The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2019-10-21 2019 ENR Packet AGENDA CITY OF MAPLEWOOD ENVIRONMENTAL AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION Monday, October 21, 2019 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers - Maplewood City Hall 1830 County Road B East 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Approval of Minutes: a. August 19, 2019 5. New Business a. Results of the 2018 Food Waste and Organic Recycling Experiment b. Update on the Maplewood Organics Drop Off Site and Future Curbside Organics Recycling Collection C. Update on the Maplewood Trash and Recycling Contracts 6. Unfinished Business 7. Visitor Presentations 8. Commissioner Presentations 9. Staff Presentations a. Environmental and Natural Resources Commission Appointments (oral report) b. Fall Clean Up Campaign (oral report) C. Maplewood Nature Center Programs (oral report) 10. Adjourn Agenda Item 4.a. MINUTES CITY OF MAPLEWOOD ENVIRONMENTAL AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION 7:00 p.m., Monday, August 19, 2019 Council Chambers, City Hall 1830 County Road B East 1. CALL TO ORDER A meeting of the Environmental and Natural Resources Commission was called to order at 7:05 p.m. by Chair Redmond. 2. ROLL CALL Keith Buttleman, Commissioner Present Joe Gould, Commissioner Present Mollie Miller, Vice Chair Present Candace Okeson, Commissioner Present Ann Palzer, Commissioner Present Ted Redmond, Chair Present Staff Present Shann Finwall, Environmental Planner Meg Hannasch, Sustainability Intern 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Okeson moved to approve the agenda as submitted. Seconded by Commissioner Palzer. Ayes —All The motion passed. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Buttleman moved to approve the July 15, 2019, Environmental and Natural Resources Commission meeting minutes as submitted. Seconded by Commissioner Miller. Ayes — Commissioner's Buttleman, Gould and Palzer Abstentions — Chair Redmond, Commissioner's Miller, & Okeson The motion passed. 5. NEW BUSINESS a. Resolution of Appreciation for Tom Sinn i. Environmental Planner, Shann Finwall gave the report for the resolution of Appreciation for Tom Sinn. August 19, 2019 1 Environmental and Natural Resources Commission Meeting Minutes Commissioner Miller moved to approve the Resolution of Appreciation for Tom Sinn. Seconded by Commissioner Gould. Ayes —All The motion passed. This item goes to the city council on September 9, 2019. b. Climate Adaption Planning Process i. Chairperson Ted Redmond and Sustainability Intern, Meg Hannasch discussed the Climate Adaption Planning Process. Maplewood and three other cities were awarded a grant from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency to complete a Climate Adaptation Plan that will review the following: 1. Climate Risk and Vulnerabilities Review 2. Community Engagement 3. Climate Adaptation Strategy Development and Prioritization 4. Climate Adaptation Plan 5. Climate Adaptation Plan communication framework for sharing with the public The planning process will take place in three phases: 1. Fall 2019: Community Engagement and Data Collection 2. Winter 2019-Spring 2020: Goal-Setting and Initial Drafting 3. Summer 2020: Second Round of Engagement and Final Drafting A steering committee will be established to help guide the Climate Adaptation planning process. Representatives from the ENR Commission and other stakeholders will be included on the committee. Staff will send a follow up e-mail asking for volunteers to serve on the steering committee. 6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a. Community Food Assessment Follow Up — Local Foods Guide i. Environmental Planner, Shann Finwall gave the report on the Community Food Assessment and Local Foods Guide and answered questions of the commission. The Maplewood Community Food Assessment included several recommendations for the City to improve food security and food access for the residents of Maplewood. One of the implementation strategies outlined in the assessment was to increase the availability of information about local food resources available for members of the community. Caiti Pyrz, St. Paul — Ramsey County Public Health Intern drafted the Maplewood Area Food Resource Guide. The guide will be distributed to local food programs for use in recommending options for clients, as well as placed in frequently visited public buildings. The City will also use the guide for education and outreach, including it on the City's website and in newsletters. No action was needed. 7. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS None present. August 19, 2019 2 Environmental and Natural Resources Commission Meeting Minutes 8. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS None. 9. STAFF PRESENTATIONS a. State Fair EcoExperience—Thursday, August 29, 2019 from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. Commissioners should contact staff if they are interested in volunteering for a three-hour shift during the event. During the event the City will share its clean energy stories. Volunteers get free admission and transportation to the State Fair and a Maplewood t- shirt. b. Maplewood Nature Center Programs Staff presented upcoming Maplewood Nature Center Programs. For more information contact the Maplewood Nature Center at (651) 249-2170. 10. ADJOURNMENT Chair Redmond adjourned the meeting at 9:10 p.m. August 19, 2019 3 Environmental and Natural Resources Commission Meeting Minutes Agenda Item 5.a. ENVIRONMENTAL & NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Meeting Date October 21, 2019 REPORT TO: Environmental and Natural Resources Commission REPORT FROM: Shann Finwall, AICP, Environmental Planner PRESENTER: Shann Finwall, AICP, Environmental Planner AGENDA ITEM: Results of the 2018 Food Waste and Organic Recycling Experiment Action Requested: ❑ Motion ✓ Discussion ❑ Public Hearing Form of Action: ❑ Resolution ❑ Ordinance ❑ Contract/Agreement ❑ Proclamation Policy Issue: The results of the food waste and organic recycling experiment will help the City implement a successful City-wide organics recycling collection program in the future. Recommended Action: No action required. Fiscal Impact: Is There a Fiscal Impact? ✓ No ❑ Yes, the true or estimated cost is $0 Financing source(s): ❑ Adopted Budget ❑ Budget Modification ❑ New Revenue Source ❑ Use of Reserves ✓ Other: N/A Strategic Plan Relevance: ❑ Financial Sustainability ❑ Integrated Communication ❑ Targeted Redevelopment ✓ Operational Effectiveness ❑ Community Inclusiveness ❑ Infrastructure & Asset Mgmt. Studying and planning for a future City-wide organics recycling collection program will create operational effectiveness in the area of solid waste management. Background The Food Waste and Organic Recycling Experiment was conducted in collaboration with the University of Minnesota, Ramsey County, City of Maplewood, and Republic Services (the City's contracted trash hauler). A total of 121 Maplewood households participated in the pilot project over the course of six weeks beginning in September 2018. The objective of the study was to examine households' food waste generation and discarding behaviors to include: 1. Analyzing patterns of households' food scraps discarding behavior following their adoption of a new waste collection routine in terms of quantity and quality. 2. Examining the changes in households' food scraps discard in terms of quantity and quality, in response to different levels of information about use of their food scraps. 3. Determining whether "information rebound effect" is a problem that deters food waste reduction efforts at the household level. 4. Identifying socioeconomic, cultural, behavioral, and attitudinal factors on food discarding and recycling tendencies. 5. Estimating the consumers' perceived values of the downstream uses of their food scraps. 6. Estimate consumers' willingness to pay for services for central source separation through advanced technologies and services to reduce food waste at home (e.g. meal kits). The households were separated into three study group areas with different amounts and types of information supplied on food waste and organics recycling. Food waste was collected in organic bags and placed in their trash cart for collection. Those trash carts were then brought to the University of Minnesota for sorting by staff. Recommendations from the results of the study are outlined in the attached report and will be discussed during the October 21 Environmental and Natural Resources Commission meeting. Attachments 1. Food Waste and Organic Recycling Experiment Summary Findings 2 Attachment 1 VERSION 1 .0 4/8/2019 FOOD WASTE AND ORGANIC RECYCLING EXPERIMENT - SUMMARY FINDINGS - VANEE DUSORUTH, PHD CANDIDATE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA 1 . SUMMARY & RECOMMENDATION Food waste reduction and organics recycling are issues of growing importance for policy makers. This study combines surveys and a curbside collection pilot to determine food waste and organics recycling habits for a sample of households in the City of Maplewood. This project was conducted in collaboration with the University of Minnesota, Ramsey County, the City of Maplewood, and Republic Services (hauling service). This report outlines the study procedures, the summary results from the baseline survey and waste sort, as well as key insights from the post-study exit survey. A total of 121 households participated in the pilot and completed all study components. Weekly participation rate in the garbage/organics was about 94.3%. Some households either did not send their materials weekly, or sometimes due to logistics, their bags went unidentified or did not get picked up during hauling. There were three experimental groups in the study: Treatment Group 1 , Treatment Group 2, and a Control Group. The specifics of these groups are described in this report. All groups received information to reduce their food waste. Control households were asked to dispose of their materials as usual and told that their materials would be sorted for waste characterization. The treatment households were asked to source separate their food and organics from their regular trash. They were provided with bio- bags that were co-collected with their regular trash. The researchers received all trash and organics, whether separated or not, identified by household in large bags. A total of 11 ,879 lbs. of materials was processed during five weeks, with week 1 being a trial. Materials were sorted into edible food, inedible food, and other organic materials. Please see Appendix 1 for more information on these definitions. All non- organic materials in biobags were tagged as contamination. Although treatment households had access to organics recycling, a proportion of food and organics was still found in the trash. For instance, almost 7.56% of the trash disposed by households in the treatment groups comprised of organic materials. This observation translates into the first recommendation: There needs to be a strong feedback system to encourage households participating in organics recycling to conduct source separation carefully. This could be similar to energy usage feedback that households receive comparing their usage to similar neighbors/neighborhoods. 1 While contamination in the biobags was not too extreme, it still persevered throughout the weeks. Packaging was one of the most common contaminant in the green biobags. In the exit survey, households themselves identified trapped organics (food trapped in packaging or bags) as an important barrier to properly recycling their materials. A similar feedback system to above could help reduce contamination. Another recommendation is more in line with a general shift in packaging practices. Given the importance of packing as a barrier to properly recycle, manufacturers should be encouraged to minimize packaging, make them compostable, or have packaging be easier to separate from food. For instance, various packaged meats took a lot of effort to separate from their package during sorting. Many individuals showed strong enthusiasm to participate in organics recycling programs in the baseline survey. Particularly, almost 73.6% of respondents reported "Definitely yes" when asked whether they would participate in an organics recycling program should the municipality offer one. Another 23.1% responded "Probably yes.". Only a small proportion showed hesitation to participate. It is not certain whether other non-sampled residents in the county would respond similarly, however, it can be extrapolated that there is enthusiasm for curbside organics recycling. Thus, another recommendation is: Given the strong interest of the study participants to have access to curbside organics recycling, the county and the city should work together to pilot curbside collection programs in the area. In the exit survey, about 86% of the respondents agreed to receiving information on the upcoming organics recycling programs in their neighborhood. Please see list provided separately. Only about 62.0% of the sample reported strong interest in getting engaged in activities that would reduce their food waste. Another 31 .4% showed some interest. Since food waste reduction is an important policy goal, a related recommendation is as follows: 2 Since participants showed a relatively lower level of interest in food waste reduction activities, the county and city may find value in working together to raise awareness towards the environmental, social, economic, and public health benefits of reducing food waste at home. In the analysis, we found evidence of what can be described as a "rebound effect." That is, households who were asked to participate in organics recycling generally created more food waste. This effect is noted weekly and throughout the study. Particularly, households in Treatment Group 1 produced about 2.64 lbs. more food waste than Control households. Those in Treatment Group 2 produced almost 3 lbs. more food waste than control households. A similar trend in noted when it comes to edible food waste as well. Thus, there may be some disincentive to reduce food waste when participating in organics recycling as households may feel laxer. Thus, the following is recommended: To minimize the impact of the rebound effect, city/county environmental policy makers should consider the disincentive effect on food waste reduction when organics curbside collection programs are available. Particularly, this finding should not necessarily discourage the implementation of potentially helpful organics recycling programs, but should illuminate on potential negative effects. This tendency could be elaborated in awareness programs for residents. Overall, socio-demographic variables (age, education, race, moral motivations) were not consistently associated with levels of food waste or contamination. However, there were some noteworthy results. For instance, it is noted that often larger households produce more food waste and households where children are present produce more edible food waste. For instance, households with children were associated with about 4.46 lbs. more edible food waste generated than the counterparts with no children, on average. Accordingly, an additional recommendation could be as follows: Some targeted awareness could be done for households with children when providing organics recycling programs or