April 8, 2016

GREATER VANCOUVER REGIONAL DISTRICT ZERO WASTE COMMITTEE

REGULAR MEETING

Thursday, April 14, 2016 1:00 p.m.

2nd Floor Boardroom, 4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, British Columbia

A G E N D A1 1. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA

1.1 April 14, 2016 Regular Meeting Agenda That the Zero Waste Committee adopt the agenda for its regular meeting scheduled for April 14, 2016 as circulated.

2. ADOPTION OF THE MINUTES

2.1 February 11, 2016 Regular Meeting Minutes

That the Zero Waste Committee adopt the minutes of its regular meeting held February 11, 2016 as circulated.

3. DELEGATIONS 4. INVITED PRESENTATIONS 5. REPORTS FROM COMMITTEE OR STAFF

5.1 2015 Disposal Ban Inspection Program Update Designated Speaker: Brandon Ho, Senior Project Engineer, Solid Waste Services That the GVS&DD Board receive the report titled “2015 Disposal Ban Inspection Program Update”, dated April 5, 2016 for information. 5.2 Disposal Ban Program: Proposed Tipping Fee Bylaw Revisions Designated Speaker: Carol De La Franier, Lead Senior Engineer, Sold Waste Services

That the GVS&DD Board direct staff to: a) initiate consultation on the proposed changes to the Tipping Fee Bylaw related

to the disposal ban program: i. Role of disposal ban inspectors;

ii. Inspection and surcharge procedures;

iii. Surcharge Notice requirements;

1 Note: Recommendation is shown under each item, where applicable.

ZWC - 1

Zero Waste Committee Regular Agenda April 14, 2016

Agenda Page 2 of 3

iv. Dispute process, including setting timelines for submitting a dispute and

the addition of a $25 administration fee for unsuccessful disposal ban

surcharge disputes; and

v. Waiving of surcharges(s); and

b) summarize and report back on stakeholder feedback in advance of the Board

considering the 2017 Tipping Fee Bylaw.

5.3 Update on MMBC Program Implementation and Streetscape Collection Designated Speaker: Andrew Doi, Environmental Planner, Solid Waste Services That the GVS&DD Board receive the report titled “Update on MMBC Program

Implementation and Streetscape Collection”, dated April 5, 2016 for information.

5.4 Metro Vancouver 2015 Waste Composition Monitoring Program Designated Speaker: Marcel Pitre, Division Manager, Solid Waste Services

That the GVS&DD Board receive the report titled “Metro Vancouver 2015 Waste

Composition Monitoring Program”, dated April 7, 2016 for information.

5.5 Single Family Every-Other-Week Garbage Collection – Status Update Designated Speaker: Marcel Pitre, Division Manager, Solid Waste Services

That the GVS&DD Board receive the report titled “Single Family Every-Other-Week

Garbage Collection – Status Update”, dated April 7, 2016 for information.

5.6 Status of Sewerage and Drainage District (Solid Waste) Capital Expenditures to December 31, 2015

Designated Speaker: Paul Remillard, Director, Solid Waste Operations, Solid Waste Services That the GVS&DD Board receive the report titled “Status of Sewerage and Drainage District (Solid Waste) Capital Expenditures to December 31, 2015”, dated April 7, 2016 for information.

5.7 Manager’s Report Designated Speaker: Paul Henderson, General Manager, Solid Waste Services

That the Zero Waste Committee receive the titled “Manager’s Report”, dated April 7,

2016 for information.

6. INFORMATION ITEMS

6.1 2015 Food Scraps Recycling and Christmas Waste Reduction Campaigns – Staff Report from Larina Lopez, Corporate Communications Division Manager, External Relations Department to Intergovernment and Finance Committee dated March 29, 2016.

6.2 Results of 2015 Grease Pilot Project with the City of Surrey - Staff Report from Larina

Lopez, Corporate Communications Division Manager, to Utilities Committee dated April 7, 2016.

ZWC - 2

Zero Waste Committee Regular Agenda April 14, 2016

Agenda Page 3 of 3

7. OTHER BUSINESS 8. BUSINESS ARISING FROM DELEGATIONS 9. RESOLUTION TO CLOSE MEETING

Note: The Committee must state by resolution the basis under section 90 of the Community Charter on which the meeting is being closed. If a member wishes to add an item, the basis must be included below.

10. ADJOURNMENT/CONCLUSION That the Zero Waste Committee adjourn/conclude its regular meeting of April 14, 2016.

Membership: Brodie, Malcolm (C) – Richmond Corrigan, Derek (VC) – Burnaby Baldwin, Wayne – White Rock Bassam, Roger – North Vancouver District Coté, Jonathan – New Westminster

Gambioli, Nora – West Vancouver Hayne, Bruce – Surrey Hodge, Craig – Coquitlam Jackson, Lois – Delta Long, Bob – Langley Township

Reimer, Andrea – Vancouver Schaffer, Ted – Langley City Washington, Dean – Port Coquitlam

ZWC - 3

2.1

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the GVRD Zero Waste Committee held on Thursday, February 11, 2016 Page 1 of 5

GREATER VANCOUVER REGIONAL DISTRICT ZERO WASTE COMMITTEE

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) Zero Waste Committee held at 1:01 p.m. on Thursday, February 11, 2016 in the 2nd Floor Boardroom, 4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, British Columbia. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair, Mayor Malcolm Brodie, Richmond Vice Chair, Mayor Derek Corrigan, Burnaby Mayor Wayne Baldwin, White Rock Councillor Roger Bassam, North Vancouver District (arrived at 1:02 p.m.) Mayor Jonathan Coté, New Westminster Councillor Nora Gambioli, West Vancouver Councillor Bruce Hayne, Surrey (arrived at 1:04 p.m.) Councillor Craig Hodge, Coquitlam Mayor Lois Jackson, Delta Councillor Bob Long, Langley Township Mayor Ted Schaffer, Langley City Councillor Dean Washington, Port Coquitlam MEMBERS ABSENT: Councillor Andrea Reimer, Vancouver STAFF PRESENT: Paul Henderson, General Manager, Solid Waste Services Carol Mason, Commissioner/Chief Administrative Officer Deanna Manojlovic, Assistant to Regional Committees, Board and Information Services, Legal and

Legislative Services 1. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA

1.1 February 11, 2016 Regular Meeting Agenda It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Zero Waste Committee: a) amend the agenda for its regular meeting scheduled for February 11, 2016

by adding Item 3.1 Late Delegation: Cindy Shore, Rabanco; and b) adopt the agenda as amended.

CARRIED

ZWC - 4

2.1

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the GVRD Zero Waste Committee held on Thursday, February 11, 2016 Page 2 of 5

2. ADOPTION OF THE MINUTES 2.1 November 12, 2015 Regular Meeting Minutes

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Zero Waste Committee adopt the minutes of its regular meeting held November 12, 2015 as circulated.

CARRIED 3. DELEGATIONS

1:02 p.m. Councillor Bassam arrived at the meeting.

3.1 Late Delegation: Cindy Shore, Rabanco Cindy Shore, on behalf of Joe Casalini, the Director of Business Development for

Republic Services, Rabanco, provided the members with a presentation about Rabanco, the operator of the Roosevelt Regional Landfill in Klickitat County, Washington, USA, highlighting the company’s history, operation of the Roosevelt Regional Landfill, waste-by-rail, Pacific Northwest transportation network, energy recovery from the waste stream, recycling, shipments to international facilities, plans and goals.

1:04 p.m. Councillor Hayne arrived at the meeting.

On-table executive summary and presentation material titled “On the Road to

Zero Waste” are retained with the February 11, 2016 Zero Waste Committee agenda.

4. INVITED PRESENTATIONS No items presented. 5. REPORTS FROM COMMITTEE OR STAFF

5.1 2016 Zero Waste Committee Priorities and Work Plan

Report dated February 1, 2016 from Paul Henderson, General Manager, Solid Waste Services, providing the Zero Waste Committee with the priorities and work plan for the year 2016.

It was MOVED and SECONDED

That the Zero Waste Committee endorse the work plan contained in the report

dated February 1, 2016 titled, “2016 Zero Waste Committee Priorities and Work

Plan”.

CARRIED

ZWC - 5

2.1

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the GVRD Zero Waste Committee held on Thursday, February 11, 2016 Page 3 of 5

5.2 Award of the Non-Ferrous Metal Recovery Project at the Metro Vancouver

Waste- to-Energy Facility

Report dated February 3, 2016 from Chris Allan, Lead Senior Engineer, Solid Waste Services, seeking Board approval to award construction of the Non-Ferrous Metal Recovery Project at the Metro Vancouver Waste-to-Energy Facility in the amount of $6,130,153 (inclusive of PST but exclusive of GST) to Covanta Burnaby Renewable Energy, ULC.

Members expressed concerns that the Committee had not been provided an

earlier opportunity to consider the business case for this project and that further

analysis was necessary.

It was MOVED and SECONDED

That the Zero Waste Committee refer the matter of the award of the Non-Ferrous

Metal Recovery Project to staff to report back with the following information:

a) background information on the contract, including the business case for the

project and the environment and social impacts of the project;

b) confirmation of the value of the contract, through a review of the cost of the

contract by a quantity surveyor or other similar consultant; and

c) an analysis of the appropriation of risk of the project.

CARRIED

5.3 Contingency Landfill Disposal Report dated February 1, 2016 from Paul Henderson, General Manager, Solid Waste Services, seeking approval to initiate a procurement process for contingency landfill disposal and to select criteria and weighting for evaluating proposals. It was MOVED and SECONDED That the GVS&DD Board:

a) approve initiating a procurement process for contingency landfill

disposal for a minimum of 50,000 tonnes per year of waste for seven

years with an option to renew for an additional two years; and

b) approve the evaluation criteria and weighting for the RFP for

contingency landfill disposal of: Experience and Reputation (30%);

Technical (30%); Financial and Commercial (40%).

CARRIED

ZWC - 6

2.1

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the GVRD Zero Waste Committee held on Thursday, February 11, 2016 Page 4 of 5

5.4 Vancouver Landfill: Metro Vancouver – Vancouver – Delta Tri-Partite Agreement Overview Report dated February 1, 2016 from Paul Henderson, General Manager, Solid Waste Services, responding to the Zero Waste Committee’s September 10, 2015 request by providing an overview of the relationship between Vancouver, Delta and the GVS&DD (Metro Vancouver) related to the Vancouver Landfill under the Metro Vancouver – Corporation of Delta – City of Vancouver Tri-Partite Agreement (Tri-Partite Agreement).

Members were provided with an overview presentation about the Tri-Partite

Agreement, highlighting the history of the landfill, flow of waste within the Metro

Vancouver region, annual disposal amount, closure liability, and key Tri-Partite

agreement provisions.

Presentation titled “Vancouver Landfill Tri-Partite Agreement Overview” is

retained with the February 11, 2016 Zero Waste Committee agenda.

It was MOVED and SECONDED

That the GVS&DD Board receive the report dated February 1, 2016 titled

“Vancouver Landfill: Metro Vancouver – Vancouver – Delta Tri-Partite Agreement

Overview” for information.

CARRIED

5.5 Manager’s Report Report dated February 2, 2016 from Paul Henderson, General Manager, Solid Waste Services, updating the Committee members on attendance at 2016 events, gypsum recycling, and the work plan. It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Zero Waste Committee receive the report dated February 2, 2016 titled “Manager’s Report” for information.

CARRIED

6. INFORMATION ITEMS

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Zero Waste Committee receive for information the following Information Item: 6.1 Letter dated November 23, 2015 addressed to Chair Moore from Mayor Brodie,

City of Richmond re: Odour Management for Solid Waste Facilities CARRIED

7. OTHER BUSINESS

No items presented.

ZWC - 7

2.1

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the GVRD Zero Waste Committee held on Thursday, February 11, 2016 Page 5 of 5

8. BUSINESS ARISING FROM DELEGATIONS No items presented. 9. RESOLUTION TO CLOSE MEETING

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Zero Waste Committee close its regular meeting scheduled for February 11, 2016 pursuant to the Community Charter provisions, Sections 90 (1) (g) and (i) as follows: “90 (1) A part of a meeting may be closed to the public if the subject matter being

considered relates to or is one or more of the following: (g) litigation or potential litigation affecting the regional district; and (i) the receipt of advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including

communications necessary for that purpose”. 10. ADJOURNMENT/CONCLUSION

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Zero Waste Committee adjourn its regular meeting of February 11, 2016.

CARRIED (Time: 2:16 p.m.)

____________________________ ____________________________ Deanna Manojlovic, Malcolm Brodie, Chair Assistant to Regional Committees 17315023 FINAL

ZWC - 8

To: Zero Waste Committee From: Brandon Ho, Senior Project Engineer, Solid Waste Services Date: April 5, 2016 Meeting Date: April 14, 2016 Subject: 2015 Disposal Ban Inspection Program Update

RECOMMENDATION That the GVS&DD Board receive the report titled “2015 Disposal Ban Inspection Program Update”, dated April 5, 2016 for information.

PURPOSE The purpose of this report is to provide the annual update on the Metro Vancouver disposal ban inspection program. BACKGROUND In January 1997, a disposal ban program was implemented to encourage recycling of materials that had well-developed recycling alternatives. In June 2007, the GVS&DD Board approval enhanced disposal bans and increased enforcement, effective in January 2008. The program was further strengthened through Metro Vancouver’s Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan (ISWRMP) approved by the Minister of Environment in July 2011. Banned materials are updated annually in the “Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Tipping Fee and Solid Waste Disposal Regulation” (Tipping Fee Bylaw) and are shown in Attachment 1. In 2015, food waste and clean wood disposal bans were introduced with a six month educational period between January 1st and June 30th. Customers disposing food waste and clean wood above the threshold received an educational notice during this period. Subsequently, inspectors began to issue surcharge notices on July 1, 2015. 2015 DISPOSAL BAN PROGRAM RESULTS Overall Disposal Ban Program Statistics In 2015, 7 disposal ban inspectors, hired through a contractor, rotated among the regional transfer and disposal facilities. During the food waste and clean wood disposal bans educational period, inspectors provided information to customers on food waste and clean wood disposal. There were 470 educational notices issued to customers with food waste and clean wood exceeding the threshold limit. Inspections, surcharges and “reloads” (loads inspected where banned materials were present and the hauler did not dispose of the material) dropped in 2015 compared to 2014. One of the reasons for the drop in each of inspections, surcharges and reloads was the transition to food waste and clean wood disposal bans and the additional effort required to issue education notices. Other possible reasons are described later in the report.

5.1

ZWC - 9

Table 1: Inspection Statistics for Metro Vancouver and City of Vancouver Facilities

Year Number of Inspectors

Total Garbage

Loads

Total Loads Inspected

Loads Containing Ban Materials but

Reloaded*

Total Surcharge

Notices Issued

Surcharge Rate**

2011 6 855,916 180,416 13,066 5,168 2.9%

2012 6 832,350 162,398 15,216 5,139 3.2%

2013 6 837,822 156,432 16,052 5,857 3.7%

2014 7 851,925 184,363 20,968 6,000 3.3%

2015 7 813,573 176,895 16,829 4,835 2.7%

*Reloaded means a customer was able to safely remove the banned material so their load became compliant. ** Surcharge rate equals the number of surcharge notices divided by the number of inspections.

Program Statistics by Material Type The distribution of surcharges by banned material type is provided in Table 2. Electronic waste consisting of household electronic goods including vacuums, microwaves, stereo systems, TVs, computers and printers, has had the highest number of surcharges over the last three years. Surcharges for corrugated cardboard has reduced from an average of 20% over the past few years to 15% in 2015 with a drop from 22% in 2014. As noted below, there was a significant increase in the number of disputes related to disposal surcharges in 2015. A number of these disputes were related to the assessment of surcharges for corrugated cardboard, and in particular related to the process by which the inspectors determine that the amount of cardboard in a load exceeds 5% of the total volume or weight of a load. Disposal ban inspectors have indicated that they often receive questions from customers concerning the process to assess corrugated cardboard surcharges. Metro Vancouver will continue to work with the disposal ban contractor to ensure consistency in the application of the disposal ban inspection process. Inspectors have noted that over time they are seeing less loads with large quantities of corrugated cardboard as well as generally better compliance with disposal bans. Food waste and clean wood were banned from disposal on January 1, 2015 but issuing surcharges was delayed until July 1, 2015. The six month educational period allowed generators and haulers to establish organics collection programs. Surcharges issued for food waste and clean wood were 2% and 3%, respectively. In 2012 work was done to estimate the impact of various disposal ban thresholds. Loads containing excessive organics have dropped from about 90 loads per month in 2012 to an average of 15 loads per month in 2015. A 25% threshold for organic surcharges was maintained in 2016 given the program was still in its initial stages. Recommendations for the organics disposal ban surcharge threshold for 2017 will be brought forward in the fall along with other proposed changes to the Tipping Fee Bylaw. Mattresses and paint each account for 13% and 8% of the surcharges, respectively. Gypsum surcharges appears to have increased from 5% in 2014 to 6% in 2015; however, the actual number of gypsum surcharges are relatively the same between 2014 and 2015. The percent increase is the result of lower total surcharges issued in 2015. Other banned material surcharges listed in Table 2 are typically stable at under 5%.

ZWC - 10

Table 2: Summary of Materials Contained in Surcharge Loads at MV and CoV Solid Waste Facilities

Material 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Electronic Waste(1) 27% 33% 35% 35% 34%

Cardboard 22% 18% 18% 22% 15%

Mattresses 18% 14% 10% 9% 13%

Paint 6% 9% 11% 9% 8%

Gypsum 5% 5% 5% 5% 6%

Tires 4% 4% 4% 4% 4%

Other Banned Materials 2% 3% 3% 3% 4%

Oil (Includes containers and filters) 3% 4% 4% 3% 3%

Large Objects 5% 4% 3% 3% 3%

Clean Wood(2) N/A N/A N/A N/A 3%

Food Waste(2) N/A N/A N/A N/A 2%

Green Waste 3% 3% 2% 2% 2%

Recyclable Containers (Includes beverage containers and other plastic, metal, and glass containers)

2% 3% 3% 3% 2%

Recyclable Paper 1% 1% 1% 1% 1 %

1. Effective July 1, 2012 metal appliances became part of the electronic waste category. The surcharges for metal appliances were 4% for 2011 and 2% for 2012 and were included in the electronic waste category.

2. Clean wood and food waste were banned from disposal as of January 1, 2015 with surcharges issued July 1, 2015.

Program Statistics by Customer Type The business type analysis (e.g., commercial, municipal and cash customers) is summarized in Table 3. Commercial loads have the highest surcharge rate for a number of reasons. For example, commercial containers are typically large size that can accommodate banned materials such as mattresses and large electronics. Small vehicle customer loads have the lowest surcharge rate because these customer are more likely to reload the banned item if it is safe to do so. Almost all of the 16,829 “reloads” listed in Table 1 are small vehicle customers.

Table 3: Summary of Surcharges by Business Type for 2015 for MV and CoV Solid Waste Facilities

Customer Type Inspections Surcharge Notices Surcharge Rate

Commercial 57,770 3,791 6.5%

Municipal 16,421 542 3.3%

Cash Customers 102,704 502 0.5%

Totals 176,895 4,835 2.7%

Dispute Resolution A dispute resolution process is in place for customers that believe surcharges were applied inappropriately. Ninety four surcharges were disputed in 2015 and subsequently reviewed by Metro Vancouver staff. This is an increase from 18 in 2014. Six surcharges were rescinded in 2015. The number of surcharge disputes are summarized in Table 4. Table 4: Surcharge Dispute Summary

Total surcharge disputes received Total surcharge rescinded

2014 18 3

2015 94 6

ZWC - 11

Hauler Surcharge Information Attachment 2 contains the total annual surcharge value and the hauler surcharge rate for all users of Metro Vancouver disposal facilities (i.e. excludes City of Vancouver facilities). The hauler surcharge rate is the number of surcharges divided by the estimated number of inspections for each hauler. Surcharge amounts and surcharge rates are affected by a number of factors and are not necessarily an indication of hauler performance in encouraging generators to implement recycling programs. Some of the factors affecting surcharge rates are:

- Any loads delivered by haulers to disposal facilities outside of the Metro Vancouver region are not subject to inspections/surcharges.

- Haulers that deliver a large number of loads are likely to have a relatively high number of surcharges.

- Different municipalities collect from different types of customers. Some municipalities collect waste from multi-family and commercial generators in addition to single family residential waste. Waste from different generators will result in different surcharge rates which are blended into a total surcharge rate.

- Load content is dictated by what generators throw into their waste containers, and haulers have limited ability to inspect all of the material deposited into waste containers.

