LIFE Project Number LIFE11/ENV/UK/000389 31/09/15 · Final report: GMWDA LIFE+:...

LIFE Project Number LIFE11/ENV/UK/000389

Final Report Covering the project activities from 01/08/2012 to 30/06/2015

Reporting Date 31/09/15

Urban Participation and Focus on Reusing Waste and Recycling Development of Communications – UP&FORWARD

Data Project

Project location UK-United Kingdom/North West

Project start date: 01/08/2012

Project end date: 30/06/2015 Extension date: N/A (see 3.2.1)

Total budget €1,402,756 Grant Agreement (€1,583,039 Actual Cost)

EC contribution: €685,232

(%) of eligible costs 50%

Data Beneficiary

Name Beneficiary Greater Manchester Waste Disposal Authority

Contact person Mrs Sarah Mellor

Postal address Medtia Chambers, 5 Barn Street, Oldham, Lancashire, OL1 1LP

Telephone +44 (0)161 770 1759

Fax: +44 (0)161 770 1701

E-mail [email protected]

Project Website www.recycleforgreatermanchester.com/upandforward

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.recycleforgreatermanchester.com/upandforward

Final report: GMWDA LIFE+: LIFE11/ENV/UK/000389 2

1. Table of contents

Item No

Title Page

2. Glossary of Acronyms 3

3. Executive Summary

3.1 Project Objectives 4

3.2 Key Deliverables 5

3.3 Introduction 6

3.4 Administrative Part 6

3.5 Technical Part 7

3.6 Dissemination Actions 7

3.7 Financial Report 7

3.8 Problems Encountered 8

4. Introduction

4.1 Background 9

4.2 Environmental Problem/Issue being addressed 10

4.3 Description of Technical/Methodological Solution 10

4.4 Expected Results and Environmental Benefits 10

5. Administrative Part

5.1 Description of Project Management 11

5.2 Organisational Structure of Project Team & Project Management 12

5.3 Governance 13

5.4 Partnership agreements & key content 14

6. Technical Part

6.1 General 14

6.2 Technical Progress against Objectives/Actions 15

6.3 Dissemination Actions 55

6.4 Evaluation of Project Implementation 61

6.5 Risk Register 72

7. Bibliography 104


2. Glossary of Acronyms

Acronym Definition

ACORN A Classification of Residential Neighbourhoods

EU European Union

GBP Great Britain Pounds (£)

GMWDA Greater Manchester Waste Disposal Authority

MEL Measurement-Evaluation-Learning (Data Contractor)

MMU Manchester Metropolitan University

NEC National Exhibition Centre

PDB Project Decision Board

PMB Project Management Board

R4GM Recycle for Greater Manchester

RWM Recycling and Waste Management (Committee)

SABC Strategy & Behavioural Change (Committee)

SLA Service Level Agreement

TSG Time Specific Group

UK United Kingdom

WRAP Waste Resource Action Programme


3. Executive summary 3.1 Project Objectives 3.1.1 The Greater Manchester Waste Disposal Authority (the Authority) has undertaken the

Urban Participation and Focus on Reusing Development of Communications Project (‘Up and Forward’) to raise participation in recycling by target low performing areas in ‘hard to reach’ areas through the implementation of a demonstration project which follows an innovative process to underpin the community driven communication campaigns.

3.1.2 The Project was designed to predominately support the European Union (EU) in

promoting the ‘The Waste Hierarchy’ (Article 4 of the Waste Framework Directive) which underpins the EU Waste Policy.

3.1.3 To achieve this the Authority has undertaken a 6 step approach:- Step 1 Understand the target demographics Prior to submitting for LIFE+ funding, extensive research was undertaken to

understand if there was any particular areas or pockets of populations that were not as good at recycling as others. Through this research four key themes were identified as low performing:

Deprivation; Transient populations, youth and students; High proportion of different cultures; and High density housing/apartments. Split into 12 Actions (B1 to B12) Step 2 Understanding the Waste Stream The Authority undertook a Greater Manchester wide waste composition analysis in

2011 which identified that around 74% of resident’s waste within their residential bin could be taken out of that waste stream and be recycled. As part of the Project the Authority procured MEL (a specialised monitoring and evaluation company) to provide baseline data for the Project along with the pre and post monitoring and evaluation (tonnage and participation) for each of the actions undertaken. Taking the learning from Phase 1, and to strengthen this process going into Phase 2 of the project, with the Authority employed a Monitoring and Evaluation Officer to the Project Team.

Step 3 Outline Campaigns to overcome participation barriers Actions B1 to B12 were designed to research and overcome barriers to recycling and

waste prevention. To achieve this, the Project Team worked within the community of targeted campaign areas to see what those barriers were. Working with the community, by listening and understanding their needs, has meant that campaigns have been tailored to meet their needs. This community led approach was central to the innovative nature of the Project. The findings from all campaigns have shown a range of barriers from lack of facilities to poor understanding on how to recycle correctly.


Step 4 Engage with residents to identify barriers and develop campaigns within the community

Engagement within the communities has been essential to the delivery of the

actions. By working with residents, the Project Team have been able to identify and understand barriers. Once these barriers have been identified, targeted communication campaigns have been developed and delivered to meet that particular community’s needs.

Step 5 Incorporate residents views into the campaigns By listening to residents and incorporating their ideas into campaigns, residents

were more engaged and have, in varying levels, started to change their behaviours to recycling. This has, however, meant that the Authority’s original grant agreement assumptions to what campaign materials would be required was adapted to incorporate and deliver campaigns so that residents felt that their views had been taken into account. These changes are explained within the Technical (section 6) and Financial (section 7) parts of the report.

Step 6 Larger Scale Demonstration All campaigns aimed to be delivered to circa. 1,500 households meaning that the

Project has targeted approximately 63,000 households (around 6% of the conurbation we serve).

3.1.4 Innovative Media As part of the Project’s objectives, the Authority fully utilised the latest technology.

Within a number of the Project’s actions, social media marketing techniques were used.

The Authority has also developed interactive software which can be used on both

Android and Apple tablets and a mobile game application has been developed by the associated beneficiary Manchester Metropolitan University (MMU). The game ‘Getting Wasted’ (Action B14) is available on 3 platforms; Android, Apple (iOS) and on the Internet. The latter has been adapted to meet the specific needs of young children and was rebranded as ‘Bin Bunny’.

Action B13 also used film and different broadcasting techniques alongside social

media networks to allow young people to engage with waste prevention and recycling messages.

3.2 Key Deliverables 3.2.1 As explained in section 3.1 the Project covers 4 themes covering 12 actions, along

with 2 additional actions which relate to innovative media. 3.2.2 The table below sets out the deliverables for each of these actions; and where

possible the outputs that have currently been achieved.


