Kerbside Organics Food OrganicGarden Organic Introduction BAYSIDE FRANKSTON

Kerbside Organics – Food Organic/Garden Organic Introduction BAYSIDE ▪ FRANKSTON ▪ GLEN EIRA ▪ MONASH Prepared Metropolitan Waste and Resource and Recovery Group June/July 2017 Pg. 1

Background and Objectives 1. Understand the community perceptions of Landfill and Environmental Concerns 2. Understand current recycling behaviours (in an attempt to predict potential contamination/diversion of respondents) 3. Establish the appeal of a Food Organics/Garden Organics (FOGO) service 4. Explore the most appropriate messaging and terminology to use to ensure optimal understanding of the service 5. Understand the impact of supporting tools on the successful implementation of the FOGO service 6. Understand barriers/concerns and motivations to participate in the FOGO service 7. Explore optimal service designs for the service roll out Pg. 2

Respondents showed overt concern for the environment, however many felt powerless to change it an individual level vs the larger impact from corporations. • When thinking about the environment most respondents have some level of concern about the environment, ways to improve it and the way we consume and package our food. • Environmentally friendly activities include – – Recycling Walking instead of driving Composting/Worm Farming Reducing Plastic Bag usage • Overall, respondents were concerned about their impact on the environment. Many felt that there was little they could do as an individual and it was up to large companies to stop over packaging food. PLASTIC DISPOSABLE PACKAGING PLASTIC BAGS PACKAGING RUBBISH Pg. 3

The FOGO Concept has very broad overall appeal. 71% of respondents were FOGO Acceptors (rated appeal 7 to 10). FOGO Appeal Profile Among Total Respondents (n=1004) FOGO ACCEPTOR FOGO REJECTER 71% FOGO APPEAL Gender Family Demo 39% 40% 61% 36% 29% Home Compost 17% F 1. On a scale of 0 -10 where 0 is “not at all appealing” and 10 is “very appealing, how appealing do you find this new bin concept? BASE – all respondents n=1004 B Gender Family Demo Home Compost 39% 50% 24% B 38% 61% 50% 33% M 62% 43% Pg. 4

FOGO Segmentation – analysing people by their behaviours sees unique segments in the population – and shows that FOGO rejecters have some unique characteristics. FOGO Lovers (28%) FOGO’s OK (40%) Non- Food Recyclers (22%) Composters (10%) OPPORTUNITY SEGMENTS Note – Segmentation derived using latent class cluster analysis BASE – all respondents n=1004 Pg. 5

OPPORTUNITYSEGMENTS FOGO’s OK (40%) 62% • • Like the FOGO Concept Likely to use the FOGO bin Average food recycling May contaminate Non- Food Recyclers (22%) • • Dislike the FOGO Concept Unlikely to use the FOGO bin No food recycling Likely to contaminate Note – Segmentation derived using latent class cluster analysis BASE – all respondents n=1004 Pg. 6

The Segments show different behaviours compared to the average – most notably, the “Composters” segment rejects FOGO, but only because they have their own system for recycling Segmentation developed using a combination of current recycling and contamination behaviours plus FOGO concept likeability and likelihood to use. TOTAL Composters, [VALUE] [CATEGORY NAME], [VALUE] Non- Food Recyclers, [VALUE] FOGO's OK; 40% % in population 100% 28% 40% 22% 10% Currently recycle food scraps 39% 51% 37% 0% 100% Likelihood to use FOGO (% very likely) 62% 100% 76% 16% 0% FOGO concept Appeal/10 7. 5 8. 7 8. 4 5. 6 4. 6 Recycling contamination profile Low Very low Low-Med Very low % agree with universal FOGO rollout 54% 66% 61% 33% 31% Note – Segmentation derived using latent class cluster analysis BASE – all respondents n=1004 Pg. 7

FOGO Segmentation – analysing people by their behaviours sees unique segments in the population – and shows that FOGO rejecters have some unique characteristics. FOGO Lovers (28%) ADVOCATES FOGO’s OK (40%) EDUCATE AND SUPPORT Non- Food Recyclers (22%) EDUCATE AND ENCOURAGE Composters (10%) HIGHLIGHT OPPORTUNITY Note – Segmentation derived using latent class cluster analysis BASE – all respondents n=1004 Pg. 8

There is little segment variation seen by different council regions. Segments by Region 28% 27% 40% 31% 28% 43% 37% 40% 39% 22% 19% 24% 23% 10% 11% 8% 8% 10% Total Bayside Frankston City of Monash Glen Eira Council Composters Non-Food Recyclers FOGO's OK Frankston has a slightly higher proportion of FOGO Lovers, but is higher on the proportion of Non- Food Recyclers. While this is so, differences are relatively small between most regions FOGO Lovers BASE – all respondents n=1004 S 1. Can you please confirm your local council? Pg. 9