ALTERNATIVES This is an information report, therefore no alternatives are presented. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS In 2015, the total surcharge revenue was $345,889 with $300,872 from Metro Vancouver facilities and $45,017 from City of Vancouver facilities. The total program expenditures were $541,550. 2014 surcharge revenues at Metro Vancouver and City of Vancouver facilities was $509,193 with expenditures of $529,808. Surcharge revenue from cardboard reduced by $100,000 in 2015 compared to 2014. This revenue reduction was due to the reduced number of surcharges for corrugated cardboard. Revenues and expenditures will continue to be reviewed in 2016. There may be value in considering an increase in surcharge rates in 2017 or 2018, particularly for flat fee $50 surcharge items. Without a regulatory program that requires haulers to deliver waste to Metro Vancouver facilities, there is some risk that increasing the surcharge rate will result in material being delivered to other facilities where no surcharges apply. An increase of $10 to $25 per surcharge would represent a relatively small increase into total load costs even for surcharged loads, and would therefore be unlikely to push haulers out of the regional system. In addition, reducing the threshold limit for items like cardboard with strong recycling programs could be considered. SUMMARY/CONCLUSION The disposal ban inspection program is a key waste reduction strategy identified in the ISWRMP. In 2015, 176,895 loads were inspected with a total of 4,835 surcharges issued. Attachments Attachment 1: 2015 Banned Materials Attachment 2: 2015 Solid Waste Surcharge Information Metro Vancouver Facilities 17644180

ZWC - 12

ATTACHMENT 1 2015 Banned Materials

Banned Hazardous and Operational Materials ($50 Surcharge on any single item plus the costs of remediation and clean-up)

Agricultural Waste Inert Fill Materials

Automobile Parts Liquids or Sludge

Barrels or Drums (205 L or greater)

Loads that contravene OH&S Regulation (i.e.: dusty load)

Dead Animals Mattresses

Excrement Oversize Objects

Flammable Materials Propane Tanks

Gypsum Wire and Cable (>1% of load)

Hazardous Waste

Banned Recyclable Materials (50% Surcharge on Items above the threshold)

5% threshold on any combination of the following:

Beverage containers

Other recyclable plastic, glass, and metal containers

Corrugated cardboard

Recyclable paper

Green waste

10% threshold on clean wood

25% threshold on food waste

Banned Product Stewardship Materials ($50 Surcharge on any single item)

Solvents and Flammable Liquids Paint

Pesticides Lead-Acid Batteries

Gasoline Antifreeze and Containers

Pharmaceutical Products and Medications Electronics and Electrical Products

Oil, Oil Filters, Oil Containers Tires

Lubricating Oil and Containers

ZWC - 13

ATTACHMENT 2

ZWC - 14

ZWC - 15

5.2

To: Zero Waste Committee From: Carol De La Franier, Lead Senior Engineer, Sold Waste Services Date: April 5, 2016 Meeting Date: April 14, 2016 Subject: Disposal Ban Program: Proposed Tipping Fee Bylaw Revisions

RECOMMENDATION That the GVS&DD Board direct staff to:

a) initiate consultation on the proposed changes to the Tipping Fee Bylaw related to the disposal ban program:

i. Role of disposal ban inspectors; ii. Inspection and surcharge procedures;

iii. Surcharge Notice requirements; iv. Dispute process, including setting timelines for submitting a dispute and the addition of

a $25 administration fee for unsuccessful disposal ban surcharge disputes; and v. Waiving of surcharges(s); and

b) summarize and report back on stakeholder feedback in advance of the Board considering the 2017 Tipping Fee Bylaw.

PURPOSE The purpose of this report is to seek approval to initiate consultation on the proposed changes to the 2017 Tipping Fee Bylaw related to the disposal ban program. BACKGROUND In January 1997, a disposal ban program was implemented to encourage recycling of materials that had well-developed recycling alternatives. The authority to apply surcharges is found in the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage Act, S.B.C. 1956, c. 59, and in practice, it involves surcharges being applied to loads that are deposited at Metro Vancouver disposal sites. In 2009, the Tipping Fee Bylaw was introduced to facilitate issuing surcharges related to the disposal ban program as well as establish tipping fees. Implementation and enforcement of disposal bans is a strategy in Metro Vancouver’s Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan to divert materials and items from the waste stream and encourage recycling. Over the years, Metro Vancouver has improved the disposal ban program with the addition of new materials and additional inspection resources. A review of the current Tipping Fee Bylaw identified a number of areas where clarification of the disposal ban program elements would be beneficial. PROPOSED CHANGES TIPPING FEE BYLAW DISPOSAL BAN PROGRAM ELEMENTS Proposed changes to the Tipping Fee Bylaw will clarify the application of disposal ban surcharges. For each addition it is anticipated that both new definitions and explanatory sections will need to be added to the Tipping Fee Bylaw. The proposed changes are as follows:

ZWC - 16

Role of the Disposal Ban Inspectors Disposal ban inspectors are employees of a contractor that works on Metro Vancouver’s behalf to enforce the Tipping Fee Bylaw disposal ban program. The role of the disposal ban inspectors is to carry out inspections of customer loads at regional facilities for Metro Vancouver.

Inspection and Surcharge Procedures Disposal ban inspectors use a variety of visual and observational procedures or techniques to determine and record the presence of banned materials in a customer load. These techniques involve visually examining the loads, estimating quantities and taking photographs. If there are banned materials in a load and the customer has chosen to dispose of these materials or it is not safe to recover the materials, then a surcharge notice is issued.

Surcharge Notice

The Surcharge Notice is the document completed by the disposal ban inspector and provided to the waste hauler to advise the hauler of the specifics of the surcharge. Requirements for Surcharge Notices would be add to the Tipping Fee Bylaw. Required elements of the Surcharge Notice would include items such as:

Date, Time and Site

Bylaw, Section and Schedule

Banned Material and Quantity

Surcharge Issued

Hauler, Truck and Licence Number

Inspector’s Initials Surcharge Notices would be valid in the event that the required elements of the Surcharge Notice have been completed properly.

Surcharge Dispute Process The proposed changes to the Tipping Fee Bylaw would include a description of the dispute process. Currently customers disputing a surcharge fill out a dispute form, and include the circumstances in which the surcharge notice should be rescinded. Staff review the dispute form and determine whether a surcharge notice is upheld or rescinded. A $25 administration fee is proposed. The fee would be refunded if the surcharge is rescinded. A maximum 30 day timeline for submitting a dispute form is also proposed.

Clarify the Manager’s Ability to Waive Surcharges

The Tipping Fee Bylaw states that the Manager may waive a surcharge at his/her discretion for a

specified period. The section is proposed to be modified to clarify that discretional waiving of surcharges

can only be in advance of a load being delivered to a disposal facility.

Consultation and Engagement Activities

The following consultation and engagement activities will be undertaken:

Notify stakeholders of the proposed changes outlined in this report;

Conduct stakeholder consultation through various activities such as meetings, workshops and potentially a webinar, as deemed appropriate to discuss the proposed changes and receive feedback;

Provide further opportunities to stakeholders to provide written comments.

ZWC - 17

Written comments as well as feedback received during the stakeholder meetings will be summarized and provided to the Board along with responses to comments to assist in the Board’s consideration of any proposed changes to the Tipping Fee Bylaw for 2017. ALTERNATIVES 1. That the GVS&DD Board direct staff to:

a) initiate consultation on the proposed changes to the Tipping Fee Bylaw related to the disposal ban program:

i. Role of disposal ban inspectors; ii. Inspection and surcharge procedures;

iii. Surcharge Notice requirements; iv. Dispute process, including setting timelines for submitting a dispute and the addition of

a $25 administration fee for unsuccessful disposal ban surcharge disputes; and v. Waiving of surcharges(s); and

b) summarize and report back on stakeholder feedback in advance of the Board considering the 2017 Tipping Fee Bylaw.

2. That the Zero Waste Committee receive the report titled “Disposal Ban Program: Proposed Tipping Fee Bylaw Revisions”, dated April 5, 2016 for information and provide alternate direction to staff.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS If the Board approves Alternative 1, staff will initiate consultation on the proposed changes to the Tipping Fee Bylaw related to the disposal ban program and report back on the summarized stakeholder feedback in advance of the Board considering the 2017 Tipping Fee Bylaw. The consultation and engagement costs are included in the 2016 Solid Waste Operating Budget. SUMMARY / CONCLUSION This report describes proposed changes to the Tipping Fee Bylaw for 2017 related to the disposal ban program. The proposed changes are related to the role of the disposal ban inspector, the performance of inspection and issuing surcharge notices, the surcharge dispute process, and clarify the ability of the Manager to use discretion to waive surcharge(s). Stakeholder feedback is being sought for consideration in advance of finalizing the proposed 2017 Tipping Fee Bylaw provisions.

17737732

ZWC - 18

5.3

To: Zero Waste Committee From: Andrew Doi, Environmental Planner, Solid Waste Services Date: April 5, 2016 Meeting Date: April 14, 2016 Subject: Update on MMBC Program Implementation and Streetscape Collection

RECOMMENDATION That the GVS&DD Board receive the report titled “Update on MMBC Program Implementation and Streetscape Collection”, dated April 5, 2016 for information.

PURPOSE The purpose of this report is to provide an update regarding the status of the Multi-Material BC Streetscape Collection initiative. BACKGROUND In 2011, when the Provincial Government amended the BC Recycling Regulation to include a new category for the collection and recycling of Packaging and Printed Paper (PPP) from residential premises, obligated stewards were also tasked with collecting materials from ‘streetscapes’. ‘Streetscapes’ are defined as municipal property that is not industrial, commercial or institutional, and are generally understood to include public places such as sidewalks, plazas and municipal parks. Accordingly, Multi-Material BC (MMBC) addressed ‘streetscape’ collection in its Packaging and Printed Paper Stewardship Plan in 2013. Collection of recyclable material from ‘streetscapes’ was already occurring in some communities at that time, however, this was not a ubiquitous service delivered throughout the province. In developing its approach to manage ‘streetscape’ collection, MMBC identified several steps to study its alternatives, which included one or more audits of existing public-space collection, as well as one or more pilot programs to test the effectiveness of different collection options. This research would inform MMBC’s overall approach to implementing ‘streetscape’ collection. STREETSCAPE COLLECTION OF PPP When the MMBC program launched in May, 2014, collection activities were focused on the single-family, multi-family and depot channels. Later that year, MMBC collaborated with three communities (the City of Richmond, the City of North Vancouver, and the City of Penticton) to conduct baseline public-space recycling and garbage collection audits. Based on the results of these audits, MMBC launched a pilot program in 2015 which tested, among other things, the influence of collection container design on the amount of contamination. Different collection container designs were deployed in the same three communities, including a collection bin design that was produced through a collaboration between Metro Vancouver and Emily Carr University of Art + Design. The materials in collection containers were subsequently sampled and audited. A summary report on the results of the pilot program will be released in mid-2016.

ZWC - 19

The MMBC research found that where there was a fibre-only receptacle as part of the collection bins, 90% of the fibre collected in this receptacle was printed paper. This finding is consistent with indications from member municipal staff who operate public space recycling programs and have found that newspapers, single-use coffee cups, and quick-serve restaurant packaging are found commonly in ‘streetscape’ collection containers. At this time, the newspaper sector has not joined MMBC. Recycling Regulation Compliance Ministry of Environment staff have reported that substantial enforcement efforts have been made to identify non-compliant businesses and to create a level playing field for producers of PPP. Completed compliance actions to date include:

Over 1,650 advisory letters sent by the Provincial Government to potentially obligated producers;

91 follow-up warning letters served to non-compliant producers;

2 administrative penalties applied for non-compliance; o 1 has been paid and completed, and producer is now in compliance; o 1 has been served to producer and is pending response to Ministry;

4 administrative penalties currently pending decision with a Ministry Statutory Decision Maker.

These enforcement actions have resulted in approximately 185 previously non-compliant businesses joining MMBC, contributing over $5 million in fees. Compliance work is ongoing and the Ministry of Environment is engaged in continuing discussions with the newspaper sector. Member Municipal Experience and Next Steps A number of member municipalities have already implemented public-space garbage and recycling stations. Over the next several months, Metro Vancouver staff will be working with member municipal staff to study the effectiveness of existing programs, and to determine the current performance of bin designs in diverting material to the correct container. As identified in the Zero Waste Committee Work Plan, staff are preparing to report back to the Committee in the third quarter of 2016, with analysis of streetscape garbage and recycling composition, as well as any further details provided by MMBC about future plans for launching its ‘streetscape’ collection program. Although the Recycling Regulation does not include a specific requirement for the beverage container programs to implement ‘streetscape’ collection, Encorp (Pacific) has collaborated with a number of municipalities to test collection containers that accept used beverage containers. Although collection containers for beverage containers are not expected to require the same level of servicing by municipal staff as garbage and recycling bins would, there may be efficiencies in deploying containers that support the diversion of multiple products for multiple programs. ALTERNATIVES This is an information report and therefore no alternatives are provided. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Collection of PPP from ‘streetscapes’ does not have a direct impact on Metro Vancouver budgets, but does have an impact on the budgets of member municipalities. Many member municipalities have existing programs to collect garbage from streetscapes. Other member municipalities have adopted streetscape programs which collect garbage and recyclables in separate streams.

ZWC - 20

SUMMARY / CONCLUSION The obligation to collect PPP from ‘streetscapes’ was included in the changes made by the Provincial Government to the Recycling Regulation in 2011. In its Packaging and Printed Paper Stewardship Plan, MMBC set out its overall approach on studying options for ‘streetscape’ collection and has started pilot testing collection bin designs. Consistent implementation of a standardized ‘streetscape’ collection program has the potential to further increase the amount of material collected for recycling, reduce the amount of recyclable material that is currently in the garbage, and help to recover some costs for member municipalities that are operating public-space garbage and recycling collection programs. 17693302

ZWC - 21

5.4

To: Zero Waste Committee From: Marcel Pitre, Division Manager, Solid Waste Services Date: April 7, 2016 Meeting Date: April 14, 2016 Subject: Metro Vancouver 2015 Waste Composition Monitoring Program

RECOMMENDATION That the GVS&DD Board receive the report titled “Metro Vancouver 2015 Waste Composition Monitoring Program”, dated April 7, 2016 for information.

PURPOSE To update the Zero Waste Committee and the GVS&DD Board on the regional waste composition monitoring program in support of the Region’s waste diversion goals. BACKGROUND Metro Vancouver monitors the composition of the region’s municipal solid waste stream on a regular basis to identify disposal trends and target specific materials for diversion programs, in order to help achieve the diversion goals set out in the Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan (ISWRMP). RESULTS OF WASTE MONITORING The 2015 waste composition monitoring program analyzed the composition of the waste stream across 138 material categories from the Single Family (SF) and Multi-Family (MF) residential, Industrial, Commercial and Institutional (ICI) and Self-hauled or Drop-Off (DO) sectors. Sampling was done in November and early December. The demolition and land-clearing (DLC) sector is not included in this analysis, but was included under a separate monitoring program in the summer of 2015. A summary of the 2015 waste composition monitoring program results by percentage (%) is provided as Attachment 1. A historical comparison of the residual waste composition data from 2007 to 2015 in kilograms per person disposed is provided as Attachment 2. The full waste composition analysis report is being published on the Metro Vancouver website in parallel to the publishing of this report: http://www.metrovancouver.org/services/solid-waste/about/reports-statistics/Pages/default.aspx The results from the 2015 monitoring study show the following key results: Organics In 2015, the percentage of organics in the overall waste stream (all sectors combined) was 28% which results in estimated 257,000 tonnes of disposed compostable organics. This represents a reduction of approximately 66,000 tonnes from disposal estimates in 2014. Organics processing in the region increased in 2015 by approximately 53,000 tonnes. The decrease in organics in the waste stream and increase in recycling correlate well. The reduction in disposed organics is likely attributable to the implementation of the organics disposal ban and increased education regarding separating food waste from garbage.

ZWC - 22

Paper An evaluation of the historical trend shows a strong decrease in the disposal of paper. Paper continues to make up a relatively high portion of disposed waste at 17%, or approximately 157,000 tonnes, in 2015. In comparison, 315,000 tonnes of paper were disposed of in 2007. Printed paper quantities have declined most significantly over the last number of years, by 68% since 2007 (115,000 to 37,000 tonnes), whereas paper packaging has declined by 41% (202,000 to 120,000 tonnes). Plastics The total amount of plastics disposed in the waste stream in 2015 was estimated at 16.5% or about 150,000 tonnes. This has decreased only slightly since 2007, when the total amount in the waste stream was about 190,000 tonnes (14%). A larger proportion of the plastics stream is being recycled in 2015 than in 2007. The proportion of the plastics stream that is typically not recyclable in curbside programs: film, laminates, bags, #3, #6, #7 and others has shifted from 80% of the plastics stream in 2007 (150,000 tonnes) to 90% of the plastics stream in 2015 (135,000 tonnes). Non-Compostable Organics The non-compostable waste category in 2015 was estimated at 14.7% or 134,000 tonnes. The majority of which is non-recyclable painted and treated wood (102,000 tonnes). The balance of the material in this category includes textiles, rubber and composite materials that, with the exception of textiles, are currently not recyclable. The amount of material in this category has increased since 2007, when approximately 98,000 tonnes were disposed. ALTERNATIVES This is an information report, therefore no alternatives are presented. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The waste composition monitoring program occurs regularly and is included in the Solid Waste Services annual operating budget for 2016 and will be in the proposed budget for 2017. There are no further financial implications regarding this work. SUMMARY / CONCLUSION Metro Vancouver monitors the composition of the region’s municipal solid waste stream on a regular basis. The 2015 waste composition monitoring program analyzed the composition of the waste stream across 138 material categories. The results from the 2015 waste composition monitoring program showed a notable reduction in the amount of organics disposed with an approximate 66,000 tonne reduction from 2014. There is still a notable amount of paper in the waste stream (approximately 157,000 tonnes) despite the availability of recycling programs. A larger proportion of the plastics stream is being recycled in 2015 than in 2007. The amount of material disposed from the non-compostable organics category (mostly painted and treated wood) has increased since 2007 from approximately 98,000 tonnes to 134,000 tonnes. The 2015 Waste Composition Monitoring Program report is being published on the Metro Vancouver website. Metro Vancouver staff will continue to monitor the composition of the waste stream, report

ZWC - 23

results to the Zero Waste Committee, and review options to increase diversion of materials with high disposal quantities. Attachments and References: Attachment 1 - Summary of the 2015 Waste Composition Monitoring Study Results for Primary

Categories by Sector Attachment 2 - Historical Comparison of 1995 to 2015 Waste Composition 17728888

ZWC - 24

ATTACHMENT 1

Summary of the 2015 residual waste composition monitoring study results for primary categories by sector

Primary Category Combined (excluding DLC)

Single Family (SF)

Multi-Family (MF)

Commercial (ICI)

Self-Haul (DO)

Total Disposed Tonnes1

(2014) 909,519 175,535 217,095 381,153 135,735

Weighted Mean (%)

% % % % %

Paper 17.3% 15.8% 16.8% 22.3% 7.9%

Plastics 16.5% 17.8% 16.4% 19.1% 8.0%

Compostable Plastics 0.1% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Compostable Organics 28.4% 34.4% 35.3% 28.0% 10.3%

Food Waste 20.9% 27.6% 33.5% 18.0% 0.1%

Clean Wood 2.8% 1.8% 0.2% 5.6% 0.6%

Yard & Garden 4.7% 5.0% 1.6% 4.4% 9.6%

Non-Compostable Organics 14.7% 6.0% 4.1% 12.2% 49.0%

Metals 3.2% 2.2% 3.7% 4.2% 1.3%

Glass 2.3% 2.1% 2.8% 1.3% 4.2%

Building Material 5.2% 0.8% 1.7% 4.9% 17.5%

Electronic Waste 1.7% 1.1% 2.0% 2.4% 0.3%

Household Hazardous 1.3% 1.3% 0.7% 2.0% 0.4%

Household Hygiene 8.3% 17.1% 15.0% 2.7% 0.0%

Bulky Objects 0.4% 0.0% 0.5% 0.4% 1.1%

Fines 0.6% 1.0% 0.9% 0.4% 0.2%

1.Source: Metro Vancouver Recycling and Solid Waste Management 2014 Report

ZWC - 25

ATTACHMENT 2

Historical comparison of 2007 to 2015 residual waste composition2

Annual composition by primary categories disposed (kg/capita)

Population 2,251,877 2,314,163 2,351,496 2,395,520 2,408,599 2,465,031 2007 2009 2010 2011 2013 20153 Paper 135 101 77 54 53 64 Plastics 78 66 56 43 56 61 Compostable Plastic 0 0 0 0 0 0 Compostable Organics 199 163 141 155 141 105 Non-Compostable Organics 41 44 60 49 41 54 Metals 20 14 20 17 13 12 Glass 17 19 9 12 6 9 Building Material 44 58 36 41 33 19 Electronic Waste 16 20 13 10 4 6 Household Hazardous 4 3 5 4 4 5 Household Hygiene 18 17 18 18 19 31 Bulky Objects 10 16 27 13 16 2 Fines 3 2 5 3 2 2

Total (kg/capita) 586 523 466 419 389 369

2. Please note that this data includes all sectors combined except DLC. 3. Total disposal tonnage from 2014 used to calculate 2015 disposal per capita.

ZWC - 26

5.5

To: Zero Waste Committee From: Marcel Pitre, Division Manager, Solid Waste Services Date: April 7, 2016 Meeting Date: April 14, 2016 Subject: Single Family Every-Other-Week Garbage Collection – Status Update

RECOMMENDATION That the GVS&DD Board receive the report titled “Single Family Every-Other-Week Garbage Collection

– Status Update”, dated April 7, 2016 for information.

PURPOSE This report presents disposal and recycling data outlining the effects of every-other-week garbage collections programs on the single-family sector.

BACKGROUND In recent years, many municipalities have modified the single-family waste collection system to include weekly residential food scraps collection in their existing yard trimmings bin. In conjunction with this change, municipalities have also implemented every-other-week garbage collection to further promote the use of the food scraps diversion programs and to maintain or reduce truck trips.