Table 1: Key Deliverables and Outcomes

Objectives Deliverable Outputs

1, 2, 3 & 4

Deprived Urban Areas – 42 campaigns across 4 themes: Deprivation, Transient, Faith and Apartments.

Increase in participation

Increase in recycling

Demonstrate positive changes in attitudes and practices

5 Develop employment/education opportunities and experience for students to gain media experience

8 social media films

1 mobile/web-based game developed over 3 Platforms

6 Robust Monitoring and evaluation of the Project

Robust methodology

Robust data

Transferability of learning

7 Disseminate Project across EU Member States

To develop a Communications Strategy and Plan to disseminate the Project

Attend minimum 4 LIFE+ Platform meetings;

Organise 2 seminars; and

Deliver Communications Plan

3.2.3 The Authority has completed all 42 ‘on the ground’ campaigns, whilst meeting all

the aims and objectives within the bid grant agreement. 3.2.4 It should be noted from the offset that this Project is a research project aimed to

test and trial different techniques of engaging with residents. Learnings from Phase 1 campaigns were captured and then embedded into the approaches undertaken for Phase 2 to strengthen engagement and campaign delivery. Through trialling techniques it was acknowledged that we would learn just as much from the campaigns which were not successful in increasing participation, as from those which did change resident’s behaviour.

3.2.5 Through our in-depth case-studies Member States will be able to see what has

worked well and what hasn’t worked quite as well as anticipated; thus enabling clearer focus on delivering targeted campaigns to achieve increased participation in recycling.

3.3 Introduction 3.3.1 The introduction will provide an overview to the background of the Project, the

problem this demonstration project is addressing along with its objectives. 3.3.2 This section will also explore the expected longer term results and how the

Authority plans to utilise the lessons learnt from this Project moving forward. 3.4 Administrative Part 3.4.1 Due to a slower than anticipated start to the delivery of the Project (as notified and

discussed) and the change of resources available within the 9 partnership District Councils, the Authority’s dedicated ‘Up and Forward’ Project Team varied in size to deliver the Project. This ranged from 5 to 15 members during the peak of actions to ensure that the Project was delivered by the grant agreement’s agreed target completion date of June 2015.

3.4.2 The Project had robust Project Management processes in place and the

administrative part of this report sets out the problems the Authority has


encountered in delivering a complex project to a challenging revised project plan. 3.5 Technical Part 3.5.1 Within this Project there are 14 Actions, 10 of which each have 4 campaigns (to be

delivered in 2 Phases). 2 have campaigns running throughout Phases 1 and 2 meaning in total there are 42 campaigns taking place over a period from May, 2013 to December 2014. Two additional actions covering filming (with our contractor, Bellyfeel) and gaming (delivered in partnership with our Associated beneficiary, MMU) also formed part of the Project.

3.5.2 Phase 1 saw the completion of 18 of the 42 activities leaving the remaining 24

assumed grant agreement activities to be completed from April 2014 to December 2014.

3.5.3 All objectives have been achieved, however delivery has not been without

challenge; meaning that assumptions made within the Actions in the grant agreement have had to be amended to meet resident’s needs (in accordance with the community led aspects of the Project) but without being detrimental to the Action’s objective’s and outputs.

3.5.4 The technical part of this report sets out the activities that have been undertaken in

the Project along with the outputs that have been achieved. 3.6 Dissemination Actions 3.6.1 A Communication Plan (Appendix N) was developed and implemented to enable the

Authority to focus on maximising dissemination of the Project. As well as locally disseminating the campaigns throughout Greater Manchester, 4 LIFE+ Network sessions have been attended and the Project was promoted through the Recycling and Waste Management (RWM) Conference in Birmingham in both September 2013 and 2014. The results and key learnings were also featured in a wider session at the September 2015 conference.

3.6.2 Given the vast interest in the Project, we were invited to speak and have given

various presentations at a number of conferences. In addition we have been invited to be a member of the Euro-cities Waste Task Group and are on the Steering Group from another LIFE+ Project currently being undertaken by Groundwork London.

3.7 Financial Report 3.7.1 Whilst the Project has been delivered, in order to deliver to the original completion

date, the Authority has approved an increase in funding; this has exceeded the original budget.

3.7.2 Due to the mix of spend within categories needing to be adjusted to meet

community involvement requirements a financial modification request was submitted to the European Commission in March 2015. This request has been considered, and whilst formally rejected, the majority of changes have been agreed.

3.7.3 The main reason for the variation to the grant agreement was the increase in

Personnel costs due to the Authority using a dedicated Project Team to deliver the Actions rather than outsourcing Actions using External Assistance. This change was designed to keep the project on track (timelines) and maintain (in so far as possible) grant agreement expected outcomes.

3.7.4 Within section 7, the Authority will provide a summary of costs incurred up to the

formal completion on the 30th September 2015, information about the accounting


systems along with the allocation of the costs per Action. 3.8 Problems encountered 3.8.1 Whilst mobilisation of the Project was due to start September 2012, ‘on the ground’

activities did not commence until May 2013, when approval was obtained from the European Commission (EC) to enable Districts to be utilised within the Project via a Service Level Agreement mechanism.

3.8.2 At the time of submitting the proposal it was envisaged that the Waste

Compositional Analysis and Survey undertaken in 2011 which involved sampling 1,300 households would be sufficient to provide baseline data for this project. It was planned that the data from the survey would enable the Authority to make an informed decision to determine the specific areas that needed to be targeted. However, since the grant agreement, further assessment was undertaken and it was concluded that the level of data was more limited than envisaged, meaning that initial results were not detailed enough to prove the areas for targeting were in the lower quartile. Therefore the decision was taken to carry out (cost fully funded by the Authority) a more detailed baseline monitoring and evaluation desk top study. This in itself brought delays to delivery of Phase 1 as Districts found it difficult to provide the raw data within the tight deadlines, which in turn delayed the start date on the ground until the 6th May 2013. The Authority, however, ensured through the additional work procured, that the baseline data was as robust as originally envisaged in the grant agreement.

3.8.3 Whilst the Authority had procured a monitoring and evaluation company (MEL), the

volume and complexity of the data meant that a dedicated post also needed to be established within the Project Team to ensure that all data was captured for the activities and that timelines/deliverables remained on track.

3.8.4 Unfortunately in August 2013, the long-term sickness of the Project Manager

commenced. This required implementation of some interim arrangements by initially seconding a senior member of the Authority’s Business Management Team, the Head of Governance, Procurement and Transparency (GPT), to ensure progress was maintained and outcomes remained focused upon.

