RESIDENTIAL MASTER PLAN TRACKING STUDY

RESIDENTIAL
MASTER PLAN TRACKING STUDY
(Benchmark Wave)

prepared for:
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
COORDINATING BOARD

prepared by:

HUBERTY MARKETING RESEARCH
Tim Huberty, President
1924 Jefferson
St. Paul, MN 55105
Phone: 651-698-8776
Fax: 651-698-1011
E-mail: thuberty@uswest.net

SPRING 2000

RESIDENTIAL MASTER PLAN TRACKING STUDY
(Benchmark Wave)

I.	INTRODUCTION
	A. Background and Objectives
	B. Methodology
	C. Sample Profile
	D. Sample Disposition

II.	DETAILED FINDINGS
	A. Waste Reduction Activities
	B. Toxicity Reduction
				1. Reducing Use of Toxic or Hazardous Materials
				2. TVs and CRTs
				3. Paint
	C. Recyling
	D. Garbage
		1. Attitudes
			2. Communication & Responsibility

III.	SUMMARY & RECOMMENDATIONS

IV.	APPENDIX: QUESTIONNAIRE

I. INTRODUCTION

A. Background and Objectives

The Solid Waste Management Coordinating Board (SWMCB), formed in 1990, is a joint powers board comprised of two county commissioners from each of the counties of Anoka, Carver, Dakota, Hennepin, Ramsey and Washington. To enhance the intergovernmental coordination, the Board also includes the Director of the Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance (OEA) and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) Metro Division Manager as ex-officio members. The mission of the SWMCB is to increase the efficiency and environmental effectiveness of the region’s solid waste management system.

In this research, the metropolitan area has been defined as Anoka, Carver, Dakota, Hennepin, Ramsey and Washington Counties. Together, these six counties generated over 3.0 million tons of mixed municipal solid waste (MSW) in 1998. Approximately 40% of the MSW was recycled, 36% was processed at refuse derived fuel and mass burn facilities, and 23% was landfilled in Minnesota and out-of-state landfills. A small percent of MSW was materials (tires, appliances, etc.) managed separately.

The SWMCB wished to survey metropolitan area residents to measure results from the Regional Solid Waste Master Plan outcomes established by the SWMCB counties. The intent for undertaking this survey was to establish a baseline against which progress over the next five years will be measured. The survey results will allow the SWMCB to gather and analyze data about waste management practices and level of knowledge about proper waste management.

Thus, the purpose of the research reported here is three-fold:

To establish a baseline of information upon which progress will be measured.
To use this baseline information to determine if the programs and policies developed by the SWMCB and its member counties are creating an impact on how waste is managed.
Finally, to evaluate, and if needed, modify program design.

Return to Table of Contents

I. INTRODUCTION

B. Methodology

A total of 408 telephone interviews were conducted by Northstar Interviewing Services, Edina between Friday, April 14 and Sunday, April 30, 2000.

The target population surveyed included households with adults 18 years or older in the SWMCB area.

Based upon guidelines established by the Office of the Legislative Auditor, State of Minnesota, State Agency Use of Customer Satisfaction Surveys, October 1995, 384 households in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area were sampled. This provided an error factor of no greater than +5% at the 95% confidence level. It also dictated that, based upon the actual number of households across all counties, the following quotas were established for each county:

	Total Households	Interviews	Percent of Sample
Anoka	100,685	40	11%
Carver	22,444	9	2
Dakota	123,541	50	13
Hennepin	445,749	178	46
Ramsey	199,389	80	21
Washington	67,399	21	7
TOTAL	959,207	384	100%

Thirty (n = 30) is the generally-accepted minimum number of respondents in a subsample lending itself to credible statistical analysis. For this reason, after the quotas of projectable households were reached across all six counties, additional interviewing was done in Carver (+21) and Washington counties (+3) in order to generate the sample of 30 respondents/cell.

Representatives from the SWMCB and Huberty Marketing Research jointly designed the questionnaire (Appended). Average interview length was 8:47.

The respondents to this survey were drawn from a totally random sample. Because of this, anyone choosing to could/would talk to us. Older citizens (i.e., 55 years and older) are more likely to participate in marketing research surveys. Because of this, the sample skewed slightly older vs. the total population of the six-county metro area. For that reason, the data has already been retabulated, eliminating those respondents over 55. An extra column of "Total Sample of Respondents <55" has been inserted in each table in the report so that the reader can see just how much of an impact the respondents 55+ had. As the reader can also see, in most cases, this impact was minimal.

A boldface box around the number signifies that that subsample represents a statistically significant difference from the Total Sample. (for the web based version the cell is shaded.)