Metro Vancouver has been tracking the effects of this shift on both the garbage and recycling tonnages in the region. This report outlines some key performance metrics of that program and lessons learned in implementation and operation.

EFFECTS ON RESIDUAL GARBAGE AND RECYCLING TONNAGES Currently, approximately 70% of the single family population in the region have every-other-week garbage collection. On average, municipalities that use the system dispose of 109 kg/person per year versus 148 kg/person per year for those who collect garbage every week.

In order to estimate the performance and effects of switching to every-other-week garbage collection, Metro Vancouver has investigated disposal tonnages before and after the change. On average, municipalities that have changed their collection method have seen a 33% reduction in the tonnage of waste disposed with reductions ranging from 26% to 43%. A reduction of 33% in garbage for 70% of the single family population in the region translates to a reduction in 58,000 tonnes per year of garbage.

Changes to every-other-week garbage collection have in many cases been implemented in parallel with expansion of organics collection programs. Typically organics collection has been expanded to include all food scraps and organics collection has been changed from every-other-week to weekly. The change in recycling and organics quantities following implementation of every-other-week garbage collection is more difficult to calculate than changes in garbage disposal. Other factors such as decreasing newsprint and changes in packaging seem to have the biggest impact on recycling quantities. Organics collection in communities with every-other-week garbage collection saw on

ZWC - 27

average an increase of over 30% in organics collection following implementation of every-other-week garbage collection. As noted above, some of the change in recycling and organics collection could be attributed to changes in those programs implemented in parallel to every-other-week garbage collection. Changes to every-other-week garbage collection has not resulted in any significant increases in small vehicle traffic at transfer stations. The Attachment shows examples of 3 municipalities’ monthly disposal tonnages before and after every-other-week garbage collection with associated percent increases in annual recycling tonnage. IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGES As with most changes to waste and recycling collection programs, challenges may need to be overcome. In the case of the implementation of every-other-week collection, in conjunction with weekly food scraps collection, there challenges related to: infrastructure, service level (capacity), operations, contamination and dumping in other systems. Infrastructure Municipal infrastructure requirements for the implementation is dependent on each municipalities’ particular needs and whether or not the program is made in conjunction with another program such as food scraps collection or special carts for automated collection. There may be a requirement to add a larger collection bin if requested by residents, dispose of old bins or add a collection vehicle. Service Level In many cases, municipalities had received requests to increase the capacity of the disposal bin as part of switching to every-other-week garbage collection. In addition, some municipalities offered exemptions for special cases where an every-other-week frequency would not be sufficient (.In general, municipalities received service requests or complaints early in the deployment of the new programs and those requests dropped off shortly thereafter. Operations The implementation of every-other-week garbage collection may involve a re-routing evaluation for not only the garbage collection schedules, but also the organics routes. The increase in volume of organics may require route compression, the addition of a collection trip or an additional vehicle to the fleet. Contamination or dumping in other systems As new programs are put in place, there is a learning period for the residents that may cause an increase in contamination of the recycling streams. Some municipalities needed to allow for extra education, lettered communications, pre-collection inspections and/or tagging of bins to address the issue and meet the contamination requirements of the organics processor(s). In some instances, an increase in household waste had been noted in public space waste containers. Similarly, this may also lead to household waste ending up in commercial dumpsters. ALTERNATIVES This is an information report and therefore no alternatives are presented.

ZWC - 28

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Costs related to the implementation of every-other-week garbage collection fall under the responsibility of each individual municipality. The decision to implement such a program would be evaluated on a case by case basis taking into account a number of capital and operational requirements. SUMMARY Currently, approximately 70% of the single family population in the region have every-other-week garbage collection. On average, municipalities that have changed their collection method have seen a 33% reduction in the tonnage of waste disposed. On average, municipalities that use the system dispose of 109 kg/person per year versus 148 kg/person per year for those who collect garbage every week. When comparing the year previous and the year after the implementation, organics tonnages have increased by an average of over 30%.

This change to the waste and recycling collection program creates challenges relate to: infrastructure, service level (capacity), operations, contamination and dumping in other systems. There may be a requirement to add a larger collection bin, dispose of previous bins, change or compress garbage or organics routes or add a collection vehicle in rare cases. In general, municipalities received service requests or complaints early in the deployment of the new programs and those requests dropped off shortly thereafter.

The implementation of every-other-week garbage collection has had a notable reduction on the amount of waste disposed and an increase in recycling tonnages. There are a number of factors that influence waste reduction and diversion on a case-by-case basis. Despite challenges, the implementation of this program on its own or in conjunction with other diversion and education programs has had a significant impact on disposal behavior and has benefited many municipalities of Metro Vancouver.

Attachments and References: Attachment – Municipal monthly garbage tonnage change and corresponding recycling change

17800856

ZWC - 29

ATTACHMENT

ZWC - 30

ZWC - 31

5.6

To: Zero Waste Committee From: Paul Remillard, Director, Solid Waste Operations, Solid Waste Services Date: April 7, 2016 Meeting Date: April 14, 2016 Subject: Status of Sewerage and Drainage District (Solid Waste) Capital Expenditures to

December 31, 2015

RECOMMENDATION That the GVS&DD Board receive the report titled “Status of Sewerage and Drainage District (Solid Waste) Capital Expenditures to December 31, 2015”, dated April 7, 2016 for information.

PURPOSE To report on the status of utilities capital expenditures for the Sewerage and Drainage District (Solid Waste). Capital projects are typically multi-year in nature; therefore, this report provides a comparison between the total project budgets and total projected expenditures to project completion. BACKGROUND The Capital Expenditure reporting process as approved by the Board provides for regular status reports on capital expenditures with interim reports sent to the Zero Waste and Performance and Procurement Committees in June/July and October and a final year-end report to the Committees and Board in April. This is the third in a series of three reports on capital expenditures for 2015. STATUS OF SOLID WASTE CAPITAL PROJECTS Capital projects are generally proceeding on schedule and within budget. Additional details on solid waste capital projects, including projected costs to completion compared to the approved budget, are included in Attachment 1. Attachment 2 highlights the status of key capital projects. Table 1 below contains summary information on ongoing and completed projects. The information presented is for total project completion which will generally cover multiple years. Capital project budgets typically include a minimum contingency of 10%. The project variance included in Table 1 is primarily for the Waste-to-Energy Facility NOx upgrades. The project was completed under the initial project budget, which was developed prior to the project scope being clearly defined.

Table 1

Solid Waste Projects

Total Projected Expenditures to

Completion ACE*/ Total

Budget Projected Variance

Ongoing Projects $ 34,652,000 $ 37,600,000 $2,948,000 Completed Projects $ 28,077 $ 260,000 $ 231,923

* Authorized Capital Expenditures

ZWC - 32

ALTERNATIVES This is an information report, therefore no alternatives are presented. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Capital expenditures are funded internally through debt charges. Solid Waste debt is financed short-term until the end of the year when it is reviewed to determine if enough debt has been incurred to convert to long term debt through the Municipal Finance Authority or to continue to finance short-term. If capital expenditures are less than budgeted for the year, the savings in debt charges creates a surplus which by Board policy will be used to reduce future capital expenditures via the Contribution to Capital Program to reduce borrowing. As of the end of 2015 Solid Waste has $24M in debt remaining which will be paid off by the end of 2018. SUMMARY/ CONCLUSION Solid waste capital projects are generally proceeding on schedule and within budget. The Sewerage and Drainage District (Solid Waste) was under-spent for ongoing and completed projects for 2015. This is the third in a series of three reports on capital expenditures for 2015. Attachments and References: Attachment 1: Sewerage and Drainage District (Solid Waste) Capital Expenditures Attachment 2: Capital Project Status Information as of December 31, 2015 17781220

ZWC - 33

ATTACHMENT 1 Sewerage and Drainage District Capital Expenditures

Solid Waste

As of Dec 31, 2015

Total Total Expected

8.8 Project Projected ACE / Projected Percent Year of Project on

Program Project ID Project Description Project Location Actuals Project Total Project Project Complete Project Schedule?

To-Date Actuals Budget Variance Note Completion (Y/N) Comments

On-going Grand Totals 10,215,398 34,652,000 37,600,000 2,948,000

Completed Grand Totals 28,077 28,077 260,000 231,923

ON-GOING PROJECTS

SW Landfills Capital

L0029 CLF LFG Upgrades Design Coquitlam 242,788 250,000 250,000 - 97% 2016 YL0033 CLF LFG Upgrade Construction Coquitlam 2,198,196 2,850,000 2,850,000 - 77% 2017 N Project deferred until Q3 2016L0044 CLF LFG Upgrade Phase 2 Coquitlam - 300,000 300,000 - 0% 2017 N Initial phase 2 design to begin in 2017L0049 Coquitlam Landfill Closure Coquitlam 59,736 100,000 100,000 - 60% 2017 Y

2,500,720 3,500,000 3,500,000 - SW Transfer Station System Cap

L0047 Coq Trans Sta Replacement Coquitlam 564,241 800,000 800,000 - 71% 2018 YL0048 NSTS Reconfiguration North Vancouver 160,839 500,000 500,000 - 32% 2016 Y

725,079 1,300,000 1,300,000 - SW Waste to Energy Fac Cap

L0020 NOx Reduction Project Design Burnaby 443,567 450,000 900,000 450,000 (2) 99% 2015 YL0034 WTEF NOx Project Construction Burnaby 4,976,050 5,060,000 7,000,000 1,940,000 (2) 99% 2015 YL0045 Scrubber - Design Burnaby 211,028 1,500,000 1,500,000 - 14% 2017 YL0046 CEMS Upgrade - Design Burnaby 115,372 116,000 500,000 384,000 (1) 99% 2016 YL0050 Soot Blower Replacement Burnaby 44,700 800,000 800,000 - 6% 2016 YL0051 Diesel Generator Replacement Burnaby 829,560 826,000 1,000,000 174,000 (1) 99% 2016 YL0052 Bottom Ash Processing Burnaby 300,000 6,000,000 6,000,000 - 5% 2016 YL0054 WTEF Gas Burner Replacement Burnaby 69,322 1,600,000 1,600,000 - 4% 2017 YL0055 CEMS Upgrade Construction Burnaby - 1,500,000 1,500,000 - 0% 2016 Y

6,989,599 17,852,000 20,800,000 2,948,000 SW Mgmt Plan Initiatives Cap

L0042 New Waste to Energy Capacity Regional - 12,000,000 12,000,000 - 0% 2021 N Procurement process terminated December 2015, project expected to resume in late 2016/early 2017

- 12,000,000 12,000,000 -

Total On-going Projects 10,215,398 34,652,000 37,600,000 2,948,000

COMPLETED PROJECTS

SW Infr Opportunity Prgm Cap

L0040 CLF Landfill Gas Utilization Coquitlam 28,077 28,077 260,000 231,923 (2) 100% Project terminated and will be reassessed as part of the CTS development project

28,077 28,077 260,000 231,923

Total Completed Projects 28,077 28,077 260,000 231,923

Notes:

(1) Full contingency not required.(2) Reduction in scope.

Total Projects

Orbit 17778398 Page 1 of 1 3/22/2016ZWC - 34

ATTACHMENT 2  Capital Project Status Information as of December 31, 2015  Major GVS&DD solid waste capital projects are generally proceeding on schedule and within budget. The following capital program exceptions are highlighted:   i) Landfills Program  

The Coquitlam  Landfill  (CLF) Gas Phase Upgrade  (second  stage)  is planned  for  the winter 2016/2017  to comply with  the new  lease of  the golf  facility. The Phase 2 upgrade will be completed with the proposed development of the Coquitlam Transfer Station. 

The CLF Landfill Gas Utilization project has been terminated and will be reassessed as part of the transfer station development project. 

 

ii) Waste‐to‐Energy Program  

The  NOx  Upgrade  Project  meets  the  emission  reduction  targets  and  was  accepted  as substantially complete on April 1, 2015.  The project is complete except for final billing.  

A draft Operational Certificate has been submitted to the province and approval is expected in  the  first  half  of  2016.    The  Acid  Gas  Reduction  Project  is  in  preliminary  design,  and construction of the Continuous Emission Monitoring System (CEMS) Upgrade Project and Gas Burner Replacement Project is planned to commence in early 2016.   

iii) New WTE Capacity Project (Material & Energy Recovery Facility)  

The procurement process for the New WTE Capacity Project has been terminated.  Staff will report back with recommendations on  the development of a New WTE  in  late 2016/early 2017. 

ZWC - 35

To: Zero Waste Committee From: Paul Henderson, General Manager, Solid Waste Services Date: April 7, 2016 Meeting Date: April 14, 2016 Subject: Manager’s Report

RECOMMENDATION That the Zero Waste Committee receive the titled “Manager’s Report”, dated April 7, 2016 for information.

Coquitlam Wood Recycling Area Wastech Services Ltd. operates the Coquitlam Construction Recycling Facility (CCRF) on land used by them through agreement with Metro Vancouver. The facility, located in the southwest corner of the Coquitlam landfill, accepts clean wood and yard trimmings from residential and commercial vehicles. Residents of the City of Coquitlam are able to drop off loads of yard trimmings free of charge at the facility. Wastech invoices the cost of handling the residential yard trimmings to the City of Coquitlam on the same basis as other customers. Use of the Coquitlam Construction Recycling Facility has declined over time with the total material processed dropping by over 25% from 2011 to 2015. In 2017, yard trimmings and clean wood will continue to be accepted at the Coquitlam Transfer Station as part of the new transfer station operations contract. The space at the Coquitlam Landfill currently occupied by the Coquitlam Construction Recycling Facility is required by Metro Vancouver to continue planning for the development of a new transfer station at that site. Metro Vancouver will work with the City of Coquitlam to ensure continuity of service for Coquitlam residents dropping off yard trimmings. If the City of Coquitlam wishes, Metro Vancouver can continue to allow residents to drop off yard trimmings at Metro Vancouver facilities for free with the costs billed back to the City of Coquitlam at the yard waste rate set in the Tipping Fee Bylaw. Metro Vancouver could explore expanding this billing service to other municipalities if there is interest. Publication of Diversion Rates of Licensed Construction and Demolition Waste Facilities Metro Vancouver is working towards posting diversion rates of licensed facilities that accept construction and demolition waste on Metro Vancouver’s website. Metro Vancouver’s Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan (ISWRMP) has set ambitious regional diversion goals, including increasing diversion of construction and demolition (C&D) waste. Recycling of C&D type waste in Metro Vancouver is primarily carried out by private licensed facilities, regulated through the Greater Vancouver Sewerage & Drainage District Municipal Solid Waste and Recyclable Material Regulatory Bylaw No. 181 (Bylaw 181). Posting diversion rates of these private licenced facilities would support regional diversion goals by increasing transparency for stakeholders who rely on the facilities to recycle C&D waste, and encouraging best practices and continual improvements in C&D recycling. The diversion rate for each facility would be calculated based on information reported by

5.7

ZWC - 36

the facility under the Bylaw 181 Licence, and posted on the Metro Vancouver website. Information on waste quantities would not be posted. Consultation with stakeholders began in Fall of 2015. Metro Vancouver released an intentions paper in November, 2015 and held a webinar on November 20, 2016 to provide information to stakeholders and receive feedback. This was followed by a targeted workshop for licensed facility operators on January 28, 2016. Stakeholders were also given the opportunity to provide written comments by email. Stakeholder comments and Metro Vancouver responses from the webinar and workshop were recorded and circulated to attendees. Metro Vancouver’s Environmental Regulation and Enforcement staff have calculated each licenced facility’s 2015 diversion rate. Individual diversion rates have been sent to each facility operator, to provide an opportunity for comment before posting on the Metro Vancouver website. Staff will report back to the Committee on this initiative in parallel with posting the diversion rates. Waste-to-Energy Inspection Cameras Initiative At the Waste-to-Energy Facility, to allow inspection of loads, any loads designated for inspection are unloaded on to the loading bay floor rather than dumped into the pit. After inspection, a wheel loader pushes each load into the bunker. The loading bay is not designed for this purpose, and this method limits the number of inspections that are possible. On January 20, 2016, Metro Vancouver installed temporary cameras – one aiming at the unloading bay and the other into the bunker – and filmed the unloading of waste for about 4 hours. The video quality from the cameras was sufficient for the disposal ban inspector to distinguish banned materials in a load. The system is also capable of taking a photographic snapshot of the video which can be provided to customers for educational purposes. In the permanent setup, the video feed from the cameras will be transmitted to a computer screen located adjacent to the unloading bays, allowing the disposal ban inspector to safely view each load as it is tipped into the bunker and communicate with the drivers. By using the camera system, inspections are expected to increase from approximately 1% of incoming loads to approximately 20% of incoming loads, the same inspection rate as other facilities. The camera system will also eliminate the need for and costs associated with operating a wheel loader, and enable customers to unload into the bunker. This initiative is one of a number of initiatives underway to continue to improve the disposal ban inspection program. Take Charge! Campaign Metro Vancouver staff have been working collaboratively with Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) industry groups, Electronic Products Recycling Association, Canadian Electrical Stewardship Association and Call2Recycle to raise the awareness of battery and electronics recycling. On National Battery Day, February 16, there was a concerted effort through social media by Metro Vancouver and the EPR programs to further the understanding of the importance of recycling electronic devices and batteries. Metro Vancouver developed a 38 second video (http://www.metrovancouver.org/media-room/video-gallery/public-service-announcements/4761173351001) that was shared with the EPR programs and had 45 full views on Metro Vancouver’s website. The Facebook post reached 2,000 impressions (views) and 16 engagements (taking actions, such as re-tweeting, clicking on a link, opening a video, replies or

ZWC - 37

stating a “like”). National Battery Day was the top tweet in February earning more than 7,000 impressions (views), 68 engagements (as above) and 17 media engagements (media re-tweeted, clicked on the link, opened the video or stated a “like”). Zero Waste Committee Attendance at 2016 Events Zero Waste Committee members recently attended two waste management conferences: Biocycle West Coast Conference, April 4-7, and Road to Zero Waste Conference, April 4-7. Committee members interested in attending one of remaining upcoming events, should contact the Committee Chair.

Recycling Council of British Columbia 2016 Conference and Trade Show Whistler, British Columbia, May 18-20, 2016

Metro Vancouver’s Zero Waste Conference Vancouver, British Columbia, November 3, 2016

Solid Waste Association of North America Wastecon Conference Indianapolis, Indiana, August 22-25, 2016

Zero Waste Committee 2016 Workplan The attachment to this report sets out the Committee’s Workplan for 2016. The status of work program elements is indicated as pending, in progress, or complete. The listing is updated as needed to include new issues that arise, items requested by the Committee and changes in the schedule. Attachments and References: Attachment: Zero Waste Committee 2016 Workplan 17761988

ZWC - 38

ATTACHMENT

Zero Waste Committee 2016 Work Plan Report Date: April 7, 2016

Priorities

1st Quarter Status

North Shore Transfer Station Reconfiguration Update Pending

Coquitlam Wood Recycling Facility Operations Update Complete

2015 Disposal Ban Inspection Program Update Complete

2nd Quarter

Coquitlam Transfer Station Replacement Update Pending

Solid Waste Communications Programs Update Pending

Contract Awards of Competitive Selection for Operation & Maintenance of the Transfer Station System

Pending

Litter, Abandoned Waste, & Escaped Waste Strategy Pending

Waste-to-Energy Facility 2015 Financial Update Pending

Waste-to-Energy Environmental Monitoring and Reporting Update Pending

Efficacy of Bi-Weekly Residential Waste Collection Complete

Create Memories, Not Garbage: 2015 Campaign Results Complete

Food Isn't Garbage: 2015 Campaign Results Complete

Take Charge! Batteries and Electronics Campaign Update Complete

Love Food Hate Waste Campaign – Year One Update Pending

3rd Quarter

Update on Organics Disposal Ban & Clean Wood Disposal Ban Pending

2017 Tipping Fee Bylaw Revisions Pending

Enhanced Construction and Demolition Material Recycling Opportunities Pending

Waste Flow Update and End of Year Waste Projections Pending

GVS&DD/Wastech Comprehensive Agreement – 2015 Financial Results Pending

Surrey RDO Update Pending

Municipal Regulatory Tools/Programs to Encourage Diversion Update Pending

Award of Competitive Selection for Contingency Landfill Disposal Pending

Recycling Bins/Streetscape Update/EPR Programs Update Pending

2016 Food Scraps Campaign Update Pending

2016 Metro Vancouver Zero Waste Conference Pending

4th Quarter

Annual Solid Waste and Recycling Report (for calendar 2015) Pending

Waste-to-Energy Development Options Pending

2016 Create Memories, Not Garbage: Campaign Creative Pending

Recycling Contingencies for Extraordinary Events Pending

2016 Metro Vancouver Zero Waste Conference: Results Pending

National Zero Waste Council Update Pending

Award of Competitive Selection for Flyash Disposal Pending

ZWC - 39

17649413

To: Intergovernment and Finance Committee From: Larina Lopez, Corporate Communications Division Manager, External Relations

Department Date: March 29, 2016 Meeting Date: April 13, 2016 Subject: 2015 Food Scraps Recycling and Christmas Waste Reduction Campaigns

RECOMMENDATION That the GVRD Board receive for information the report titled, “2015 Food Scraps Recycling and Christmas Waste Reduction Campaigns”, dated March 29, 2016.