3.8.5 As the Project Manager’s absence continued a full review of the Project was

undertaken. That very clearly highlighted that to in order to deliver, as per the grant agreement, additional resources would be required to ensure all actions could be completed within the original time frame of the Project. The Authority decided, after discussion with the UK based monitor, to recruit to the Team rather than use External Assistance. This has led to the Personnel budget being overspent and the other categories such as External Assistance and consumables being underspent.

3.8.6 Upon completion of the review a Revised Project Plan was agreed by the Authority’s

Project Decision Board (as per the Grant Agreement’s Governance arrangements). The Authority also met with our UK based Monitor to update him on the progress of the Project and the revised Project Plan. The Plan focused on delivering all actions within Phases 1 and 2. The rescheduling of the Plan was further complicated by the requirement for no campaign work to be delivered ‘on the ground’ during the pre-election (Purdah) Period.

3.8.7 In campaign delivery terms, this meant that the delivery of all campaigns within

Phase 1 had to be completed by the 1st April 2014 and any delay to the start of those campaigns would mean that the campaign, in some cases could not be achieved in Phase 1 and therefore had to be moved to Phase 2.

3.8.8 The Purdah period further impacted on the start of Phase 2 as only research work


could be undertaken between the 4th April 2014 and 22nd May 2014, until the elections (both local and European) had taken place.

3.8.9 Upon the first meeting with MEL, they advised us that the targets within the grant

agreement were very challenged and did not reflect the demographic and social problems relating to the areas we were targeting and the length of the campaigns. To ensure that the Authority were analysing the impact of the campaigns against a realistic target, it was agreed that the campaign’s impact would be analysed against the obtainable target based on MEL’s experience.

3.8.10 The Project also encountered problems with Districts changing campaign rounds

during campaign delivery. This meant that in some campaigns pre and post monitoring data did not match where the campaign was targeting. Moving into Phase 2, Districts made a commitment, where operationally possible, for the rounds to remain the same. The only waste stream which needed to be changed is the organics waste stream, which tends to be an ‘opt in’ scheme basis and participation varies dependent on the weather. For example, if the weather has been good then there’s more tonnage of organics to collect therefore one vehicle may need to cover more than one collection round.

3.8.11 At was the initial intention that all Outreach Work would be undertaken within the

nine partnering District Councils under the negotiated SLA approach. However due to delayed timescales and the impact of budget cuts (national Government Austerity measures) on available resources this subsequently proved not to be viable for all Districts. Due to this, Outreach Workers were directly recruited within the dedicated Project Team.

3.8.12

Targeting 1,500 households for the Apartments Themes proved to be unworkable. Therefore, in Phase 2, after capturing the learning, a new methodology (agreed in the mid-term report feedback) was used to ensure that only high-rise flats of 60 apartments or more are targeted, with a maximum of 10 blocks for Action B10 and B11 and maximum of 5 for B12.

4. Introduction 4.1 Background 4.1.1 The Authority is England’s largest Waste Disposal Authority, dealing with over 4% of

England’s Waste, and provides a world class sustainable solution for Greater Manchester’s (excluding Wigan) waste. We currently are responsible for dealing with the 1.088 million tonnes of waste (2014/15) produced each year by approximately one million households in Bolton, Bury, Manchester, Oldham, Rochdale, Salford, Stockport, Tameside and Trafford. This waste comes from District Council’s managed household collections and 20 Household Waste Recycling Centres (HWRCs) provided and serviced by the Authority.

4.1.2 On April 8th 2009, the Authority signed a 25 year recycling and waste management

contract with Viridor Laing (Greater Manchester) Limited; the largest waste contract of its kind in Europe. This signalled the start of a £631million (around €880million) investment programme in waste treatment facilities.

4.1.3 In 2013/14 the Authority achieved 38.25% recycling and composting rate. This has

been achieved by ‘big picture’ communication campaigns, however, whilst in some areas there are high recycling areas (70%) being achieved, in other areas only 15% was being achieved.

4.1.4 During the time that the Project was operating recycling rates have increased to

41.04% (2014/15).


4.2 Environmental Problem/Issue being addressed 4.2.1 As highlighted above, whilst ‘big picture’ campaigns being delivered throughout

Greater Manchester, there are areas that are still not adequately recycling. 4.2.2 The aim of the Project was to target those low participating areas, through targeted

campaigns of approximately 1,500 households, using an innovative communications campaigns.

4.2.3 The Project undertook all 14 Actions which equated to 42 communication campaigns

covering 4 themes; deprivation, transience, youth and students, different cultures and high density housings (apartments/flats); a mobile game application was created and social media was used to promote recycling.

4.2.4 To complete these campaigns the Project was been split into 2 Phases covering 4

Periods (Periods 1 & 2 in Phase 1 and Periods 3 & 4 in Phase 2). 18 campaigns were completed in Phase 1 and 24 in Phase 2.

4.2.5 To aid the delivery and raise the profile of recycling, social media was used, 8 films

were completed and placed both on YouTube and our website. Our Associated Beneficiary MMU has produced a mobile game application, which was used at all promotional events and activities.

4.3 Description of the Technical/Methodological Solution 4.3.1 The Authority’s principle objective was to develop an innovative communication

process to increase recycling participation and waste prevention in low performing areas and was achieved by using a six-step approach.

Step 1: Understand the target demographics; Step 2: Understand the waste streams; Step 3: Outline campaigns to overcome participation barriers; Step 4: Engage with residents to further develop campaigns from within

the community; Step 5: Incorporate residents views in the campaigns; and Step 6: Deliver large scale campaigns 4.3.2 To support the principle objective, the Project has 7 supporting objectives:

Objective 1 Actions B1-B3 Deprivation;

Objective 2 Actions B4-B6 Transient populations, youths and students;

Objective 3 Actions B7-B9 High proportion of different cultures;

Objective 4 Actions B10-B12 High density housing/apartments;

Objective 5 Actions B13-B14 Develop employment and education opportunities as a means of community engagement;

Objective 6 Action C1 Robust monitoring of the Project; and

Objective 7 Actions D1-D3 Disseminate the Project

4.4 Expected Results and Environmental Benefits 4.4.1 The Project’s results expected to demonstrate the effectiveness of different

communication campaign methods undertaken in low performing ‘hard to reach’ areas through a community driven approach.

4.4.2 Whilst the Authority hoped to see positive changes in resident’s participation and

attitudes to recycling, it was also acknowledged that not all of the 42 campaigns


would make a significant impact. That, however, has meant that learning (both successful and unsuccessful) has been fully captured and used to shape further campaigns.