Data has been analyzed by Total Sample/Overall as well as the Total Sample/County. In addition, hard copy tables of the data have been reviewed for other statistical anomalies, based upon demographic subsamples (e.g., Education, Gender and Age). Electronic copies of the data tables have been made available to the SWMCB.

We found that, with very few exceptions, the higher a respondent’s education level, the more likely it was that s/he had participated in a waste and/or toxic reduction activity and also had a much more "liberal" attitude about garbage reduction. Two "Education" tables have been included to further demonstrate this point (see "A. Waste Reduction Activities" and "D. Garage, 1. Attitudes"). On the other hand, there were not many other differences among the other demographic categories (e.g., Gender and Age), although Older Respondents (55+) did tend to perform activities to a lesser amount.

Return to Table of Contents

I. INTRODUCTION

C. Sample Profile

HIGHLIGHTS:

As noted in the "Methodology" section, because of the total random nature in which respondents were recruited, the sample skewed slightly older vs. the total population of the six-county metro area.

Actual Population Projections	Total	Anoka	Carver	Dakota	Henn	Rams	Wash
20 – 24	10%	9%	8%	9%	10%	11%	8%
25 – 34	21	22	22	22	21	20	19
35 – 44	26	28	28	28	25	24	28
45 – 54	19	22	19	21	18	17	11
55 and Over	24	19	23	20	26	28	44
TOTAL POPULATION (+000)	1,795.4	201.6	44.5	241.0	810.9	361.6	136.9

SOURCE: Minnesota Demographics, 2000 Population Estimates.

Which of the following categories includes your age?	Total 384	Anoka 40	Carver 30	Dakota 50	Henn 178	Rams 80	Wash 30
Under 24	3%	5	3	2	2	5	--
25 – 34	14	13	7	8	17	14	10
35 – 44	22	20	30	24	22	20	30
45 – 54	20	17	20	42	17	15	23
55 and Over	41	45	40	22	42	45	33

Including yourself, how many people live in your household?	Total 384	Anoka 40	Carver 30	Dakota 50	Henn 178	Rams 80	Wash 30
One	21%	7	17	12	25	24	20
Two	39	45	27	26	40	41	33
Three	16	12	10	20	16	15	13
Four	16	27	27	24	12	12	20
Five or More	8	7	20	18	5	7	10
MEAN	2.5	2.9	3.1	3.2	2.3	2.4	2.7

NOTE: A 1998 Metropolitan Council estimate for Hennepin County was 2.5 and Ramsey County was 2.4.

Gender	Total 384	Anoka 40	Carver 30	Dakota 50	Henn 178	Rams 80	Wash 30
Male	41%	45	37	50	40	32	50
Female	59	55	63	50	60	68	50

What was the last year or grade of school you completed?	Total 384	Anoka 40	Carver 30	Dakota 50	Henn 178	Rams 80	Wash 30
HS graduate or less	27%	43	47	24	21	28	30
Some coll/Vocational/Technical	25	22	30	38	26	15	30
College graduate	34	28	20	30	38	39	20
Post graduate	13	8	3	8	14	19	17

Is your home a READ LIST….	Total 384	Anoka 40	Carver 30	Dakota 50	Henn 178	Rams 80	Wash 30
Single family home or duplex	80%	93	90	92	78	75	73
Apartment	10	--	3	4	15	8	13
Condominium	5	3	--	4	4	10	3
Townhouse	4	5	3	--	3	6	7

NOTE: A 1999 Ramsey County Residential Survey noted 74% Single family home or duplex, 16% Apartment, 6% Condominium and 3% Townhouse.

NOTE: Also asked, but not coded: And finally, what is your zip code? 111 Named.

Return to Table of Contents

I. INTRODUCTION

D. Sample Disposition

	Wave I
TOTAL DIALINGS, NON-CONTACTS	2,724	77.7%
No Answer	-405	-11.6
Answering Machine	-734	-20.9
Business/Government	-119	-3.4
Busy/Phone Trouble	-74	-2.1
Disconnect Number	-521	-14.9
Fax/Cell/Duplicate Number	-59	-1.7
Respondent Not/Never Available	-47	-1.3
Refused to Begin	-698	-19.9
Deaf/Language Barrier	-37	-1.1
Callback Scheduled	-27	-0.8

TOTAL CONTACTS	781	22.3%
		100%
Not Qualified: Out of the Area	-123	-15.8%
Over Quota	-236	-30.2
Terminated in Body (i.e., Hung Up)	-14	-1.8
COMPLETE INTERVIEWS	408	+52.24
TOTAL DIALINGS	3,505

	Wave I
INCIDENCE: (Total Qualified/Total Contacts)	54.0%
NET INCIDENCE: (Completes/Total Contacts)	52.2%

Return to Table of Contents

II. DETAILED FINDINGS

A. Waste Reduction Activities

HIGHLIGHTS:

The 13 activities can be broken into four clusters.
The most popular activities included:
- Purchased products made with recycled materials.
- Used a reuseable mug instead of disposable cups.
- Sold or donated items to a thrift store, garage sale or second-hand store.
Behavior tends to decrease as the amount of effort required increases.
Note how behavior increases with Education level (table, next page).