PURPOSE To update the Committee on two waste reduction and behavior change campaigns – Food Scraps Recycling and Christmas – utilizing advertising and social media that were implemented in 2015 in support of Metro Vancouver’s waste reduction objectives. BACKGROUND Communications campaigns are undertaken to support Metro Vancouver’s waste reduction and diversion goals and objectives established in the Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan, in partnership with member municipalities. The communications and outreach strategy utilizes two streams of activity: broad advertising and social media campaigns to engage and change behaviours, and intensive work with key target audiences. This report focuses on the first stream, broad advertising and social media campaigns. 2015 WASTE REDUCTION CAMPAIGNS Two separate campaigns were carried out in the fourth quarter of 2015:

1. A broad advertising and social media campaign encouraging food scraps and food-soiled paper collection was developed in collaboration with Metro Vancouver member municipalities, in support of municipal organics collection programs.

2. A broad advertising and social media campaign encouraging waste reduction in the Christmas season – Create Memories, Not Garbage.

Further to discussion at the Zero Waste Committee and the need to better understand campaign results and reach from a sub-regional perspective, post-campaign awareness surveys for both campaigns looked at five sub-regions:

North West: West Vancouver, City of North Vancouver, District of North Vancouver, Bowen Island and Lions Bay

North East: Anmore, Belcarra, Port Moody, Coquitlam, Port Coquitlam, Pitt Meadows, Maple Ridge

6.1

ZWC - 40

2015 Food Scraps Recycling and Christmas Waste Reduction Campaigns Intergovernment and Finance Committee Meeting Date: April 13, 2016

Page 2 of 6

Central: Vancouver, Burnaby, New Westminster, Electoral Area A

South West: Delta, Ladner, Tsawwassen, Richmond, Tsawwassen First Nation

South East: Township of Langley, City of Langley, Surrey, White Rock

Organics Campaign 2015: Food and Food-Soiled Paper Isn’t Garbage To build on the success of the 2014 Food Isn’t Garbage organics diversion campaign, Metro Vancouver and its member municipalities identified those organics that were still appearing in the garbage stream, namely food-soiled paper, as a priority for the 2015 campaign. This evolution was captured in the September 28, 2015 report to committee titled “Food Scraps Campaign Update”. The result was four new ‘characters’ for the 2015 campaign, again using humour to convey the message that food-soiled napkins, paper plates, coffee filters, clam shells and fish bones go in the green bin. (See characters and artwork on website link provided as Attachment 1) With a reduced budget for 2015, the advertising plan focused on two of the best performing media from the previous year: the public transit system with more emphasis on bus shelters and bus sides across the region as well as targeted online ads. Additional campaign elements included earned media, opportunities for interviews with Metro Vancouver Directors as well as large poster-style ads at municipal facilities. Post-Campaign Metrics Awareness and effectiveness of the 2015 campaign was measured using:

webpage analytics,

social media metrics, and

a post-campaign awareness survey. The Food Scraps Recycling web page had an 11% increase in unique page views from October 15 – November 15, compared to pre-campaign page views. The post-campaign awareness survey was in the field December 10-26, 2015 with 1,490 adult residents participating, or about 300 per sub-region. The survey gauged the effectiveness of the campaign, as well as whether people adopted the desired behaviours as a result of seeing the campaign. Food scraps recycling survey highlights include:

With 87 per cent of households confirming they have food scraps bins at their homes, nearly nine-in-ten residents surveyed reported typically using their green bin for one or more types of food waste. This confirms the efficacy of municipal green bin roll-out campaigns supported by previous Metro Vancouver food scraps recycling campaigns in communicating that food waste goes in the food scraps bin.

Total reported food scraps bin usage increased from 48 per cent in 2014 to 79 per cent in 2015, when bins became available to more residents.

About half of survey respondents said they were now more likely to put the four materials highlighted in the 2015 campaign into their food scrap bin. Just under half (45 per cent) reported they were just as likely to put targeted materials in the food scrap bin.

Campaign images were used on or in municipal buildings in Burnaby, Port Moody and the University Neighbourhood Association. Posters and other materials were shared with municipal waste reduction and communications staff. Aided recall of 24% seeing campaign materials in member facilities, with

ZWC - 41

2015 Food Scraps Recycling and Christmas Waste Reduction Campaigns Intergovernment and Finance Committee Meeting Date: April 13, 2016

Page 3 of 6

the highest recall in regions where members utilized door and window stickers, demonstrates this is a very cost-effective way to increase the reach of broad advertising campaigns. Anecdotal feedback from municipal staff and comments received from the public also indicated that the new creative were effective in getting targeted organics out of the garbage and into the green bin. Complete campaign awareness survey results, including sub-regional metrics, are in Attachment 2. The food scraps campaign creative has also been leveraged in school districts that have active sustainability / recycling initiatives. This has been a natural evolution of the work that is already being done in the school system through Metro Vancouver’s Youth 4 Action program (video: http://bcove.me/0lgqv9e6). Metro Vancouver canvassed Municipal Waste Reduction Coordinators to determine if there were any other items that should be targeted in the 2016 campaign. The consensus was to maintain promotion of the various items that have already been featured, with a focus on ensuring municipal buildings can display posters and decals when possible, throughout the year. However, in addition, a new character will be developed to convey that napkins used to wipe grease from cookware go in the green bin in support of the “Wipe It, Green Bin It” behaviour change campaign on grease that was piloted in Surrey in 2015, and will be piloted in Richmond this year. New concepts for the 2016 campaign will be shared with the Committee at its September 15, 2016, meeting. Christmas Campaign 2015: Create Memories, Not Garbage 2015 was the eighth year that Metro Vancouver carried out a Christmas season waste reduction campaign. The message remained focused on creating memories by spending time and sharing experiences with friends and loved ones, and by purchasing higher-quality, durable gifts. Gift giving creative was included to reinforce that this is not an anti-shopping campaign. Models depicting the desired behaviour were again positioned as ‘green angels’ creating less waste with their gifts. (See characters and artwork on website link provided as attachment 1) Two new concepts were introduced in 2015:

Workplace gift-giving focusing on charities; and,

Sharing holiday meal leftovers in support of the Love Food – Hate Waste campaign. The campaign had a less-extensive advertising plan in 2015, focusing on those tactics that were most effective in previous years. They included television commercials from previous years that were also screened in Cineplex theatres; transit including SkyTrain posters, bus shelters and bus sides with more emphasis on routes/locations outside of the core metropolitan area; online advertising and promoted posts on social media channels; a digital billboard and artwork for municipal buildings. Metro Vancouver collaborated with The Flame for a fifth year to produce a Holiday Season Edition using real people to tell their true, personal Christmas memory stories. The event was taped November 4, 2015 before a live audience. Two 30-minute shows aired a total of 32 times on Shaw between November 26 and December 24. This year it also aired on Vancouver's new radio station Roundhouse Radio, 98.3FM. The shows were also promoted through social media and at a Sustainable Community Breakfast in December. To maximize the reach of the campaign, a variety of collateral was made available to municipalities, including door and window decals, bus shelter ads, posters and graphics for web pages. These

ZWC - 42

2015 Food Scraps Recycling and Christmas Waste Reduction Campaigns Intergovernment and Finance Committee Meeting Date: April 13, 2016

Page 4 of 6

materials were utilized by Burnaby, the City of North Vancouver, District of North Vancouver, District of West Vancouver, Surrey, Township of Langley and City of Pitt Meadows. Campaign materials were also used by Toronto, Strathcona County (Alberta), the Capitol Regional District and the Regional District of Central Okanagan. Post-Campaign Metrics Awareness and effectiveness of the 2015 Create Memories, Not Garbage campaign was measured using:

webpage analytics,

social media metrics,

cost per thousand for purchased advertising, and

a post-campaign awareness survey. The post-campaign awareness survey was in the field January 6-17, 2016 with 1,500 adult residents participating, or 300 per sub-region. The purpose of the survey was to gauge the effectiveness of the campaign, as well as whether people adopted the desired behaviours as a result of seeing the campaign. Following are 2015 Christmas campaign survey highlights:

Recall remained highest for transit advertising.

A total of 57% rated the print (transit) ads ‘very’ or ‘somewhat’ effective, and 64% found the TV ads to be effective.

Among those aware of any ads (unaided recall), 23% report that they had an impact on the types of gifts they bought and an additional 19% responded ‘maybe’ for a total of 42% (significantly higher than the 29% reported in the 2014 post campaign survey). When projected on the region’s total population (18+) this translates to over 300,000

residents reporting a potential change to the types of gifts they would purchase last Christmas.

Complete campaign awareness survey results, including sub-regional metrics, are in Attachment 3. Transit advertising had higher recall in the central and northeast regions, suggesting that other advertising tactics, such as geo-targeted online advertising, should be emphasized for the north west, south west and south east regions. The campaign’s overall effectiveness, using Christmas as a time of year when consumerism is at a peak, demonstrates that the campaign remains valuable to Metro Vancouver’s efforts to reduce per capita waste generation by 10% by 2020. The two new campaign themes introduced in 2015, workplace gift giving to charity and sharing leftovers with guests, were effective in getting people to consider new waste reduction habits. When compared to previous years, overall campaign awareness was similar to the 2013 campaign but lower than the 2014 campaign. However, the percentage of respondents that reported changing their purchasing behaviour as a result of seeing the campaign was significantly higher than 2014. Awareness of Metro Vancouver as the sponsor was also similar. A concerted effort to obtain a total of 1,500 survey responses from five regions as opposed to a region-wide sample of 500 resulted in lower margins of error in the 2015 post-campaign survey. This decreased margin of error, combined with a reduction in the campaign budget, contributed to lower reported recall and awareness when compared to previous years.

ZWC - 43

2015 Food Scraps Recycling and Christmas Waste Reduction Campaigns Intergovernment and Finance Committee Meeting Date: April 13, 2016

Page 5 of 6

Recall and awareness results suggest that the Create Memories – Not Garbage waste reduction campaign may have plateaued in the marketplace. The message still resonates with residents as those who do recall the campaign report changing their behaviour; however, there are currently plans to simplify the creative to reduce words, and rely more on strong imagery and graphics to create intrigue and better awareness of the campaign’s message. Any changes to the campaign messages will be tested through focus groups. New concepts will be presented to the Committee for this year’s campaign at its October 13, 2016 meeting. ALTERNATIVES This is an information report. There are no alternatives presented. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The total costs associated with these campaigns were just over $400,000 (Food Scraps Recycling $158,000; Create Memories $247,000), representing an approximate 20% reduction from the 2014 campaigns. The combined 2016 budget for these two campaigns is $315,000. SUMMARY / CONCLUSION In support of waste reduction and diversion targets in the Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan, two broad advertising campaigns were held in the fourth quarter of 2015. Both campaigns were visible on transit throughout the region as well as in online publications, social media, and at municipal facilities. The Food Scraps Recycling campaign was refined to target specific organics – food soiled paper – identified by Metro Vancouver municipalities as still found in the garbage. Humorous characters similar to those used in the 2014 campaign were developed to capitalize on retention from the original Food Isn’t Garbage campaign. Survey results show that about half of those who saw the ads now knew to put those targeted materials in the green bin. As food scrap bins became more available throughout the region in 2015, people used them, demonstrating that municipal roll-out programs supported by the 2014 and 2015 food scraps recycling campaigns were effective in communicating the message that food is not garbage. Municipal staff have been canvassed to identify other potential materials to target in 2016. In addition, one new character will be developed to convey that napkins used to wipe grease from cookware go in the green bin in support of the liquid waste Grease campaign. New concepts will be presented at the September 15, 2016 Zero Waste Committee meeting. The Create Memories – Not Garbage campaign prompted residents to reduce waste during the Christmas season with gifts of time/experiences and high-quality, long-lasting gifts. Using humorous images, the campaign used real people to depict the desired behaviours. In its eighth year, the campaign introduced two new themes: workplace gift giving to charities instead of Secret Santa gifts and sharing leftovers with holiday dinner guests – to complement Metro Vancouver’s Love Food – Hate Waste avoidable food waste reduction campaign. Among survey respondents aware of any of the ads, 23% reported that they had an impact on the type of gifts bought and an additional 19% responded ‘maybe’, totaling 42% which is significantly higher than the 29% reported in the 2014 post campaign survey. The campaign was enhanced by Metro Vancouver municipalities and other jurisdictions adopting campaign elements for their own public education efforts.

ZWC - 44

2015 Food Scraps Recycling and Christmas Waste Reduction Campaigns Intergovernment and Finance Committee Meeting Date: April 13, 2016

Page 6 of 6

The Create Memories – Not Garbage waste reduction campaign may have plateaued in the market place. The message still resonates strongly with residents; however, there are currently plans to simplify the creative to reduce copy, and rely more on strong imagery and graphics to create intrigue and better awareness of the campaign’s message. Attachments and References: 1. Food Scraps Recycling and Create Memories, Not Garbage Campaign Images

www.metrovancouver.org/services/solid-waste/recycling-signage-campaigns/campaign-posters-artwork

2. Food Scraps Recycling Post-Campaign Survey Report 3. Create Memories, Not Garbage Campaign Awareness Survey 17649413

ZWC - 45

Food Scraps Program Campaign

A SURVEY OF METRO VANCOUVER RESIDENTS

Presented to Metro Vancouver

December 2015

DRAFT

ATTACHMENT 2

ZWC - 46

2

Table of Contents

Introduction 03

Sampling 04

Observations 05

Executive Summary  06

Research Findings 10

Waste Bin Availability and Usage 11

What Goes Into Our Food Scraps Bin? 16

Waste Disposal 19

Overall Food Scraps Advertising 46

Metro Vancouver Food Scraps Advertising 53

Impact of advertising 59

Demographic Profile 68

ZWC - 47

4

Overview

Metro Vancouver is a federation of 21 municipalities, one electoral area, and one treaty first nation. Between October and late November 2014, Metro Vancouver launched an advertising campaign for their Food Scraps Recycling Program. The goal of this program is to encourage Metro Vancouver residents to separate food waste from regular garbage. During the same period in 2015, Metro Vancouver launched a follow‐up campaign updating the original by targeting specific organics residents were still disposing of incorrectly.

With a goal of evaluating public behaviour, attitudes, and advertising effectiveness, Metro Vancouver requested primary quantitative research. Specifically, the research answers the following business questions:

• What recycling bins do residents have access to and use?• What are residents’ attitudes toward recycling food 

scraps?• Are residents aware of the food scraps recycling 

advertising campaign?• What is the impact of the campaign?

Introduction

Methodology

Surveys 1,490 adult residents.

Field dates:  December 10 to 26, 2015.

Population: The table on the following slide displays the areas sampled for this study. 

Methodology: Online.

Weighting: The final data were weighted to match age and gender characteristics and regional distribution of Metro Vancouver residents.

Languages: Surveys were conducted in English.

Margin of error:  The total sample is representative  of 950 Metro Vancouver residents. A probability sample of 950 carries a margin of error  +/‐3.2 percentage points 95% of the time. 

ZWC - 48

4

The table below displays the areas sampled for this study. 

Sampling

Areas Sampled Sample size Margin of error

Central: Vancouver, Burnaby, New Westminster, Electoral Area A  400 +/‐ 4.9

North West: West Vancouver, City of North Vancouver, District of North Vancouver,

Lions Bay, Bowen Island190 +/‐ 7.1

North East: Anmore, Belcarra, Coquitlam, Maple Ridge, Port Moody, Port Coquitlam, Pitt 

Meadows300 +/‐ 5.7

South West: Delta (includes Ladner and Tsawwassen), Richmond, Tsawwassen First Nation 300 +/‐ 5.7

South East: Township of Langley, City of Langley, Surrey, White Rock 300 +/‐ 5.7

Total1,490

Equates to 950

n/a

+/‐ 3.2 

A note on weighting: At the request of the client, several regions were oversampled to allow reasonable separate analysis of these regions. After weighting of oversampled areas the total sample is representative of a random sample of 950 Metro Vancouver residents. 

ZWC - 49

5

Observations

Metro Vancouver’s food scraps advertising campaign 

has reached upwards of three‐in‐ten Metro 

Vancouver residents. The campaign, which primarily 

utilized SkyTrain stations, bus sides, and bus shelters 

was most successful among residents under 35 years. 

Regionally, recall of the campaign is highest within the 

Central area, comprised of the City of Vancouver, 

Burnaby, New Westminster and Electoral Area A. 

Availability of bins designated for food scraps 

increased significantly over the past year. Absence of 

food scraps bins is a key barrier to their use. With the 

availability of bins designated for food scraps 

increasing by one‐half over the past year, there has 

been a noticeable increase in household food scraps 

bin use overall.

Behaviour has changed among those residents who 

recall the the campaign. Residents aware of the 

campaign are more likely than those who are not to 

dispose used paper towels and napkins, used paper 

plates, and shells from shellfish into the food scraps 

bin. Moreover, a notable proportion of residents who 

saw the advertising are now “more likely” to dispose 

of those items into food scraps bins.

ZWC - 50

6

Executive Summary

Waste bin availability and usageDoes our residence have designated bins?According to Metro Vancouver residents (“residents”), nearly all (93% to 97%) have designated bins for garbage, mixed paper and newsprint at their residences. Other commonly available bins include those for food scraps (87%), returnable beverage containers (84%), glass (77%), and plastics and metals (76%). 

Availability of the different recycling bins has remained relatively consistent over the past year, with two notable exceptions: containers for food scraps increased by 30 percentage points to 87%; yard waste up 11 percentage points to 69%.

Which bins do we use?Closely reflecting their availability, virtually all (97%) residents use their garbage bin, closely followed by mixed paper (94%) and newsprint (88%) bins. A majority of residents use their designated bins for plastics and metals (82%), food scraps (79%), glass (75%) and returnable beverage containers (67%). Sixty‐three percent (63%) use containers for yard waste.

Among residents with a food scraps bin at their residence, nearly nine‐in‐ten (88%) typically use it for one or more types of waste. This represents a five percentage point increase since 2014.

Where do we dispose of our waste?What do we put in our food scraps bin?Overall, eight‐in‐ten (79%) residents typically use their food scraps bin for one or more of the 13 types of waste covered in the survey. The largest proportions of residents (65% to 68%) use the food scraps bin to dispose of fruits and vegetables, meat, plate scrapings or animal and fish bones. Just over six‐in‐ten (62%) use it to dispose of tea leaves and tea bags.

Other items commonly disposed into food scraps bins include shells from shellfish (57%), dairy products (56%), and coffee filters (52%). A large minority (38% to 39%) dispose of used paper towels and napkins or fats, greases, and oils in food scraps bins. Slightly fewer (33%) dispose of used paper plates into food scraps bins. Notably, these items are now disposed of in food scraps bins significantly more often than one year ago (39% to 44% increases).

ZWC - 51

7

Executive Summary cont’d

Where do we dispose different types of waste?Residents typically dispose the following types of waste in different ways:

Animal and fish bones: food scraps bin (65%); garbage (26%).

Coffee filters: food scraps bin (52%); garbage (22%).

Cardboard: corrugated cardboard recycling (42%) or mixed paper recycling (41%).

Dairy products: food scraps (56%); garbage (21%); drain (15%).

Fat, grease in oil: food scraps bin (38%); garbage (31%); drain (18%).

Fruits and vegetables: food scraps bin (68%); garbage (13%); compost (11%).

Meat: food scraps bin (66%); garbage (24%).

Paper or light cardboard containers:mixed paper recycling (70%); corrugated cardboard recycling (20%).

Plate scrapings: food scraps bin (66%); garbage (21%).

Shells from shellfish: food scraps bin (57%); garbage (26%).

Tea leaves or tea bags: food scraps bin (62%); garbage (24%).

Used paper towels and napkins: food scraps bin (39%); garbage (38%).

Used paper plates: food scraps bin (32%); garbage (28%); mixed paper recycling (25%).

Food Scraps Program AdvertisingHave we seen or heard any advertising about food scraps?Three‐in‐ten (29%) residents recall seeing or hearing advertising about food scraps in the past two months.  

What was the advertisement’s message?Among residents aware of food scraps advertising, the largest proportion (37%) recall the message “food is not garbage”. The other aspects of the advertisements related to Metro Vancouver’s food scraps recycling program residents recall, include “an ad seen on transit” (12%) and “talking food characters” (12%). 

One‐in‐ten (11%) recall seeing or hearing green bin instructions and an equal proportion (11%) recycling instructions. One‐in‐ten (9%) do not recall the advertisement’s message.

Who sponsored the advertising?Two‐in‐ten (20%) residents who saw the advertising cite the City of Vancouver as the sponsor and fourteen percent (14%) mentioned another municipality. Twelve percent (12%) correctly identified Metro Vancouver or Greater Vancouver . This equates to three percent (3%) of all Metro Vancouver residents. 

ZWC - 52

8

Executive Summary cont’d

Have we seen or heard any advertising with these images?Twenty‐eight percent (28%) of residents recall seeing or hearing, in the past two months, advertising with images similar to what they were shown. Women are more likely than are men to have seen or heard the advertising (32% versus 25%). Awareness decreases with age:

• 18 to 34 (44%)• 35 to 44 (31%)• 45 to 64 (22%)• 65 and older (12%)

Awareness is highest in the central region:• Central (38%)• North East (27%)• South East (20%)• North West (19%)• South West (18%)

Where did we see or hear this advertising?Among residents who recall food scraps advertising, the largest proportions (34% each) recall seeing them at SkyTrain stations,closely followed by bus shelters (28%), and bus sides (26%).