when implementing food waste reduction campaigns. Especially, households may benefit from understanding and being cognizant of the general tendency of households like theirs in discarding larger amounts of edible food. 3 There were other socio-demographic variables that were associated with levels of food waste generated in certain results. This includes variables such as race, age, education level, household size, and moral norms around the connection between the environment and these sustainable activities. Please review the results to determine which variables could be helpful in policy around this issue. It should be noted that these are only correlations and results ought to be treated with care. Treatment households were asked to separate their food waste and organics at the source. Both treatment groups identified time, adequate knowledge, and space as main barriers to effective source separation in the exit survey. Thus, a key recommendation is: Organics recycling programs should minimize the burden on households to reduce time, knowledge, and space constraints. Co-collection may for instance be more straightforward and more convenient that other forms of organics separation. Research should be done to clarify on the effectiveness of different methods in reducing these said barriers. Treatment Group 1 received information that is in accordance with the status quo, that is, similar to what current municipalities give to their residents on organics recycling. Treatment Group 2 received more intensive information outlined in a resource efficiency framework. The purpose was to reduce the incidence of misclassification of materials during source separation. That is, (1) reduce contamination in the biobags and (2) reduce the amount of food/organics that get discarded with regular trash. Unfortunately, there were no significant differences in misclassification between these two groups. Whether households were in Treatment Group 1 or Treatment Group 2, they generated similar levels of contaminants during source separation. The implication/recommendation can be framed as follows: Providing more information may not be an effective policy tool to encourage proper source separation to reduce contamination levels in the composting stream and minimize the amount of organics discarded with regular trash. Households prioritize their regular routines and many not factor in additional information they receive when making their source separation decisions. Policy may find it helpful to explore alternative ways to encourage proper source separation. More importantly, municipalities may find it valuable to think outside the box and imagine ways to conduct central source separation of materials on behalf of households. 4 This final recommendation is especially important. If contamination levels continue to be a problem and households discard significant portion of their organic materials with their trash, then policy goals of keeping food out of the landfill and converting organics into economic resources (animal feed, compost, energy) cannot be effectively realized. This trend can be noted throughout the nation where organics recycling programs are performing poorly. Thus, in the future, more sophisticated and technology forward solutions that take the source separation burden out of the hands of the private individuals could be particularly helpful. 2. INTRODUCTION Food waste is an issue that embeds significant economic, social, and environmental consequences, imposing to a profound burden on the food system. With alarming figures estimating that more than one third of what is produced for human consumption goes uneaten (ReFED, 2016; Gustaysson et al., 2011), various efforts to mitigate food waste have transpired across the nation. In addition to prevention and recovery strategies that curb the negative impacts of food waste, recycling presents an opportunity to convert environmentally harmful food waste materials into valuable economic resources such as animal feed, biogas, or compost (Galanakis, 2015; Kiran et al., 2014; EPA, 2016a). Bellemare et al. (2017) contended that the food not ending up in the landfill should not be regarded as food waste anymore. Outside the U.S., various food waste mitigation efforts have framed the waste issue as an economic resource opportunity (Stenmarck et al., 2016). Early efforts in Canada addressing the overall solid waste problem, for example, emphasized the critical need to frame the problem as an economic resource opportunity versus a landfill crisis or public health threat (Wagner, 2007). A paradigm shift in their waste management strategies showed that certain efficiencies and economies of scale could be realized through collaborative efforts at regional levels. Although promoting and developing resources from organics recycling directly contributes toward mitigating food waste and loss, almost 95% of food waste is still landfilled or incinerated in the U.S. (EPA, 2016b), making it the largest category of disposed materials. Households currently account for the highest proportion of food discarded and landfilled in the U.S. (ReFED, 2016). Despite growing insights on what drives people to generate or prevent food waste, little remains known about the behavioral aspects of household food recycling tendencies. At once, there has been increasing interest among practitioners to reduce, re-use, and recycle discarded food throughout the supply chain. Recent statistics indicate that 326 communities, 5 representing 5.1 million households in over 20 states, provide variations of curbside collection of food scraps (Streeter & Pratt, 2017). This represents a doubling of residential organics recycling efforts since 2014 (Yepsen, 2015). The success, efficacy and long-term sustainability of these discarded food recycling programs depend critically on households' commitment and source separating efforts. Yet, many questions remain regarding behavioral factors that impact food discarding and recycling efforts. For instance, food scrap collection programs would amass household food materials for additional processing, but it is uncertain whether households can meaningfully contribute high quality organics for downstream processing by maintaining their compliance with instructions. For instance, major organics recycling programs throughout the nation are facing struggles in their efforts. In New York, an organics recycling program expansion was halted after the city was only able to gather 10.6% of the total organics disposed with the remainder ending up in the trash, going to the landfill (Amira, 2018). Other cities are also facing high rates of organics in the regular trash in spite of offering organics recycling services. Another issue is that of contamination when non-organic materials get mixed in the composting stream making conversion problematic. It also remains a question whether the availability and presence of organics recycling programs would deter individuals in their food waste reduction efforts. According to a recent experiment in a dine-out situation, knowledge of food discard recycling seemed to undermine personal food waste reduction (Qi and Roe, 2017). Specifically, diners who received information on the negative effects of landfilling produced significantly less amounts of food waste compared to the control group that received no information. However, those who were also told that their food will be composted generated significantly higher levels of food waste than those with the food waste reduction information only. The authors labeled this occurrence as an "information rebound effect." Whether or not a similar effect is likely for consumers at home is unknown and addressed in this study. The overall objective of this study is to examine households' food waste generation and discarding behaviors. To this end, this study combines consumer surveys and a waste sort in a randomized control trial setting that simulates a local curbside collection program. The research team partnered with Ramsey County, the City of Maplewood, and Republic Hauling Services to conduct this study. This collaboration allowed us to pursue the following specific set of objectives: 6 1 . Analyze patterns of households' food scraps discarding behavior following their adoption of a new waste collection routine in terms of quantity and quality. Quality in this context reflects household compliance in source separating their food scraps and avoiding contamination of other wastes such as plastic or cardboard. 2. Examine the changes in households' food scraps discard in terms of quantity and quality, in response to different levels of information about use of their food scraps. 3. Determine whether "information rebound effect" is a problem that deters food waste reduction efforts at the household level. 4. Identify socioeconomic, cultural, behavioral, and attitudinal factors on food discarding and recycling tendencies. 5. Estimate the consumers' perceived values of the downstream uses of their food scraps.' 6. Estimate consumers' willingness to pay for services for central source separation through advanced technologies and services to reduce food waste at home (for e.g. meal kits). ' In collaboration with organics recycling professionals and scientists, awareness and training informational videos tailored for each group were used as a primary method to deliver the information to the households. Households were also provided supplementary materials that they could read as well. The project took place in Ramsey County, Minnesota in the City of Maplewood. This city was chosen because of various reasons. First, because of its proximity to the Ramsey County head offices which would eased transportation of study related materials to participants. Second, the Environment/Code Specialist at the City of Maplewood showed enthusiasm to participate in the study and offer advice. Third, the hauling company for that neighborhood (Republic Services) also showed interest in participating in the study by providing their services in exchange of remuneration. In sum, the location choice facilitated the implementation and management of the study. Treatment interventions educated households on how their food scraps would be used or recycled and dictated source separation efforts for proper conversion into composting. All materials (trash, food, other organics) with the exception of recycling were picked up from all households. The materials were all identified through a unique number assigned to individual households. Further, we simulated an organics collection program to collect materials from treatment households. A total of 124 resident households were recruited by community partners to participate in a 6-week food scrap ' Not included in this version of the report 7 curbside pickup program and assigned treatment or control status randomly. Of this group, 121 households completed all study components and are hence included in this study. Week one was a trial period and is omitted from analysis. 3. BACKGROUND The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) prioritizes food scraps disposal activities through the Food Recovery Hierarchy. Namely, in the order of preference, efforts should be allocated to (i) reduce food waste, (ii) donate food to hunger relief agencies, (iii) recycle for feeding animals, (iv) recover energy through conversion, (v) compost, and lastly (vi) landfill or incinerate. The 2016 Food Recovery Summit convened by the EPA and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) brought together stakeholders from across the food supply chain. The first key activity identified in the Summit was for businesses, individuals, and organizations to use the Food Recovery Hierarchy to maximize economic gains while increasing social and environmental benefits. They further identified food waste diversion and recovery using new technologies and innovation as a critical action to capitalize on key economic opportunities in the broader food management system. These priorities however do not reflect current practices. In 2014, of 38 million pounds of municipal food scraps discarded in the US, only 5.1% was composted, 18.6% was used in combustion for energy recovery, and the remaining 76.3% was landfilled (EPA, 2016b). In contrast, the European Union (EU) legislation requires landfill disposal of food waste, which is about 48% of food scraps in the United Kingdom, to be phased out (House of Lords, 2014). Further, many European countries have adopted plans to become circular economies by minimizing the amount of municipal waste that is landfilled and increasing their recycling and preparation of solid waste for the most efficient re-use. The European Commission adopted a legislative proposal to recycle and reuse waste up to 70% by 2030 (Sahimaa et al., 2015). Recent trends suggest that waste management strategies in the US will likely follow suit. The EPA has set a goal to reduce food waste by 50% by 2030 (EPA, 2016a). Current policy objectives mainly aim at reducing overall generation of food discard through prevention measures (Schneider, 2013). However, there is a robust, growing trend toward also ensuring proper avenues for diversion and reuse employing advanced technologies. Diversion and reuse objectives involve finding suitable strategies to prevent the waste from going to landfills and instead being converted into productive, high-value resources (Levis et al., 2010). Existing food waste diversion efforts are mostly 8 concentrated in combustion for energy generation and to a lesser extent composting for fertilizer. Yet, environmental stresses still persist when organics are combusted with other municipal wastes for energy generation (Kiran et al., 2014). Conversions of food scraps into animal feed, incineration, fertilizer and composting, biogas energy, and other reusable by-products have been identified as potential approaches to capture valuable compounds (Galanakis, 2015). Other emerging technologies enable converting food scraps into biomass and related chemicals. Another strand of consumer research shows that that households throw away over 25% of food and beverages they purchase (Bloom, 2011). Buzby and Hyman (2012) translated this food loss to almost 10% of the average amount spent on food or equivalently consumer-level losses of 0.7 pounds of food per capita valued at $1.07 per day. A report by ReFED (2016) estimates that households' food discard accounts for 42% of 63 million tons of food wasted in the US, followed by restaurants at 22%. Further, this makes up 51% of the total food waste that is landfilled. This wasted food places a burden on society in multiple ways, including opportunity costs of scarce resources such as water, oil, and energy used to produce the food and unprecedented amounts of methane emissions generated from accumulated food in landfills. Understanding contributors to food discarding habits has been a critical goal of a handful of consumer food waste research to date. A body of research have highlighted the socio-economic, cultural and behavioral determinants in context of household food discarding behavior. The main focus has been on food choices and food-related activities such as shopping routines, meal planning, and food handling skills as well as underlying behaviors, attitudes, cultural valuations, and environmental awareness (Dusoruth and Peterson, 2017; Stancu, Haugaard, and Lahteenmaki, 2016; Stefan et al., 2013; Gunders, 2012; Parfitt, Barthel, and Macnaughton, 2010). From food acquisition, to preparing, cooking, consuming, and finally discarding food, individuals make multiple interrelated choices, which determine how much of what is acquired is consumed or wasted. As research exploring household food scraps discarding is sought, behavior of food scraps recycling remains little understood. Mainly, it is unknown whether or not the same factors, identified in the literature, are at play in food scraps discarding as it relates to its recycling. These questions have been extensively researched on recyclables such as plastic or paper. For instance, Berger (1997) found that the size of residential area, type of housing, education, and income were significant determinants of whether recycling services were utilized. In a national survey of over 2,000 households, Saphores and 9 Nixon (2014) found that the most important determinants of household recycling were people's attitudes. There was less evidence for the role of socio-economic variables, but knowledge and moral norms were found to be important predictors of recycling. Other studies highlight factors such as information, habits or perceptions (Thomas and Sharp, 2013; Schultz, Oskamp, and Mainieri, 1995). Whether the same motivations are at play in food scraps discarding and recycling is an inquiry with increasing significance as more communities move towards waste reduction and diversion strategies, including organics drop-off or curbside pickup programs for consumers. This study contributes to the literature by clarifying the missing connection between household food discarding and recycling behaviors, and the role that policy nudges may play in mitigating the problem. Findings from the study have the capacity to offer a critical understanding of household responses to messaging around recycling and inform interventions to ensure both successful food waste prevention and recycling outcomes from a policy perspective. 