Please tell whether or not you, personally, or anyone in your household has performed any of the following *waste reduction activities* during the past 12 months.	Total (384)	Resp <55 (246)	Anoka (40)	Carver (30)	Dakota (50)	Henn (178)	Rams (80)	Wash (30)
Purchased products made with recycled materials.	93	93	95	87	92	89	93	90
Used a reuseable mug instead of disposable cups.	90	91	90	77	100	89	89	93
Sold or donated items to a thrift store, garage sale or second-hand store.	87	90	88	87	92	89	82	77
Packed your lunch in a reusable container.	80	63	70	57	76	68	59	70
Left grass clippings on your lawn.	79	70	84	79	87	76	76	81
Used self serve bins at the grocery or hardware store.	66	68	55	50	70	72	56	63
Purchased one product over others, primarily because it had a better lifetime warranty.	64	60	84	67	74	52	60	63
Instead of purchasing something that you would have seldomly used, you rented or borrowed it.	62	59	72	57	76	57	53	62
Composted yard waste at home.	46	43	45	59	43	42	55	56
Called or wrote to ask that your name be removed from mailing lists.	38	36	47	30	40	36	36	40
Composted fruit and vegetable leftovers at home.	27	25	28	26	26	27	24	26
Taken your own bag to the store so that you didn’t need to use a new bag.	24	21	15	17	12	28	31	10
Called the 1-800 number on a product label to comment about excess packaging.	4	4	13	13	4	3	4	--

NOTE: "NOT APPLICABLE" RESPONSES HAVE BEEN ELIMINATED.

WASTE REDUCTION ACTIVITIES BY EDUCATION LEVEL

Please tell whether or not you, personally, or anyone in your household has performed any of the following *waste reduction activities* during the past 12 months.	HS Grad or Less (111)	Some College (105)	College Grad (137)	Post Grad (53)
Purchased products made with recycled materials.	83	93	93	94
Used a reuseable mug instead of disposable cups.	81	94	92	92
Sold or donated items to a thrift store, garage sale or second-hand store.	77	84	93	96
Packed your lunch in a reusable container.	51	63	76	83
Left grass clippings on your lawn.	56	78	72	89
Used self serve bins at the grocery or hardware store.	57	70	69	58
Purchased one product over others, primarily because it had a better lifetime warranty.	62	57	60	70
Instead of purchasing something that you would have seldomly used, you rented or borrowed it.	47	58	64	74
Composted yard waste at home.	33	38	48	58
Called or wrote to ask that your name be removed from mailing lists.	28	40	38	51
Composted fruit and vegetable leftovers at home.	23	25	23	50
Taken your own bag to the store so that you didn’t need to use a new bag.	18	22	24	34
Called the 1-800 number on a product label to comment about excess packaging.	8	4	4	--

Return to Table of Contents

II. DETAILED FINDINGS

B. Toxicity Reduction

1. Reducing Use of Toxic or Hazardous Materials

HIGHLIGHTS:

No single behavior scored in the 90%-range, meaning there’s opportunity for improvement in many areas.
This time, the activities could be broken in three clusters.

Please tell me which of the following specific actions or steps you have taken in your home during the past 12 months *to reduce your use of toxic or hazardous chemicals*.	Total (384)	Resp <55 (246)	Anoka (40)	Carver (30)	Dakota (50)	Henn (178)	Rams (80)	Wash (30)
Read labels on products to see if they’re hazardous.	80	82	85	80	86	76	85	83
Used pump sprays instead of aerosols.	79	79	90	68	86	78	78	73
Used water-based latex paint instead of oil-based paint.	83	76	84	89	91	78	85	96
Reduced the number of times you used weed killer on your lawn or garden.	59	48	62	57	61	62	53	48
Switched to less hazardous cleaning products.	55	58	63	55	62	54	56	50
Applied weed killer to only selected areas of your lawn, rather than covered it completely.	54	47	49	52	67	48	56	71
Purchased a non-mercury, digital thermometer.	28	30	36	17	34	26	26	20

NOTE: "NOT APPLICABLE" RESPONSES HAVE BEEN ELIMINATED.