When prompted with a list of advertising media, a small majority recall seeing advertising at SkyTrain stations (57%), bus shelters (57%), or bus sides (53%). The other most common media include television (26%), and municipal buildings (24%).

Residents ages 18 to 34 years are most likely to recall hearing or seeing ads at SkyTrain stations (74%) or bus shelters (62%) than older residents. The most notable differences in awareness among age groups include:

SkyTrain stations

• 18 to 34 (74% aware)• 35 to 44 (53%)• 45 to 64 (45%)• 65 and older (16%)

Bus sides

• 18 to 34 (62% aware)• 35 to 44 (48%)• 45 to 64 (50%)• 65 and older (23%)

ZWC - 53

9

Executive Summary cont’d

Impact of advertisementAmong residents who recall food scraps advertising, a significant proportion feels they are more likely to use the food scraps bin for the following items:

• Used paper plates (51% more likely)• Used paper towels and napkins (50%)• Coffee filters (47%)• Shells from shellfish (46%)

Just under one‐half (44% to 46%) feel that they are about as likelyto use the food scraps bin to dispose of those items. A very small minority (1% to 2%) are now less likely to use the food scraps bin.

ZWC - 54

10

Research Findings

ZWC - 55

11

Waste Bin Availability and Usage

ZWC - 56

A1. Even if you do not use them, does your residence have recycling bins designated for these materials?

Base: Total.

12

97%

95%

93%

87%

84%

76%

71%

69%

96%

95%

94%

57%

84%

77%

67%

58%

Garbage

Mixed paper

Newsprint

Food scraps

Plastics and metals

Glass

Returnable beverage containers

Yard waste

2015

2014

Does our residence have designated bins for these materials?

ZWC - 57

13

NorthEast

North West

South East

South West

Central Total

Garbage 91% 92% 97% 93% 97% 96%

Mixed paper

96% 96% 93% 97% 95% 95%

Newsprint 94% 91% 92% 95% 92% 93%

Food scraps 86% 84% 90% 92% 85% 87%

Plastics and metals

91% 81% 84% 91% 80% 84%

Glass 81% 90% 65% 90% 74% 76%

Returnable beverage containers

60% 72% 72% 79% 72% 71%

Yard waste 66% 69% 77% 84% 61% 69%

Does our residence have designated bins for these materials?

A1. Even if you do not use them, does your residence have recycling bins designated for these materials?

Base: Total.

ZWC - 58

B1. Which of these bins at your residence does your household use?

Base: Total.

14

97%

94%

88%

82%

79%

75%

67%

63%

96%

94%

92%

83%

53%

76%

64%

53%

Garbage

Mixed paper

Newsprint

Plastics and metals

Food scraps

Glass

Returnable beverage containers

Yard waste

2015

2014

Which recycling bins do we use?

ZWC - 59

15

North East

North West

South East

South West

Central Total

Garbage 95% 97% 98% 94% 99% 97%

Mixed paper 94% 96% 93% 96% 93% 94%

Newsprint 91% 89% 89% 93% 84% 88%

Plastics and metals

90% 81% 83% 89% 78% 82%

Food scraps 83% 73% 83% 84% 76% 79%

Glass 79% 92% 66% 84% 74% 75%

Returnable beverage containers

58% 63% 67% 71% 70% 67%

Yard waste 63% 65% 72% 74% 53% 63%

Which recycling bins do we use?

B1. Which of these bins at your residence does your household use?

Base: Total.

ZWC - 60

16

What Goes Into Our Food Scraps Bin?

ZWC - 61

B3. Where do you typically dispose the following types of waste? 

Base: Total.

17

Which items do we typically dispose in the food scraps bin? ALL RESIDENTS

79%

68%

66%

66%

65%

62%

57%

56%

52%

39%

38%

32%

7%

3%

48%

41%

40%

39%

40%

37%

33%

31%

23%

21%

1%

1%

Total food scraps bin usage (net)

Fruits/vegetables

Meat

Plate scrapings

Animal/fish bones

Tea leaves/bags

Shells from shellfish

Dairy products

Coffee filters

Used paper towels and napkins

Fat/grease/oil

Used paper plates

Carboard

Paper or light cardboard

2015

2014

ZWC - 62

B3. Where do you typically dispose the following types of waste? 

Base: Have food scraps bin in residence.

18

Which items do we typically dispose in the food scraps bin? HAVE FOOD SCRAPS BIN

88%

77%

73%

73%

72%

71%

64%

62%

59%

45%

42%

36%

7%

3%

83%

67%

66%

66%

66%

62%

56%

53%

39%

34%

Total food scraps bin usage (net)

Fruits/vegetables

Meat

Plate scrapings

Animal/fish bones

Tea leaves/bags

Shells from shellfish (clams,…

Dairy products

Coffee filters

Used paper towels and napkins

Fat/grease/oil

Used paper plates

Corrugated cardboard

Paper or light cardboard…

2015

2014

ZWC - 63

19

Waste Disposal

ZWC - 64

B2a. Where do you typically dispose the following types of waste? 

Base: Total.

20

52%

22%

7%

3%

1%

<1%

6%

8%

Food scraps bin (yard waste bin,Green Bin)

Garbage

Backyard/worm composter

Mixed paper recycling

Corrugated cardboard recycling(e.g., moving boxes)

Kitchen sink, drain, garburator

Don't use

Don't know

Where do we dispose coffee filters?

ZWC - 65

21

North East

North West

South East

South West

Central Total

Food scraps bin (yard waste bin, Green Bin)

57% 44% 59% 52% 47% 52%

Garbage 19% 23% 22% 21% 24% 22%

Backyard/worm composter

7% 12% 4% 8% 8% 7%

Mixed paper recycling

3% 5% 3% 4% 3% 3%

Corrugated cardboard (e.g., moving boxes)

1% 0% 0% 1% 2% 1%

Kitchen sink, drain, garburator

<1% 0% 0% 0% <1% <1%

Don't use 5% 7% 4% 6% 7% 6%

Don't know 7% 8% 8% 6% 9% 8%

Where do we dispose coffee filters?

B2a. Where do you typically dispose the following types of waste? 

Base: Total.

ZWC - 66

B2a. Where do you typically dispose the following types of waste? 

Base: Total.

22

47%

41%

7%

4%

1%

1%

<1%

62%

31%

1%

2%

<1%

2%

2%

Corrugated cardboard recycling(e.g., moving boxes)

Mixed paper recycling

Food scraps bin (yard waste bin,Green Bin)

Garbage

Backyard/worm composter

Other

Don't know

Don't use

2015

2014

Where do we dispose corrugated cardboard (moving boxes/pizza boxes)?

ZWC - 67

23

North East

North West

South East

South West

Central Total

Corrugated cardboard (e.g., moving boxes)

50% 43% 44% 44% 49% 47%

Mixed paper recycling

34% 52% 43% 48% 38% 41%

Food scraps bin (yard waste bin, Green Bin)

4% 0% 4% 3% 3% 7%

Garbage 5% 2% 4% 3% 7% 4%

Backyard/worm composter

2% 1% 0% 1% 0% 1%

Don't use <1% 0% 0% <1% 0% <1%

Don't know 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 1%

Where do we dispose corrugated cardboard (moving boxes/pizza boxes)?

B2a. Where do you typically dispose the following types of waste? 

Base: Total.

ZWC - 68

B2a. Where do you typically dispose the following types of waste? 

Base: Total.

24

Where do we dispose paper or light cardboard containers?

70%

20%

5%

3%

1%

1%

<1%

63%

30%

2%

1%

1%

2%

1%

Mixed paper recycling

Corrugated cardboard recycling(e.g., moving boxes)

Garbage

Food scraps bin (yard waste bin,Green Bin)

Backyard/worm composter

Other

Don't know

Don't use

2015

2014

ZWC - 69

25

North East

North West

South East

South West

Central Total

Mixed paper recycling

61% 84% 69% 73% 71% 70%

Corrugated cardboard (e.g., moving boxes)

28% 11% 21% 20% 18% 20%

Garbage 5% 2% 4% 3% 7% 5%

Food scraps bin (yard waste bin, Green Bin)

4% 0% 4% 3% 3% 3%

Backyard/worm composter

2% 1% 0% 1% 0% 1%

Don't use <1% <1% <1% 0% <1% <1%

Don't know 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 1%

Where do we dispose paper or light cardboard containers?

B2a. Where do you typically dispose the following types of waste? 

Base: Total.

ZWC - 70

B2a. Where do you typically dispose the following types of waste? 

Base: Total.

26

Where do we dispose tea leaves/bags?

62%

24%

10%

<1%

<1%

3%

1%

37%

43%

9%

1%

5%

2%

2%

Food scraps bin (yard waste bin,Green Bin)

Garbage

Backyard/worm composter

Corrugated cardboard recycling(e.g., moving boxes)

Kitchen sink, drain, garburator

Other

Don't know

Don't use

2015

2014

ZWC - 71

27

North East

North West

South East

South West

Central Total

Food scraps bin (yard waste bin, Green Bin)

68% 56% 66% 67% 56% 62%

Garbage 17% 24% 22% 19% 28% 24%

Backyard/worm composter

8% 16% 6% 10% 11% 10%

Mixed paper recycling

2% 0% 1% 1% 1% 1%

Kitchen sink, drain, garburator

<1% 0% 0% 0% <1% <1%

Corrugated cardboard (e.g., moving boxes)

1% 0% 1% 0% 0% <1%

Don't use 1% 2% 0% 2% 1% 1%

Don't know 3% 1% 4% 2% 3% 3%

Where do we dispose tea leaves/bags?

B2a. Where do you typically dispose the following types of waste? 

Base: Total.

ZWC - 72

B2a. Where do you typically dispose the following types of waste? 

Base: Total.

28

Where do we dispose used paper towels and napkins?

39%

38%

16%

3%

2%

1%

1%

23%

53%

15%

3%

3%

2%

1%

Food scraps bin (yard waste bin,Green Bin)

Garbage

Mixed paper recycling

Backyard/worm composter

Corrugated cardboard recycling(e.g., moving boxes)

Other

Don't know

Don't use

2015

2014

ZWC - 73

29

North East

North West

South East

South West

Central Total

Food scraps bin (yard waste bin, Green Bin)

47% 32% 50% 42% 31% 39%

Garbage 36% 38% 31% 33% 43% 38%

Mixed paper recycling

13% 22% 13% 16% 18% 16%

Backyard/worm composter

3% 4% 1% 5% 4% 3%

Corrugated cardboard (e.g., moving boxes)

2% 1% 2% 2% 2% 2%

Don't use 0% 2% 0% 1% 1% 1%

Don't know 0% 1% 1% 1% 0% 1%

Where do we dispose used paper towels and napkins?

B2a. Where do you typically dispose the following types of waste? 

Base: Total.

ZWC - 74

B2a. Where do you typically dispose the following types of waste? 

Base: Total.

30

Where do we dispose used paper plates?

32%

28%

25%

5%

2%

5%

<1%

Food scraps bin (yard waste bin,Green Bin)

Garbage

Mixed paper recycling

Corrugated cardboard recycling(e.g., moving boxes)

Backyard/worm composter

Don't know

Don't use

ZWC - 75

31

North East

North West

South East

South West

Central Total

Food scraps bin (yard waste bin, Green Bin)

38% 17% 35% 35% 29% 32%

Garbage 27% 23% 28% 24% 31% 28%

Mixed paper recycling

17% 38% 24% 27% 25% 25%

Corrugated cardboard (e.g., moving boxes)

6% 5% 5% 7% 4% 5%

Backyard/worm composter

2% 2% 1% 2% 2% 2%

Don't know 5% 9% 5% 3% 4% 5%

Don't use 5% 8% 3% 2% 4% 4%

Where do we dispose used paper plates?

B2a. Where do you typically dispose the following types of waste? 

Base: Total.

ZWC - 76

B2b. Where do you typically dispose the following types of waste? 

Base: Total.

32

Where do we dispose animal/fish bones?

65%

26%

3%

1%

<1%

1%

3%

40%

51%

2%

1%

3%

2%

Food scraps bin (yard waste bin,Green Bin)

Garbage

Backyard/worm composter

Kitchen sink, drain, garburator

Other

Don't use

Don't know

2015

2014

ZWC - 77

33

North East

North West

South East

South West

Central Total

Food scraps bin (yard waste bin, Green Bin)

71% 62% 70% 75% 57% 65%

Garbage 21% 28% 24% 20% 31% 26%

Backyard/worm composter

3% 4% 2% 2% 4% 3%

Kitchen sink, drain, garburator

2% 2% 1% 1% 2% 1%

Other 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% <1%

Don't use 0% 2% 0% 1% 2% 1%

Don't know 2% 2% 4% 2% 4% 3%

Where do we dispose animal/fish bones?

B2b. Where do you typically dispose the following types of waste? 

Base: Total.

ZWC - 78

B2b. Where do you typically dispose the following types of waste? 

Base: Total.

34

Where do we dispose dairy (e.g. yogurt and cheese)?

56%

21%

15%

2%

<1%

1%

3%

33%

41%

12%

3%

6%

2%

Food scraps bin (yard waste bin,Green Bin)

Garbage

Kitchen sink, drain, garburator

Backyard/worm composter

Other

Don't use

Don't know

2015

2014

ZWC - 79

35

North East

North West

South East

South West

Central Total

Food scraps bin (yard waste bin, Green Bin)

60% 49% 62% 62% 51% 56%

Garbage 16% 23% 21% 15% 24% 21%

Kitchen sink, drain, garburator

17% 21% 12% 13% 16% 15%

Backyard/worm composter

3% 2% 2% 3% 2% 2%

Other 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% <1%

Don't use 1% 0% 2% 3% 4% 3%

Don't know 2% 5% 2% 4% 3% 3%

Where do we dispose dairy (e.g. yogurt and cheese)?

B2b. Where do you typically dispose the following types of waste? 

Base: Total.

ZWC - 80

B2b. Where do you typically dispose the following types of waste? 

Base: Total.

36

Where do we dispose fat, grease, and oils?

38%

31%

18%

2%

1%

1%

9%

21%

48%

16%

1%

5%

8%

Food scraps bin (yard waste bin,Green Bin)

Garbage

Kitchen sink, drain, garburator

Backyard/worm composter

Other

Don't use

Don't know

2015

2014

ZWC - 81

37

North East

North West

South East

South West

Central Total

Food scraps bin (yard waste bin, Green Bin)

36% 40% 49% 38% 31% 38%

Garbage 31% 30% 26% 38% 33% 31%

Kitchen sink, drain, garburator

18% 18% 15% 11% 21% 18%

Backyard/worm composter

2% 2% 2% 3% 2% 2%

Other 2% 1% 1% 0% 2% 1%

Don't use 1% 1% 0% 1% 2% 1%

Don't know 9% 8% 8% 9% 9% 9%

Where do we dispose fat, grease, and oils?

B2b. Where do you typically dispose the following types of waste? 

Base: Total.

ZWC - 82

B2b. Where do you typically dispose the following types of waste? 

Base: Total.

38

Where do we dispose fruits and vegetables?

68%

13%

11%

5%

<1%

<1%

1%

41%

37%

10%

9%

1%

1%

Food scraps bin (yard waste bin,Green Bin)

Garbage

Backyard/worm composter

Kitchen sink, drain, garburator

Other

Don't use

Don't know

2015

2014

ZWC - 83

39

North East

North West

South East

South West

Central Total

Food scraps bin (yard waste bin, Green Bin)

75% 56% 75% 76% 63% 68%

Garbage 10% 13% 11% 10% 17% 13%

Backyard/worm composter

10% 22% 8% 11% 11% 11%

Kitchen sink, drain, garburator

4% 9% 5% 2% 6% 5%

Other 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% <1%

Don't use 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% <1%

Don't know 0% 0% 1% 0% 2% 1%

Where do we dispose fruits and vegetables?

B2b. Where do you typically dispose the following types of waste? 

Base: Total.

ZWC - 84

B2b. Where do you typically dispose the following types of waste? 

Base: Total.

40

Where do we dispose meat?

66%

24%

3%

3%

1%

3%

2%

40%

47%

3%

2%

3%

2%

Food scraps bin (yard waste bin,Green Bin)

Garbage

Kitchen sink, drain, garburator

Backyard/worm composter

Other

Don't use

Don't know

2015

2014

ZWC - 85

41

North East

North West

South East

South West

Central Total

Food scraps bin (yard waste bin, Green Bin)

72% 62% 72% 73% 59% 66%

Garbage 19% 24% 21% 19% 28% 24%

Kitchen sink, drain, garburator

2% 5% 3% 1% 3% 3%

Backyard/worm composter

3% 2% 1% 3% 3% 3%

Other 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1%

Don't use 2% 2% 2% 2% 4% 3%

Don't know 1% 4% 2% 2% 1% 2%

Where do we dispose meat?

B2b. Where do you typically dispose the following types of waste? 

Base: Total.

ZWC - 86

B2b. Where do you typically dispose the following types of waste? 

Base: Total.

42

Where do we dispose plate scrapings?

66%

21%

7%

4%

<1%

<1%

1%

39%

41%

11%

3%

4%

2%

Food scraps bin (yard waste bin,Green Bin)

Garbage

Kitchen sink, drain, garburator

Backyard/worm composter

Other

Don't use

Don't know

2015

2014

ZWC - 87

43

Where do we dispose plate scrapings?

North East

North West

South East

South West

Central Total

Food scraps bin (yard waste bin, Green Bin)

71% 61% 71% 72% 59% 66%

Garbage 16% 20% 17% 19% 27% 21%

Kitchen sink, drain, garburator

7% 10% 7% 4% 7% 7%

Backyard/worm composter

4% 6% 3% 4% 5% 4%

Other <1% 0% 1% 0% <1% <1%

Don't use 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% <1%

Don't know 2% 3% 2% 1% 0% 1%

B2b. Where do you typically dispose the following types of waste? 

Base: Total.

ZWC - 88

B2b. Where do you typically dispose the following types of waste? 

Base: Total.

44

Where do we dispose shells from shellfish (clams, mussels, shrimp, etc.)?

57%

26%

3%

1%

<1%

4%

<1%

Food scraps bin (yard waste bin,Green Bin)

Garbage

Backyard/worm composter

Kitchen sink, drain, garburator

Other

Don't use

Don't know

ZWC - 89

45

Where do we dispose shells from shellfish (clams, mussels, shrimp, etc.)?

North East

North West

South East

South West

Central Total

Food scraps bin (yard waste bin, Green Bin)

62% 50% 62% 67% 51% 57%

Garbage 22% 29% 23% 20% 30% 26%

Backyard/worm composter

3% 4% 2% 4% 4% 3%

Kitchen sink, drain, garburator

1% 3% 1% 1% 1% 1%

Other <1% 0% <1% 0% <1% <1%

Don't use 4% 4% 3% 2% 6% 4%

Don't know 8% 12% 9% 6% 8% 8%

B2b. Where do you typically dispose the following types of waste? 

Base: Total.

ZWC - 90

46

Overall Food Scraps Advertising

ZWC - 91

Have we seen or heard any advertising about food scraps?

C1. In the past two months have you seen or heard any advertising about food scraps?

Base: Total.

47

29%

32%

Yes, 2015

Yes, 2014

ZWC - 92

48

Have we seen or heard any advertising about food scraps?

29%

37%

27%

26%

25%

21%

Overallawareness

Central

South West

North East

North West

South East

C1. In the past two months have you seen or heard any advertising about food scraps?

Base: Total.

ZWC - 93

C2. Please describe the advertisement you saw or heard. What was the advertisement’s message? Please be specific.

Base: Aware of advertising.

49

What was the advertisement’s message?

37%

23%

12%

11%

9%

3%

3%

16%

10%

34%

21%

5%

14%

14%

19%

Food is not garbage (Food scraps go in thegreen bin)

Food should go into the green bin/berecylced

Talking/animated food characters

Green bin instructions (what does/doesn’t go in)

Flyer/pamphlet from city or propertymanagement

Info about new recycling and food scrapsprograms

Grease goes in the garbage, not the drain

Other

Don't know

2015

2014

ZWC - 94

50

What was the advertisement about?

North East

North West

South East

South West

Central Total

Food is not garbage (Food scraps go in green bin)

35% 30% 36% 41% 38% 37%

Ad seen on transit 11% 11% 20% 3% 12% 12%

Talking/animated food 9% 7% 14% 12% 12% 12%

Green bin instructions (what does/doesn’t go in)

11% 15% 11% 9% 12% 11%

Recycle 14% 13% 9% 13% 11% 11%

Flyer/pamphlet from city or property management

13% 10% 3% 9% 11% 9%

Info about new recycling and food scraps programs

2% 7% 2% 5% 3% 3%

Grease goes in the garbage, not the drain

2% 0% 15% 1% 0% 3%

Other 13% 22% 11% 13% 18% 16%

Don't know 10% 7% 12% 9% 9% 10%

C2. Please describe the advertisement you saw or heard. What was the advertisement’s message? Please be specific.

Base: Those aware of advertising.

ZWC - 95

C3. To the best of your knowledge, who or what organization sponsored this advertising?

Base: Aware of advertising.

51

Who sponsored the advertisement?

37%

12%

18%

34%

37%

13%

9%

41%

City/municipality

Metro Vancouver

Other

Don't know

2015

2014

ZWC - 96

52

Who sponsored the advertisement?