4.4.3 From Phase 1 campaigns, lessons learnt were captured and disseminated to help

formulate the targeted campaigns in Phase 2. 4.4.4 Through the learning of these campaigns the Authority and its stakeholders have

been able to shape future targeted campaigns based on the results of the demonstration campaigns which have been successful and learn from those which have not succeeded in meeting the expected outcomes.

4.4.5 The Authority is committed to delivering the 50% recycling and composting rate by

2015/16. With the Authority’s recycling and composting rate currently around 41.04%, a big step change needs to be made to enable the Authority to reach this target. Working with our Contractor Viridor Laing (Greater Manchester) Limited and our 9 partnering Districts it was, and still is acknowledged, that targeted campaigns will play a substantial part of our approach going forward in order to tackle those areas currently resistant to recycling, as well as tackling those mid-performing areas that could recycle better and more.

5. Administrative part 5.1 Description of Project Management 5.1.1 In October 2013, the Head of GPT undertook a complete review of the delivery of

Project and those outcomes where taken to the Board for consideration. 5.1.2 Arising from those discussions a revised Project Plan was produced and agreed to

ensure that the Project could be delivered ‘on the ground’ to the original completion date of June 2015.

5.1.3 To achieve this, the staffing structure of the Project Team needed to expand to

enable the delivery of 42 campaigns by the revised end date of 5th December, 2014. 5.1.4 The approach to managing the Project is aligned to the principle of PRINCE II and

was monitored against the progress of the overall project and financial plan. The Authority developed a high level Project Plan which enabled the Project Team and the Board to see at a glance, through a colour-coded approach, when and what needed to be achieved within a set time period. This approach was further supported by weekly progress reports from all Members of the Project Team to the Head of GPT to ensure that the Project remained, where possible, on track to be delivered within the prescribed deadlines. A copy of the overall Plan (original versus actual) is attached at Appendix A.

5.1.5 Previously it was envisaged that resources within our nine partnering District

Councils would be utilised for the Outreach Workers within the Personnel costs; this was to allow local knowledge to be used to better target campaigns. However, due to time delays and subsequent austerity measures, by the time a start needed to be made, resource restraints within those District Councils meant only three out of the nine District Councils have been able to sign the SLA approved by the EC. The outcome of these changes has meant that the Project had to directly recruit 6 full-time Outreach Workers within the Project Team of 15.

5.1.6 Communication with the Associated Beneficiary was good, and the Partnership

agreement was signed within the prescribed deadlines (see Appendix B). 5.1.7 Through the governance arrangements (collectively) and separately the Authority’s


Officers and Officers within the District Councils meetings were held to discuss the delivery of the Project.

5.1.8 Environmental Policy and Governance Output Indicator and Awareness Raising

Output Indicator Tables are set out at Appendix C. 5.1.9 MMU had a dedicated Project Manager for action B14 Gaming. The Project Manager

was Dr Atif Waraich. The development team was led by Dr Darren Dancey. The Project Manager chaired formal internal meetings to measure progress towards overall project aims. The development team, in addition, held weekly development meetings to ensure progress in the technical development of the game.

5.2 Organisational Structure of the Project Team and Project Management 5.2.1 Due to the long-term sickness of the Project Manager (since August 2013), interim

arrangements were put in place in oversee the Project. In practical terms, a senior and experienced manager, the Head of Governance, Procurement & Transparency (Head of GPT) was brought into the Project Team to review the Project’s status and manage the Team.

5.2.2 To enable delivery to remain to the original timescales, the Project Team employed

6 Campaign Officers. The Authority also employed a dedicated Monitoring and Evaluation Officer (agreed in principle by the EC in the letter dated 09/09/2015). In terms of Project Management, the Head of GPT overtook the overall responsibility of delivering the Project (working 4 days per week until completion) to enable stability throughout the remainder of the Project. This represented additional resource, but enabled the delivery of the Project to be pulled back on line, which would not have been possible if this action had not been taken. Due to rejection of this part of the budget modification the Authority is funding 100% of this additional cost. Additionally a Support Project Officer was employed to help support the Project Team to deliver the campaigns and maintain the Project’s website (agreed in principle by the EC in the letter dated 09/09/2015).

5.2.3 With the changes required to ensure that the delivery of this complex project

remained on track, this new structure provided an additional 1,130 days of resource to the Project Team. This and the difference in salary within the grant agreement to actual salaries has increased the Personnel budget significantly. The financial part of this report (section 7) expands further on the financial implications of this change.

5.2.4 As outlined above an additional position was recruited to strengthen the monitoring

and evaluation element. The Authority recognised that robust data was critical to both the delivery of this Project and its future dissemination. Whilst the Project Team had assistance from the Authority’s Data and Research Analyst, a dedicated resource was needed to fully oversee the pre and post monitoring of 42 campaigns, which was impacting on other priority work. The Data and Research Analyst continued to support the Project Team and worked closely with the Head of GPT and the Monitoring and Evaluation Officer to ensure that robust data was delivered on schedule. The Monitoring and Evaluation Officer commenced with the Project Team on 6th May, 2014.

5.2.5 The Authority saw further changes to the staffing structure when the Dissemination

Officer went on maternity leave from September 2014. This individual subsequently elected not to return back to the Project.

5.2.6 To ensure that the Project maintained momentum whilst the Dissemination Officer

was on maternity leave further transitional arrangements were put in place. With effective from 2nd June (to allow for a transitional hand-over of duties) the Authority created a Senior Campaign Officer within the existing team structure which focused


on supervising the delivery of all campaigns (whilst still delivering their own allocated campaigns).

5.2.7 By running the two posts concurrently between June and September this enabled

the Dissemination Officer to focus purely on disseminating the Project and facilitating the delivery of our first seminar, which was held on the 3rd September 2014 and proved to be a major success.

5.2.8 Upon completion of the campaigns in December, 2014 the Senior Campaign Officer

then became responsible for the delivery of the After-LIFE+ Communications Plan. 5.2.9 During October to early December 2014 the Project Support Officer continued to

work on day-to-day dissemination activities (2 days per week) until the Senior Campaign Officer solely took over the dissemination work to deliver the After-LIFE Communications Plan between December 2014 and June 2015.

5.2.10 Appendix D shows the structure of the team (2014) which illustrates the transitional

arrangements along with the resources that sit outside the team, but within the Authority, also being used to deliver the Project.

5.3 Governance 5.3.1 As part of the Project comprehensive governance arrangements were set up to

drive, monitor and deliver the Project in order to ensure that the campaigns aims and objectives are delivered to time and budget.

Chart 1: Governance Arrangements

5.3.2 The terms of reference for the above arrangements (with the exception of the

Authority, which is the main strategic decision making body) are attached at Appendix E.