4. RECRUITMENT Recruitment was conducted in three separate waves. Table 1 provides a summary of the recruitment phases. A first set of invitations were sent to 770 households residing in the 55109 neighborhood in the City of Maplewood. These invitations were sent out early June and were followed by reminders and post card notices, afterwards. A total of 63 households responded to the first sets of invitations. A second round of recruitment was conducted door-to-door in July targeting a second separate set of households (700 households). From these rounds, a total of 140 households responded to the invitation and 108 were eligible to participate. Another round of invitations went out to another set of 700 households in early August via mail. From these separate rounds, a total of 193 households responded to the invitation and 144 were eligible. Although 144 households indicated interest, a total of 126 participants completed consent forms online. Two people dropped out of the study for personal reasons. Another three households either did not complete the exit survey or send in their materials for sorting regularly, and were hence excluded from the study. Thus, a total of 121 people completed all components of the study. 10 Table 1 . Summary of recruitment processes Wave Methods Time period Targeted Registered Eligible 1 - Flyers (long form) a June 2018 770 63 52 - Reminder flyers - Post card 2 - Door to door July 2018 700 140 108 - Post card 3 - Flyers (shortened) a August 2018 700 193 144 - Post card Summary 2,170 193 144 Final participation: 121 households b a The long form flyer provided detailed information about the study, including the timeline, eligibility, and compensation. The shortened version provided a succinct amount of information on the study and provided a link that participants could access to find the full version of the flyer. b Of the 144 eligible participants, 126 completed consent forms. A total of 121 completed all study components. 5. STUDY PROCEDURES Prior to the beginning of the study, participants had to complete an enrollment form online. Eligible participants were invited to join the study by completing a consent form online. To avoid any confounding effects, only households that did not currently participate in any private organics pick-up program or backyard composting were eligible. At the time of recruitment, in order to minimize bias, all subjects were told that the study is interested in examining their food discarding behavior. Overall, to participate in the study, the corresponding member of the household had to be at least 18 years old, be responsible for a significant portion of household related food decisions, and not be engaged in composting activities. These individuals were asked to complete a baseline survey, participate in the 6-week pilot as either control or treatment groups, and be willing to respond to a follow-up post-study exit survey at the end, for which they received $100 for their time and effort. While it is likely obvious from the amount of compensation, it was communicated to the households that the intent was not to pay them for putting out the food scraps or trash. A combination of flyers, postcards, and a door-to-door were used as recruitment methods to ensure adequate enrollment numbers and demographics. The literature has shown that door-to-door recruitment with flyers have higher success of recruiting a diverse population, decreasing distrust in research, as well as creating an opportunity for potential participants to ask pertinent questions if they have them (Williams et al., 2017; Willman, 2015; Perez et al., 2013; Ejiogu et al., 2011). We also posted the study 11 details on the NextDoor platform to inform households that the research team will be in their community during a period of time. Past U of M studies have used this platform to advertise studies and/or provide information on studies conducted in certain communities. The baseline and post-study survey questionnaires are available upon request. The households were randomly assigned to one of three groups: two (the experimental or treatment groups) received the intervention was being tested, and the other (the comparison group) received only part of the intervention. Households were assigned a number using a random number generator. The first third was assigned to the first treatment group, the next third to the second treatment group, and the final third as the control group. One of the treatment groups obtained similar information to current municipal food scrap collection programs, which outline the basics of what can or cannot be recycled. The guideline for organic recycling for this study was adopted from those available from organizations such as the Penn State's Sustainability Institute and Hennepin County. The other treatment group received more detailed information defined in a resource efficiency framework, focusing on the environmental benefits from a resource recovery lens. Table 2 outlines the three groups in the study. Table 2. Study group descriptions Study Group Description Treatment Group 1 1) Received food waste information. 2) Obtained regular organics recycling information. 3) Saw some filler materials on the U of M. a Treatment Group 2 1) Received food waste information. 2) Obtained information on organics recycling in a resource efficiency lens. 3) No filler information included. Control Group 1) Received food waste information. 2) No information on organics recycling. b 3) Full filler materials on the U of M. a Filler information included details and facts about the University of Minnesota. b The households were told that their materials will be picked up for waste characterization. Treatment interventions thus educated households on how their food waste would be recycled and dictated source separation efforts for proper conversion into composting. Thus, all treatment households received instructions and information about food scrap 12 recycling. To ensure that households understood that no action will be required on the participant's end to stop or resume their trash hauling, the information was communicated to them in the recruitment flyer, the consent process, and well via a specific email. Finally, all households received the same food waste reduction information at the beginning of the study. The control group consisted of individuals who received only food waste reduction information. These individuals were told that the study is only interested in sorting their materials and characterizing their organic materials. This is identical to other food waste characterization or composition studies that examine the types of food that are more likely to go uneaten. Control households thus receive no further information on recycling but to account for cognitive efforts for information processing, they were given "filler" information on the University of Minnesota. Participants in this group could discard their trash, food, and other organics as usual (i.e. in one single stream). All households were asked to view a 5-6 minutes long video designed to communicate the negative economic, environmental and social impact of throwing away food scraps. The videos were available privately by direct link and hosted on Youtube. The video included a quiz to confirm participants' understanding of the video. Each group received a different quiz. The quiz took only about two minutes to complete. Households could tune to the video prior to the beginning of the collection program. This staging allowed us to identify and compare the behaviors linked to understanding the importance of food waste reduction as well as information on food scraps recycling into resources on the treatment households. We are able to isolate the impact of understanding the importance of food waste reduction only using data from the control group. This also allowed for the detection of any "rebound effect" on food waste reduction behaviors. Irrespective of what households were told, all organics obtained were weighed and eventually composted. It would not have been environmentally viable to landfill the organics for the control groups. Further, regular trash was disposed through a regular stream. While the sorting team aimed to separate all recyclable materials (unsoiled paper, cardboard, glass, metal), it was not set as a priority during the process due to time constraints. While we did not weigh them, the recyclable items made up a significant portion of disposed materials. Thus, a bulk of household trash was recyclable materials that was not properly disposed through the regular recycling stream. In the absence of this staging, households may have changed their behavior. That is, if they knew the nature of how their food scraps will be actually converted, they may have behaved differently. For instance, we needed households in the control groups to believe 13 that their food scraps will be sent to the incinerator to mimic the status quo of what usually happens to food scraps in the absence of organics recycling. This helps evaluate behavior as close as possible to reality. This staging was harmless for both the participants and the environment. A debrief statement was communicated to the households at the end of the study to inform them of the staging, what happened to the organic materials, and the study goals. We also shared the regular Ramsey County's website information on their organics drop off services in case households were interested in keeping participating in an organics recycling drop-off program. Simulating a curbside pickup program, participating treatment households as well as received two buckets (one kitchen counter size and a larger one) and compostable bags with unique household identifiers. The buckets and compostable bags were dropped off at the residences by staff at Ramsey County at the beginning of the study. Households in these groups collected their food scraps and other organic materials in the kitchen counter bucket lined with the compostable bags; the second bucket was used to deposit the compostable bags as they got full. Households in the control group continued disposing of food scraps with regular trash as usual, that is, in their regular trash can. All households were asked to line their regular trash cart. This allowed us to identify the contents by household for these groups. On a weekly `collection day,' all materials picked up by the regular licensed hauler (Republic Services) on a dedicated route for the study. The hauler emptied the materials into their collection unit, securing the identified bags. The trash collected which contains the food scraps in compostable bags will be brought to the University of Minnesota for sorting by staff. The food scraps will remain identified by household through the sorting process, while two main items are recorded: total quantity and total volume of uncontaminated food scraps that can be used in downstream processing which is regarded as the quality indicator for this study. Quantity is in terms of pounds of uncontaminated food scraps that the household recycles. Materials that contaminate food scraps may include yard waste, pet waste, Styrofoam or other recyclable items including cartons, glass, metal, paper, and plastic, which would need to be separated before any downstream processing. The process will be repeated for 6 weeks, allowing us to obtain (1) quantities and (2) qualities of food scraps by household. 14 6. DEMOGRAPHIC DESCRIPTION OF PARTICIPANTS Table 3 shows the demographic distribution of the corresponding individuals from the participating households. Table 3. Demographic characteristics of the sample compared to the U.S Demographics Sample U.S Census Race (%) b Asian 2.5 5.8 Black or African American 1.4 13.4 Hispanic 0.9 18.1 White 90.8 60.7 Other 4.4 2 Gender (%) Male 28.9 48.7 Female or other 71.1 51.3 Educational attainment (%) Less than Bachelor's or Associate's 22.3 52 Associate's degree 9.9 25.1 Bachelor's degree 40.5 14.5 Master's degree or higher 27.3 8.8 Age (%) 18-24 n/a 12.2 25-34 19.0 17.8 35-44 16.5 16.3 45-54 20.7 16.8 55-64 23.1 16.7 65 or above 20.6 20.1 Mean income ($) 121,379.5 81,283 Household size 2.9 2.6 N 121 a U.S data from Census Bureau and the American Community Survey 2017-2018. Statistics reported are for population 18 and over, not total population. b The remaining analysis in this paper combines the households in "White" and "Non-White" groups due to small cells in the different race groups. 15 The demographic distribution varies from that of the United States. For instance, we have a larger representation of White households and an underrepresentation of all other races including Asian, Black or African American, Hispanic, or other. We also have more females in the study, comprising almost 71% of the sample. The sample is more educated compared to national averages. For example, about 27.3% hold a Master's degree or higher, while only under 9% do in the U.S. There are no corresponding individuals aged between 18-24. Otherwise, age distribution is fairly similar to the U.S with a slight overrepresentation in the 55-64 age group. The average household income is also about $121 ,000 while the mean household income in the U.S is consequentially less around $81 ,000 in 2018. The average household size in the sample is 2.9 which is slightly higher than the U.S average of 2.6. 