Return to Table of Contents

II. DETAILED FINDINGS

B. Toxicity Reduction

2. TVs and CRTs

HIGHLIGHTS:

A total of 17% reported they would be getting rid of at least one TV. That’s a lot of TVs: 959,207 Households X 17% who intend to get rid of one or more = 163,065.
A total of 10% of those owning monitors reported that they would be getting rid of at least one computer monitor – which means at least 62,348 monitors will have to be disposed of (959,207 Households X 65% own at least one monitor X 10% who intend to get rid of one or more = 62, 348).

How many TVs do you have in your household?	Total 384	<55 246	Anoka 40	Carver 30	Dakota 50	Henn 178	Rams 80	Wash 30
None	1	1	--	--	--	2	--	3
One	18	15	15	7	14	19	22	20
Two	32	32	30	27	24	34	36	37
Three	25	26	30	33	28	21	21	30
Four	14	14	22	23	26	14	7	3
Five	6	7	2	7	4	6	7	3
Six or More	3	4	--	3	2	3	5	3
MEAN	2.65	NA	2.68	3.07	2.90	2.64	2.59	2.33

How many TVs will you want to get rid of within the next 12 months?	Total 384	<55 246	Anoka 40	Carver 30	Dakota 49	Henn 173	Rams 80	Wash 29
None	83	81	90	67	88	83	83	76
One	13	14	7	20	12	13	12	17
Two	2	3	2	10	--	2	4	3
Three or More	1	--	--	--	--	2	--	3
MEAN	0.23	NA	0.13	0.41	0.12	0.26	0.20	0.38

How many computer monitors do you have in your household?	Total 384	<55 246	Anoka 40	Carver 30	Dakota 50	Henn 178	Rams 80	Wash 30
None	35	33	22	37	28	35	40	40
One	47	46	60	53	52	46	42	50
Two	13	16	17	10	12	13	15	7
Three or More	4	4	--	--	8	6	2	3
MEAN	0.92	NA	0.95	0.73	1.02	0.98	0.88	0.77

How many do you want to get rid of within the next 12 months?	Total 266	<55 246	Anoka 31	Carver 19	Dakota 36	Henn 114	Rams 48	Wash 18
None	90	91	90	95	94	89	90	94
One	8	9	10	--	3	10	6	6
Two or More	2	--	--	--	3	2	4	--
MEAN	0.15	NA	0.10	--	0.08	0.20	0.15	0.06

Return to Table of Contents

II. DETAILED FINDINGS

B. Toxicity Reduction

3. Paint

HIGHLIGHTS:

Almost one-half of the respondents (49%) reported that they dispose of their old paint by taking it to a household hazardous waste collection site. Among Ramsey County respondents, this percentage is 51%, representing a significant increase from last year’s survey (32%).
If this trend is true across all the counties, the SWMCB should prepare itself for similar increases – and plan for even more use of household hazardous waste sites in future years.

How do you dispose of your old paint? DO NOT READ LIST.	Total 384	<55 246	Anoka 40	Carver 30	Dakota 50	Henn 178	Rams 80	Wash 30
Take to household hazardous waste collection site	49	45	55	50	56	46	51	53
Dry out and put it in trash	25	22	30	27	24	27	19	33
Don’t generate this type of waste	15	12	10	23	14	16	15	13
Store on premises	8	7	5	10	16	8	4	3
Throw in trash	3	3	3	--	--	3	5	7
Give to friend/somebody else	3	2	--	--	2	2	5	7
OTHER: City/county has designated hazardous pick-up days	3	1	5	3	6	2	1	7
Don’t Know	9	7	10	--	8	8	11	7

NOTE: A 1999 Ramsey County Residential Survey noted 32% take it to household hazardous waste collection site, 27% don’t generate this type of waste, 11% dry it out and put it in trash, 11% store of premises and 3% throw it in the trash.

Return to Table of Contents

II. DETAILED FINDINGS

C. Recycling

HIGHLIGHTS:

Virtually everyone (98%) recycled (something).
Over one-quarter of the respondents (28%) do not recycle Direct Mail/Junk Mail. There’s a need to get the word out: Of those that did not recycle Direct Mail/Junk Mail, almost one-third (31%) "didn’t know they could." That’s also one of the main reasons (22%) respondents with magazines to recycle didn’t recycle them.

Have you practiced *recycling* within the past 12 months?	Total 384	<55 246	Anoka 40	Carver 30	Dakota 50	Henn 172	Rams 80	Wash 30
Yes	97	98	100	93	96	97	98	97
No	3	2	--	7	12	3	3	3

Have you recycled……	Total 384	<55 246	Anoka 40	Carver 30	Dakota 50	Henn 172	Rams 80	Wash 30
Yes: Direct Mail/Junk Mail:	72	75	65	68	83	70	79	59
No: n = 103	28	25	35	32	17	30	21	41
Didn’t know I could	31	NA