North East

North West

South East

South West

Central Total

City of Vancouver 2% 4% 6% 8% 33% 20%

Other municipality 10% 31% 17% 7% 13% 14%

Metro Vancouver/ GVRD

16% 6% 16% 14% 11% 12%

Recycling corporation/entity

7% 11% 13% 12% 4% 7%

Federal or Provincial Government

4% 5% 1% 5% 4% 4%

City of Richmond 0% 0% 0% 17% 0% 2%

City of Port Coquitlam

13% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1%

Others 13% 9% 3% 1% 9% 7%

Don't know 37% 36% 45% 38% 28% 34%

C3. To the best of your knowledge, who or what organization sponsored this advertising?

Base: Those aware of advertising.

ZWC - 97

53

Metro Vancouver Food Scraps Advertising

ZWC - 98

Have we seen or heard any advertising with these messages and characters?

C4. In the past two months, do you recall seeing or hearing advertising with these messages and types of characters?

Base: Total.

54

28%

31%

Yes, 2015

Yes, 2014

ZWC - 99

55

Have we seen or heard any advertising with these messages and characters?

28%

38%

27%

20%

19%

18%

Overallawareness

Central

North East

South East

North West

South West

C4. In the past two months, do you recall seeing or hearing advertising with these messages and types of characters?

Base: Total.

ZWC - 100

C5. Where did you see or hear this advertising?

C6. Did you see this advertising in the following locations or media?

Base: Those who answered.

56

Where did we see or hear this advertising? TOTAL AIDED AND UNAIDED

28%

34%

26%

12%

4%

57%

57%

53%

26%

24%

13%

11%

11%

7%

7%

3%

Bus shelter or stop

Skytrain stations

Bus sides

Television

Municipal buildings ( e.g.libraries, city hall)

Inside business elevators

Youtube

Facebook

Twitter

Newspaper

Radio

Total unaided Total aided

ZWC - 101

C5. Where did you see or hear this advertising?

C6. Did you see this advertising in the following locations or media?

Base: Those who answered.

57

Where did we see or hear this advertising? TOTAL AIDED

57%

57%

53%

26%

24%

13%

11%

11%

7%

7%

3%

51%

45%

45%

38%

8%

9%

5%

8%

3%

0%

0%

Bus shelter or stop

Skytrain stations

Bus sides

Television

Municipal buildings ( e.g.libraries, city hall)

Inside business elevators

Youtube

Facebook

Twitter

Newspaper

Radio

2015

2014

ZWC - 102

58

North East

North West

South East

South West

Central Total

Bus shelters 62% 54% 66% 41% 56% 57%

Skytrain stations 35% 42% 56% 61% 63% 57%

Bus sides 43% 35% 57% 44% 56% 53%

Television 24% 19% 32% 20% 26% 26%

Municipal buildings 30% 19% 26% 19% 23% 24%

Inside business elevators 5% 9% 15% 3% 16% 13%

Youtube 10% 9% 15% 4% 12% 11%

Facebook 10% 6% 17% 2% 10% 11%

Twitter 7% 5% 14% 5% 6% 7%

Where did we see or hear this advertising? TOTAL AIDED

C6. Did you see this advertising in the following locations or media?

Base: Those who answered.

ZWC - 103

59

Impact of Advertisement

ZWC - 104

D1. As a result of this advertising, are you now more likely or less likely to dispose of the following in a food scraps bin?

Base: Aware of advertising.

60

Are we more likely to use the food scraps bin for used paper plates?

51%

44%

2%

3%

More likely

About as likely

Less likely

Don’t know

ZWC - 105

61

North East

North West

South East

South West

Central Total

More likely 46% 40% 51% 68% 50% 51%

About as likely 49% 54% 44% 26% 44% 44%

Less likely 4% 0% 3% 0% 2% 2%

Don't know 1% 6% 2% 5% 4% 3%

Are we more likely to use the food scraps bin for used paper plates?

D1. As a result of this advertising, are you now more likely or less likely to dispose of the following in a food scraps bin?

Base: Aware of advertising.

ZWC - 106

D1. As a result of this advertising, are you now more likely or less likely to dispose of the following in a food scraps bin?

Base: Aware of advertising.

62

Are we more likely to use the food scraps bin for used paper towels and napkins?

50%

44%

2%

4%

More likely

About as likely

Less likely

Don’t know

ZWC - 107

63

North East

North West

South East

South West

Central Total

More likely 48% 36% 49% 71% 49% 50%

About as likely 45% 61% 46% 22% 45% 44%

Less likely 6% 0% 4% 0% 1% 2%

Don't know 1% 3% 2% 7% 5% 4%

Are we more likely to use the food scraps bin for used paper towels and napkins?

D1. As a result of this advertising, are you now more likely or less likely to dispose of the following in a food scraps bin?

Base: Aware of advertising.

ZWC - 108

D1. As a result of this advertising, are you now more likely or less likely to dispose of the following in a food scraps bin?

Base: Aware of advertising.

64

Are we more likely to use the food scraps bin for shells from shellfish (clams, mussels, shrimp, etc.)?

46%

45%

2%

7%

More likely

About as likely

Less likely

Don’t know

ZWC - 109

65

North East

North West

South East

South West

Central Total

More likely 46% 40% 51% 68% 50% 46%

About as likely 49% 54% 44% 26% 44% 45%

Less likely 4% 0% 3% 0% 2% 2%

Don't know 1% 6% 2% 5% 4% 7%

Are we more likely to use the food scraps bin for shells from shellfish (clams, mussels, shrimp, etc.)?

D1. As a result of this advertising, are you now more likely or less likely to dispose of the following in a food scraps bin?

Base: Aware of advertising.

ZWC - 110

D1. As a result of this advertising, are you now more likely or less likely to dispose of the following in a food scraps bin?

Base: Aware of advertising.

66

Are we more likely to use the food scraps bin for coffee filters?

47%

45%

1%

6%

More likely

About as likely

Less likely

Don’t know

ZWC - 111

67

North East

North West

South East

South West

Central Total

More likely 46% 40% 51% 68% 50% 47%

About as likely 49% 54% 44% 26% 44% 45%

Less likely 4% 0% 3% 0% 2% 1%

Don't know 1% 6% 2% 5% 4% 6%

Are we more likely to use the food scraps bin for coffee filters?

D1. As a result of this advertising, are you now more likely or less likely to dispose of the following in a food scraps bin?

Base: Aware of advertising.

ZWC - 112

68

Demographic Profile

ZWC - 113

Z1. Approximately how long ago did you start using a food scraps bin (Green Bin) regularly?

Base: Those who use Green Bin.

69

When did we start using our Green Bin?

10%

36%

38%

16%

Within the past two months

Within the past year

Within the past five years

Don’t know

ZWC - 114

70

North East

North West

South East

South West

Central Total

Within the past two months

6% 9% 11% 7% 12% 10%

Within the past year

47% 41% 27% 40% 36% 36%

Within the past five years

34% 28% 51% 41% 33% 38%

Don’t know 14% 22% 12% 13% 19% 16%

When did we start using our Green Bin?

Z1. Approximately how long ago did you start using a food scraps bin (Green Bin) regularly?

Base: Those who use Green Bin.

ZWC - 115

Demographic profile of:

The total sample (overall

Have food scraps bin

Use food scraps bin

Aware of Metro Vancouver advertising

71

Demographic profile

Demographics OverallHave food scraps bin

Use foodscraps bin

Aware of Metro Van advertising

Gender

Male 48% 48% 48% ▼41%

Female 52% 52% 52% ▲59%

Age

18‐34 29% 28% 27% ▲48%

35‐44 17% 17% 17% 19%

45‐64 38% 39% 40% ▼28%

65+ 15% 16% 16% ▼4%

ZWC - 116

Demographic profile of:

The total sample (overall)

Have food scraps bin

Use food scraps bin

Aware of Metro Vancouver advertising

72

Demographic profile cont’d

Demographics OverallHave food scraps bin

Use foodscraps bin

Aware of Metro Van advertising

Type of home

Detached house 46% 46% 47% ▼40%

Apartment/Condo 35% 34% 32% ▲42%

Townhouse 15% 16% 16% 14%

Other 3% 4% 6% 5%

Region

North East 13% 13% 14% 13%

North West 8% 8% 7% 5%

South East 26% 26% 27% ▼18%

South West 13% 13% 13% ▼8%

Central 41% 40% 39% ▲56%

ZWC - 117

Justason Market Intelligence Inc. | Vancouver Focus®Barb Justason Geoff@JustasonMI.com JustasonMI.com 1156 Hornby Street, Vancouver, B.C. Canada V6Z1V8 +1 604 638 1121

ZWC - 118

2015 Christmas Post-Campaign Tracking Research

January 2016

ATTACHMENT 3

ZWC - 119

Introduction

Background

Metro Vancouver first launched a Zero Waste Challenge

Christmas campaign in 2009 to encourage residents to

reduce the volume of garbage they produce over the

holiday season. The 2015 Christmas campaign consisted of

transit, print, on-line, radio, and television advertising, in

addition to posters and decals in public buildings throughout

Metro Vancouver. This report presents the findings from

the post-campaign measure conducted shortly after the

campaign ended.

In the post-Christmas 2015 survey the sample size was

increased from the 400 surveys completed in previous

waves to 1500 completed surveys. A total of 300 surveys

were completed in each of 5 Metro Vancouver regions

allowing for analysis of results by region as well as Metro

Vancouver as a whole. Comparisons are made in the report

to previous measures where possible.

2

Methodology

1,500 interviews completed using Mustel Group’s randomly recruited panel;

Field dates: January 6th – 17th, 2016;

Sample weighted by age within gender and region to match Statistics Canada data for region;

Margin of error on a random sample of n=1,500:

+/-2.5% at the 95% level of confidence;

Margin of error on a random sample of n=300:

+/-5.7% at the 95% level of confidence;

Questionnaire used appended;

Detailed computer tabulations presented under separate cover.

ZWC - 120

Executive Overview

A total of 32% recall any advertising about reducing the amount of garbage we make at Christmas, lower than the level recorded last year (49%) but similar to the level recorded in 2014 (31%)

A total of 20% report seeing one of the print ads, less than half that reported a year ago (46%) and somewhat lower than all previous years. Awareness is somewhat higher among those under 35 years of age but does not vary significantly by gender.

Recall remains highest of the transit advertising. A link to the TV advertising continues to be made by a considerable proportion when shown the print ads.

One-third report recall of the TV ad, a significant decrease compared with 2015 (50%) and 2014 (41%), but in line with or higher than all years prior to that.

As noted in the past, women are more inclined than men to recall the commercial (35% versus 28% of men). But unlike the print ads, older residents are more inclined to recall the TV ads (44% of those 55 years plus versus 31% of those 35 to 54 and just 18% of those under 35).

3

The majority found each type of advertising to be effectivein making them think about the types of gifts they would give at Christmas to reduce the amount of garbage we create. A total of 57% rated the print ads ‘very’ or ‘somewhat’ effective, and 64% found the TV ad to be effective (similar to previous measures).

A total of 17% of Metro Vancouver residents reported some impact on their behaviour (responded yes or maybe) when asked if the campaign had an impact on the types of gifts they bought at Christmas. This level is comparable to the Christmas campaigns of the past two years.

This year all respondents were asked if the ads they had viewed in the survey had or would encourage them to think about the gifts given at work or other group settings and two thirds said yes (24%) or maybe (42%); they were further asked if the ads did or would make them think about how they dealt with holiday leftovers, here, about half said yes (19%) or maybe (29%).

Changes reported by those said to have been influenced by the advertising mostly relate to use or disposal of leftovers, either using them up, giving away or composting, while some said they gave alternative gifts such as experiences or donations, and others used alternative or recycled gift wrapping.

ZWC - 121

4

Detailed Findings

ZWC - 122

5

Unaided Awareness and Source of Advertising

• Respondents were first asked if they recall any advertising about reducing the amount of garbage we make at Christmas.

• A total of 32% recall such advertising, lower than the level recorded last year (49%) but similar to the level recorded in 2014 (31%).

• Recall levels this year continue to be higher among women (35%) than men (28%), though this year they are consistent amongst the various age groups.

• The top source recalled by most again is television advertising, followed by transit.

Base: Total Jan 2016 (n=1500)Total Jan 2015 (n=400)Total Feb 2014 (n=400)Total Jan 2013 (n=400)Total Jan 2012 (n=400)Total Jan 2011 (n=495)Total Nov 2010 (n=403)Total Aug 2010 (n=422)Total Jan 2010 (n=500)

Jan 2012 - 2016 wording Q2a) Do you recall any recent Christmas advertising about the types of gifts you could give to reduce the amount of garbage you create?

Q.1a) Did you recently see or hear any advertising about reducing the amount of garbage we make at Christmas?

Aug/Nov 2010 wording Q.1a) Did you recently see or hear any advertising about reducing the amount of garbage we make?

Total Who Recall Advertising

Source

Jan2010(125)

%

Aug2010(191)

%

Nov2010(148)

%

Jan2011(209)

%

Jan2012(180)

%

Jan2013(201)

%

Feb2014(128)

%

Jan2015(201)

%

Jan2016(474)

%Transit (vehicles/ shelters)

32 24 8 32 38 37 25 26 16

Newspaper 32 30 40 32 15 7 10 4 6

TV 31 37 33 26 39 49 51 64 55

Radio 10 15 6 14 12 7 10 7 8

Bulletins/ posters n/a n/a 6 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Internet/ online n/a n/a 3 2 6 1 5 7 8

Newsletter/ flyer/ magazines

n/a n/a 2 n/a 4 1 3 4 5

Word of mouth n/a n/a 2 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Miscellaneous 3 7 5 8 6 2 3 4 3

Don’t recall 7 7 9 10 5 10 4 1 8

Jan 2015/2016 wording Q.2b) Where did you see or hear this advertising?Q.1b/2b) Where did you see or hear Christmas advertising

32%

49%

31%

50%

47%

43%

37%

44%

32%

Jan 2016

Jan 2015

Feb 2014

Jan 2013

Jan 2012

Jan 2011

Nov 2010

Aug 2010

Jan 2010

ZWC - 123

32%

32%

33%

35%

32%

27%

Total 2016

Central

North East

North West

South East

South West

6

Unaided Awareness and Source of Advertising

• Overall recall levels are consistent across the five Metro Vancouver regions.

• Recall from television is consistent across all regions; those in the North West are somewhat more likely than other regions to recall ads from newspapers but less likely than other regions to recall them from transit.

Base: Total (n=1500)Central (n=300)North East (n=300)North West (n=300)South East (n=300)South West (n=300)

Jan 2012 - 2016 wording Q2a) Do you recall any recent Christmas advertising about the types of gifts you could give to reduce the amount of garbage you create?

Q.1a) Did you recently see or hear any advertising about reducing the amount of garbage we make at Christmas?

Aug/Nov 2010 wording Q.1a) Did you recently see or hear any advertising about reducing the amount of garbage we make?

Total Who Recall Advertising

2016

Source

Total2016(474)

%

Central(99)%

North East(99)%

North West(102)

%

South East(94)%

South West(80)%

Transit (vehicles/ shelters) 16 18 24 7 13 14

Newspaper 6 3 6 20 7 6

TV 55 52 57 64 55 58

Radio 8 10 6 8 6 6

Internet/ online 8 9 3 11 8 11

Newsletter/ flyer/ magazines 5 5 3 8 7 3

Miscellaneous 3 5 -- 4 3 3

Don’t recall 8 7 11 1 7 9

Jan 2015/2016 wording Q.2b) Where did you see or hear this advertising?Q.1b/2b) Where did you see or hear Christmas advertising

ZWC - 124

Unaided Awareness of Advertising Sponsor

7

• As previously found, more than half of residents are unable to identify the sponsor.

• While lower than the level recorded in 2015, awareness of Metro Vancouver as the sponsor is statistically similar to 2014, 2012 and 2011.

Total recall Christmas advertising

Jan2010(125)

%

Aug2010(191)

%

Nov2010(148)

%

Jan2011(209)

%

Jan2012(180)

%

Jan2013(201)

%

Feb2014(128)

%

Jan2015(201)

%

Jan2016(474)

%

Metro Vancouver/ GVRD 15 6 4 19 20 27 14 34 19

City of Vancouver 4 8 1 8 9 9 11 18 14 11

Recycling companies -- 5 5 2 -- -- -- -- --

Other government -- 3 3 2 -- -- -- -- --

Misc. recycling/ environmental organizations

-- -- -- -- -- -- 8 2 6

Miscellaneous charities -- -- -- -- -- -- 1 4 3

Miscellaneous 13 6 12 7 20 8 5 3 13

Don’t recall 68 71 58 63 53 55 55 47 50

Q.1c/2c) And who sponsored the advertising or the program?

ZWC - 125

Unaided Awareness of Advertising Sponsor

8

• Awareness of Metro Vancouver as the sponsor varies regionally from highest in the North East to lowest in the South East.

Total recall Christmas advertising

2016

Location

Total2016(474)

%

Central(99)%

North East(99)%

North West(102)

%

South East(94)%

South West(80)%

Metro Vancouver/ GVRD 19 20 32 18 12 15

City of Vancouver 11 13 7 13 11 5

Misc. recycling/ environmental organizations

6 7 4 9 7 3

Miscellaneous charities 3 3 2 2 3 1

Miscellaneous 13 12 7 12 16 21

Don’t recall 50 46 51 50 53 55

Q.1c/2c) And who sponsored the advertising or the program?

ZWC - 126

Recall Recent Advertising/ References to “Green Angels”

9

• When asked specifically about advertising or any reference to ‘green angels’, fewer than one-in-ten report recall (8%), similar to the past two years.

Base: Total Jan 2016 (n=1500)Total Jan 2015 (n=400)Total Feb 2014 (n=400) Total Jan 2013 (n=400)Total Jan 2012 (n=400)

Q.3) Do you recall any recent advertising or references to “Green Angels”?

8%

11%

8%

20%

25%

92%

89%

92%

80%

75%

Jan 2016

Jan 2015

Feb 2014

Jan 2013

Jan 2012

Yes No

ZWC - 127

Recall Recent Advertising/ References to “Green Angels”

10

• The level of recall of advertising or any reference to ‘green angels’ is consistent across all regions of Metro Vancouver.

Base: Total (n=1500)Central (n=300)North East (n=300) North West (n=300)South East (n=300)South West (n=300)

Q.3) Do you recall any recent advertising or references to “Green Angels”?

8%

7%

7%

8%

9%

7%

92%

93%

93%

92%

91%

93%

Total 2016

Central

North East

North West

South East

South West

Yes No

ZWC - 128

20%

46%

37%

39%

44%

33%

35%

30%

Total 2016

Jan 2015

Feb 2014

Jan 2013

Jan 2012

Jan 2011

Aug 2010

Jan 2010

11

Prompted Recall and Source of Print Advertising

• Respondents were shown examples of the print advertisements.

• One-in-five respondents report seeing one of the ads, less than half that reported a year ago (46%) and somewhat lower than all previous years.

• Awareness is somewhat higher among those under 35 years of age (27% vs. 17% of those 35+) but does not vary significantly by gender.

• Again recall is highest of the transit advertising. A link to the TV advertising is also made by a considerable proportion.

Base: Total Jan 2015 (n=1500)Total Jan 2015 (n=400)Total Feb 2014 (n=400)Total Jan 2013 (n=400)Total Jan 2012 (n=400)Total Jan 2011 (n=495)Total Aug 2010 (n=422)Total Jan 2010 (n=404)

2015 wording Q.4a) Do you recall recently seeing these ads or ones similar to these ads?

2012/13 wording Q.4a) Do you recall seeing these ads or ones similar to these ads?

Jan 2010-Jan 2011 wording Q.2/2a) Do you recall seeing this ad?

Total Who Recall Seeing Advertising

Location

Jan2010(112)

%

Aug2010(133)

%

Jan2011(149)

%

Jan2012(167)

%

Jan2013(153)

%

Feb 2014(152)

%

Jan2015(186)

%

Jan2016(308)

%

Transit (skytrain/ vehicles/ shelters)

38 65 52 57 49 27 45 39

Newspaper 32 17 25 17 13 13 13 10

TV 15 3 7 23 39 45 39 32

Online n/a n/a <1 2 1 7 4 5

Other print (i.e. flyers, magazines)

n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 1 5 6

Miscellaneous 7 10 7 8 5 4 1 7

Don’t recall 18 9 13 6 3 10 5 10

Jan 2012 - 2016 Q.4b) Where do you recall seeing the ads?Jan 2011 Q.2b) Where do you recall you saw this ad?Jan/Aug 2010 wording Q.3) Where did you see or hear this advertising?

ZWC - 129

20%

21%

25%

21%

17%

18%

Total 2016

Central

North East

North West

South East

South West

12

Prompted Recall and Source of Print Advertising

• Recall of the advertising on transit is higher in the Central and North East regions compared with the South East and South West.

• Otherwise, recall does not vary significantly between regions for the various sources.

Base: Total (n=1500)Central (n=300)North East (n=300)North West (n=300)South East (n=300)South West (n=300)

2015/6 wording Q.4a) Do you recall recently seeing these ads or ones similar to these ads?

2012/13 wording Q.4a) Do you recall seeing these ads or ones similar to these ads?

Jan 2010-Jan 2011 wording Q.2/2a) Do you recall seeing this ad?