5.3.3 The Time Specific Group (TSG) was the primary focus to enable the Project Team

and the Districts to work together on project delivery, sharing best practice as well as planning for the delivery of campaigns. A sample of the minutes of this meeting is attached at Appendix F1.

5.3.4 The Project Management Board (PMB) was responsible for overseeing the Project and

ensuring it was delivered on schedule and within budget. The membership consisted of the Project Team, an Authority Director, plus a representative from MMU and a District. The Board was responsible for the production of reports to the EC and to the Project Decision Board (PDB). A sample of the minutes of this meeting is attached at Appendix F2.

5.3.5 The PDB was chaired by the Treasurer & Deputy Clerk (Coordinating Beneficiary) and

comprised of 2 Senior Officers (Senior Accountant and Director of Strategy and

Authority

Strategic & Behavioural Change (SABC) Committee

Project Decision Board

Project Management Board

Time Specific Group: LIFE+


Resources), plus had 3 Elected Members including the Chair of the Authority and Chair of the SABC Committee. Originally the Head of GPT was Vice-Chair of this Board, however when the interim arrangements were put in place (to cover the absence of the Project Manager), the Director of Strategy and Resources was appointed to the Board to increase independence, and enable the Head of GPT to produce and present Project Status reports to the Board.

5.3.6 This Board was ultimate responsibility for the delivery of the Project and has been

critical in challenging and supporting the delivery of the Project. A sample set of the minutes from those meetings are attached at Appendix G.

5.3.7 The SABC Committee monitored the Project Plan via a ‘traffic light’ (green, amber,

red) performance management system. Any area which was identified as a ‘red’ within the report would be reported to the Authority. A sample of the minutes of this meeting is attached at Appendix H.

5.4 Partnership agreements status (incl. date of signature) and key content 5.4.1 As reported within the Inception Report the partnership agreement was signed in

accordance with the common provisions and was included within that report. 5.4.2 To enable Districts to undertake Outreach work on the campaign, 12 Service Level

Agreements were signed. 5.4.3 These are:

Action Campaign District Date Signed

B1 Recycling Awards Bury 3rd September, 2013

B2 Celebrating Recycling Bury 28th January, 2014

B3 Business Recycling Bolton 20th November, 2013

B6 Recycling Games Bolton 11th September, 2013

B8 Culture Campaign Bolton 20th November, 2013

B8 Culture Campaign Bury 3rd September, 2013

B9 Diverse Campaign Bolton 20th November, 2013

B1 Recycling Rewards Oldham 8th August, 2013

B3 Business Recycling Oldham 8th August, 2013

B7 Faith Campaign Oldham 31st May, 2013

B8 Culture Campaign Oldham 8th August, 2013

B11 Ambassadors Campaign Oldham 31st May, 2013

5.4.4 Copies of the SLAs are contained at Appendix I (1:12). 6. Technical part 6.1 General 6.1.1 The primary objective was to demonstrate an innovative communication process to

increase recycling and waste prevention participation in low performing urban areas, and develop communication media to support implementation across the EU.

6.1.2 The Project was developed in recognition that many EU countries face the same

problem, which prevents them from being able to achieve higher waste prevention and recycling goals. It is more difficult to engage residents in urban areas that often have issues of deprivation, transience, multiple cultures and restrictive storage space linked to housing type. Across Greater Manchester these areas have lower recycling rates than their more prosperous suburban counterparts, despite the majority receiving the same service and information. This demonstrated there was


a need for more targeted communications developed with, and for, communities. 6.1.3 The Project was based around 4 demographic themes (comprising 12 specific areas)

that targeted support at historically low performing areas, and also included 2 further cross cutting themes; gaming (developed by MMU) and a filming project; 14 areas in total, B1-B14.

6.1.4 With the exception of campaigns aimed at University students, each campaign was

originally set to target four areas of 1,500 households, split across 2 phases. The 2 student campaigns aimed to target around 3,000 students. As part of the Project, training opportunities were developed for young people using innovative gaming technology, video and social media, which also encouraged young people to get involved with recycling.

6.1.5 The main aim of the demonstration campaigns was to fully engage with the

community and allow residents to shape how the campaigns were delivered within the parameters set out within each of the Actions in the grant agreement. When the Authority submitted the bid documentation, assumptions were made about how residents might wish campaigns to be run, based on previous experience, and externally available research (e.g. WRAP studies). Subsequently B5 (at Inception Report stage) and B4 (at Mid-Term Report stage) were changed and agreed in principal by the Commission.

6.1.6 In terms of the external assistance and consumables, however, assumptions made

within the grant agreement, showed that for many of the campaigns delivered in Phase 1 and 2, the original assumptions if followed would have resulted in sub optimal outcomes.

6.1.7 As reported in the Mid-Term Report, the variation of expenditure to undertake these

changes was relatively low in cost, and therefore did not impact on the Authority being able to deliver the Project within budget (excluding personnel costs). The Project continued to be delivered based on the views of residents, rather that sticking to the assumptions within the grant agreement.

6.1.8 Within section 6.2, the report illustrates any changes which have been made and

section 7.1 sets out the overall financial implications of these changes. 6.1.9 This technical section reports against the Revised Project Plan agreed by the Project

Decision Board in October 2013, with a focused Phase 2 Project Plan where it was agreed with MEL that campaign delivery would be completed by the 5th December, 2014.

6.1.10 The Authority has completed 42 Case Studies for every campaign delivered (see

Appendix J). Case Studies are fully available on the Project website. http://upandforward.recycleforgreatermanchester.com/casestudies/

6.2 Technical Progress against Objectives/Actions 6.2.1 Principle Objective: To demonstrate an innovative communication process to

increase recycling and waste prevention participation in low performing areas, and develop communication media to support implementation across the EU.

To achieve this it was acknowledged from the outset that a considerable amount of

preparation would be required to enable the EC to have reassurance that the areas identified within the campaigns (B1-B12) met the campaigns’ objectives. To provide this evidence the Authority has developed a 6 step approach:-

http://upandforward.recycleforgreatermanchester.com/casestudies/


a) Step 1: Understanding the target demographics Work was undertaken to analyse information from the 2001 census, and then

emerging data from the 2011 census, to aid the targeting of the areas to be used within the campaigns. As well as undertaking that analysis and research, the Authority also took into account WRAP’s 2008 research in relation to understanding the barriers to waste prevention and recycling. The Authority has also drawn on the wealth of knowledge within our Greater Manchester District Councils. Upon the completion of this 3 pronged approach (census, research & Districts’ knowledge), the Authority obtained a clear picture and understanding of the demographics of Greater Manchester.

b) Step 2: Understanding the waste streams and effective targeting The Authority undertook a statistically sound waste composition analysis in

2011. This information provided the Authority with a greater understanding of the composition of waste and Greater Manchester’s potential to achieve significant recycling rates (exceeding 70% on average overall), or around double the then current capture rates. However, due to length of time since that study and changes in District waste collection services, the Authority felt that this data did not, on its own, provide the necessary quality and quantitative robustness required to enable us to set the lower and higher quartiles within our campaigns.

