT "^ «
o c8 2-Q CD Si
& coQ.^-0 0 §
E §oJS « 1
o ^slf | ^
f His! 3 ?
£ ^£^ c 0 £ -a
CJ CD t
^ c~ ^
Q_ § Z
r^ ID o <- oo CN CD
«- CO CN T-
O 0 O 0 O 0 O
o
r"
CD LO O T- CJ) CO CD
< CO CN <
ro LO co co ^ CN LO
- T- ^ OJ OJ
CO O CO O CO O O
CO CO CO
CO LD OJ CO CO CO CD
" < T OJ OJ
E
o
CD 2
c ^- ~c
O _V O CD CJ) CD CD
_CD 4^ CD +^ ^ co -C
§ -E -E O O co O
o
CO
°-
X - -i
29
-------
D
ra
0)
^
0)
jD
(O
«
^
0)
O
to
C
01
o
c
0
n
«A
^ 0)
< CC
a;
u
i >.
c o
O a)
2 CC
1C
a>
u
u
o
CC
*-*
C
CD
D
C
O
n
= CD
< CC
tn
a;
u
>.
C o
O D
Z CC
(A
CD
u
u
V
CC
o
<
CD
CD
[^
LO
CN
LO
LO
Q
_C v:
"S o
O -M
^5
II
O ra
-H-- C
PUBLICITY
Would you rather have someone talk
to recycle or just have written recycl
Number of responses
O CO h~ CD
CO CD O)
O O O CN
O
'
O CN [~~ «tf
co co cn
LO <- sf LO
CD CD
O O O CN
LO LO
LO CO CN CO
cn CD
^ *
CJ
4-1 CD
CO *
CO ^
CU >
cn n
en O
CO
"D co
=1 2?
° O
QJ 05 01
. CO
o 5 E %
Q. O to c
00 "Q. °
'o c -C
D cn
lie; I 1
> C 4-- >~
% § $ % 2
E £ o .-
o OTJZ £ "a
J= o <" ° C
i_ ^ co ^ cn
o ^ c5 co 8^ «
CD "a Q. c = u £
C C CD O O > to
O ro Q- .p CJ U "D
-C « 0 CO 2 c
a | 1 5 .E o §
_£-§ c - c ^ -g
f ^-^ c CD 5 &
-£°c?x£o
co tiU^^^cn"
0) CDCD.CutncCD
5 u "o ft o" S -i
O rocjycu o > « 9Jg
& H o.S'l-S^ 0 c > §
CD oC«^P^t;0 _QC
i "'E"Ori^CD«o roJ^
*r Q) ro t; i: i- y on^^^
O coro-t-^coC-jcc^1 n n-
m c^ro(uQ;-S"Oi: ° 73 c c
f §N!!£Si=!^i§
,_ QJ CD ^ CD -^
§ Q_ Q LL CJ O
y
0)
Q_
> < co
~o
a;
o
re than one answer per respondent was re<
o
*
30
-------
Appendix C
QUESTIONNAIRES
31
-------
First Survey Marblehead
Initial Attitudes Toward Changes in City Recycling
Name . , , Phone
Address , . ,
1 Are you aware of the recycling program in Marblehead?
[ ] yes
[ ] no If not, how long have you lived in Marblehead7
You need not complete the remainder of the questionnaire.
2 What kind of housing do you live in?
[ } apartment [ ] house [ ] other
3. Do you participate in the recycling program now?
I ] yes, all the time [ ] less than half the time
[ ] more than half the time [ ] no (if not, go to question 9)
4 What materials do you recycle?
f ] papers [ ] green glass
[ ] clear glass [ ] cans
5 Where do you store your materials?
[ ] kitchen [ ] outside, in garbage cans
[ ] shed [ ] other
6. How do you store your materials?
Paper Cans/glass
[ ] bundled [ ] in bags
[ ] loose [ ] in garbage cans
[ ] in bags [ ] other
[ ] in garbage cans
[ ] other
7 How do you prepare your recyclables for storage?
[ ] remove rings [ ] wash [ ] don't prepare
[ ] remove labels [ ] flatten cans
8 What do you feel are the major problems with the current recycling program?
[ ] material preparation requirements [ ] storage space required
[ ] infrequency of collection [ ] confusing schedule
9 What are your feelings about a system of one trash collection and one recyclables collection per week?
Answer only if you answered "no" to question 3
10 Have you ever participated in the recycling program? [ ] yes [ ] no
11 If no, why did you stop participating?
[ ] too inconvenient Why [ ] storage space required [ ] material preparation required
[ ] infrequency of collection [ ] confusing schedule
[ ] other , , .
