DATE: May 11, 2017 TO: Planning & Organization - - PDF document

date may 11 2017 to planning organization committee
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

DATE: May 11, 2017 TO: Planning & Organization - - PDF document

DATE: May 11, 2017 TO: Planning & Organization Committee/Recycling Board FROM: Tom Padia, Deputy Director BY: Mark Spencer, Senior Program Manager SUBJECT: Presentation of 2016 Benchmark Data SUMMARY StopWaste has collected single


slide-1
SLIDE 1

DATE: May 11, 2017 TO: Planning & Organization Committee/Recycling Board FROM: Tom Padia, Deputy Director BY: Mark Spencer, Senior Program Manager SUBJECT: Presentation of 2016 Benchmark Data SUMMARY StopWaste has collected single family, multi-family and selected commercial waste samples from the point of generation since 2013. This presentation reviews the most recent data collected and provides an overview of trends from the past four years. DISCUSSION With Benchmark Information Service Fee funding, StopWaste has contracted with Container Pros to maintain a crew of three persons to collect samples throughout the year since 2013. In 2016, Container Pros collected 1826 samples from single family dwellings. These samples were collected from randomly selected addresses throughout Alameda County, with roughly 100 samples collected in each jurisdiction. For each sample, the entire contents of the waste (garbage) bin were collected, bagged, labelled and transported to a facility in San Leandro owned by ACI where they were sorted into five categories; waste, recyclable materials, plant debris, food soiled paper and food scraps. These materials were then weighed separately for each sample. In 2016 Container Pros collected 494 samples from multi-family dwellings in seven jurisdictions and 770 samples from commercial addresses of five selected business types. Each sample consisted of three bags (roughly 96 gallons) pulled from the waste bin at the address. The samples were labelled and transported to the ACI facility where they were sorted and weighed. An independent contractor performed the QA/QC of the data collected by Container Pros which was then analyzed by Mark Spencer. This presentation on the Benchmark project provides an

  • verview of the past four years’ results. The Benchmark Information Service Fee will be

discontinued as of June 30, 2017 and this summer the Container Pros crew will be gathering one last set of single family and multi-family data as part of the 2017 Waste Characterization Study. A reduced level of ongoing sampling collected countywide will be incorporated into the new project, Measurement and Analysis, in the FY 17/18 budget and will be funded by core revenues. RECOMMENDATION This item is for information only

slide-2
SLIDE 2

2016 Benchmark Results

  • 15 minutes of “Fun with Statistics”
  • All questions entertained
slide-3
SLIDE 3

The Magic of the Normal Distribution

For this Set of Samples:

  • Average height = 5’4” (1.65

meters)

  • Standard Deviation = 3”
  • 68% of samples are between

5’1” and 5’7” Height is normally distributed because there are multiple factors (over 400) that influence height

  • Genetics
  • Diet
  • Maternal Health
slide-4
SLIDE 4

Given the Magic of the Normal Distribution 1. We could go outside. 2. Randomly select 6 men and 6 women 3. Measure their height 4. Have a have a 90% chance of detecting a significant difference between the height of men and the height of women in our sample. Average Height Women: 64” Average Height Men: 70” Standard Deviation: 3”

The Magic of the Normal Distribution

slide-5
SLIDE 5

2016 Benchmark Single Family Results- Alameda County:

  • Sample size (n) = 1826 Samples
  • Average Percent Good Stuff in Garbage: 38%
  • Standard Deviation: 24%

Average = 38% 270 SF Households had 0% GSIG (~1 in 6 households)

slide-6
SLIDE 6

Average Percent Recyclables in Garbage= 9.5% Average = 9.5% 928 SF Households had 0% Recyclables (~50% of households) Average Percent Organics in Garbage= 28% 489 SF Households had 0% Organics in Garbage (~25% of SF Households)

slide-7
SLIDE 7

Jurisdiction A:

Percent Good Stuff in Garbage: 30%

The Downsides to a Not Normal World

Jurisdiction B:

Percent Good Stuff in Garbage: 35%

To have a 95% chance of detecting a Statistically Significant Difference Need ~350 samples from each jurisdiction. Each year of the study we’ve had between 100-125 samples per jurisdiction (~200 in Oakland, ) Same numbers (~350 samples per year) apply if we want to detect a change between years for one jurisdiction.