To resolve this, the Authority procured, at our own cost, a sub-contractor

(MEL) to undertake an additional desk top ‘base line’ study using, where possible, each District’s last 12 months tonnage data to produce the relevant data. The findings of this data then enabled the Authority, using the information gained from step 1 and step 2 to identify the low performing areas within the Districts which met the demographic required for each of the campaigns (B1-B12). The individual tonnage yield reports are set out in Appendix K.

By then undertaking the pre-monitoring tonnage and participation monitoring

prior to the campaign being ‘rolled out’, the Project had the appropriate quality of data to give a good standard of evidence that the Authority had targeted the areas that sit within the lower quartile of performance within that District.

As all District’s operate different collection frequencies, the Project Plan took

into account the required length of time needed to deliver both pre and post campaign monitoring.

c) Step 3: Outline Campaigns to overcome participation barriers At its peak a Project Team of 15 was in place to work with the Greater

Manchester Districts to develop action plans for the 42 campaigns which delivered all the objectives set out within the Project Grant Agreement. More detail in relation to the campaigns is contained within paragraph 6.2.2 of this report, ‘Supporting Objectives’.

d) Steps 4: Engaging with Residents to further develop campaigns from within the

community & incorporate their views in campaigns The Authority believes, and research has cited (Belerdo, 1995, Skinner, 1974,

Kotter, 1995, Beer & Nohria, 2000) that engagement and empowerment within the communities, through communication is the key to drive positive change.


By using focus groups and volunteers and incorporating their views within the campaigns, the Authority expected to achieve enhanced results in recycling participation/waste prevention because the campaigns were driven by and for the local communities.

e) Step 5: Delivering large scale campaigns By undertaking steps 1 – 5, the Authority has delivered all the campaigns

within the Project. It was acknowledged from the offset that these campaigns were innovative, and therefore may not always produce the expected results. This is why a two Phase approach was been built into the Project, thus enabling lessons to be learnt from the first phase campaigns and the approach adapted (if necessary) for Phase 2 campaigns. More details regarding the implementation of the campaigns is within section 6.2.2 of this report below.

f) Step 6: Monitoring and evaluating campaign success To enable a comprehensive evaluation of the LIFE+ Up and Forward campaigns

GMWDA commissioned the Environment and Waste Department at M·E·L Research to carry out a series of monitoring and evaluation approaches including: Target setting; weight monitoring; set out rate monitoring and face to face surveys. Further details are given within section 6.2.2(f).

A Six Step Approach Handbook has been written for Cities, Regions and

Municipalities, detailing the above process in more detail, to target waste communications in urban areas (see Appendix L). The overall progress of the Project is detailed in Appendix A.

6.2.2 Supporting Objectives 1-7 (Actions B1-B14) a) Objective 1: Demonstrate the use of communication media to increase

participation in waste prevention and recycling in deprived urban areas through an innovative process

Each of the 12 areas selected for delivery of Objective 1 (B1-B3) were

identified as low yielding for the amount of recyclable materials collected at the kerbside and had high levels of deprivation; with high proportions (66-84%) of ACORN category 4 (Financially stretched) and 5 (Urban adversity) households. The factors associated with deprivation - low incomes, lack of access to education and opportunity generally lead to a lack of prioritisation for recycling. In addition, it has been recognised that there are difficulties reaching this group of residents with the traditional approach of door knocking and / or awareness raising promotional activities. A combination of children within the household and a busy lifestyle means that this group may not have time to engage with a doorstep canvasser trying to deliver a recycling message. Often, door step campaigns engage with the group of people that are already committed to recycling and are interested in finding out more about recycling, rather than those that do not understand or are not aware of the recycling collections available in their area.

It is against this back drop that the B1-B3 campaigns were delivered.


B1: Recycling Awards The aim of the B1 action was to involve the community in promoting recycling

through a financial reward to schools which would in turn increase knowledge and participation in recycling. As the campaign was based on recycling rewards that were linked to work carried out in local primary schools, the age profile of the area was also assessed to ensure that there was a high proportion of primary school age children living there. The scheme encouraged residents to present their recycling bins correctly by offering a cash reward to local primary schools. Reward tags were attached to recycling bins of residents that presented their bin on the right day with the right materials inside. Residents were asked to donate their tags to one of the participating local primary schools. At the end of the campaign reward tags were counted and prize money allocated in proportion to the number of tags collected by each school.

It was expected that over the life time of the campaign residents would

understand why they were being asked to recycle and then continue to recycle as part of their normal routine.

Photo 1: Prize cheque presentation in Bury

Full details of each campaign are given in the relevant B1 case studies (see Appendix J).

Key Achievements

B1 Recycling Rewards Results

Recycling Ambassadors recruited/trained 23

The number of surveys, events and meetings held by Recycling Ambassadors

356 surveys 17 events

Days spent door knocking by Ambassadors 41

The number of reward tags distributed 22,173

The number of reward tags redeemed 13,938

The number of schools rewarded 10

Changes in waste prevention – participation Pulpables: +34%

Commingled: +29%

Changes in waste prevention - tonnages Pulpables: +4.1 tonnes

Commingled: +4.3 tonnes

*Data for the organics waste stream is not shown as full data could not be

achieved across all campaigns due to seasonality and inconsistencies in round data. Please refer to individual case studies for available data.

Conclusions Campaigns were delivered in accordance with the Project documentation and

all key indicators (recruitment of volunteers, increase participation) have been achieved.


The level of engagement, participation and the results achieved (participation rates have increased by over 34% in certain waste streams) has shown that this methodology clearly can work. For a relatively small financial investment which included the prizes the campaign was able to reach groups traditionally difficult to engage with on recycling issues, and who would have resisted contact at the doorstep for recycling awareness and educational programmes.

Recruited volunteers continue to be active in the communities targeted, leaving a lasting legacy of the campaign and allowing behaviour change to become sustainable.

As part of the negotiations with our Design and Print Contract (Carbon Creative)

it was agreed, that fruit trees would be available, free of charge to the Authority has part of their Carbon Offset scheme. 20 fruit trees were planted as part of this initiative.