[ ] lost interest
[ ] other , , , . . , __
32
-------
First Survey Somerville, Group A
Initial Attitudes Toward City Recycling
1. Do you know what recycling is7
2. Do you know how trash collection is paid for7
3. Where do you store your accumulated weekly trash/garbage7
4 Of your total trash/garbage, what percentage by volume would you estimate the following items to be
Newspapers %
Cans _____ %
Glass %
5 Would you separate newspapers and glass and cans (i e., bundle newspapers and clean glass and cans)
from your trash if the city were to collect these items and sell them for extra revenue7
6 (a) Where do you store newspapers7
(b) How much can you store there7
[ ] 1 week ; worth
[ ] 2 weeks worth
[ ] 4 weeks worth
[ I longer
(c) If you do not store newspapers, why not?
[ ] storage problem
[ ] hard to keep track of collection dates
[ ] fire hazard
[ ] sanitary problem
7 (a) If you separated cans/glass from your trash, where would you store them7
(b) How much can you store there7
[ ] 1 weeks'worth
[ ] 2 weeks worth
[ ] 4 weeks worth
[ ] longer
(c) Why wouldn't you store cans/glass7
[ ] storage problem
[ ] hard to keep track of collection dates
[ ] sanitary problem
[ ] inconvenient
8 Would you separate and store newspapers and cans/glass if city law required it7 [ ] yes [ ] no
(b) Would you be willing to if this were voluntary7 [ ] yes [ ] no
33
-------
First Survey Somerville, Group B
Initial Attitudes Toward City Recycling
Name
Address
Dwelling type (no families) How long have you lived in Somerville7-
1 Are you satisfied with the present trash collection and disposal by the city7 [ ] yes [ ] no
2. Do you know what happens to your trash after it is collected7 [ ] yes [ ] no
3. Where do you keep your accumulated weekly trash?
4. How often do you receive/buy newspapers7 [ ] daily [ ] weekly [ ] less often
5. Have you ever saved newspapers for paper drives7 [ ] yes [ ] no
6 Do you now separate newspapers from the rest of your trash7 [ ] yes [ ] no
If yes, why7
7. Would you separate newspapers and glass and cans d e , bundle newspapers, clean glass and cans) from
your trash if the city were to collect these items and sell them for extra revenue7
8 Do you have space to store newspapers for a month7 [ ] Longer7 [ ]
Do you have storage space for glass and cans7 [ ] yes [ ] no
9. What benefits concerning recycling most appeal to you7
10. Do you think mandatory recycling (city law) would make people recycle7
11 If the city could receive over $100,000 a year from recycling
(a) Would that amount of money make recycling worthwhile for you? [ ] yes [ ] no
(b) How would you like to see that money spent7
[ ] better city services
[ ] youth/elderly programs
[ ] city treasury
[ ] schools
[ ] improved recycling/collection
[ ] other . . .
34
-------
Second Survey Somerville
Attitudes Toward "Somerville Saves" Recycling Program
Name __^_ , Phone
Address
1. (a) Did you recently receive a letter from the City of Somerville about a new refuse collection system?
[ ] yes [ ] no
(b) Did you understand the instructions7
[ ] yes [ ] no
(c) Are more instructions necessary7 If yes, please explain what information you feel is needed.
[ ] yes [ ] no
2 (a) Had you heard of the new recycling program. "Somerville Saves," before receiving the letter?