Total Who Recall Advertising

2016

Location

Total2016(308)

%

Central(71)%

North East(73)%

North West(61)%

South East(49)%

South West(54)%

Transit (skytrain/ vehicles/ shelters) 39 48 45 34 27 26

Newspaper 10 7 10 16 12 11

TV 32 26 27 39 44 36

Online 5 4 6 1 4 9

Other print (i.e. flyers, magazines) 6 10 3 2 7 --

Miscellaneous 7 9 2 2 7 11

Don’t recall 10 9 12 12 9 12

Jan 2012 - 2016 Q.4b) Where do you recall seeing the ads?Jan 2011 Q.2b) Where do you recall you saw this ad?Jan/Aug 2010 wording Q.3) Where did you see or hear this advertising?

ZWC - 130

Aided Awareness of Print Advertising Source

13

• Once prompted, awareness of transit advertising increases to 57% and to 43% on television.

• Awareness of online advertising increases from 5% to 16%, while posters in various places are noted as sources by 15%.

• Prompted recall of ads on transit is particularly high in the Central region.

Total Recall Advertising

2016

Location

Jan2015(186)

%

Jan2016(308)

%

Central(89)%

NorthEast(98)%

NorthWest(98)%

SouthEast(98)%

SouthWest(98)%

TV Commercial 59 43 36 40 52 53 48

Transit (vehicles/ shelters) 56 57 73 50 47 45 44

Posters in various public buildings

13 15 18 14 3 14 16

Online 9 16 14 16 16 21 13

News 9 13 7 13 22 18 21

Digital Billboard -- 4 5 7 -- 3 1

Q.4c) Please select where you saw the ads

ZWC - 131

Aided Awareness of Print Advertising Source

14

• Prompted awareness of transit advertising is highest amongst youth, while TV advertising is recalled more commonly by those 35 or older.

Total Recall Advertising

Gender Age

Location

Total2016(308)

%

Male(146)

%

Female(162)

%

18-34(89)%

35-54(98)%

55+(121)

%

Transit (vehicles/ shelters) 57 55 60 78 50 36

TV Commercial 43 44 43 24 44 72

Online 16 19 13 11 19 21

Posters in various public buildings

15 15 15 22 11 11

News 13 15 12 10 10 23

Digital Billboard 4 6 3 8 2 3

Q.4c) Please select where you saw the ads

ZWC - 132

Effectiveness of Print Ads

15

• Respondents were asked to rate how effective the print ads are in “encouraging you to think about the types of gifts you would give at Christmas to reduce the amount of garbage we create”.

• A total of 57% reported the ads to be very or somewhat effective, similar to most previous years’ scores.

• Women and those under 35 years are the most positive about the print ads.

Base: Total Jan 2016 (n=1500)Total Jan 2015 (n=400)Total Feb 2014 (n=400)Total Jan 2013 (n=400)Total Jan 2012 (n=400)Total Jan 2011 (n=495)

Jan 2012 - 2016 wording Q.5) Overall, how effective do you find the ads in encouraging you to think about the types of gifts you would give at Christmas to reduce the amount of garbage we create?

Jan 2011 wording Q.2c) Overall how effective do you find the ad in communicating the message to reduce the amount of garbage we make at Christmas?

11%

13%

15%

11%

12%

16%

47%

44%

55%

46%

44%

53%

30%

27%

20%

29%

27%

23%

13%

16%

10%

14%

17%

8%

Jan 2016

Jan 2015

Feb 2014

Jan 2013

Jan 2012

Jan 2011

Very effective Somewhat effective

Not very effective Not at all effective

Total effective

57%

57%

70%

57%

56%

69%

ZWC - 133

Effectiveness of Print Ads

16

• Response to the ads is generally consistent across the regions, though residents in the North West are somewhat less positive than the others.

Base: Total (n=1500)Central (n=300)North West (n=300)North East (n=300)South East (n=300)South West (n=300)

Jan 2012 - 2016 wording Q.5) Overall, how effective do you find the ads in encouraging you to think about the types of gifts you would give at Christmas to reduce the amount of garbage we create?

Jan 2011 wording Q.2c) Overall how effective do you find the ad in communicating the message to reduce the amount of garbage we make at Christmas?

11%

11%

10%

8%

12%

8%

48%

47%

47%

39%

46%

50%

30%

29%

31%

36%

30%

29%

13%

13%

13%

17%

11%

13%

Total 2016

Central

North East

North West

South East

South West

Very effective Somewhat effective

Not very effective Not at all effective

Total effective

57%

59%

56%

47%

58%

58%

ZWC - 134

Recall Ad on Television

17

• Respondents were provided with a link to the TV commercial. Of those who were able to watch the commercial, one-third report recall of the ad, a significant decrease from 2015 and 2014, but in line with 2013 and significantly higher than the two years prior to that.

• As noted in the past, women are more inclined than men to recall the commercial (35% versus 28% of men). But unlike the print ads, older residents are more inclined to recall the TV ads (44% of those 55 years plus versus 31% of those 35 to 54 and just 18% of those under 35).

• Similar to the previous findings, almost two-thirds found it to be effective in communicating its intended message.

Base: Total able to see TV ad and state an opinon Jan 2016 (n=1483)Total able to see TV ad and state an opinon Jan 2015 (n=400)Total able to see TV ad and state an opnion Feb 2014 (n=351)Total able to see TV ad and state an opinion Jan 2013 (n=288)Total able to see TV ad Jan 2012 (n=377)Total could see/hear the commercial Jan 2011 (n=415)

Jan 2012 – 2015 wording Q.7) Overall, how effective do you find this TV ad in encouraging you to think about the types of gifts you would give at Christmas to reduce the amount of garbage we create?

Jan 2011 wording Q.5c) Overall how effective do you find the ad in communicating the message to reduce the amount of garbage we make at Christmas?

Base: Total Jan 2016 (n=1483) Total Jan 2015 (n=400)Total Feb 2014 (n=351)Total Jan 2013 (n=323)Total Jan 2012 (n=377)Total Jan 2011 (n=415)

Q.5b/6) Do you recall seeing this /these ads on television?

32%

50%

41%

37%

24%

21%

Jan 2016

Jan 2015

Feb 2014

Jan 2013

Jan 2012

Jan 2011 15%

12%

19%

16%

12%

14%

49%

50%

52%

48%

51%

45%

27%

24%

21%

25%

25%

31%

9%

14%

8%

12%

13%

10%

Jan 2016

Jan 2015

Feb 2014

Jan 2013

Jan 2012

Jan 2011

Very effective Somewhat effective

Not very effective Not at all effective

Overall effectiveness of TV ad Total effective

64%

63%

71%

64%

62%

59%

ZWC - 135

Recall Ad on Television

18

• Recall of the television ad is generally consistent across the regions, though somewhat higher in the North West (36%) compared with the South West (28%).

• Rating of the ad’s effectiveness is generally consistent across all regions.

Base: Total able to see TV ad and state an opinon Total 2016 (n=1483)Total able to see TV ad and state an opinon Central (n=296)Total able to see TV ad and state an opnion North East (n=298)Total able to see TV ad and state an opinion North West (n=294)Total able to see TV ad and state an opinion South East (n=297)Total able to see TV ad and state an opinion South West (n=298)

Jan 2012 – 2015 wording Q.7) Overall, how effective do you find this TV ad in encouraging you to think about the types of gifts you would give at Christmas to reduce the amount of garbage we create?

Jan 2011 wording Q.5c) Overall how effective do you find the ad in communicating the message to reduce the amount of garbage we make at Christmas?

Base: Total able to view ad (n=1483) Central (n=296)North East (n=298)North West (n=294)South East (n=297)South West (n=298)

Q.5b/6) Do you recall seeing this /these ads on television?

32%

30%

33%

36%

35%

28%

Total 2016

Central

North East

North West

South East

South West15%

16%

15%

16%

14%

10%

49%

49%

49%

45%

48%

53%

27%

27%

27%

27%

28%

28%

9%

9%

9%

12%

9%

9%

Total

Central

North East

North West

South East

South West

Very effective Somewhat effective

Not very effective Not at all effective

Overall effectiveness of TV ad Total effective

64%

65%

64%

61%

62%

63%

ZWC - 136

19

• Among those aware of any of the ads, 23% report that they had an impact on the type of gifts they bought and an additional 19% responded ‘maybe’ (totalling 42%, significantly higher than last year’s measure).

• When projected to the total population (Metro Vancouver adults aged 18+: 1,877,850), this translates to 17% of the population saying yes or maybe or 319,235 people.

Impact of Ads on Type of Gifts Bought at Christmas

Jan 2012 – 2016 wording Q.8a) Did these ads have an impact on types of gifts you bought at Christmas?

Jan 2011 wording Q.5) As a result of this ad, did you make any additional efforts to reduce the amount of waste you produce?

Aug & Jan 2010 wording Q.6a) As a result of the advertising, did you make any additional efforts to reduce the amount of waste you produced over Christmas?

*Base: Those saw/heard any ads Jan 2016 (n=636)Jan 2015 (n=271)Feb 2014 (n=210)Jan 2013 (n=213)Jan 2012 (n=237)Jan 2011 (n=246)Aug 2010 (n=134)Jan 2010 (n=112)

9%

7%

7%

9%

11%

18%

7%

9%

23%

11%

13%

15%

17%

32%

21%

32%

8%

11%

10%

15%

11%

9%

5

6

19%

18%

17%

26%

17%

16%

17%

23%

17%

19%

17%

24%

22%

27%

12%

15%

42%

29%

30%

41%

34%

48%

38%

55%

Jan 2016

Jan 2015

Feb 2014

Jan 2013

Jan 2012

Jan 2011

Aug 2010

Jan 2010

Jan 2016

Jan 2015

Feb 2014

Jan 2013

Jan 2012

Jan 2011

Aug 2010

Jan 2010

Yes Maybe

Total Residents

Those aware of ads*

ZWC - 137

20

• Regionally the ads have a somewhat stronger impact on residents in the Central region, with almost half reporting “yes” or “maybe”, compared with between 33% and 41% in each of the other regions.

• When projected to the total population, this translates to between 14% and 19% of each region saying yes or maybe or:

• Central: 143,562 people

• North East: 40,531 people

• North West: 22,620 people

• South East: 81,052 people

• South West: 32,744 peopleQ.8a) Did these ads have an impact on types of gifts you bought at Christmas?

*Base: Those saw/heard any ads Total (n=636)Central (n=271)North East (n=210)North West (n=213)South East (n=237)South West (n=246)

9%

10%

11%

4

10%

6

23%

26%

24%

10%

24%

17%

8%

9%

4

12%

7%

7%

19%

23%

9%

28%

17%

20%

17%

19%

15%

16%

17%

14%

42%

48%

33%

39%

41%

37%

Total

Central

North East

North West

South East

South West

Total

Central

North East

North West

South East

South West

Yes Maybe

Total Residents

Those aware of ads*

Impact of Ads on Type of Gifts Bought at Christmas

ZWC - 138

21

• New to the survey in 2016, all respondents, whether they had previously seen the ads or not, were asked how likely the ads were to encourage them to give alternative gifts at work or in other groups.

• In all, two-thirds said yes or maybe, a proportion generally consistent across all regions, though somewhat more likely in the Central region (70% yes or maybe) compared with the North West (58%).

Base: Total (n=1500)Central (n=300)North West (n=300)North East (n=300)South East (n=300)South West (n=300)

Asked in 2016 only: Q.8b) [Did/Would] these ads encourage you to think about other types of gifts you would give at Christmas at work or in other groups (e.g. instead of Secret Santa gifts)?

24%

27%

23%

20%

23%

22%

42%

43%

42%

38%

42%

43%

26%

24%

23%

29%

29%

26%

8%

7%

12%

13%

6

9%

Total

Central

North East

North West

South East

South West

Yes Maybe No Not Applicable

Impact of Ads on Gifts Bought at Work (e.g. Secret Santa)

Total Yes/Maybe

66%

70%

65%

58%

64%

65%

ZWC - 139

22

Base: Total (n=1500)Central (n=300)North West (n=300)North East (n=300)South East (n=300)South West (n=300)

Asked in 2016 only: Q.8c) [Did/Would] these ads encourage you to consider ways to deal with holiday dinner leftovers?

19%

22%

14%

13%

20%

15%

30%

30%

29%

23%

30%

31%

41%

35%

47%

51%

41%

44%

11%

13%

10%

13%

9%

10%

Total

Central

North East

North West

South East

South West

Yes Maybe No Not Applicable

Impact of Ads on How to Deal with Holiday Dinner Leftovers

Total Yes/Maybe

48%

52%

43%

36%

50%

46%

• Also new in 2016, all respondents were asked how likely the ads were to encourage them to consider ways to deal with holiday leftovers.

• This time, almost half overall said yes or maybe (48%). Residents in the North West region appear least moved by the ads in this respect (36%).

ZWC - 140

23

• Among those aware of the advertising and who felt encouraged to adjust their behaviour, a little more than half recalled what they did.

• Changes mostly relate to use or disposal of leftovers which were largely either used up, given away, composted, or avoided by preparing less.

• Other behaviour includes giving alternative gifts that avoid wrapping paper and other waste or using recycled gift wrapping.

Total Recall Advertising

2016

Total2016(112)

%

Central(33)%

NorthEast(21*)

%

NorthWest(19*)

%

SouthEast(25*)

%

SouthWest(14*)

%

Ate/Used all of the leftovers 13 15 17 19 10 7

Gave away leftovers/ donated non-perishable items to food bank

11 11 9 16 14 7

Gave alternative gifts (i.e. experiences, donations, sustainable items)

11 14 22 4 -- 16

Composted food waste/recycled instead of putting in garbage

11 5 17 6 19 13

Prepared less food/ served smaller portions

8 10 4 -- 8 13

Used alternative gift wrapping(i.e. recycled paper/ boxes)

8 8 18 21 -- --

Raised awareness of food/ item waste 3 2 14 -- -- 6

Don’t recall 46 42 38 49 61 44

Q.4c) Please select where you saw the ads

*Interpret with caution: small base size

Additional Efforts to Reduce Waste

ZWC - 141

Demographics

ZWC - 142

25

2016

Total2016

(1500)%

Central(300)

%

North East(300)

%

North West(300)

%

South East(300)

%

South West(300)

%

Gender

Male 48 48 49 47 48 48

Female 52 52 51 53 52 52

Age

18-34 29 32 28 23 29 26

35-54 38 37 42 38 38 28

55 or better 33 31 30 39 33 36

Household Composition

Single with no children at home 31 40 24 25 26 28

A couple with no children at home 38 37 37 40 40 38

A family with children at home (incl. single parent household)

30 23 39 35 34 34

Demographic Profile

continued

ZWC - 143

26

Total2016

(1500)%

Region (weighted to population)

Central 40

North East 14

North West 8

South East 25

South West 13

Demographic Profile

ZWC - 144

Questionnaire

ZWC - 145

Green Angel Tracking Research Post-2015 Xmas Campaign

FINAL – Jan. 16

Page 1

Welcome to today’s survey regarding an issue of importance to your community. The survey should take just a few minutes to complete and all your responses will be anonymous and confidential. Thank you for taking the time to provide your opinions! 1. Your gender:

Male Female

2a. Do you recall any recent Christmas advertising about the types of gifts you could give to reduce the

amount of garbage you create? Yes No SKIP TO Q.3 b. Where did you see or hear this advertising? c. And who sponsored the advertising or the program? 3. Do you recall any recent advertising or references to ‘green angels’? Yes No SHOW EXAMPLES OF FOUR ADS 4a. Do you recall recently seeing these ads or ones similar to these ads? Yes No SKIP TO Q.5 b. Where do you recall seeing the ads? c. Please select where you saw the ads (tick as many as apply): SkyTrain Seabus Bus stop

Bus exterior Digital billboard

Online TV commercial News Posters in various public buildings

ZWC - 146

Green Angel Tracking Research Post-2015 Xmas Campaign

FINAL – Jan. 16

Page 2

5. Overall how effective do you find the ads in encouraging you to think about the types of gifts you would give at Christmas to reduce the amount of garbage we create?

Very effective Somewhat effective Not very effective Not at all effective PLAY TWO TV ADS 6. Do you recall seeing any of these ads on TV? Yes No 7. Overall how effective do you find these TV ads in encouraging you to think about the types of gifts you

would give at Christmas to reduce the amount of garbage we create? Very effective Somewhat effective Not very effective Not at all effective

8a. IF AWARE OF OUTDOOR OR TV ADS: Did (ANY OF THE ADS YOU HAD SEEN) (these ads) have an impact on the types of gifts you bought at Christmas? Yes

No Maybe

ASK ALL: SHOW OUTDOOR ADS AGAIN: 8b. IF AWARE: [Did] IF NOT AWARE: [Would] these ads encourage you to think about other types of gifts you

would give at Christmas at work or in other groups (e.g., instead of secret Santa gifts)? Yes No Maybe Not applicable SHOW OUTDOOR ADS AGAIN: 8c. IF AWARE: [Did] IF NOT AWARE: [Would] these ads encourage you to consider ways to deal with holiday

dinner leftovers? Yes No Maybe Not applicable

ZWC - 147

Green Angel Tracking Research Post-2015 Xmas Campaign

FINAL – Jan. 16

Page 3

b. IF YES: What did you do that was different?

And finally, for classification purposes…

A. Into which of the following age categories do you fall?

18 to 24 years

25 to 34 years

35 to 44 years

45 to 54 years

55 to 64 years

65 year or better

B. Which of the following best describes your current household …?

single with no children at home

a couple with no children at home

a family with children at home (incl. single parent household)

OTHER Specify:____________________

C. In what municipality do you live?

ZWC - 148

5

To: Utilities Committee From: Larina Lopez, Division Manager, Corporate Communications Division, External

Relations Date: April 7, 2016 Meeting Date: April 14, 2016 Subject: Results of 2015 Grease Pilot Project with the City of Surrey

RECOMMENDATION That the GVS&DD Board receive for information the report titled “Results of 2015 Grease Pilot Project with the City of Surrey”, dated April 7, 2016.

PURPOSE To inform the Committee of the results of the grease pilot behavior change project conducted in the City of Surrey, with the collaboration of City of Surrey staff, in the fall of 2015.

BACKGROUND The improper disposal of grease causes problems for the regional sewer system and can result in clogs and sewage overflows into homes, businesses and the environment. In the fall of 2015, Metro Vancouver worked with the City of Surrey to conduct a pilot project to test approaches to encourage residents to dispose of grease in the green bin, instead of down sinks and other drains. The theme and creative for the pilot, tested through advance focus groups, was “Grease Clogs Pipes” with the tagline “Wipe it, green bin it”. The pilot ran from November 2 to December 14, 2015.

2015 GREASE PILOT PROJECT WITH THE CITY OF SURREY Evaluation of Pilot Project To assess the project’s effectiveness, Metro Vancouver conducted a post-pilot survey in December 2015 and efforts are currently underway to measure grease build-up in sewers in two areas of the City of Surrey. These findings, and an evaluation of the project, will be used to inform a second grease pilot project in the City of Richmond and consideration of a broader, regional campaign in the latter part of 2016/early 2017.

A telephone survey of 500 City of Surrey residents was conducted December 10-28, 2015. The main findings are as follows:

The campaign reached 15% of City of Surrey residents. o The campaign was most successful among ethnic minority residents and residents

under 35 years.

Those who saw the campaign remembered the main message and it influenced how they disposed of grease.

o The majority of residents who saw the advertising recall, unprompted, the messages, “wipe grease and place in green bin” or “do not dispose grease into drain”.

6.2

ZWC - 149

o Most residents (60%) who saw the advertising say they are less likely to dispose of grease in drains, with 50% saying they would dispose of grease in the green bin and another 15% indicating they would put it in the green bin/garbage.

Among residents who recall the advertising, all media channels reached one-in-five or more residents.

o Transit stops reached half (53%) of those who recalled the campaign. Other successful channels included newspapers (41%), ethnic newspapers 26%) and YouTube (23%).

o Ethnic minority residents were far more likely to have experienced the advertising in ethnic newspapers or various online sources, such as YouTube and Google.

Additional indicators include grease measurement and an evaluation report. The City of Surrey is measuring grease build-up in pipes in two areas throughout 2016: 1) 60th to 72nd Avenue and from 125th to 136th Street (Newton area) and 2) south of 32nd Avenue, west of 140th Street (Ocean Park and Crescent Beach areas). Because grease builds up slowly in most areas, a longer measuring time is needed to establish trends. Measurement results are not yet available and will be included in a future report to Committee. In evaluating the project, results suggest that outreach could be improved by the addition of retail and other partners (such as grocery stores), enhanced engagement on social media and more emphasis of the personal benefits of proper grease disposal (i.e. avoiding clogs in your home). These findings will be incorporated into 2016 grease outreach approaches. 2016 GREASE PILOT PROJECT WITH THE CITY OF RICHMOND In 2016, Metro Vancouver will be working with the City of Richmond to conduct a grease pilot project supported through the Liquid Waste Sustainability Innovation Fund. The main outreach portion of the project is anticipated to take place in October 2016. In advance of the launch of the pilot, Metro Vancouver will be conducting a survey of Richmond residents to better understand grease disposal habits and barriers to correct disposal. In addition, staff are currently working with the City of Richmond to identify areas to measure grease impacts so that a baseline can be established to help measure the effectiveness of the project. While the pilot will have a significant focus on the residential sector, a component of the pilot will also work with the restaurant sector, focusing on compliance with bylaw requirements and greater use of practices that reduce the amount of grease going into grease traps. A post-campaign awareness survey will be conducted in the fall of 2016 to help evaluate the project. The findings from the 2015 and 2016 pilot projects will be used to consider and inform a regional grease behavior change campaign the latter part of 2016/early 2017.