7. PARTICIPATION IN CURBSIDE COLLECTION About 77.7% of the households sent their materials all five weeks. Just under 15% sent their materials four times during the study. Another nine households (7.4%) sent in their materials three times and only one household did twice. There are various reasons for a household not being able to send in their materials all weeks including travel, being absent from their home in a given week, or not producing enough trash/materials to put out. Finally, randomly, a few households' materials would go unidentified if the trash bag split during hauling. About 1 - 5 of these cases happened weekly. Table 4 shows the number of materials we received over the 5 week-period. Note that we received 105 bagged materials in week 1 which is not included in the analysis. In any given week, we received a maximum of 115 bagged materials and a minimum of 111 bags (in week 6). The average participation over the course of the study was 94.3%. Average participation amongst treated groups was about 95% and amongst control households was almost 91%. 16 Table 4. Participation counts and rates by week a Number of households who Treatment Control Week sent their materials b Groups ° Group d 2 113 78 35 (93.4%) (94.0%) (92.1%) 3 113 76 37 (93.4%) (91.6%) (97.4%) 4 115 79 36 (95.0%) (95.2%) (94.7%) 5 115 81 34 (95.0%) (97.6%) (89.5%) 6 111 76 35 (91.7%) (91.6%) (92.1%) All weeks 567 bags received in total (94.3%) a Week 1 is omitted from analysis b The maximum number of materials that could be received per week was 121. Total number of treatment households was 83 () I Total number of control households was 38. 8. TOTAL MATERIALS PROCESSED During the five weeks, a total of 11 ,879 lbs. of materials was processed. Table 5 shows the total of materials processed by category in all groups. For instance, a total of almost 2,560 lbs. of materials was processed in week 4. This represents the upper end of materials processed compared to about 2,272 lbs. sorted in week 2. This table does not break down the totals by the different groups in the study. A total of 2,783.7 lbs. of materials were recovered from the biobags over the course of the study. Contamination made up about 4.8% of weight of the materials with a maximum of 6.5% in week 4 and a minimum of 3.2% in week 3. Note that there is one instance of non-identifiable materials present in the biobags (7.4 lbs. in week 2) which is omitted from the tables. 17 Table 5. Materials processed by week Full liner (567 bags) Week Liner Edible Inedible Other organics 2 2,272.5 132.6 74.6 115.9 3 2,310.2 138.2 66.1 113.0 4 2,559.7 169.3 84.0 116.6 5 2,396.8 113.7 65.5 106.1 6 2,339.6 137.2 48.1 88.8 Biobag details (378 bags) Edible Inedible Other organics Contamination 2 234.6 230.1 92.8 33.8 (5.7%) 3 269.8 217.0 81.4 18.9 (3.2%) 4 273.3 193.5 85.5 38.4 (6.5%) 5 245.4 199.5 86.0 27.7 (5.0%) 6 305.4 188.4 80.9 21.9 (3.7%) Table 6 provides a breakdown of the materials in the main liner by category for the different groups, excluding biobags. It can be noted that although treatment groups 1 (194 bags) and 2 (196 bags) had access to organics recycling, a large amount of food and organics still was found in the regular trash. For instance, in week 4, households in the treatment group 1 had about 44.5 lbs. of edible food, 31 .5 lbs. of inedible food, and about 25 lbs. other organics in their regular trash. Overall, of the 8,517.4 lbs. of materials generated by the treatment households, about 7.6% was food and organics. Figure 1 shows the trends visually. Control groups account for 177 bags total in the period. 18 Table 6. Materials (in lbs.) by study groups by week in the main liner (excl. biobags) Groups Liner Edible Inedible Other weight food food organics Week 2 Treatment 1 821.9 32.5 17.7 34.0 Treatment 2 787.8 21.1 7.3 28.9 Control 662.8 78.9 49.6 52.9 Week 3 Treatment 1 863.6 28.1 12.5 31 .4 Treatment 2 782.0 21.2 9.5 33.3 Control 664.6 88.8 44.1 48.3 Week 4 Treatment 1 940.8 44.5 31.5 25.0 Treatment 2 784.7 12.8 6.9 29.8 Control 834.2 112.0 45.6 61.7 Week 5 Treatment 1 813.9 17.3 5.4 26.6 Treatment 2 1,012.5 28.8 6.4 40.3 Control 570.4 67.6 53.7 39.2 Week 6 Treatment 1 797.6 11.4 8.6 22.5 Treatment 2 912.6 23.2 4.4 20.8 Control 629.4 102.5 35.1 45.5 Figure 1. Materials (in lbs.) by study groups by week in the main liner (excl. biobags) 120.0 100.0 80.0 a� 60.0 E ° 40.0 FD 20.0 0.0 E E U E E U E E U E E U E E U co co M co co co co co co co Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 Week 6 a Edible food ■Inedible food ■Other organics 19 Table 7 displays the amount of materials for all the study groups. For the control group this includes the totals in the liner. For the treatment groups 1 and 2, this includes the totals from the liner and the biobags as well. Table 7. All materials by study group (totals) in liner and biobags Groups Edible Inedible Other Totals food food organics Week 2 Treatment 1 157.8 140.6 72.1 370.5 Treatment 2 129.9 114.2 84.0 328.1 Control 79.2 79.2 53.4 211.9 Week 3 Treatment 1 169.3 98.3 72.0 339.6 Treatment 2 150.5 140.8 74.0 365.2 Control 89.2 85.2 48.5 222.8 Week 4 Treatment 1 153.7 121.1 65.3 340.1 Treatment 2 177.0 110.5 74.5 362.0 Control 112.1 113.1 61.7 286.8 Week 5 Treatment 1 113.2 93.3 62.6 269.0 Treatment 2 179.3 119.2 91.6 390.1 Control 67.6 67.6 38.9 174.2 Week 6 Treatment 1 161.9 95.1 64.4 321.4 Treatment 2 178.7 106.9 59.9 345.5 Control 102.3 100.0 45.4 247.7 Although the trend shows that control groups generate less food waste or other organics, it should be noted that these totals are not adjusted for the number of bags received. For instance, these totals represent 194 bags for treatment household, 196 bags for control households, and 177 bags in control households. Figures 2 and 3 display these trends visually. Figure 2 depicts the totals and Figure 3 show the totals adjusted for the number of bags received per group. It can be noted that, on average, control groups generated less organics (adjusted for number of bags). For instance, over the period of the study, Treatment 1 households sent in about 8.46 lbs. of organics per bag, Treatment 2 participants about 9.14 lbs./bag, and finally Control households about 6.46 lbs./bag. 20 Figure 2. All materials by study group (totals) in liner and biobags 200 180 _ 160 6 140 120 100 g 80 60 40 20 I I 0 N p N p N p N p N p N a) 0 N N CO) E E () E E () () E E U M M Co Co Co Cz M Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 Week 6 ■Edible food ■Inedible food ■Other organics Figure 3. All materials by study group (average per bag/household) in liner and biobags 5.0 4.5 _ 4.0 6 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 'D 1.5 1.0 0. I 0.0 N p N p N p N p N p C C C C C C C C C C N N N 0) 0 N a) 0 N (D 0 CO) E E U E E U U E E U H H H H F-- Week Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 Week 6 ■Edible food ■Inedible food ■Other organics Many of the biobags contained contaminants for the treatment groups. This represents the proportion of non-organic materials such as Styrofoam items, plastic, metal, or other non-compostable items that were present in people's biobags. Recurring contaminants included the following: plastic bags, aluminum foil, coupons, other plastic materials (containers, plates, cutlery), popcorn bags, to-go containers, cardboard, dryer lint, deli 21 wrappers, fast food wrappers, boxed/lined containers (e.g. half and half or broth), plastic lids, regular recyclables, rubber bands, plastic teabags, waxed paper, K-cups, Ziplock bags, diapers, gum, and various other packaging materials. While the different types of contaminants were not weighed individually due to their nature (i.e. usually very light material), packaging involving "trapped organics" was a major occurrence. People discarded various packaged foods in their organic bins which had to be manually separated and weighed. Households in Treatment 1 generated an average of 0.19 lbs. of contaminants per week (186 observations) whereas households in Treatment 2 generated an average of 0.53 lbs. per week (192 observations) over the course of the study. This difference of 0.33 lbs. is statistically different for the groups.2 Note that most of this difference arises from a single household who generated a significant portion of contamination weekly. If this household is omitted, then the average for treatment households is 0.28 lbs. and the difference between the two groups are not significant.' In this analysis, we pay particular attention to this household since it is not very representative of behavior in the group. Specifically, there is worry that this household did not use the information provided on source separation. Overall, up to 85% of this household's disposed materials ended up in the biobags. 9. WILLINGNESS TO PARTICIPATE Prior to the collection of materials through the curbside collection, households reported willingness to participate in various efforts that could help (1) reduce their food waste at home and (2) improve their organic recycling outcomes should they participate in a program. They also reported whether they would be willing to engaged in food waste reduction activities at home as well as organic recycling. Note that organics recycling is abbreviated as OREC and food waste reduction as FW. These questions were posed in the baseline survey. The questions were presented as follows respectively on a scale of 1 through 5 (1 = Definitely Not through 5 = Definitely Yes): ■ [Participation (OREC)] Assume that your municipality arranges for food scraps and organics curbside collection and recycling. Food scraps recycling is voluntary and the service is free of charge. Would you consider participating? 2 The p-value of this difference is 0.0218 implying the difference is statistically significant. 3'The p-value of this difference is 0.1691 implying the difference is not statistically significant. 22 ■ [Participation (FW)] Would you be willing to be engaged in household activities that would reduce the amounts of food waste (food that goes uneaten and is discarded) in your household? After answering these questions, on the same answer scale, the household were asked to report whether they believed that food scraps and organics recycling [reducing the amount of food waste] contributes to a better environment. The answers to these four questions are shown in Figure 4. As shown, in all cases, the majority of the respondents showed enthusiasm and willingness to reduce their food waste and/or participate in organic recycling activities should the municipality offer the service free of charge. Just about 73% of the respondents reported that they would participate in an organics recycling program for example. Another 23.1% reported that they would probably participate. Three percent were undecided. On the 1 through 5 scale, the average response was 4.70, which is quite high. On this scale, the willingness to participate in food waste reduction activities was about 4.55. A similar trend can be noted when it comes to self-reporting of whether the respondent believed that participating in these activities contributes to a better environment. For instance, almost 76.0% of the sample strongly believed that being engaged in organics recycling would contribute to a better environment. Although it is uncertain whether hypothetical behavior reflects potential real actions, the survey includes cheap talk, which has been documented in the literature to help mitigate possible hypothetical bias (Cummings, Taylor & List, 1999; Aadland & Caplan, 2003). 23 Figure 4. Willingness to participate and environmental perceptions Environmental (OREC) 76.0% 19.0% Participation (OREC) 73.6% 23.1% Environmental (FW) 78.5% 14.9% Participation (FW) 62.0% 31.4% 0 20 40 60 80 100 Definitely yes Probably yes Might or might not ■Probably not ■Definitely not Notes: Abbreviation used: OREC (Organics recycling) I FW (Food waste reduction) "Environmental" report the perception of whether the respondent thought the activities would contribute to a better environment. "Participation" report the respondents' likelihood to participate in the given sustainable activities. In the survey, respondents also reported their willingness to participate in nine different activities that could reduce food waste at home on a five-point scale (1 = Very Unlikely to 5 = Very Likely). I draw those activities from the the EPA's "Reducing Wasted Food at Home" guideline (EPA, 2018a). The question was posed as follows: Thinking about your own household, if you are proposed to engage in the following food waste reduction forts at your home, realistically how likely are you participate in these activities? (1) Planning your weekly meals, (2) Making a shopping list and checking your kitchen inventories before food shopping, (3) Buying only what you need at the store, (4) Storing your fruits and vegetables so they stay fresh longer, (5) Cooking and preparing perishable items before they spoil, (6)Learning about expiration dates offoods, (7) Cooking only what will be eaten, (8) Re-using leftovers, (9)Preparing and eating all planned meals. Using the same scale, the survey asks respondents to state their willingness to participate in food and organics recycling activities at home in six distinct activities. The question asks: 24 Thinking about your household, if you are invited to engage in the following food and organics recycling efforts, realistically how likely are you be to participate in these activities? (1) Separating all food scraps from your regular trash, (2) Separating all paper products from your regular trash, (3) Separating any trapped organics (such as leftover food in a Styrofoam container)from your regular trash, (4) Separating any coffee filters and coffee bean grounds, and other organic materials from your regular trash, (5) Preventing any non-organic materials (such as Styrofoam or plastic wraps)from your organic waste, (6) Avoiding any food or other organics from getting disposed in your regular trash bin. Figure 4. Individual responses to willingness to participate questions (Food waste reduction) Prepare and eat all planned meals Re-use leftovers = Cook only what will be eaten Learn about expiration dates of foods Cook and prepare perishable items first - Store your fruits and vegetables correctly Buy only what you need at the store Make a list/check kitchen inventories Plan weekly meals - 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Percentage ■Highly unlikely ®Somewhat unlikely ioNeither likely nor unlikely Somewhat likely ■Highly likely 25 Figure 5. Individual responses to willingness to participate questions (Organics recycling) Avoid organics getting disposed in trash Prevent non-organic materials contamination Separate any coffee filters, coffee bean, etc. Separate any trapped organics Separate all paper products from trash Separate all food from the trash 0 20 40 60 80 Percentage ■Highly unlikely ®Somewhat unlikely oNeither likely nor unlikely Somewhat likely ■Highly likely 10. OTHER MOTIVATIONS AND FOOD HABITS Other activities and routines may impact resulting food waste discarding or organics recycling behavior. This section outlines some of the main variables of interest that are included as part of the analysis. 