[ ] yes [ ] no
(b) From what source7
[ ] newspaper
[ ] television
[ ] radio
[ ] neighbors
[ ] other ,
3. (a) Do you plan to separate newspapers and clear glass and cans from your trash, knowing that the city
collects them and sells them for extra revenue7
[ I yes [ ] no
(b) If yes, how often would you participate?
[ ] weekly
[ ] twice a month
[ ] once a month
[ ] less frequently
4 (a) Do you like the idea of the recycling program "Somerville Saves"7 [ ] yes [ ] no
(b) What benefits most appeal to you7 (c) What are the major disadvantages7
[ ] town saves money [ ] inconvenience of materials preparation
[ ] ecological benefits [ ] lack of storage space
[ ] others , [ ] hard to keep track of collection dates
[ ] sanitary problem/fire hazard
5. What do your neighbors think of this program7
[ ] enthusiastic
[ ] disapprove
[ ] inconvenient
6 Do you have any suggestions on improving public awareness of this program?
7 Do you think a city ordinance requiring recycling would make more people recycle7
8. Can you think of any ways in which the program might be improved7
35
-------
Third Survey Somerville/Marblehead
Participation Range Survey
1 Town
2. Nome
3. How often do you set out materials to be recycled?
31 [ ] every week
32 [ ] less often
33 [ ] not at all (go to question 6)
4 What single factor is the most important reason why you recycle?
41 [ ] town saves money
4.2 [ ] benefits environment
43 [ ] city requirement
4.4 [ ] the neighbors recycle
45 [ ] other
5. What medium was most effective in getting you involved?
5.1 [ ] newspaper
5.2 [ ] mailings
53 [ ] word-of-mouth
5.4 [ ] posters
55 [ ] other
6 If you checked 3 3, what is the single major reason why you do not recycle?
61 [ ] inconvenience
62 [ ] don't care
63 [ ] not enough materials to recycle
6.4 [ ] recycling costs money
65 [ ] don't know what I'm supposed to do
66 [ ] other
7 Given that Marblehead/Somerville has a recycling program, do you feel it is best as a
mandatory [ ] or voluntary [ ] program?
36
-------
Third Survey Somerville/Marblehead
Curbside Trash/Recyclables
1 Address
2 How many bundles of cans/glass do you separate per trash collection?
3 How many bundles of paper do you separate per trash collection?
4 What method do you use for packaging cans and glass7
[ ] paper bag
[ ] plastic bag
[ ] box
[ ] trash can
[ ] other
5 What method do you use for packaging papers?
[ ] paper bag
[ ] plastic bag
[ ] box
[ ] tied
[ ] loose
[ ] other
ual882.4
SW-825
37
-------
i;-; r.1V':<---:-: v.r-4'.! F.'cte....o;i Agency
r -,,,.- '
2;.0 So -I'. ;7- --'X'rn S::iei:
CWcago, Iliiaois 60604
-------
EPA REGIONS
U.S. EPA, Region 1
Solid Waste Program
John F. Kennedy Bldg.
Boston, MA 02203
617-223-5775
U.S. EPA, Region 2
Solid Waste Section
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10007
212-264-0503
U.S. EPA, Region 3
Solid Waste Program
6th and Walnut Sts.
Philadelphia, PA 19106
215-597-9377
U.S. EPA, Region 4
Solid Waste Program
345 Courtland St., N.E.
Altanta, GA 30308
404-881-3016
U.S. EPA, Region 5
Solid Waste Program
230 South Dearborn St.
Chicago, IL 60604
312-353-2197
U.S. EPA, Region 6
Solid Waste Section
1201 Elm St.
Dallas, TX 75270
214-767-2734
U.S. EPA, Region 7
Solid Waste Section
1735 Baltimore Ave.
Kansas City, MO 64108
816-374-3307
U.S. EPA, Region 8
Solid Waste Section
1860 Lincoln St.
Denver, CO 80295
303-837-2221
U.S. EPA, Region 9
Solid Waste Program
215 Fremont St.
San Francisco, CA 94105
415-556-4606
U.S. EPA, Region 10
Solid Waste Program
1200 6th Ave.
Seattle, WA 98101
206-442-1260
------- |