New Service Appeal Profile – Overall FOGO Appeal Profile Among Total Respondents (n=1004) FOGO ACCEPTOR 71% FOGO REJECTER 29% FOGO APPEAL F 1. On a scale of 0 -10 where 0 is “not at all appealing” and 10 is “very appealing, how appealing do you find this new bin concept? BASE – all respondents n=1004 Pg. 10

The FOGO concept has strong overall appeal, particularly amongst ‘FOGO Lovers’ and ‘FOGO’s OK’ segments. FOGO Appeal – by Segment Mean/10 7. 5 8. 7 8. 4 5. 6 4. 6 13% 26% 20% 50% 71% 68% 59% 9 -10 19% 23% 22% 21% 7 -8 5 -6 0 -4 With almost 70% of the population falling into the “FOGO” segments, the concept thus has broad overall appeal 25% 14% 19% 15% 8% 5% 12% TOTAL FOGO Lovers FOGO's OK 45% 33% 5% Non-Food Recyclers Composters BASE – all respondents n=1004 F 1. How appealing find concept? Pg. 11

While initial impressions of the FOGO concept were positive for Acceptors, smell was still a concern. Amongst rejectors however, mess, smell and rodents were a considerable barrier. GREAT ‘YUCK’ OVERDUE RODENTS OPPORTUNITY CONTAMINATION FANTASTIC NO POINT SMELL MESSY BENEFICIAL SMELL Pg. 12

03 CURRENT RECYCLING AND WASTE BEHAVIOURS Pg. 13

When it comes to separating rubbish inside the house, nearly everybody has a ‘system’ to make sure the right things end up in the right bin. CURRENT HOUSEHOLD BEHAVIOURS Pg. 14

05 SUPPORTING TOOLS Pg. 15

Compostable Bags – a popular addition to the FOGO experience Council should supply at least initially to encourage people to use the FOGO service Segments by Compostable Bags provision NET Score +64 +75 +79 +38 37% 53% Need to be available at supermarkets or retail outlets 64% 27% 61% 28% 25% 22% 17% 14% Some confusion around biodegradable vs. compostable +31 3% 7% 12% 2% 4% TOTAL FOGO Lovers 22% 13% 2% 2% FOGO's OK 16% 21% 7% 6% 18% Non-Food Recyclers Composters A lot more likely A bit more likely No difference A bit less likely A lot less likely Pg. 16

Kitchen Caddy – a council provided Kitchen Caddy sees a net uplift in likelihood to separate food waste if it were provided by council. Segments by Kitchen Caddy NET Score +50 +62 +68 +18 33% 47% 56% +14 24% 55% 20% 14% A lot more likely A bit more likely No difference 18% 15% 4% 26% 7% 7% 22% 23% Non-Food Recyclers Composters 21% 19% 18% 24% 16% 11% 3% 7% 3% 5% TOTAL FOGO Lovers FOGO's OK BASE – all respondents n=1004 F 2 c. Likely would you be to separate your food waste - A kitchen caddy (benchtop container) was provided by the council A bit less likely A lot less likely Kitchen Caddy provision has the strongest overall uplift on the FOGO’s OK segment Pg. 17

Kitchen Caddies: Recommended, but not an essential component. Optional caddies would be recommended. STICKER ON CADDIE A sticker/checklist on the lid or front of the kitchen caddie that highlights can or can’t go into the FOGO service is perceived as a benefit by respondents -URL to seek more information if required -More important to have what can go into the service rather than what cannot -It’s a great ready reference/education tool Kitchen Caddie A place/system to separate food waste is essential for program success Acceptors were split as to whether the council should deliver one to each household. Many acceptors already had a home compost system that saw them separating food waste. They would continue to use that same container for FOGO. Barriers for the Caddie: - ‘Ugly’ - No space on the bench - No bag For some rejecters however, the caddie did overcame the barriers. Pg. 18

Council Rewards – While Council Rewards have a net positive effect on FOGO usage, this is not evident amongst the Composter segment Segments by Council Rewards NET Score +42 +50 +60 +20 -3 10% 24% 36% 46% 18% 43% A lot more likely 20% 18% 12% A bit more likely 41% 21% 32% 34% 32% 3% 9% 3% 5% 1% 3% TOTAL FOGO Lovers FOGO's OK 5% No difference A bit less likely A lot less likely The Composter segment actually reacts in a negative way to potential coercion with unspecified council rewards. 9% 19% 22% Non-Food Recyclers Composters BASE – all respondents n=1004 F 2 c. Likely would you be to separate your food waste - Council provided rewards for correct use of the service Pg. 19