slide-8
SLIDE 8

0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% 30.00% 35.00% 40.00% 45.00% 50.00% 55.00% 60.00% 65.00% 70.00% 75.00% 80.00% 85.00% 90.00% 95.00% 100.00% City

slide-9
SLIDE 9

Single Family Percent Good Stuff in Garbage

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 2013 2014 2015 2016 Average Percent GSIG Percent Samples with Less Than 10% GSIG Percent Samples with 0% GSIG Percent Samples with More Than 40$ GSIG

slide-10
SLIDE 10

Single Family Setout Weight (weight entire contents of waste cart)

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 2013 2014 2015 2016 Average Sample Weight Average Sample Weight Households with more than 40% GSIG Average Sample Weight Households with less than 10% GSIG

slide-11
SLIDE 11

Single Family Weight Organics in Garbage

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 2013 2014 2015 2016 Average Weight Organics Average Weight Organics Households with more than 40% GSIG Average Weight Organics Households with less than 10% GSIG

slide-12
SLIDE 12

Single Family Weight Recyclables in Garbage

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 2013 2014 2015 2016 Average Weight Recyclables Average Weight Recyclables Households with more than 40% GSIG Average Weight Recyclables Households with less than 10% GSIG

slide-13
SLIDE 13

Multi-Family Percent Good Stuff in Garbage

Alameda Berkeley Fremont Hayward Livermore Oakland Oro Loma Union City

2014 43.9% 44.2% 52.1% 46.1% 43.4% 43.7% 2015 37.2% 39.8% 52.7% 57.1% 46.6% 44.4% 53.3% 2016 44.8% 37.8% 39.8% 41.7% 35.1% 32.8% 44.3%

Signif- icance

0.05 No Diff <0.0001 <0.0001 No Diff <0.0001 <0.0001

slide-14
SLIDE 14

Mean 38.1% N 494

2016 Multi Family Percent GSIG

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

2015 Multi Family Percent GSIG

Mean 46.5% N 528

2014 Multi Family Percent GSIG

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9

Mean 46.7% N 528

slide-15
SLIDE 15

Commercial Benchmark

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% Type of Business

Type of Business Number Mean General Retail 178 39.6% Grocery 71 41.2% Indust./Light Manuf. 136 32.6% Office 175 40.7% Restaurant 210 49.4%

slide-16
SLIDE 16

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0% 110.0% Setout

2015 Percent Good Stuff in Garbage- Restaurant by Setout Category

SetOut Number Mean G (Garbage) 142 48.7% GO (Garbage and Organics) 12 56.2% GR (Garbage and Recycling) 115 53.1% GRO (All Three) 60 47.2%

slide-17
SLIDE 17

2016 Percent Good Stuff in Garbage- Restaurant by Setout Category

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% Setout

Setout Number Mean G 65 49.1% GO 7 63.4% GR 85 51.7% GRO 43 41.6%

slide-18
SLIDE 18

0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% 30.00% 35.00% 40.00% 45.00% 50.00% 55.00% 60.00% 65.00% 70.00% 75.00% 80.00% 85.00% 90.00% 95.00% 100.00%

Single Family Food Scraps

FoodScraps

  • 17.4% of single family waste stream (19% in 2015)
  • Average of 3.0 pounds of foodscraps per single

family set out (3.6 in 2015)

  • 39% of the 1826 single family households

sampled had no food scraps in their garbage (50% in 2015)

  • Of families that had foodscraps in their garbage,
  • the samples had an average of 4.8 pounds
  • made up 28.4% of their waste stream
  • (7.2 pounds and 38.4% in 2015)
slide-19
SLIDE 19

Food Soiled Paper

  • 10% of single family waste stream
  • Average of 1.6 pounds of food soiled

paper per single family set out.

  • 44% of the 1826 single family

households sampled had no food soiled paper in their garbage.

  • Of families that had food soiled

paper in garbage, the samples had an average of 2.8 pounds of food soiled paper per single family setout and made up 17.4% of their waste stream. Plant Debris

  • 0.5% of single family waste

stream (0.6% in 2015)

  • 98% of single family

households had no plant debris in their garbage (90% in 2015)

slide-20
SLIDE 20

Questions?

mspencer@stopwaste.org 510-891-6551