26 Table 8. Household routines and food-related variables Variables Mean Std. Dev Mean' Std. Dev' Frequency of meals eaten at home 2 Adults 3.34 0.77 Children 1.16 1.67 3.43 0.59 Efficiency 3 Food planning and shopping 3.71 0.84 Food prep, cooking, and disposal 3.65 0.83 Garbage Disposal Usage 4 0.58 0.49 Amount disposed ,5 16.19 24 27.98 25.89 ' Some questions are not applicable to all respondents. For instance, households without children would not have a value for the frequency of meals eaten by children in their home. Those respondents are assigned a value of 0 for the variable to deal with missing values. These columns report the means and standard deviations application only to the sample that responded to the question. 2 This question was posed as follows: In a typical week, how often do the following adults/children in your family eat meals prepared at home? [Answers: Daily (4), 4-6 times a week (3), 2-3 times a week (2), Once a week (1), never (0)] s Respondents were asked: Rate how efficient you are with your time when doing the listed activities on a scale of 1 to 5 (Scale: Excellent (5) Good (4) Average (3) Poor (2) Terrible (1)] 4 People responded to: Do you use a garbage disposal, usually installed in sinks, for discarding food scraps? [Yes = 1/No=O] 5 This question gets at amount of food normally disposed through garbage disposal prior to the experiment. The question was asked as follows: Of the leftovers on your plates/pans discarded, typically how much is scraped in the garbage disposal? [Sliding scale between 100% (All) and 0 (Hardly Any)] 11 . SUMMARY RESULTS This section establishes the main results of this analysis. Table 9 shows the regression results of the amount of food waste discarded (in total including the food disposed in the biobags) over the course of the 5 weeks. Households generated an average of 5.9 lbs. of food waste with a minimum of 0 and a maximum of 40 lbs. Treatment Group 1 generated about 6.89 lbs., Treatment Group 2 about 7.24 lbs. and finally, Control households around 3.83 lbs. on average. It is noted that the coefficients on the treatment indicators are all positive and significant. This implies that treatment groups overall generated more food waste on average compared to the control households. This is in accordance to the "rebound effect" hypothesis which postulated that households who recycled would have the tendency to generate more food waste since they knew their materials would be composted. On average, households in Treatment Group 1 27 generated 2.6 lbs. of food waste more than control groups and households in Treatment Group 2, just about 3.0 lbs. of food waste more. This trend is sustained in all weeks as well. 11 .1 . Food waste generated (edible and inedible) Table 9. Total food waste discarded (in lbs.) over study period (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 Week 6 All weeks Base: Control Treatment Group 1 3.64*** 2.85*** 2.32* 1.95** 2.51** 2.64*** (1 .19) (0.97) (1.35) (0.95) (1.24) (0.50) Treatment Group 2 2.82** 3.43*** 2.36** 3.51*** 2.57** 2.97*** (1 .14) (1.20) (1.14) (1.09) (1 .22) (0.50) Age (Base: 25-34) 35 - 44 -0.53 2.61 -0.36 0.49 -0.80 0.30 (1 .85) (1.73) (2.32) (1.79) (1 .75) (0.79) 45 - 54 0.44 3.76** 0.45 0.36 0.80 1.04 (1 .45) (1.50) (2.34) (1.57) (2.12) (0.77) 55- 64 0.77 1.23 -1.65 -1.06 -2.55 -0.71 (1.39) (1.42) (2.32) (1.53) (1.76) (0.71) 65 and older 2.05 3.54** -0.86 0.20 2.71 1.50* (1.70) (1.58) (2.32) (1.69) (2.10) (0.80) Education (Base: High School or less) Associate's Degree -0.65 -1.77 -0.54 -1.76 -0.83 -1.02 (1.67) (1 .53) (1,86) (1 .21) (1.59) (0.64) Bachelor's -0.20 0.04 0.84 0.38 0.66 0.38 (1.18) (1.24) (1.41) (1 .15) (1.45) (0.55) Master's or more -1.72 -0.92 -0.52 -1.26 0.03 -0.77 (1 .35) (1 .31) (1.36) (1.22) (1 .47) (0.58) Female -0.76 0.72 -0.23 -1.18 0.44 -0.20 (0.95) (1 .06) (1.13) (0.95) (1 .61) (0.52) White -2.74 -3.27 -1.26 -0.30 -3.18 -2.18** (2.02) (2.05) (2.47) (1.87) (2.10) (0.92) Income 0.00 -0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) Household size 0.85 0.85* 1.15 0.74 0.63 0.84*** (0.63) (0.46) (0.79) (0.61) (0.61) (0.27) Children present 6.20 3.94 3.86 -2.31 0.46 2.27 (6.21) (5.53) (7.32) (4.36) (5.53) (2.56) Meals at home (adults) 0.24 0.27 -0.55 0.29 -0.19 -0.04 (0.60) (0.65) (0.82) (0.69) (0.81) (0.32) 28 Meals at home (children) -1.40 -0.94 -1.12 0.67 -0.70 -0.65 (1.62) (1.52) (1.87) (1.23) (1.53) (0.68) Household work hours 0.02 0.03** 0.02 -0.01 0.02 0.02*** (0.02) (0.02) (0.01) (0.01) (0.02) (0.01) Efficient in planning -0.18 -0.39 0.35 -1.02 -1.48 -0.52 (0.75) (0.83) (1.09) (0.87) (0.90) (0.38) Efficient at food prep 0.48 0.29 0.25 1.29 1.52 0.79** (0.87) (0.75) (1.01) (0.92) (0.96) (0.38) Engaged in FW efforts -1.47 -0.76 0.50 -0.06 0.42 -0.23 (0.90) (0.72) (1.35) (0.61) (0.70) (0.41) Engaged in OREC efforts 1.60* 1.06 -0.53 0.85 1.24 0.84** (0.86) (0.93) (1.13) (0.87) (1.14) (0.42) Environmental beliefs FW -1.15 0.78 0.77 0.52 0.11 0.23 (1.46) (1.05) (2.09) (1.25) (1.44) (0.67) OREC 1.11 -0.42 -0.14 -1.20 -0.14 -0.20 (1.41) (1.16) (2.11) (1.38) (1.77) (0.70) Garbage disposal Usage (Yes) 0.81 0.48 -0.33 2.07* 2.53 1.05* (1.10) (1.24) (1.44) (1.19) (1.52) (0.55) Amounts disposed -0.00 -0.02 0.01 -0.03 -0.07** -0.02* (0.02) (0.02) (0.03) (0.02) (0.03) (0.01) Constant -0.76 -2.34 -0.13 -0.60 -3.80 -1.45 (5.12) (6.51) (9.35) (5.96) (7.76) (3.05) N 113 113 115 115 111 567 Notes. *P < o.1, **P < o.o5, ***P < o.ol Abbreviations in table: OREC: Organics recycling I FW Food waste Socio-demographic variables, environmental beliefs, as well as food-related household habits were generally not associated with levels of food waste generated at the household level with a few exceptions. Noteworthy correlations to the levels of food waste include age, race, household size, self-reported efficiency in the kitchen, and willingness to engage in recycling efforts. For instance, those who are 65 and older produced about 1 .5 lbs. more food waste than their younger counterparts aged 25-34 over the course of the study. Households who identified as "White" produced about 2.18 lbs. less food waste than their non-white counterparts. Larger households produced more food waste, on average. For instance, an additional household member is associated with 0.84 lbs. more food waste generated over the course of the study. Surprisingly, those who stated that they are more efficient in food planning and shopping generally discarded about 0.79 lbs. more food waste, all else constant. Respondents 29 who reported higher willingness to participate in food scraps and organics curbside collection (Engaged in OREC efforts) generated more food waste as well. Past usage of a garbage disposal was also associated with about 1 .05 lbs. more of food waste generated over the course of the study. We note some very small significant effects on hours worked and self-reported amounts of food disposed through garbage disposal. For instance, a one-unit increase in hours worked is associated with about 0.02 lbs. of more food waste generated While the study only lasted 5 weeks, one inquiry relates to whether food waste behavior changed over the course of the period. There is reason to believe that households may be more engaged at the beginning and as weeks go by, their potential "actual" behavior may be revealed as the novelty of the study fades. However, further inquiry into the weekly amount of food waste generated did not reveal any glaring or clear changes in discarding behavior over the study period.4 This could imply two possible things. First, it may be that the study period is too short to capture any stabilizing behavior after the novelty of the food waste reduction/recycling activities have set in. On the other hand, it is likely that the behavior noted during the study is representative of actual steady behavior should the program have been implemented in the long run. It is difficult to hypothesize which is more probable in this case. 11 .2. Food waste generated (edible) Table 10 shows the results of the amount of edible food waste generated over the course of the study. On average, Treatment Group 1 generated about 3.88 lbs. of edible food waste, Group 2 about 4.17 lbs., and finally the Control Group about 2.54 lbs. From the regression results, it can be noted that both treatment groups generated about 1 lbs. of food waste more than their control counterparts over the course of the study, with households in Treatment Group 1 generating slightly more, on average. However, the differences are not significant in all weeks. For instance, mostly weeks 2 and 5 are driving these findings. During weeks 3, 4, and 6, the amount of edible food waste generated was not significantly different across the groups. In this case, in terms of socio-demographic characteristics, we find some differences across age group, education, race, household size, presence of children, meal eating habits, garbage disposal usage, and efficiency in the food planning and shopping. 4 This exercise included testing whether there were significant differences in the amounts of food waste generated across the study groups over the individual weeks. 30 Particularly, those who are aged 55-64 overall produced less edible food waste than the younger counterparts aged 25-34. Compared to those with a high school degree, people who held an Associate's degree were likely to generated about 1.16 lbs. less food waste during the study. Individuals who identified as White generated about 1 .97 lbs. less food waste, so did those who reported higher frequency of meals eaten at home. Both larger household size and presence of children lead to higher levels of edible food waste, all else constant. Similar trends can be noted when it comes to garbage disposal usage and amounts of food self-reported to be disposed as general food waste amounts (see table 8). Table 10. Total edible food waste (in lbs.) discarded over study period (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 Week 6 All weeks Base: Control Treatment Group 1 1.71* 1.20 0.58 0.96 0.91 1.06** (0.96) (0.82) (1.11) (0.82) (1.06) (0.42) Treatment Group 2 1.08 0.43 0.73 1.76* 0.95 1.00** (0.90) (0.87) (1.07) (0.92) (1.09) (0.43) Age (Base: 25-34) 35 - 44 -0.75 0.69 -1.16 -1.50 -0.95 -0.71 (1.39) (1.12) (2.19) (1.42) (1.38) (0.66) 45 - 54 0.60 2.97** 0.51 -1.13 0.38 0.59 (1.06) (1.30) (2.19) (1.44) (1.58) (0.66) 55- 64 0.05 0.78 -2.23 -2.19* -2.12 -1.16** (0.97) (0.99) (1.90) (1.23) (1.52) (0.56) 65 and older 0.93 2.18* -1.43 -1.31 2.24 0.52 (1.09) (1.23) (2.02) (1.38) (1.94) (0.66) Education (Base: High School or less) Associate's Degree -1.74* -1.41 -0.73 -1.65 -0.43 -1.16** (1.00) (1.21) (1.60) (1.13) (1.36) (0.50) Bachelor's -0.82 -0.48 0.54 -0.92 -0.01 -0.37 (0.92) (0.90) (1.15) (0.93) (1.22) (0.42) Master's or more -1.93** -0.78 -0.42 -1.16 0.22 -0.76 (0.88) (1.03) (1.21) (1.10) (1.47) (0.51) Female -0.85 0.98 0.31 -0.63 0.62 0.10 (0.69) (0.90) (0.84) (0.82) (1.25) (0.43) White -2.53 -3.09* -0.05 -1.07 -3.34* -1.97*** (1.93) (1.59) (1.50) (1.50) (1.77) (0.75) Income 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 31 (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) Household size 0.49 0.64 0.64 0.58 0.48 0.55** (0.51) (0.42) (0.49) (0.60) (0.54) (0.23) Children present 11 .34* 6.79 7.34 -0.53 -1.05 4.46* (5.84) (4.66) (6.70) (3.91) (4.52) (2.33) Meals at home (adults) 0.28 -0.26 -0.39 -0.15 -0.24 -0.21 (0.55) (0.49) (0.74) (0.66) (0.76) (0.29) Meals at home (children) -3.03** -1.90 -2.19 0.07 -0.24 -1.38** (1.45) (1.29) (1.70) (1.12) (1.26) (0.61) Household work hours 0.01 0.02** 0.01 -0.01 0.01 0.01 (0.01) (0.01) (0.01) (0.01) (0.02) (0.01) Efficient in planning -0.42 -0.75 0.03 -0.81 -0.95 -0.58* (0.60) (0.53) (0.98) (0.72) (0.74) (0.31) Efficient at food prep 0.57 -0.05 -0.23 0.92 0.70 0.40 (0.72) (0.52) (0.98) (0.74) (0.85) (0.34) Engaged in FW efforts -0.98 0.04 1.22 0.32 0.69 0.31 (0.64) (0.52) (0.96) (0.47) (0.64) (0.29) Engaged in OREC efforts 1.55** 0.76 -0.48 -0.07 0.75 0.51 (0.63) (0.68) (0.91) (0.73) (0.99) (0.34) Environmental beliefs FW -1.57 -0.23 -0.52 -0.08 0.02 -0.48 (1 .12) (0.77) (1 .44) (1 .15) (1.22) (0.50) OREC 1.40 0.37 0.70 -0.57 -0.00 0.35 (1 .11) (0.89) (1 .39) (1 .30) (1.39) (0.53) Garbage disposal Usage (Yes) 1.45* 0.84 -0.65 2.48** 2.67** 1.31*** (0.82) (0.89) (1.30) (0.98) (1.21) (0.47) Amounts disposed -0.02 -0.03 0.00 -0.03 -0.05** -0.02*** (0.02) (0.02) (0.02) (0.02) (0.02) (0.01) Constant -1.01 0.78 0.68 5.07 -1.87 0.87 (4.20) (4.96) (6.68) (5.23) (7.32) (2.54) N 113 113 115 115 111 567 Notes. *P < o.i, **P < ao5, ***P < aol Abbreviations in table: OREC: Organics recycling I FW:Food waste 11 .3. Total organics generated (edible) Table 11 displays the results on the total amounts of organic materials generated across the different groups. Generally, both treatment groups generated a larger amount of total 32 organics than control households. This includes edible food, inedible food, and other organic materials such as coffee grounds, house plants, and compostable kitchen goods. Socio-demographic effects are more or less similar to the results above (see tables 9 and 10). Table 11 . Total edible food waste (in lbs.) discarded over study period (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 Week 6 All weeks Base: Control Treatment Group 1 4.38*** 3.61*** 2.17 2.37** 2.98** 3.04*** (1.21) (1 .11) (1.48) (1.04) (1.41) (0.55) Treatment Group 2 4.19*** 3.81*** 2.67** 4.72*** 2.97** 3.62*** (1 .20) (1 .25) (1.21) (1 .19) (1 .32) (0.54) Age (Base: 25-34) 35 - 44 -0.97 2.63 -0.28 1.71 -2.17 0.19 (1 .86) (1.83) (2.39) (1.92) (2.08) (0.86) 45 - 54 0.28 4.10*** 0.10 1.63 -0.18 1.09 (1.55) (1 .53) (2.46) (1 .70) (2.36) (0.83) 55- 64 1.46 1.31 -1.79 -0.11 -2.55 -0.38 (1.43) (1 .58) (2.46) (1 .61) (1 .86) (0.75) 65 and older 3.51** 2.94* -0.84 1.62 1.78 1.78** (1 .73) (1 .71) (2.47) (1 .79) (2.23) (0.85) Education (Base: High School or less) Associate's Degree -0.60 -3.00* -1.20 -2.17 -1.07 -1.55** (1 .77) (1 .76) (2.21) (1 .33) (1 .69) (0.73) Bachelor's 0.55 -0.74 0.73 0.96 -0.01 0.29 (1 .29) (1 .31) (1.55) (1 .24) (1 .61) (0.59) Master's or more -1.64 -2.04 -1.24 -1.74 -0.50 -1.34** (1.51) (1.34) (1 .36) (1.32) (1 .56) (0.61) Female -0.71 0.48 -0.55 -0.84 0.39 -0.26 (1 .07) (1.20) (1 .18) (1 .06) (1 .72) (0.54) White -2.48 -2.83 -1.06 0.67 -2.66 -1.73* (1 .94) (2.34) (2.64) (2.29) (2.12) (1 .00) Income 0.00 -0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) Household size 0.38 0.84 1.11 1.00 0.38 0.74** (0.62) (0.54) (0.84) (0.66) (0.68) (0.29) Children present 9.85 5.10 3.85 -0.47 3.51 4.27 (6.33) (6.29) (7.37) (5.16) (6.34) (2.78) 33 Meals at home (adults) 0.64 0.55 -0.51 0.59 0.27 0.27 (0.64) (0.70) (0.83) (0.68) (0.86) (0.33) Meals at home (children) -2.03 -1.19 -1.11 -0.09 -1.35 -1.13 (1 .66) (1 .74) (1 .86) (1.42) (1 .70) (0.73) Household work hours 0.04** 0.03 0.03* 0.00 0.03 0.03*** (0.02) (0.02) (0.02) (0.01) (0.02) (0.01) Efficient in planning -0.13 -0.01 0.50 -0.70 -1.49 -0.33 (0.76) (0.84) (1 .13) (0.89) (0.97) (0.39) Efficient at food prep 0.55 0.17 0.12 1.13 1.34 0.64 (0.91) (0.79) (1 .10) (0.93) (1 .07) (0.40) Engaged in FW efforts -1.73' -0.70 0.84 -0.28 0.68 -0.17 (0.90) (0.76) (1 .45) (0.63) (0.76) (0.42) Engaged in OREC efforts 1.57 1.00 0.04 1.94** 1.15 1.15** (1 .10) (1 .05) (1 .19) (0.94) (1 .36) (0.48) Environmental beliefs FW -1.05 1.30 0.33 0.14 -0.50 0.06 (1 .53) (1 .19) (2.19) (1 .25) (1.66) (0.70) OREC 1.16 -0.87 0.23 -0.81 0.50 -0.02 (1 .49) (1 .35) (2.22) (1 .45) (1 .98) (0.75) Garbage disposal Usage (Yes) 1.08 0.36 -0.50 2.07 2.20 1.01* (1 .19) (1.28) (1 .45) (1 .29) (1 .64) (0.58) Amounts disposed 0.00 -0.03 0.01 -0.05** -0.07** -0.03** (0.02) (0.02) (0.03) (0.02) (0.03) (0.01) Constant -1.54 -2.96 -2.64 -8.24 -3.16 -3.57 (5.77) (6.82) (9.69) (6.79) (8.76) (3.33) N 113 113 115 115 111 567 Noles: *P < 0.1, � P < o.o5, P < 0.01 Abbreviations in table: OREC: Organics recycling � FW Food waste 11 .4. Informational effects - Contamination level (biobags) In this section, we present the results on the amount of contamination present in the composting stream. We define contamination as the amount of non-organic materials that made it into the green biobags. This section of the results only applies to treatment households who were asked to separate their food waste and organic materials from their regular trash. Table 12 displays the results using all households in the treatment groups. On average, households in Treatment Group 2 generated higher levels of contamination compared to those in Treatment Group 1 . It can be noted that the 34 significant difference (at the 10% level) of about 0.22 lbs. over the course of the study disappears when the one household who produced an extensive amounts of contamination is omitted. This result is further not sustained throughout the weeks. See Table 13 for comparison. Thus, in order not to assign too much weight to this outlier household, the results in Table 13 are preferred. Table 12. Total contamination (in lbs.) in biobags (all treatment households) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 Week 6 All weeks Base: Group 1 Treatment Group 2 0.43 0.06 0.17 0.31 0.17 0.22* (0.41) (0.15) (0.44) (0.30) (0.23) (0.12) Age (Base: 25-34) 35 - 44 0.19 -0.18 0.12 0.06 -0.01 0.03 (0.53) (0.15) (0.49) (0.33) (0.26) (0.13) 45 - 54 0.48 0.12 0.40 0.08 0.19 0.23 (0.58) (0.19) (0.47) (0.39) (0.26) (0.16) 55- 64 0.90 0.06 1.03 0.61 0.50 0.60*** (0.71) (0.21) (0.63) (0.48) (0.30) (0.19) 65 and older 0.58 0.06 0.06 -0.35 0.01 0.02 (0.80) (0.22) (0.65) (0.53) (0.33) (0.19) Education (Base: High School or less) Associate's Degree 0.88 0.16 0.14 0.00 0.18 0.24 (1.02) (0.24) (0.96) (0.65) (0.49) (0.28) Bachelor's 0.62 0.30** 0.62 0.21 0.30 0.36 (0.79) (0.13) (0.80) (0.60) (0.32) (0.23) Master's or more 0.34 0.09 0.20 -0.08 0.12 0.07 (0.67) (0.12) (0.63) (0.43) (0.25) (0.16) Female 0.79 0.04 0.62 0.29 0.32 0.38** (0.69) (0.14) (0.58) (0.38) (0.27) (0.18) White -0.17 -0.04 0.05 0.08 0.18 0.00 (0.51) (0.12) (0.37) (0.39) (0.36) (0.12) Income -0.00 0.00 -0.00 -0.00 -0.00 -0.00** (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) Household size -0.26 -0.06 -0.23 -0.20 -0.13 -0.17*** (0.21) (0.05) (0.22) (0.19) (0.11) (0.06) Children present 5.15 0.13 4.43 2.34 2.47 2.95*** (3.84) (0.56) (3.10) (1.75) (1.53) (1.06) Meals at home (adults) -0.05 -0.01 -0.08 -0.07 -0.03 -0.04 35 (0.22) (0.08) (0.24) (0.18) (0.11) (0.06) Meals at home (children) -1.09 0.01 -0.88 -0.45 -0.51 -0.61 (0.89) (0.14) (0.72) (0.40) (0.35) (0.24) Household work hours -0.01 -0.00 -0.01 -0.01 -0.00 -0.01*** (0.01) (0.00) (0.01) (0.01) (0.00) (0.00) Efficient in planning -0.23 0.04 0.17 0.13 -0.04 0.02 (0.38) (0.12) (0.40) (0.31) (0.21) (0.12) Efficient at food prep 0.07 -0.02 -0.28 -0.11 -0.05 -0.07 (0.36) (0.11) (0.42) (0.32) (0.18) (0.12) Engaged in FW efforts 0.91 0.09 0.97 0.53 0.53 0.62*** (0.71) (0.17) (0.60) (0.33) (0.33) (0.20) Engaged in OREC efforts 0.37 -0.05 0.28 0.26 0.21 0.23* (0.48) (0.12) (0.51) (0.30) (0.23) (0.14) Environmental beliefs FW 0.03 -0.08 -0.37 -0.11 -0.35 -0.23 (0.54) (0.24) (0.54) (0.32) (0.32) (0.16) OREC -1.65 -0.07 -1.07 -0.77 -0.46 -0.78** (1 .34) (0.21) (1 .07) (0.68) (0.52) (0.37) Garbage disposal Usage (Yes) -0.82 -0.03 -1.03 -0.46 -0.74* -0.64'* (0.77) (0.18) (0.75) (0.59) (0.44) (0.27) Amounts disposed 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01** (0.02) (0.00) (0.02) (0.01) (0.01) (0.01) Constant 2.97 0.65 2.47 1.62 1.22 1.84'* (3.25) (0.74) (2.97) (1.71) (1 .28) (0.88) N 76 76 75 76 75 378 Notes. *P < o.l, **P < o.o5, ***P < o.ol Abbreviations in table. OREC. Organics recycling I FW Food waste 36 Table 13. Total contamination (in lbs.) in biobags (omitting outlier household) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 Week 6 All weeks Base: Group 1 Treatment Group 2 0.09 0.05 -0.07 0.09 -0.04 0.04 (0.10) (0.15) (0.24) (0.17) (0.09) (0.06) Age (Base: 25-34) 35 - 44 0.02 -0.20 -0.16 -0.17 -0.12 -0.1 1** (0.10) (0.15) (0.20) (0.17) (0.12) (0.06) 45 - 54 -0.02 0.09 -0.00 -0.18 0.10 -0.03 (0.16) (0.18) (0.24) (0.24) (0.14) (0.09) 55- 64 0.34** 0.01 0.56 0.27 0.25* 0.28*** (0.16) (0.20) (0.35) (0.32) (0.14) (0.10) 65 and older 0.11 0.06 -0.18 -0.37 -0.01 -0.07 (0.23) (0.21) (0.46) (0.39) (0.17) (0.13) Education (Base: High School or less) Associate's Degree -0.08 0.13 -0.60 -0.43 -0.27* -0.25* (0.26) (0.22) (0.45) (0.42) (0.15) (0.13) Bachelor's -0.20 0.26** -0.07 -0.23 0.03 -0.06 (0.27) (0.13) (0.51) (0.47) (0.18) (0.14) Master's or more -0.28 0.08 -0.23 -0.25 -0.06 -0.16 (0.23) (0.12) (0.42) (0.36) (0.14) (0.11) Female -0.06 -0.01 -0.04 -0.13 -0.01 -0.05 (0.09) (0.14) (0.21) (0.21) (0.08) (0.05) White -0.02 -0.03 0.18 -0.02 0.04 0.04 (0.10) (0.12) (0.21) (0.26) (0.21) (0.06) Income 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) Household size -0.06 -0.05 -0.05 -0.11 -0.05 -0.06* (0.06) (0.05) (0.11) (0.15) (0.06) (0.03) Children present 0.36 -0.29 0.71 0.25 0.60 0.29 (0.42) (0.50) (0.79) (0.66) (0.44) (0.22) Meals at home (adults) -0.03 -0.01 -0.07 -0.02 -0.01 -0.04 (0.08) (0.08) (0.17) (0.13) (0.07) (0.04) Meals at home (children) -0.05 0.10 -0.08 -0.01 -0.10 -0.03 (0.11) (0.13) (0.21) (0.17) (0.11) (0.05) Household work hours -0.00 -0.00 -0.00 -0.00 -0.00 -0.00 (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) Efficient in planning 0.14 0.06 0.45 0.33 0.17* 0.22*** 37 (0.12) (0.13) (0.27) (0.24) (0.10) (0.08) Efficient at food prep -0.24* -0.05 -0.52* -0.31 -0.19* -0.26*** (0.13) (0.11) (0.29) (0.25) (0.10) (0.08) Engaged in FW efforts 0.07 0.01 0.38 0.19 0.15 0.17** (0.10) (0.16) (0.28) (0.12) (0.12) (0.07) Engaged in OREC efforts 0.04 -0.07 -0.06 0.01 -0.03 -0.00 (0.14) (0.12) (0.32) (0.18) (0.10) (0.07) Environmental beliefs FW -0.05 -0.05 -0.37 -0.14 -0.24** -0.17* (0.12) (0.23) (0.29) (0.16) (0.11) (0.09) OREC 0.11 0.07 0.31 0.13 0.22* 0.16** (0.11) (0.19) (0.27) (0.16) (0.11) (0.08) Garbage disposal Usage (Yes) 0.14 0.08 -0.17 0.17 -0.16 0.01 (0.15) (0.17) (0.30) (0.35) (0.14) (0.09) Amounts disposed -0.00 -0.00 -0.00 -0.01 -0.00 -0.00* (0.00) (0.00) (0.01) (0.01) (0.00) (0.00) Constant 0.04 0.32 -0.17 0.12 0.04 0.05 (0.64) (0.67) (1.04) (0.78) (0.51) (0.29) N 75 75 74 75 74 373 Notes: *P < 0.1, **P < 0.05, ***P < 0.01 Abbreviations in table: OREC. Organics recycling I FW Food waste 11 .5. Informational effects - Food in liner (treatment groups only) Another issue is that of food and organic materials ending up in the trash instead of the organic/composting stream. This section of the results looks at the amounts of food and organics that treatment households had in their regular trash. Treatment Group 1 discarded an average of 1 .79 lbs. of organics whereas Treatment Group 2 disposed an average of 1 .49 lbs. However, this difference of about 0.29 lbs. is not statistically significant.5 This result is maintained in the regression analysis controlling for other household variables. There are no significant differences between the two treatment groups (see Table 14). One notable result is that higher levels of organics ending up with the trash is associated with higher number of meals consumed at home. 5 The p-value of this difference is 0.2771 implying the difference is not statistically significant. 38 Table 14. Total organics (in lbs.) in liner (all treatment household) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 Week 6 All weeks Base: Group 1 Treatment Group 2 -0.32 0.03 -1.25 0.75 -0.05 -0.21 (0.50) (0.71) (1.03) (0.62) (0.54) (0.31) Age (Base: 25-34) 35 - 44 -1.72* 0.69 -2.92 1.16 -0.92 -0.79 (0.90) (0.97) (2.33) (1 .20) (0.87) (0.62) 45 - 54 -0.24 -0.15 -3.05 0.06 -0.15 -0.74 (0.94) (1 .08) (2.03) (0.95) (0.81) (0.54) 55- 64 0.07 -0.52 -3.76* -1.36 -0.70 -1.28** (0.85) (0.99) (2.02) (0.82) (0.95) (0.51) 65 and older 2.72** -1.28 -2.90 1.09 -0.66 -0.15 (1 .27) (1.04) (2.04) (0.96) (0.88) (0.58) Education (Base: High School or less) Associate's Degree 0.57 0.39 -0.61 -0.74 -0.49 -0.03 (0.80) (1 .48) (1 .19) (0.80) (0.81) (0.44) Bachelor's -0.42 -0.24 0.08 -0.91 -0.75 -0.38 (0.70) (0.89) (1 .37) (0.71) (0.54) (0.39) Master's or more 0.07 -1.12 0.25 -1.67* -0.70 -0.55 (0.98) (0.97) (0.81) (0.87) (0.57) (0.35) Female 0.36 0.83 -0.13 0.48 0.68 0.41 (0.68) (0.85) (1 .03) (0.82) (0.55) (0.37) White -1.87 -0.53 -1.21 0.42 -0.18 -0.84 (1 .39) (1 .03) (1 .58) (1 .26) (0.53) (0.55) Income 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) Household size -0.10 0.01 0.71 0.54 0.05 0.25 (0.35) (0.35) (0.59) (0.32) (0.21) (0.17) Children present 6.76 -0.21 1.28 -2.10 0.80 1.00 (4.33) (2.70) (6.29) (2.13) (1 .60) (1 .74) Meals at home (adults) 0.88* 0.79* 0.44 0.49 0.63* 0.66*** (0.47) (0.42) (0.51) (0.36) (0.34) (0.17) Meals at home (children) -1.56 -0.03 -0.18 -0.10 -0.32 -0.36 (1 .06) (0.71) (1 .43) (0.63) (0.48) (0.41) Household work hours 0.03*** 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01*** (0.01) (0.01) (0.01) (0.01) (0.01) (0.00) 39 Efficient in planning 0.21 0.77 -0.34 0.41 -0.08 0.18 (0.46) (0.54) (0.99) (0.38) (0.26) (0.24) Efficient at food prep 0.04 -0.13 0.27 0.51 -0.28 0.13 (0.50) (0.42) (0.67) (0.58) (0.37) (0.20) Engaged in FW efforts -0.37 -0.84 0.23 -0.45 0.54* -0.24 (0.49) (0.64) (1.66) (0.54) (0.32) (0.43) Engaged in OREC efforts -0.42 0.01 -1.18 0.63 -0.64 -0.32 (0.76) (0.58) (0.99) (0.60) (0.48) (0.30) Environmental beliefs FW -0.06 1.49 0.37 -0.60 -0.71 0.10 (0.84) (0.94) (1.46) (0.63) (0.48) (0.42) OREC 0.58 -0.49 -0.46 0.69 0.66 0.17 (0.75) (0.77) (1.27) (0.74) (0.61) (0.38) Garbage disposal Usage (Yes) 0.67 1.01 -1.08 0.32 -0.01 0.26 (0.75) (0.77) (1.19) (1.06) (0.59) (0.41) Amounts disposed -0.01 0.01 0.00 -0.02* -0.01 -0.01 (0.02) (0.01) (0.02) (0.01) (0.01) (0.01) Constant -1.31 -3.55 7.21 -6.98 1.42 -0.26 (3.99) (4.10) (7.92) (6.39) (2.70) (2.54) N 78 76 79 81 76 390 Notes: *P < o.i, **P < ao5, ***P < o.ol Abbreviations in table: OREC: Organics recycling FW Food waste 11 .6. Informational effects - Misclassification proportion (treatment groups only) A final regression analysis looks at the proportion of misclassification of materials for the treatment households during source separation (tables 15 and 16). This is calculated as follows: Total misclassification = Organics in liner + Contamination in biobags Total liner weight Thus, the total proportion of materials misclassified during source separation includes the total of organic materials present in the liner and the amount of contamination in the biobags as a proportion of the total materials disposed by the household. To avoid putting too much weight on the outlier household, we present two sets of results, one including all households, and a second excluding the outlier. The average proportion of misclassification was about 10.3% with a minimum of 0% and a maximum of 85.1%. 40 Omitting the outlier household, the average misclassification is 9.70% with a minimum of 0% and a maximum of 61.1%. The table below shows the average of misclassification across the treatment groups with and without the outlier for the entire study period. In both cases, the differences are not statistically different between the two groups. Table 15. Mean misclassification across treatment groups Groups All Excluding households outlier 10.20% 9.70% Treatment 1 10.05% 10.05% Treatment 2 10.51% 9.34% p-value ' 0.7114 0.4997 ' This is the p-value on the test of differences in mean Regression results (table 16) show that there was not a significant difference in misclassification by treatment groups. This is the case whether the outlier is included or not. Those who prepared and ate more meals at home has a higher misclassification rate. Specifically, an additional meal eaten at home by adults is associated with about two percentage points more misclassification. The same effect is not sustained when children eat more at home. Having stronger environmental beliefs was also associated with lower rates of misclassification. This may display more attention to the source separation process due to moral norms. 41 Table 16. Total proportion of misclassified materials from source separation (in %) (all treatment households) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 Week 6 All weeks Base: Group 1 -0.62 0.37 -3.61 0.89 0.78 -0.35 Treatment Group 2 (3.38) (3.46) (4.06) (2.74) (2.97) (1.34) Age (Base: 25-34) 35 - 44 -1.19 -1.05 -8.11 2.05 -4.38 -2.48 (4.60) (4.65) (6.76) (4.20) (4.42) (2.21) 45 - 54 6.96 0.37 -3.68 5.12 2.42 2.05 (5.28) (4.53) (5.76) (4.20) (4.54) (2.23) 55- 64 5.19 -4.46 -3.65 0.18 1.05 -0.77 (5.39) (5.14) (6.25) (4.45) (5.25) (2.31) 65 and older 16.70** -6.23 -3.02 -0.73 -4.16 0.34 (8.01) (5.73) (6.25) (5.71) (4.81) (2.88) Education (Base: High School or less) Associate's Degree 6.75 -1.81 -1.43 -0.72 -2.02 0.77 (7.11) (5.39) (6.28) (5.26) (4.22) (2.21) Bachelor's 2.93 3.22 6.61 1.86 3.21 3.49* (5.13) (3.37) (5.72) (4.02) (2.66) (1.80) Master's or more 2.45 -4.78 5.48 -0.41 1.86 0.97 (5.36) (3.75) (4.69) (3.56) (2.69) (1 .61) Female 2.52 3.45 4.57 3.85 4.21 3.16** (4.44) (3.09) (4.64) (3.44) (3.07) (1 .59) White -4.51 0.06 0.02 -2.21 1.02 -1.36 (4.82) (4.05) (4.37) (6.87) (3.18) (1 .99) Income -0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 -0.00 0.00 (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) Household size -1.47 -0.96 0.69 0.96 -1.50 -0.35 (1 .79) (1 .47) (1 .82) (1 .69) (1 .12) (0.72) Children present 45.91 5.50 28.28 -1.95 21.60* 19.86*** (11.59 (20.10) ) (21.11) (14.44) (11.40) (7.38) Meals at home (adults) 3.15 3.38' 1.79 -0.56 1.92 2.12** (2.26) (1 .80) (2.22) (1.95) (2.04) (0.83) Meals at home (children) -11.50** -2.58 -5.90 -1.63 -5.21* -5.62*** (4.94) (3.05) (5.12) (3.46) (2.97) (1 .78) Household work hours 0.09* -0.00 -0.04 -0.02 -0.00 0.01 42 (0.05) (0.05) (0.05) (0.05) (0.04) (0.02) Efficient in planning -1.77 4.88* -1.96 3.83* 1.69 1.16 (2.74) (2.63) (3.43) (2.23) (1.90) (1.1 1) Efficient at food prep 0.59 -2.79 0.05 -1.92 -3.00 -1.05 (2.70) (2.37) (3.10) (2.61) (2.16) (1.05) Engaged in FW efforts 4.38 0.31 7.19 -0.36 6.75*** 3.43** (4.19) (3.54) (5.47) (3.50) (2.28) (1 .71) Engaged in OREC efforts 0.14 -2.17 -0.67 2.88 -4.19* -0.74 (4.07) (3.16) (4.11) (3.55) (2.38) (1.39) Environmental beliefs FW -1.56 -0.58 -4.05 -4.78 -7.25** -3.66** (4.67) (4.57) (5.26) (3.85) (3.26) (1.80) OREC -4.81 2.98 -6.71 1.85 1.17 -1.16 (6.76) (3.66) (6.84) (5.54) (3.89) (2.32) Garbage disposal Usage (Yes) -6.56 1.96 -9.24 -0.92 -5.91 -3.88** (4.83) (3.80) (5.57) (4.59) (3.56) (1.91) Amounts disposed 0.07 0.03 0.09 -0.03 0.10 0.05 (0.12) (0.07) (0.11) (0.09) (0.07) (0.04) Constant 10.77 -8.10 30.91 7.65 25.83 13.77 (18.08 (24.32) ) (29.72) (25.59) (15.52) (9.84) N 76 76 75 76 75 378 Notes. *P < o.i, **P < o.o5, ***P < o.ol Abbreviations in table. OREC. Organics recycling I FW Food waste 43 Table 17. Total proportion of misclassified materials from source separation (in %) (omitting outlier household) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 Week 6 All weeks Base: Group 1 Treatment Group 2 -2.41 0.31 -4.90 -0.62 -0.22 -1.32 (2.42) (3.46) (3.49) (2.41) (2.77) (1.22) Age (Base: 25-34) 35 - 44 -2.35 -1.13 -9.31 0.29 -4.96 -3.24 (3.79) (4.63) (6.32) (3.62) (4.13) (2.11) 45 - 54 4.99 0.10 -5.87 3.44 2.00 0.69 (4.72) (4.55) (5.52) (3.67) (4.64) (2.16) 55- 64 2.70 -4.81 -5.94 -2.13 -0.11 -2.46 (4.00) (5.23) (5.42) (3.95) (5.09) (2.14) 65 and older 14.80 -6.23 -4.26 -0.95 -4.25 -0.12 (7.67) (5.82) (5.69) (4.92) (4.61) (2.78) Education (Base: High School or less) Associate's Degree 1.96 -2.05 -5.16 -3.09 -4.26 -1.77 (5.13) (5.38) (4.36) (4.25) (3.44) (1 .79) Bachelor's -0.76 2.85 3.00 -0.90 2.00 1.30 (4.03) (3.41) (4.64) (3.13) (2.52) (1.57) Master's or more -0.36 -4.88 3.33 -1.40 1.06 -0.23 (4.87) (3.78) (3.98) (3.41) (2.79) (1.54) Female -1.41 3.04 1.30 1.04 2.69 0.90 (3.02) (3.08) (3.53) (2.68) (2.77) (1 .31) White -3.10 0.06 0.26 -2.95 0.49 -1.17 (4.53) (4.16) (4.13) (6.66) (2.88) (1 .99) Income 0.00 0.00 0.00* 0.00 0.00 0.00'* (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) Household size -0.49 -0.87 1.59 1.47 -1.06 0.23 (1 .65) (1.52) (1 .61) (1 .63) (1 .14) (0.71) Children present 24.61** 2.44 9.16 -15.19 12.67 5.98 (9.42) (11.76) (16.56) (10.75) (9.78) (5.66) Meals at home (adults) 3.41 3.40* 1.79 -0.22 2.01 2.14*** (2.05) (1 .82) (2.04) (1.74) (1 .98) (0.79) Meals at home (children) -6.93** -1.90 -1.74 1.20 -3.31 -2.58* (2.65) (3.02) (3.97) (2.56) (2.72) (1.40) Household work hours 0.13 ** -0.00 -0.01 0.01 0.01 0.03* (0.04) (0.05) (0.03) (0.05) (0.04) (0.02) 44 Efficient in planning -0.02 5.03* -0.42 4.97** 2.68 2.22** (2.23) (2.65) (3.11) (2.15) (1.79) (1.04) Efficient at food prep -0.92 -3.02 -1.38 -3.05 -3.55* -1.99** (2.15) (2.40) (2.70) (2.36) (2.05) (0.96) Engaged in FW efforts 0.53 -0.28 4.31 -2.51 4.91** 1.06 (2.38) (3.64) (4.75) (3.18) (1.93) (1.45) Engaged in OREC efforts -1.38 -2.35 -2.37 1.06 -5.27** -1.96 (4.07) (3.26) (3.77) (3.05) (2.45) (1.33) Environmental beliefs FW -1.54 -0.37 -4.31 -5.12 -6.64** -3.33** (3.78) (4.53) (4.36) (3.21) (2.86) (1.59) OREC 3.06 3.95 0.50 7.80** 4.21 3.73** (3.62) (3.89) (4.31) (3.54) (3.40) (1.57) Garbage disposal Usage (Yes) -2.06 2.67 -5.05 3.40 -3.18 -0.48 (3.34) (4.04) (4.51) (3.46) (3.03) (1.50) Amounts disposed -0.05 0.01 -0.02 -0.14** 0.04 -0.04 (0.08) (0.08) (0.06) (0.06) (0.06) (0.03) Constant -4.54 -10.20 17.91 -1.60 20.07 4.38 (20.52) (18.04) (24.71) (23.08) (14.99) (8.91) N 75 75 74 75 74 373 Notes: *P < o.1, **P < o.o5, ***P < o.ol Abbreviations in table: OREC: Organics recycling I FW Food waste 12. POST-SURVEY RESULTS After completing the 6-weeks pilot, all households were invited to take an exit survey. The main findings from the post-study survey are briefly outlined in this section. Please reference the data for more detailed information on the different questions posed. The Treatment Groups and Control households received different surveys although most of the questions, with a few exceptions, overlapped. Control households saw some "filler" questions at the end of their survey so that both surveys took about the same amount of time to complete. First, to gauge participation in regular recycling, one question asked the respondents: "Generally as a household, how often do you recycle materials such as paper, plastic, glass and metal?" Almost 60.3% of the households responded that they "always" recycle 45 these materials. Another 36.4% reported being likely to recycling them "most of the time." The remaining households only recycled "sometimes." Another key question asked individuals to report how much they enjoyed being part of the study. The responses show that the study was well received with almost 57.9% reporting enjoying the study "a lot" or "a great deal." About 27.3% reported enjoying the study "a moderate amount" and about 4.1% reported "a little" or "not at all." 12.1 Participation A first set of questions asked the respondents to report how engaged they were in the respective food waste reduction (for all households) and organics recycling (for treatment households only) over the six-week period. The following graph (Figure 6) shows the mean response on a scale of 1 through 5 with 1 = A great deal and 5 = None at all. Overall, households were around moderate to quite engaged. However, it can be noted that engagement went slightly down as the weeks progressed. Figure 6: Mean participation over the study period Mean weekly participation 3.78 3.76 3.76 3.74 3.74 � 3.72 P 3.72 3.71 . o U C/) 3.70 ID 3.68 . 3.67 3.66 3.64 3.62 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 Week 6 46 12.2 Engagement throughout the study Another set of questions asked the respondents to how likely they were to be engage in different food waste reduction activities over the course of the six weeks. Figure 7 shows the responses: Figure 7. Engagement in food waste activities (N = 121) Preparing and eating all planned meals hp Re-using leftovers Cooking only what was planned to be eaten Learning about expiration dates of foods Cooking perishables before spoilage Storing fruits and vegetables appropriately 6m Buying only what is needed at the store t Making a list and checking inventories Planning your weekly meals 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 ■Very unlikely ■Somewhat unlikely ■Neither likely nor unlikely ■Somewhat likely ■Very likely Overall, people were likely to participate in the various activities to reduce food waste during the study period. Especially, people were highly likely to re-use their leftovers (mean = 4.6 on a scale of 1 [Very unlikely] through 5 [Very likely]). The activity that people reported being less likely to be engaged in was to plan their weekly meals in advance (mean = 3.76). A second set of questions asked the respondents to how likely they were to be engage in different organics recycling activities over the course of the six weeks. Figure 8 shows the responses. 47 Figure 8. Engagement in organics recycling activities (N = 83) Avoid food/organics from getting disposed in trash Prevent any non-organic materials from entering compost Separate any coffee filters and other organic materials Separate any trapped organics Separate all paper products from your regular trash Separate all food scraps from your regular trash `� 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 ■Very unlikely Somewhat unlikely ■Neither likely nor unlikely ■Somewhat likely ■Very likely Generally, households reported being highly likely to participate in the different activities to improve the efficiency of their organics recycling at home. For instance, most respondents reported being very likely to separate all their food scraps from their regular trash for recycling. The lowest participation was reported for separating trapped organics such as food items in packaging or bags (mean = 4.32 on a scale of 1 through 5). 12.3 Garbage disposal usage About 24.8% of the respondents used their garbage disposal during the study, lower than baselines usage. About 17.7% of leftovers were disposed if used (N=30) with a minimum of 3% to about 75%. Thus, garbage disposal usage was less than prior to the beginning of the study at the baseline. 12.4 Reasons for throwing away food A set of questions asked the households to report why food went eaten when they participated in the pilot (see Table 18). The following questions were asked on a scale of 1 to 5 with 1 being "Very unlikely" and 5 being "Very likely." Thus, higher scores report more likelihood of that reason for food going uneaten. The following table lists the different reasons with the means and standard deviation in question. One main reason for throwing away prior to meal preparation is that the packaging was bad or broken followed by the wrong food item being bought. The packaging being too large and 48 containing more than the household needed is also identified as a top three reason for throwing away food. Table 18. Reasons for throwing away food Reasons Mean Std. Deviation Before meal preparation Bought too much or we already had item at home 3.27 1.48 The packaging was too large and contained more than I needed 3.12 1.42 The wrong food item was bought 3.36 1.07 It was passed best before/expiration date 2.91 1.21 The package was bad/broken 3.80 1.51 The food looked ok but seemed no longer safe to eat 2.94 1.30 The food had visibly gone bad (rotten, sour, moldy, etc.) 2.91 1.12 After meal preparation Bought too much 3.20 1.42 The food did not turn out well 3.43 1.48 It was not possible to save leftovers 3.88 1.43 Did not want to save leftovers 4.09 1.35 Saved leftovers had gone bad 2.88 1.15 After meal preparation many households reported being likely to throw away food since they did not want to save leftovers. Food not turning out well was also identified as one the top reasons for throwing away food after meal prep. 12. 5. Barriers to sustainable activities There are various barriers to properly participating in food waste reduction activities or organics recycling. Figures 9 and 10 show some barriers that households may have faced during the study. Knowledge to adequately recycling, time, and space were identified as the main barriers to effective participation in organics recycling. Time, physical effort, and lack of cooperation from all members of the household were identified as top reasons for not being effectively able to curb food waste at home. 49 Figure 9: Barriers to participating in organics recycling activities. 70 60 50 a� 40 c m 30 a- 20 10 o l ■ 1 ■ 1 ■ ■ 1. Time needed Knowledge to Space Physical effort Lack of Disinterest in to carry out adequately needed for needed to cooperation these these conduct these additional conduct these from all activities activities activities bins activities household members ■Strongly disagree ■Somewhat disagree ■Neither agree nor disagree ■Somewhat agree ■Strongly agree Figure 10: Barriers to participating in food waste reduction activities 60 50 m 40 c� 30 _U N 20 10 0 1 ■ , I■ Time needed to Knowledge to Physical effort Lack of Disinterest in dedicate to adequately needed to cooperation from these activities these activities conduct these conduct these all household activities activities members ■Strongly disagree ■Somewhat disagree ■Neither agree nor disagree ■Somewhat agree ■Strongly agree 50 Appendix: Definitions 'FOOD-RELATED DEFINITIONS: FOOD WASTE: all edible and inedible parts of food that is discarded INEDIBLE PARTS: components associated with food which are not typically consumed in the United States and/or for which significant skill or effort would be required to render edible. EDIBLE: • QUESTIONABLY EDIBLE FOOD: food items which can be safely eaten, but may not be considered edible by a portion of the population due to culture or preference. • TYPICALLY, EDIBLE FOOD: food items which are intended for human consumption and are not generally considered inedible. 1. Inedible Items not intended for human consumption (small amounts of edible material associated with the inedible material are permitted to be included) • Egg shells, banana peels, pits/seeds, bones 2. Typically, Edible— • Meat & Fish: Uncooked or cooked meat (with mostly edible components) unmixed with other types of food o Boneless chicken breast, salmon fillet • Dairy & Eggs: Solid dairy or egg products unmixed with other food types or in original form o Cheese, yogurt, fried egg • Vegetables & Fruits: Solid uncooked or cooked vegetables and fruits (with mostly edible components) unmixed with other types of food o Potatoes, spinach, berries, salad with only vegetables • Baked Goods: Baked goods and bread-like products unmixed with other food types or in original form, including pastries o Bread, tortillas, pastries • Dry Foods: Cooked or uncooked grains, pastas, legumes, nuts, or cereals unmixed with other food types or in original form o Rice, cereal, pasta 51 • Snacks, Condiments, & Other: Includes confections, processed snacks, condiments, and other miscellaneous items o Condiments, candy, granola bars, sauces, jellies • Liquids/Oils/Grease: Items that are liquid, including beverages and sodas o Milk, oil, juice • Cooked/Prepared Items/ Leftovers: Items that have many food types mixed together as part of cooking or preparation o Lasagna, sandwiches, leftovers 3. Questionably Edible o Apple (skin and cores), Potato (peels), Carrot (peels and tops/greens), Broccoli (stalks), Cauliflower (stalks), Lettuce (outer leaves and cores), Asparagus (stems), Pear (skin and cores), Chicken (skin, fat, and giblets), Tomato (cores), Cucumber (skins), Kale (stems), Radish (leaves), Herbs (stems), Leek (tops), Celery(tops) 4. Unidentifiable Food (Used only if necessary) ORGANICS DEFINITIONS The following are organics: 1 . All Food (see above) o Fruits and vegetables; Meat, fish and bones; Dairy products; Eggs and egg shell, Pasta, beans and rice; Bread and cereal, Nuts and shells 2. Food soiled paper o Pizza boxes from delivery, Napkins and paper towels; Paper egg cartons 3. Certified compostable materials o *Compostable paper and plastic cups, plates, bowls, utensils and containers *Look for the BPI or Cedar Grove logos or the term "compostable" on certified products 4. Other compostable household items o Coffee grounds and filters; Hair and nail clippings; Cotton balls and swabs with paper stems; Houseplants and flowers; Tea bags (tricky one!); Wooden items such as chopsticks, popsicle sticks and toothpicks 52 NOTACCEPTABLE o Yard waste, diapers and sanitary products, animal and pet waste, litter or bedding, cleaning or baby wipes, grease or oil, Styrofoam 1, dryer lint and dryer sheets, recyclable items (cartons, glass, metal, paper, plastic), frozen food boxes, microwave popcorn bags, gum, fast food wrappers, products labeled "biodegradable" o Other recyclables: aluminum foil, glass, plastics, and metals ' These food-related definitions have been adapted from the NRDC report: nttps://www.nrac.org/Si Les/oeiau it/iiies/i000-waste-city-ievei-report.pot 53 Agenda Item 5.b. ENVIRONMENTAL & NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Meeting Date October 21, 2019 REPORT TO: Environmental and Natural Resources Commission REPORT FROM: Shann Finwall, AICP, Environmental Planner PRESENTER: Shann Finwall, AICP, Environmental Planner AGENDA ITEM: Results of the 2018 Food Waste and Organic Recycling Experiment Action Requested: ❑ Motion ✓ Discussion ❑ Public Hearing Form of Action: ❑ Resolution ❑ Ordinance ❑ Contract/Agreement ❑ Proclamation Policy Issue: The Maplewood organics drop off site and future curbside organics recycling collection will assist the City of Maplewood in achieving its solid waste goal to reduce trash and increase recycling. Recommended Action: No action required. Fiscal Impact: Is There a Fiscal Impact? ✓ No ❑ Yes, the true or estimated cost is $0 Financing source(s): ❑ Adopted Budget ❑ Budget Modification ❑ New Revenue Source ❑ Use of Reserves ✓ Other: N/A Strategic Plan Relevance: ✓ Financial Sustainability ❑ Integrated Communication ❑ Targeted Redevelopment ✓ Operational Effectiveness ❑ Community Inclusiveness ✓ Infrastructure & Asset Mgmt. The organics recycling drop off site and future curbside organics recycling collection: 1) will create operational effectiveness by protecting the public health and safety, and promoting City cleanliness and livability; 2) is an important component to the City's green infrastructure - which purpose is to achieve a reduction in trash generated by using best management practices to protect air quality, water quality, and natural resources; 3) will decrease the amount of trash residents throw away allowing them to reduce their trash cart size and save money on their trash hauling bill. Background State law requires that counties achieve a 75% recycling goal by 2030, which is a significant increase from the current