General Waste bin reduced collection (fortnightly) – The reduction of general waste collection to fortnightly with a FOGO service has a negative effect on likelihood to use the FOGO service amongst rejecter segments Segments by General Waste bin fortnightly collection NET Score +5 23% +22 31% +16 28% -19 -33 11% 7% 15% 13% 28% 33% 9% 6% 24% TOTAL 18% 24% 27% 29% 8% 11% 17% 20% FOGO Lovers FOGO's OK 13% A lot more likely A bit more likely No difference 15% A bit less likely A lot less likely 37% 39% Non-Food Recyclers Composters BASE – all respondents n=1004 F 2 c. Likely would you be to separate your food waste - The collection of the general rubbish bin was reduced to once every 2 weeks While the net effect is slightly positive overall (+5%), reducing the collection to fortnightly appears to present risk to the FOGO service Pg. 20

06 OPTIMAL FOGO SERVICE DESIGN Pg. 21

While the population is broadly split on how often General waste bin should be collected under a weekly FOGO collection, a large proportion of rejecter segments believe weekly is the most appropriate frequency Segments by General Waste collection frequency 53% 47% 48% 66% 63% Weekly Fortnightly 42% 48% Not sure/don't care 47% 29% 32% 5% 5% 5% 6% 5% TOTAL FOGO Lovers FOGO's OK Non-Food Recyclers Composters BASE – all respondents n=1004 F 5. If by introducing this new service, all dwellings were to be provided with a Food Organics/Green Organics bin (universal service) and this was collected weekly, how often would you expect the general waste bin to be collected? The desire for the status quo tends to be the strongest outcome overall, thus General waste should likely remain a weekly collection service Pg. 22

UNIVERSAL OPT-IN - Creating social norms - Contamination risks - Environmental behaviour should be enforced - Cost Effectiveness - Encouraging more space for waste - Personal Choice - Long term benefits - Equal WHEN THINKING ABOUT WHAT’S BEST FOR THE COMMUNITY, SHOULD EVERYONE GET ONE OF THESE BINS? OR SHOULD YOU HAVE TO OPT IN? More likely to favour universal More likely to favour opt-in Pg. 23

There is a strong difference noted between the FOGO segments and others, with FOGO segments more likely to believe the service should be Universal Segments by FOGO rollout type 68% 33% 54% 66% 31% 61% Rolled out to every household Optional 61% 42% 29% 4% 5% TOTAL FOGO Lovers 57% Don't care/don't know 38% 1% FOGO's OK 5% Non-Food Recyclers Both Composters and Non- Food Recyclers believe that the FOGO service should be optional, with many of the Composter segment having no strong opinion either way 11% Composters BASE – all respondents n=1004 F 4. So considering the best option for not only you but the community overall – in your opinion, should a new bin service like this be optional, or should it be rolled out automatically to every household? Pg. 24

If it has food in it, the bin needs to be collected weekly. Currently, for all councils, the green waste collection frequency is fortnightly. While the fortnightly garden waste collection is appropriate, most respondents agree that should food waste be included in the existing garden waste service, the collection would need to be increased to weekly. The following reasons were cited: - The smell of rotting food - The volume of waste (Garden and Food) - “Food needs to be collected weekly” For those who do do aa lot of of gardening, the green waste bin isis already at at capacity with aa fortnightly collection Families cite having larger amounts of of waste (food waste inclusive) Pg. 25

How best to position the FOGO service to residents? Supporting Tools Frequency of collection Roll out FOGO Collection General Waste Collection Kitchen Caddies Compostable Bags UNIVERSAL WEEKLY OPTIONAL Most residents believe it should be rolled out to everyone equally – creating social norms and encouraging as many as possible to participate. Both acceptors and rejectors were concerned about the smell of the food waste. Large concern amongst residents about losing the weekly general waste collection – this can be revisited. Quite expensive to universally distribute. Make optional to residents who require/would like a caddie from council. UNIVERSALLY PROVIDED BY COUNCIL Other concerns include maggots and vermin, especially in summer. Some are negative about the caddie and others wish to find their own vessel. Compostable bags being provided by council had the highest uplift in likelihood to separate food waste into a FOGO bin Pg. 26