ALTERNATIVES This is an information report. There are no alternatives presented.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The 2015 pilot project with the City of Surrey had a budget of $130,000. The 2016 pilot project in Richmond has a budget of $170,000 supported by the Liquid Waste Sustainability Innovation Fund.

SUMMARY / CONCLUSION The improper disposal of grease causes problems for the regional sewer system and can result in clogs and sewage overflows into homes, businesses and the environment. A 2015 pilot with the City of Surrey tested approaches to encourage residents to dispose of grease in the green bin, instead of down sinks and other drains. The pilot used the theme “Grease Clogs Pipes”, with the tagline “Wipe it, green bin it”. According to a post-pilot survey in December 2015, the campaign reached 15% of

ZWC - 150

City of Surrey residents and of those most residents (60%) indicated they are less likely to dispose of grease in drains, with 50% indicating they would dispose of grease in the green bin and another 15% indicating they would put it in the green bin/garbage.

These findings will inform a second grease behavior change pilot to be undertaken with the City of Richmond. The main outreach portion of the pilot is expected to take place in October 2016. Metro Vancouver is currently working with the City of Richmond to conduct a survey of residents’ grease disposal habits and to establish a measurement baseline that will help evaluate the project’s effectiveness. The findings from both the 2015 and 2016 pilots will be used in the consideration of a region-wide grease behavior change campaign the latter part of 2016/early 2017.

Attachments and References: 1. Grease Disposal Ad Campaign – A Survey of City of Surrey Residents 2. Grease Disposal Ad Campaign Website: http://www.metrovancouver.org/grease 17754942

ZWC - 151

Grease Disposal Ad Campaign

A SURVEY OF CITY OF SURREY RESIDENTS

Presented to Metro Vancouver

December 2015

DRAFT

Attachment 1

ZWC - 152

2

Table of Contents

Introduction 03

Observations 04

Executive Summary  05

Research Findings 09

Where Should We Dispose Waste? 10

Where Do We Dispose Waste? 18

Grease Use 26

Advertising awareness 31

Impact of advertising 37

Demographic Profile 40

ZWC - 153

4

Introduction

Methodology

Surveys 500 adult residents.

Field dates:  December 10 to 28, 2015.

Population: City of Surrey.

Methodology: Online.

Weighting: The final data were weighted to match the age and gender distribution of the City of Surrey. 

Languages: Surveys were conducted in English.

Margin of error:  The overall results of this study reflect a probability sample of 500. A probability sample of 500 carries a margin of error +/‐4.4 percentage points 95% of the time. 

Charts may not sum due to rounding.

Overview

Metro Vancouver is a federation of 21 municipalities, one electoral area, and one treaty first nation. Metro Vancouver operates and maintains a regional sewer system. The disposal of greases is a meaningful difficulty in the operation of the sewer system. 

Metro Vancouver requested primary quantitative research with the goal of exploring usage and disposal behaviours among City of Surrey residents. Specifically, the research answers the following business questions:

• How residents dispose various household waste?• What types of grease are used by residents?• How much grease is used by residents?• Did residents see or hear the grease disposal advertising?• What do residents remember about the advertising?

ZWC - 154

4

Observations

Metro Vancouver’s grease advertising campaign has 

reached 15% of City of Surrey residents. The 

campaign was most successful among ethnic minority 

residents and residents under 35 years. The campaign 

also has directionally higher penetration among 

residents who recently used grease for food 

preparation.

The campaign utilized a moderately diverse set of 

advertising media to reach its audience. The 

campaign utilized about a half dozen media to 

communicate its messages “grease clogs pipes” and 

“wipe it, green bin it” to its target audience. Among 

residents who recall the advertising, all media reached 

one‐in‐five or more residents, with one exception: 

Transit stops reached half of those who recall the campaign. 

Some media were more effective at reaching specific 

audiences. Ethnic minority residents were far more 

likely to have experienced the advertising in ethnic 

newspapers or various online sources, such as 

Youtube and Google.

Behaviour has changed among those residents who 

recall the campaign’s main message. A majority of 

residents who saw the advertising recall unprompted, 

the messages, “wipe grease and place in green bin” or 

“do not dispose grease into drain”. Moreover, a 

majority of residents who saw the advertising are now 

“less likely” to dispose of fats, oils, and greases in 

drains, opting for the appropriate alternatives of 

garbage and green bin. 

ZWC - 155

5

Executive Summary

ZWC - 156

6

Executive Summary

Waste disposal perceptionsWhere should we dispose different waste types?Below are the top ways City of Surrey residents (“residents”) believe the following types of waste should be disposed:

Dairy (like yogurt): food scraps bin (54%); drain or toilet (21%).

Fat, grease and oil: food scraps bin (49%); garbage (23%).

Fruits and vegetables: food scraps bin (78%); compost (10%).

Meat: food scraps bin (75%); garbage (11%).

Plate scrapings: food scraps bin (74%); garbage (11%).

Wet wipes: garbage (72%); food scraps bin (4%); toilet (3%).

What do we think should go into our toilet or drain?Looking specifically at the drains and toilets, meaningful groups of grease users do believe certain food items should be disposed of via the drains and/or toilets that lead to the region’s sewer system:

• Dairy like yogurt: 21%• Fat, grease and oil: 8%• Fruits and vegetables: 4%• Plate scrapings: 4%

Waste disposal behaviourWhere do we dispose different types of waste?Residents typically dispose the following types of waste in different ways:Dairy (like yogurt): food scraps bin (50%), drain (25%); garbage (13%).Fat, grease and oil: food scraps bin (46%); garbage (30%); drain (11%).Fruits and vegetables: food scraps bin (76%), garbage (8%); compost (6%).Meat: food scraps bin (68%); garbage (15%).

Plate scrapings: food scraps bin (66%); garbage (18%); drain (6%).

Wet wipes: garbage (63%); toilet (3%).

What do we dispose in our toilet or drain?Looking specifically at the drains and toilets, meaningful groups of grease users dispose of certain items via the drains or toilets that lead to the region’s sewer system:

• Dairy like yogurt: 25%

• Fat, grease and oil: 11% 

• Fruits and vegetables: 4%

• Plate scrapings: 6%

ZWC - 157

7

Executive Summary (cont’d)

Grease useDo we use grease?Seven‐in‐ten (70%) residents used fats, oils, and greases for food preparation in the past week (“grease users”). Larger households are more likely to have used fats, oils, and greases in the past week than smaller households.

Types of greaseWhat types of grease do we use?The largest proportion (88%) of grease users used vegetable oil at least once in the past week. About six‐in‐ten (62%) used butter and thirty‐eight percent (38%) used fats leftover after cooking meats. A small minority (13%) used Ghee.

Yesterday’s leftoversHow much leftover grease did we have yesterday?Over half (53%) of grease users had less than five tablespoons left over after cooking and eating. Thirteen percent (13%) had none left over. 

The average amount of grease left over was 2.1 tablespoons; the median, 2 tablespoons.

Among residents who dispose of grease or plate scrapings into the 

drain, the average is 3.1 tablespoons. Among grease users who do not dispose of grease or plate scrapings into the drain, the average is 1.8 tablespoons.

Advertising awarenessHave we seen or heard any advertising about disposing of fats, oils, and greases?Eighteen percent (18%) of residents have seen or heard advertising about how to dispose of fats, oils, and greases in the past two months.

What was the grease advertising like?One‐half (51%) of residents who saw this advertising recall that it was an ad about wiping grease with a paper towel or newspaper and disposing of it into the food scraps bin. One‐third (33%) cite the message, don’t dispose into the drain or toilet and a minority (15%) recall the message that grease clogs the city drains.

Who sponsored the advertising?One‐quarter (24%) of residents who saw the advertising cite the City of Surrey as the sponsor. Thirteen percent (13%) identified Metro Vancouver or Greater Vancouver. This equates to two percent (2%) of all Surrey residents. 

ZWC - 158

8

Executive Summary (cont’d)

Have we seen or heard any advertising with these images?Fifteen percent (15%) of residents recall advertising with the images shown.  Awareness is directionally higher among men than women (18% versus 13%). Grease users are more likely than non‐grease users to have seen or heard this advertising (17% versus 11%).

Recall is higher among ethnic residents than Caucasian residents:• South Asian (20% aware)• Other non‐Caucasian (19%)• Caucasian (12%)

Where did we see this advertising?The grease advertising was most commonly seen in the following media among those who recall the campaign:• Transit stops/bus shelters: 53% total awareness; including 32% 

unaided.• Newspaper: 41% total awareness; including 14% unaided.• TV: 34% total; all unaided.• Ethnic newspapers: 26% total awareness.• Youtube: 23% total aided; including 1% unaided.• Other websites: 22% total, including 9% unaided.• Google: 20% total aided.• Facebook: 19% total aided; including 1% unaided.• Door hanger: 9% total aided; including 2% unaided.

Several media reach a higher proportion of South Asian residents:• Youtube: South Asian (53%); Caucasian (6%).• Other websites: South Asian (50%); Caucasian (10%).• Ethnic newspaper: South Asian (47%); Caucasian (5%).• Google: South Asian (46%); Caucasian (3%).

Where would we now dispose of fats, oils, and greases?Having seen the advertising, one‐half (49%) of residents tell us they will now dispose of fats, oils, and greases in the green bin; fifteen percent (15%) in the garbage. None who have seen the campaign would now dispose of grease into the drain.

Would we now dispose of fats, oils, and greases into the drain?Having seen the advertising, six‐in‐ten (60%) residents tell us they are now less likely to dispose of fats, oils, and greases in the drain; seventeen percent (17%) are about as likely.

Two‐in‐ten (19%) are now more likely to dispose of fats, oils, and greases in the drain. Note that based on their responses to other questions in the survey, we suspect that a significant portion of this group misunderstood this question.

ZWC - 159

9

Research Findings

ZWC - 160

10

Where Should We Dispose Waste?

ZWC - 161

B1. Municipalities have different expectations of residents regarding disposal of your household’s waste. To the best of your knowledge, where should households in your area dispose of each of these items?

Base: Total.

11

What do we think should go into our sewer system?

21%

8%

4%

4%

3%

2%

Dairly like yogurt

Fat, grease and oil

Fruits and vegetables

Plate scrapings

Wet wipes

Meat

ZWC - 162

B1a. Municipalities have different expectations of residents regarding disposal of your household’s waste. To the best of your knowledge, where should households in your area dispose of each of these items?

Base: Total.

12

Where should we dispose of dairy (like yogurt)?

54%

18%

10%

4%

3%

2%

1%

3%

5%

Food scraps bin like a yard wastebin, or Green Bin

Kitchen sink, drain, garburator

Garbage

Backyard or worm composter

Toilet

Feed to pets

Other

Don't buy this item

Don't know

ZWC - 163

B1a. Municipalities have different expectations of residents regarding disposal of your household’s waste. To the best of your knowledge, where should households in your area dispose of each of these items?

Base: Total.

13

Where should we dispose of fat, grease and oil?

49%

23%

7%

3%

1%

<1%

1%

3%

13%

Food scraps bin like a yard wastebin, or Green Bin

Garbage

Kitchen sink, drain, garburator

Backyard or worm composter

Toilet

Feed to pets

Other

Don't buy this item

Don't know

ZWC - 164

B1a. Municipalities have different expectations of residents regarding disposal of your household’s waste. To the best of your knowledge, where should households in your area dispose of each of these items?

Base: Total.

14

Where should we dispose of fruit and vegetables?

78%

10%

3%

3%

2%

<1%

1%

2%

Food scraps bin like a yard wastebin, or Green Bin

Backyard or worm composter

Kitchen sink, drain, garburator

Garbage

Feed to pets

Toilet

Other

Don't know

ZWC - 165

B1a. Municipalities have different expectations of residents regarding disposal of your household’s waste. To the best of your knowledge, where should households in your area dispose of each of these items?

Base: Total.

15

Where should we dispose of meat?

75%

11%

5%

4%

2%

1%

2%

2%

Food scraps bin like a yard wastebin, or Green Bin

Garbage

Feed to pets

Backyard or worm composter

Kitchen sink, drain, garburator

Other

Don't buy this item

Don't know

ZWC - 166

B1a. Municipalities have different expectations of residents regarding disposal of your household’s waste. To the best of your knowledge, where should households in your area dispose of each of these items?

Base: Total.

16

Where should we dispose of plate scrapings?

74%

11%

4%

3%

2%

<1%

1%

3%

Food scraps bin like a yard wastebin, or Green Bin

Garbage

Kitchen sink, drain, garburator

Backyard or worm composter

Feed to pets

Other

Don't buy this item

Don't know

ZWC - 167

B1a. Municipalities have different expectations of residents regarding disposal of your household’s waste. To the best of your knowledge, where should households in your area dispose of each of these items?

Base: Total.

17

Where should we dispose of wipes like wet wipes for babies and other cleaning?

72%

4%

3%

1%

<1%

<1%

<1%

15%

5%

Garbage

Food scraps bin like a yard wastebin, or Green Bin

Toilet

Backyard or worm composter

Kitchen sink, drain, garburator

Feed to pets

Other

Don't buy this item

Don't know

ZWC - 168

18

Where Do We Dispose Waste?

ZWC - 169

B2. And if you’re being honest with yourself how do you dispose of these items?

Base: Total.

19

What goes into our sewer system?

25%

11%

6%

4%

3%

2%

Dairly like yogurt

Fat, grease and oil

Plate scrapings

Fruits and vegetables

Wet wipes

Meat

ZWC - 170

B2. In your household, how do you dispose of these items?

Base: Total.

20

Where do we dispose of dairy (like yogurt)?

50%

22%

13%

3%

2%

2%

2%

3%

3%

Food scraps bin like a yard wastebin, or Green Bin

Kitchen sink, drain, garburator

Garbage

Toilet

Feed to pets

Backyard or worm composter

Other

Don't buy this item

Don't know

ZWC - 171

B2. In your household, how do you dispose of these items?

Base: Total.

21

Where do we dispose of fat, grease and oil?

46%

30%

10%

2%

1%

1%

1%

4%

5%

Food scraps bin like a yard wastebin, or Green Bin

Garbage

Kitchen sink, drain, garburator

Backyard or worm composter

Toilet

Feed to pets

Other

Don't buy this item

Don't know

ZWC - 172

B2. In your household, how do you dispose of these items?

Base: Total.

22

Where do we dispose of fruit and vegetables?

76%

9%

6%

4%

2%

1%

<1%

1%

Food scraps bin like a yard wastebin, or Green Bin

Garbage

Backyard or worm composter

Kitchen sink, drain, garburator

Feed to pets

Other

Don't buy this item

Don't know

ZWC - 173

B2. In your household, how do you dispose of these items?

Base: Total.

23

Where do we dispose of meat?

68%

15%

6%

3%

2%

1%

3%

2%

Food scraps bin like a yard wastebin, or Green Bin

Garbage

Feed to pets

Backyard or worm composter

Kitchen sink, drain, garburator

Other

Don't buy this item

Don't know

ZWC - 174

B2. In your household, how do you dispose of these items?

Base: Total.

24

Where do we dispose of plate scrapings?

66%

18%

6%

3%

2%

2%

1%

3%

Food scraps bin like a yard wastebin, or Green Bin

Garbage

Kitchen sink, drain, garburator

Feed to pets

Backyard or worm composter

Other

Don't buy this item

Don't know

ZWC - 175

B2. In your household, how do you dispose of these items?

Base: Total.

25

Where do we dispose of wipes like wet wipes for babies and other cleaning?

63%

4%

3%

<1%

1%

27%

1%

Garbage

Food scraps bin like a yard wastebin, or Green Bin

Toilet

Feed to pets

Other

Don't buy this item

Don't know

ZWC - 176

26

Grease Use

ZWC - 177

C1. In the past week, have you used oils, fats, or greases in cooking or food preparation?

Base: Total.

27

In the past week, have you used oils, fats or greases when cooking?

Yes, 70%

No, 30%

ZWC - 178

Do we dispose grease or plate scrapings into the drain?

B2. In your household, how do you dispose of these:  

Oils, fats and greases?

Plate scrapings

Base: Total.

28

No, 85%

Yes, 15%

ZWC - 179

C2. Which of these cooking oils, fats, and greases have you used in the past week? Please include fats and oils to prepare foods and fats and greases leftover after cooking. 

Base: Those who answered.

29

Which cooking oils, fats and greases do we use? PAST WEEK

88%

62%

38%

13%

10%

3%

1%

Vegetable oils (including oliveoil)

Butter

Fats leftover after cooking meats(e.g., bacon fat)

Ghee

Nut oils

Other

None

ZWC - 180

C3. In your home yesterday, in total how many tablespoons (or 15 mL spoons) of oils, fats and greases were left over in pots, pans and meal plates after cooking and eating?

Base: Total answered.

30

How much leftover grease did we have yesterday? HOUSEHOLDS WITH LEFTOVER GREASE

13%

5%

16%

15%

9%

7%

8%

27%

None

Up to 1 tablespoon

1.5 tablespoon

2 tablespoon

3‐4 tablespoon

5 tablespoon

More than 6 tablespoons

Don't know

Mean: 2.1 tablespoons (30.5 ml)

Median: 2 tablespoons (29.6 ml)

ZWC - 181

31

Advertising Awareness

ZWC - 182

D1. In the past two months, have you seen or heard any advertising about disposing of fats, oils, and greases?

Base: Total.

32

Have you seen ads about grease?

Yes, 18%

No, 82%%

ZWC - 183

D2. Please describe the advertisement you saw or heard. What was the advertisement’s message?

Base: Seen or heard ads about disposing  grease.

33

What was the advertisement’s message?

51%

33%

15%

3%

1%

1%

8%

3%

5%

Wipe with paper towel/newspaper;put in green bin

Do not drain in kitchen / toilet

Clogs the city drainage

Instruction about disposing waste

Do not waste food or water

Throwing/Dumping garbage ongarbage day

Other

None / Nothing

Don’t know / Can't remember

ZWC - 184

D3. To the best of your knowledge, who or what organization sponsored this advertising?

Base: Seen or heard ads about disposing  grease.

34

Who sponsored these advertisements?

24%

13%

6%

3%

12%

43%

Surrey

Metro Vancouver/GVRD

Other municipality

Other government body

Other

Don't know

ZWC - 185

D4. Now we are going to show you some advertising. Do you recall advertising with this message and an image like this? SHOW IMAGES.

Base: Total.

35

Recognition of shown advertisements

Yes, 15%

No, 85%

ZWC - 186

D5a. Where did you see or hear this advertising? OPEN‐END

D5b. Did you see this advertising in the following locations or media?

Base: Aware of advertising.

36

Where did you see these advertisements?

32%

14%

34%

53%

41%

34%

26%

23%

22%

20%

19%

9%

Transit stops/bus shelters

Newspaper

Television

Ethnic newspaper

Youtube

Other websites

Google

Facebook

Door hanger

Unaided Aided

ZWC - 187

37

Impact of advertisement

ZWC - 188

D6. Now that you’ve seen this advertising, even if you do not regularly cook with greases, how would you now dispose of fats, oils, and greases?

Base: Aware of advertising.

38

Now that you’ve seen this ad, how would you dispose of grease, fats, and oils?

25%

25%

15%

8%

3%

2%

2%

1%

6%

14%

Wiping with paper and disposingin green bin

Green bin

Dispose in garbage / green bin

Garbage (Unspecified)

Disposing in proper ways(General)

Dump in can and then intogarbage / green bin

Feed animals / birds

Back yard compost

Other

Don’t know

ZWC - 189

E1. As a result of this advertising, are you now more or less likely to dispose of fats, oils, and greases in the kitchen sink, drain or garburator?

Base: Aware of advertising.

39

How likely are we to dispose of fats, greases, and oils down the drain?

19%

17%

60%

4%

More likely

About as likely

Less likely

Don't know

ZWC - 190

40

Demographic Profile

ZWC - 191

Demographic profile of:

The total sample (overall)

Aware of food scraps advertising

41

Demographic profile

Demographics OverallAware of Metro Van advertising

Gender

Male 49% ▲57%

Female 51% ▼43%

Age

18‐34 30% ▲38%

35‐44 19% 17%

45‐64 35% 35%

65+ 16% ▼10%

Number in household

One 15% ▼9%

Two 34% 31%

Three or more 51% ▲59%

ZWC - 192

Demographic profile of:

The total sample (overall)

Aware of food scraps advertising

42

Demographic profile cont’d

Demographics OverallAware of Metro Van advertising

Type of home

Detached house 53% ▼43%

Apartment/Condo 17% ▲20%

Townhouse 23% 23%

Other 6% ▲14%

Ethnicity

Caucasian 60% ▼49%

South Asian 22% ▲30%

Other non‐Caucasian 19% ▲24%

ZWC - 193

Justason Market Intelligence Inc. | Vancouver Focus®Geoff@JustasonMI.com JustasonMI.com 1156 Hornby Street, Vancouver, B.C. Canada V6Z1V8 +1 604 638 1121

ZWC - 194