Modifications

Unfortunately, the main element of the campaign, the Reward Tags and

communication materials were omitted from the consumables list and upon listening to residents views, leaflets were used to disseminate information rather than posters. In Financial terms this led to an additional expenditure of €3719.62 for Phase 1 and €4204.12 for Phase 2 (See section 7.1.6).

Lessons Learnt

The recruitment of Recycling Ambassadors did not go as well as anticipated

despite the introduction of an incentive scheme. It was also assumed that volunteers would be willing to carry our door step engagement surveys, in reality volunteers preferred to use informal chats and carry our surveys at school gates. However, where volunteers were recruited from the community this did allow for improved engagement. The campaigns found that residents were more likely to listen and respond to people within their own community.


B2: Celebrating Achievements The B2 Action trialled a new approach; refocusing the recycling message and

moving into the community, with the help of local community groups and volunteers in the target area. A resident-led family event was organised to celebrate the community’s achievements, moving the message assimilation into the community. As part of this action the B14 ‘Getting Wasted’ mobile game application was also showcased and received positive feedback.

Whilst the campaign’s primary objective was to increase recycling knowledge

and participation, the approach also tackled issues around poverty and deprivation. The training of recycling ambassadors gave residents the opportunity to achieve new skills in communication. Many of the events held also offered practical demonstrations into reducing food waste and healthy eating; often providing food for residents to take away.

Photo 2: Recycling Superhero meets junk modellers at Radcliffe event


Key achievements

All 4 campaign events achieved high levels of attendance and a positive change

in behaviour; increase in participation of 24% for organics, 8% commingled, and 3% pulpables. Increases in tonnages were also recorded of 12.8 tonnes for commingled and 22 tonnes for organics. A decrease of -4.5 tonnes was seen in the amount of pulpables waste collected. However, this decrease was found in one campaign area (Trafford), all of other B2 campaign areas recorded a slight increase or stable tonnages for pulpables. The decrease in Trafford could be due to a number of factors including peaks and troughs in seasonality; pre monitoring was carried out in February 2014 and post monitoring in October 2014.

B2:Celebrating Recycling Results

The number of Recycling Ambassadors recruited and trained

35

Surveys, events and meetings held by Recycling Ambassadors

407 surveys, 14 committee meetings,

6 focus groups

The number of days spent door knocking by the Recycling Ambassadors

14

The number of people engaged in staging the event

1360

The number of people that attended the event 620

The format of the event has been agreed and planned by the community

Yes x 4

The event has taken place Yes x 4



Commingled: +8%

Organics: +24%

Changes in waste prevention – tonnages* Pulpables: -4.5 tonnes


*Data for the organics waste streams is not shown as full data could not be


Conclusions The campaign allowed the recycling message to be delivered in a fun and

innovative way using influential members of the community. Campaigns were delivered in accordance with the Project documentation and all key indicators have been achieved. Overall positive changes in behaviour have been seen, in particular with the commingled and organics waste streams. Some residents have even gone on to form their own environmental groups and continue to work hard to improve recycling and waste minimisation in their community.

Recruited volunteers continue to be active in the communities targeted, leaving

a lasting legacy of the campaign and allowing behaviour change to become sustainable.

Modifications The assumptions made within grant agreement for this campaign of the items

contained did not match the needs identified by the community; consumables specific to this campaign were spent on leaflets and posters which were designed to recruit Ambassadors and promote the events, along with craft equipment which was used for the event. The Authority purchased a quality ‘Super Hero’ costume (€1,296.79) instead of the anticipated 6 costumes and used the remaining money to purchase banners, leaflets and posters to promote the events (see section 7.1.6). The costume and banners were used in Phase 1 and 2; therefore the campaigns were able to be delivered within the overall ‘consumables’ budget. The superhero costume was used extensively for other events and provided a focal point for getting across key recycling messages, especially to young people.

Lessons learnt Whilst volunteers did aid in community engagement and the delivery of the

event, they did prove hard to recruit with time spent on community engagement and attending meetings often being minimal. Continuous support was also required from Project Officers.

With a campaign such as this that is limited to a very short time period (i.e. one

event) it is difficult to measure the impact of the event on the surrounding area. This is not necessarily a problem, and can in fact be seen as a positive in that additional households are receiving campaign information. There does, however, need to be an awareness that there is this possible crossover so that campaign communication materials do not contain information that is too area specific.


B3: Community and Business Recycling This action involved the support of local businesses that were used as a catalyst

for promoting recycling at the point of sale. This was seen as an effective method to trial as it was assumed that low income families (many without cars) are reliant on local services. To enhance the campaign and encourage local businesses to participate, a ‘LIFE+ Bag for Life’ promotion was developed with the community. If residents purchased goods at a local shop and produced our leaflet, shop owners would hand out the bag which contained further information about recycling along with promoting recycling at the point of sale.

Photo 3: One of our free bags for life being used in a local shop.

Full details of each campaign are given in the relevant B3 case studies (see

Appendix J).

Key achievements Across the 4 campaigns 26 businesses signed up to be key information points;

with 1,194 bags for life distributed. Increase in participation was seen across 2 recycling waste streams of up to 29%,

with an increase in the weight of pulpables of 2 tonnes and an increase in the weight of organics of 30.8 tonnes. Commingled participation decreased by -4%, however, this could be due to more accurate participation by existing recyclers, which may increase tonnages without necessarily increasing the participation rate.

B3:Business Recycling Results

The number of shop owners recruited 26

Recycling Ambassadors recruited and trained 24

The number of shop visits undertaken 86

Number of shops that fully embrace the campaign with point of sale material.

26

Shops reporting positive feedback 26


Commingled: -4%

Organics: +29%

Changes in waste prevention – tonnages Pulpables: +2.0 tonnes


Organics: +30.8 tonnes

Conclusions By encouraging local businesses to become information points in the community

the campaign has been able to reach groups traditionally difficult to engage with on recycling issues, and who would have resisted contact at the doorstep.


Success was seen with businesses in the targeted areas acting as an

intermediary point between the District Council and residents, providing display space for information on recycling, distributing information leaflets and distributing promotional bags for life. This gave the opportunity to raise levels of awareness about the use of the recycling collections within a very small area the community. Feedback from all businesses taking part was positive; however many were not willing to stock the free bags for life for a longer period as they already sold bags for purchase by customers. Campaigns were delivered in accordance with the Project documentation and all key indicators have been achieved.