07 CONCEPT TESTING Pg. 27

“Organic Waste” and “Waste Contamination” are well understood, with “Residual Waste and “Waste Diversion” much less well understood Mean Score Level of Understanding with commonly used terminology Organic Waste Contamination 13% 20% Resource Recovery Residual Waste Diversion “If I see things they put in river ways and net to try and catch the floating stuff. I call that a waste diversion. ” - Male, Bayside/Frankston, Acceptor 8. 6 67% 23% 44% 25% 59% 65% 22% 17% 7 -8 6. 2 32% 19% 0 -6 8. 0 57% 18% 5. 4 4. 8 9 -10 Base: 1004 Pg. 28

Qualitative analysis of different terminologies shows many common terms quite well understood Term Understanding Biodegradable Generally thought to mean ‘breaks down naturally, biodegradable suggests environmentally friendly. There are some hesitations about the believability of biodegradable products: Compostable ‘Compostable’ is associated with fruit and vegetable peelings and returning those nutrients to the soil. Compostable had the most positive connotation to it and was seen as the most environmentally friendly; returning goodness to the soil rather than simply breaking down. Organic Waste Contamination Resource Recovery Residual Waste Organic Waste is commonly associated with food but there was some confusion around this particular term. Waste contamination meant different things to different respondents, Most respondents however, agreed that it was a negative association. Resource Recovery was associated with hard rubbish collection and reusing household materials. There was little association with environmental activities such as recycling or composting. Unlike other terms, amongst respondents there was no clear, agreed definition of ‘residual waste. ’ Pg. 29

FARMER’S STORIES SERIES Thought to be impactful, emotive and motivational, the Farmer’s Stories clips were received positively by rejectors and acceptors. FAMER’S STORIES VS. DR KARL TVC The imagery was well produced and the message of the ‘Australian farmer’ struck a chord with respondents. Rejectors particularly reported that the Farmer’s Stories videos had the biggest impact on their behaviour. DR KARL TVC SERIES Dr Karl, a credible and reliable source of information for the many respondents who were familiar with him. The fast-paced and informative clips provided a lot of information. The visual link between the garbage, green waste and compost was well-received and the message in the clips was very clear. Rejectors were not motivated by this kind of clip and acceptors were left wanting more information on how the service really works – they felt some important facts were missing. Pg. 30

The messaging used to change FOGO acceptance and uptake should focus on benefits for farmers producing fresh produce. FOGO Lovers FOGO’s OK Non-Recyclers Composters Implementing the new service reduces everyday greenhouse emissions in the community 8. 2 5. 9 6. 1 The compost made from the food waste/green bin is used by farmers to grow produce we all benefit from and consume 8. 6 8. 4 6. 7 7. 1 The compost made the food organics/green organics waste bin is used by local community centres to teach children about agriculture and gardening 8. 3 6. 0 6. 7 Base: 1004 Pg. 31

BACK TO EARTH VIDEO Pg. 32

How best to position the FOGO service to residents? Messaging Terminology Contamination FOCUS ON BENEFITS TO COMMUNITY & FRESH PRODUCE KEEP IT SIMPLE BIN STICKERS & EDUCATION Societal benefit was a universal environmental driver, while fresh produce consumed by people personalized the benefits It was evident that confusion exists with recycling terminology, so simple laymen’s terms will assist. People were unsure what could go in a FOGO bin and need handy reminders to ensure minimal contamination Encouragement vs. Enforcement ENCOURAGEMENT Residents tend to only require education and encouragement as the latent acceptance and belief is there. Enforcement can come based on outcomes of rollout of required Pg. 33

How best to position the FOGO service to residents? Supporting Tools Frequency of collection Roll out FOGO Collection General Waste Collection Kitchen Caddies Compostable Bags UNIVERSAL WEEKLY OPTIONAL Most residents believe it should be rolled out to everyone equally – creating social norms and encouraging as many as possible to participate. Both acceptors and rejectors were concerned about the smell of the food waste. Large concern amongst residents about losing the weekly general waste collection – this can be revisited. Quite expensive to universally distribute. Make optional to residents who require/would like a caddie from council. UNIVERSALLY PROVIDED BY COUNCIL Other concerns include maggots and vermin, especially in summer. Some are negative about the caddie and others wish to find their own vessel. Compostable bags being provided by council had the highest uplift in likelihood to separate food waste into a FOGO bin Pg. 34

THANK YOU FOR MORE INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT: Allison Goss - Account Manager 0450 125 627 AMR allison. goss@amrmelbourne. com. au Chris Pyra - General Manager (Brisbane) 0408 496 785 AMR chris. pyra@amrmelbourne. com. au Pg. 35