combined rate of approximately 53% recycling rate for Ramsey and Washington counties. In their solid waste master plans the counties commit to assuring that organics, primarily food waste, are separated and collected from residential and non-residential generators for recycling. Methods to manage food waste/organics by residents include: • Reduction of food/organic waste • Donation of edible food to organizations that feed people in need • Backyard composting • Drop-off of organics at a designated site • Curbside collection of source-separated organics Maplewood Organics Recycling Drop-Off Site Ramsey County offers residential organics drop off at their yard waste sites. They are expanding the organics recycling program by partnering with cities to install satellite organics recycling collection sites throughout the County. Maplewood's organics collection site is located next to the Maplewood Community Center/YMCA, in the parking lot along White Bear Avenue. It consists of a fenced-in enclosure with two organics recycling dumpsters inside. The County contracts with a hauler to collect and process the organics materials into compost. The site opened in September 2019 and is available 24/7 for all Ramsey County residents. Ramsey County is offering free organics starter kits while supplies last. The kits include a small kitchen caddy, compostable bags, and tips for success. Additional compostable bags can be picked up at the organics collection site within a bag dispenser or at City Hall. To use the organics site, residents fill up the compostable bags with food scraps and bring it to the collection site for free disposal. A full list of acceptable items can be found at www.RamsevRecycles.com/foodscraps. Future Curbside Organics Recycling Collection In 2016 Ramsey and Washington Counties purchased the Ramsey/Washington Recycling & Energy Center (R&E Center) from Resource Recovery Technologies. Now all trash produced in both counties must be brought to the R&E Center for processing. The Ramsey/Washington Recycling & Energy Board (R&E Board) is ajoint powers board, formed by Ramsey and Washington counties, to provide solid waste services to residents, businesses and institutions in both counties. Today, the two counties work jointly through the R&E Board to increase investments in waste reduction, reuse, and recycling. The R&E Board is in the preliminary stages of establishing a food waste (organics) collection program for households at curbside in both counties. The collection would be done using durable compostable bags placed in trash carts and sorted out after collection. The material will then be composted or used in privately-owned anaerobic digesters. The infrastructure to allow for this service is scheduled to be in place by the spring of 2021. Refer to the fact sheet attached for more details. Curbside organics recycling collection details and pricing are not included in the new 2020-2025 trash hauling contract, as those details were not available during negotiations. Once the infrastructure is in place, however, the City will coordinate with its trash hauling contractor, Republic Services, to roll out the program in Maplewood. 2 Ramsey County Environmental Health Division Filsan Ibrahim, Environmental Health Specialist, will be present during the October 21 Environmental Commission to discuss the County's recycling and organics collection programs. Attachments 1. Collecting Source Separate Organics: Durable Compostable Bags 3 •�� Attachment 1 � Collecting Source Separated Organics: RAMSEY/WASHINGTON Durable Compostable Bags RECYCLING & ENERGY Why is Recycling& Energy(R&E) interested in collecting organics curbside? The State of Minnesota requires Ramsey and Washington Counties to achieve a 75% recycling goal by 2030. Ramsey/Washington Recycling & Energy(R&E) is committed to assuring that organic wastes, primarily food wastes, are separated by and collected from residents and businesses for the purpose of recycling more. Recent waste sorts show that food waste is about 25% by weight of trash collected in the two counties. When other organics are included (like paper towels and compostable cups and cutlery), the total is close to 40%. Ramsey and Washington Counties are moving forward to capture the resource value of food waste. Recovering this material from trash will help us in reaching the state's recycling goal and provide residents the opportunity to recycle more than is possible in a backyard compost bin. What is the concept for collection using durable compostable bags? R&E's efforts are focused on collecting organic waste from residents and small businesses using durable compostable bags (DCBs) co-collected with trash. With DCBs, bags of organics and bags of trash all go in the same trash cart. STEP 1: Organic waste will be collected in durable compostable bags inside a resident's home or at a small business and then placed into their trash cart for collection on their scheduled trash collection day by their trash hauler. STEP 2: The bags with organic waste would then be separated from the bags of trash at either a transfer station or at the Recycling & Energy Center. STEP 3: After separation from trash, the bags of organic waste would be delivered to compost sites or anaerobic digestion facilities.The remaining trash would be processed as usual. R&E is exploring the most effective means to separate durable compostable bags from trash following collection curbside. Equipment that can mechanically separate the bags from trash is being evaluated. R&E would modify the contracts it has with transfer stations to require the transfer stations to separate DCBs from trash received from the two counties and would also contract with end markets for composting or anaerobic digestion of organics collected in DCBs. What are the benefits? R&E believes that the use of durable compostable bags is likely to be an efficient and cost-effective method of collecting organics from residences and small businesses. Some benefits of this method include: • Does not require an additional collection cart • Does not require a separate collection day • Does not require additional hauling trucks www.MoreValueLessTrash.com • Works in communities with and without waste hauling contracts • Would have little impact on current waste hauling services How will the bags be distributed and who will pay? R&E would ensure that organics collection service is available to residents throughout the two counties, and would contract for the manufacturing and distribution of durable compostable bags to residents. R&E estimates a year's worth of durable compostable bags and processing costs to be$40 per household (60 bags per year per household). Payment for DCBs has not been finalized.The options are: • R&E provides bags and service at no cost to residents • Residents pay part of the cost of bags and service (R&E pays the other part) • Residents pay the full cost of bags and service Distribution could occur: • Through online ordering and delivery to the residence; • By partnering with retailers; or • Having bags available at convenient locations like city hall or other public facilities. What is the timeline? R&E is intending to launch this service in the spring of 2021. This is a local partnership! Ramsey and Washington Counties would work with municipalities, waste haulers and others to provide outreach and education, and would provide drop-off sites to supplement the collection of DCBs. Municipalities would support outreach and education to residents, and would partner with the counties for drop-off sites and potentially in the distribution of DCBs. www.MoreValueLessTrash.com 2 Agenda Item 5.c. ENVIRONMENTAL & NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Meeting Date October 21, 2019 REPORT TO: Environmental and Natural Resources Commission REPORT FROM: Shann Finwall, AICP, Environmental Planner PRESENTER: Shann Finwall, AICP, Environmental Planner AGENDA ITEM: Update on the Maplewood Trash and Recycling Contracts Action Requested: ❑ Motion ✓ Discussion ❑ Public Hearing Form of Action: ❑ Resolution ❑ Ordinance ❑ Contract/Agreement ❑ Proclamation Policy Issue: The City's residential recycling and trash hauling contracts end December 31, 2019. The City Council directed staff to draft a Request for Proposals (RFP) for new trash and recycling contracts. A competitive RFP process allows the City to compare prices directly between respondents and allow for new or improved services that offer the best value to Maplewood residents. Recommended Action: No action required. Fiscal Impact: Is There a Fiscal Impact? ❑ No ✓Yes, the true or estimated cost is $4.6 to 5.2 million for the full 5-1/2 year recycling contract term and increases in trash hauling rates for Maplewood residents. Financing source(s): ❑ Adopted Budget ❑ Budget Modification ❑ New Revenue Source ❑ Use of Reserves ✓ Other: Recycling Fund and Rates; Trash Rates Strategic Plan Relevance: ✓ Financial Sustainability ❑ Integrated Communication ❑ Targeted Redevelopment ✓ Operational Effectiveness ❑ Community Inclusiveness ✓ Infrastructure & Asset Mgmt. The City's recycling and trash programs create operational effectiveness by protecting the public health and safety, and promoting City cleanliness and livability. It is also an important component to the City's green infrastructure - which purpose is to achieve a reduction in waste generated by using best management practices to protect air quality, water quality, and natural resources. Additionally, conducting periodic RFP processes ensures the best economic value for the community and provides opportunities to test the pricing in the market. Background On May 13, 2019, the City Council authorized the release of a recycling and trash hauling RFP. The RFP outlined a five and one-half year term for the new contract(s) and allowed respondents to propose three alternates including: 1. Alternate 1 — Bundled Trash and Recycling 2. Alternate 2 —Trash Only 3. Alternate 3— Recycling Only On June 17, 2019, the City received responses from six companies with various alternate proposals to the RFP as follows: 1. Advanced Disposal —Alternate 1 (Bundled Trash/Recycling) 2. Eureka Recycling —Alternate 3 (Recycling) 3. Republic Services —Alternate 2 (Trash) and Alternate 3 (Recycling) 4. Tennis Sanitation —Alternate 1 (Bundled Trash/Recycling), Alternate 2 (Trash), and Alternate 3 (Recycling) 5. Walters Recycling and Refuse —Alternate 1 (Bundled Trash/Recycling) and Alternate 2 (Trash) 6. Waste Management—Alternate 1 (Bundled Trash/Recycling), Alternate 2 (Trash), and Alternate 3 (Recycling) On July 22, 2019, the City Council authorized City staff to negotiate draft residential recycling and trash hauling contracts with the top ranked respondents—Tennis Sanitation for recycling collection and Republic Services for residential trash and yard waste collection. Ramsey County Support Ramsey County supplied the City of Maplewood with technical support through their Public Entities Solid Waste Technical Assistance Program. Foth Infrastructure and Environment, the County's solid waste consultants, assisted the City in drafting the RFP, conducted a financial review of the proposals, and assisting in contract negotiations. Proposal Review Committee The Proposal Review Committee included two City Councilmembers (Councilmembers Juenemann and Knutson), three Environmental and Natural Resources Commissioners (Commissioners Palzer, Miller, and Sinn), three City staff(Shann Finwall, Michael Martin, and Jeff Thomson) and one County staff(Rae Frank). Dan Krivit of Foth Infrastructure and Environment and his team completed cost analysis of the proposals. To analyze the proposals, the Committee held three review meetings and conducted interviews of selected respondents. Proposal Review Rankings The proposal ranking system was per six criteria weightings outlined in the RFP including economics, environmental, responsiveness, qualifications, safety, and education. The Proposal Review Committee was diligent in evaluating the relative strengths and weaknesses of each proposal as fairly and objectively as possible. As a result of the Proposal Review Committee's careful evaluations, Tennis Sanitation was ranked as the number one respondent for Residential Recycling. Tennis Sanitation had the best overall scores in the Recycling Only Alternate category when evaluated against all six criteria as per the RFP, including the lowest price. 2 Recycling and Trash Hauling Contracts The City Council authorized the execution of the recycling and trash hauling contract on September 9, 2019. Following are the substantial points outlined in the contracts: Recycling Contract 1. Contract Term: Five and one-half years, beginning January 2020 and ending June 2025. 2. Recycling Service Levels: Collection of curbside recycling will take place weekly. Residents will have the option of three different size recycling carts (35, 65, 95 gallon). Collection of centralized multi-family recycling will also take place weekly, with some of the multi-family properties converting to recycling dumpsters instead of recycling carts. 3. Collection Day Service Areas: No changes to the existing system. The recycling collection day service area will continue as a five-day collection route. 4. Billing: No changes to the existing system. Tennis Sanitation will bill the City of Maplewood for the overall number of recycling households. The City will add the recycling fee onto the residents' water bill. 5. City Facilities: No changes to the existing system. Tennis Sanitation will continue to collect recycling at City facilities at no charge. 6. Small Business and Church Recycling: Small businesses and churches can continue to opt into the City's residential curbside recycling program. In addition to supplying 95 gallon recycling carts to small businesses and churches at the same cost as the residential rates, the new contract will allow collection of recyclables from a recycling dumpster at a cost of $45 per month for the term of the contract. 7. Reports: Tennis Sanitation will continue to supply the City with monthly and annual reports. The new contract will include additional details in the reports including a list of resident addresses that consistently do not set out recyclables and gallons of fuel or mileage of vehicles traveled for the City's greenhouse gas assessment. 8. Work Plan: No changes to the current system. Yearly, Tennis Sanitation will submit an annual work plan outlining key priorities for system improvements. 9. Public Education: As with the current recycling contract, the City will draft an annual solid waste educational flyer to include both recycling and trash information. The flyer will be approved by the recycling and trash contractors. The contractor will pay for the design, publication, and distribution of the flyer. Additionally, a new system to help assure accuracy of the Contractor's customer service center responses to residents' inquiries has been included (e.g., prescribed frequently asked questions customized to the specific Maplewood solid waste program). 10. Liquidated Damages: The liquidated damages section includes a new incident escalation procedure which will provide a general guide for managing communications. One new liquidated damage is included in the contract including failure to provide adequate notice and coordination to prevent mixed public messages about collection delays due to severe weather incidents. 3