Modifications It was originally scheduled that 2 campaigns would run in Phase 1, and a further

2 within Phase 2. However given the delays in baseline data and then the amount of time it took to find suitable collection rounds within the Districts which fit the Action’s criteria only one campaign took place in Phase 1, as the other campaign could not be completed prior to the Purdah period. 3 campaigns therefore ran in Phase 2. The assumptions made for this campaign of the items contained within grant agreement did not match the needs identified by the community or by the businesses involved. Shop owners did not want materials on their shelves or pop up display stands and the use of a Bag for Life was identified as an appropriate marketing tool to promote the campaign. The Authority therefore purchased additional Bag’s for Life as purchase in B2) instead of the anticipated promotional leaflets and used the remaining money to purchase window stickers, posters and leaflets to promote the campaign (see section 7.1.6).

Lessons Learnt The selection of suitable collection rounds was difficult to determine due to the

criteria of identifying a low performing area with deprivation (low income families), ensuring that there are a suitable number of willing shops to participate in the campaign, and that they are used by local residents within the community. With major supermarkets now operating in these areas and the introduction of home delivery, the assumption that low income families rely on local businesses could not be substantiated without intensive research.

It should be noted that the shop customers are not limited entirely to the area

covered by the waste collection rounds which defined the target area; there were a number of households outside the study area also receiving recycling and waste management information. This is not necessarily a problem, and can in fact be seen as a positive in that additional households were receiving informative recycling information. There does, however, need to be an awareness that there is possible crossover so that campaign communication materials do not contain information that is too area specific.

It is good practice to avoid any monitoring for both set out rates and weight

monitoring during the two weeks before and immediately after the Christmas and New Year holidays because of the impact this holiday season has on people’s waste and recycling behaviour. Due to the scheduling and short timescale of this campaign, it was not possible to avoid monitoring during this period.


b) Objective 2: Demonstrate the use of communication media to increase participation in waste prevention and recycling in communities with a high proportion of youth, transience and students through an innovative process

Each area selected for delivery of the B4 campaign was identified as low

yielding for the amount of recyclable materials collected at the kerbside and had high levels of deprivation. It was also required that the selected area contain a high level of rented properties. On average each community area selected had high proportions (66%) of ACORN category 4 (Financially stretched) and 5 (Urban adversity) households.

Targeting transient populations brings additional challenges alongside those

associated with high levels of deprivation (low incomes, lack of access to education and opportunity). Residents are often new to the area and unaware of the local recycling collections and other reuse and recycling facilities available. All of these factors lead to a lack of prioritisation for recycling with reduced visibility and shared neighbourhood learning preventing a positive recycling habit being formed.

It has also been recognised that there are difficulties reaching this group of

residents with the traditional approach of door knocking and/or awareness raising promotional activities. This group often does not have time to engage with a canvasser at the doorstep trying to deliver a recycling message. It is against this backdrop that the B4-B6 campaigns were delivered.

B4: Private Rental Market The B4 campaign looked to engage with the private rental market across

Greater Manchester to educate transient populations on waste prevention, re-use and recycling services. As well as providing initial information to tenants on re-use and recycling facilities available, the campaign provided permanent reminders in properties as a means of repeated education to promote the correct use of services.

Whilst this action’s main aim was to increase recycling participation and

knowledge, it also tackled additional deprivation issues. In B4 Manchester a large scale event in partnership with local organisations around prevalent issues associated with deprivation including crime, health and unemployment was held. The promotion of re-use also looked to benefit disadvantaged people by harnessing reusable resources that might otherwise be dumped.

Photo 4: Local housing associations training on benefits of recycling


Appendix J).


Key achievements Increases in participation and tonnages were recorded across 2 recycling waste

streams; commingled and organics. The key indicator shows that 59% are recycling more since receiving some form of communication and of those asked on average 60.5% had used re-use services during the campaign period. Overall there was an increase in committed recyclers of 34%. Pulpables decreased by -50% participation and -5.1 tonnes. This could be due to peaks and troughs in seasonality; poor overlap between rounds; weather and operational issues. The largest decrease of -35% was recorded in Tameside. Tameside changed its collection round for the pulpables waste stream towards the end of the campaign and monitoring also took place over Christmas. Therefore, the pulpables results for this area should be used with caution.

B4: Private Rental Results

Number of letting agents, social housing providers taking part

20

Number of Residents taking part in Big Tidy Up 100

Changes in waste prevention – participation Pulpables: -50%

Commingled: +9%

Organics: +22%

Changes in waste prevention - tonnages Pulpables: -5.1 tonnes


Key indicator % recycling more (based on survey question)

+59%

Commitment to recycling (based on survey question)

+34%

Average % of people using reuse services during the campaign period (based on survey question)

60.5%



Modifications Within the Inception report, changes were agreed to move to information packs

rather than ‘moving in’ and ‘moving out’ booklets, as it was identified during discussions with the Districts, landlords and the Project team that a ‘moving out’ booklet would be limited in content as the area the tenant was moving to would be unknown. Also a 15 page ‘moving in booklet’ would be too lengthy and therefore deter people from reading it. Campaigns therefore provided a simplified information pack, providing condensed and relevant information. This together with the installation of permanent notices in properties provided a good alternative to deliver the recycling and reuse message. The installation of permanent notices in particular will ensure recycling is positively promoted over many years to come. It was also agreed that TenSwapNet be removed from the action (as reuse services are well established in Greater Manchester) and that the Authority would engage with reuse organisations directly to promote reuse within the campaigns. To reflect the above changes it was agreed that the indicators be amended to reflect outcomes (rather than outputs) as follows:


Previous Indicators New Indicators

Number of tenants packs/moving out packs distributed

Increase in participation

Positive change in behaviour

Number of items placed on TenSwapNet

Number of letting agents, landlords and social housing providers engaged in the campaign

Number of Questionnaires received n/a

To assess any changes in resident’s reuse behaviours all respondents were asked (during post doorstep surveys), if they have given, disposed of or sold any unwanted items such as clothes, toys, furniture etc. during the campaign period (past 3 months). This is presented in the above table ‘Average % of people using reuse services during the campaign period’. In Phase 2, were feasible, furniture re-use organisations monitored how many residents had made a donation after seeing some form of a LIFE+ communications. In B4 Stockport, this showed that 29% of donations were due to the campaign. Further information is given in the B4 Case Studies (Appendix J) and B4 MEL Campaign Reports (Appendix M).

Financial implications are given in section 7.1.6 Conclusions Success has been seen with more than half of those asked claiming to recycle

more since the campaigns (+59%), in addition almost two thirds of people (60.5%) had used some form of re-use network/service during the campaign period.

It may be reasonable to assume that some changes in behaviour will take time.

Indications from social landlords show that the turnover of residents in the targeted areas is low. For example in Cheetham Hill, during a 6 month period covering the campaign (May to October 2013) the turnover of residents for Places for People Housing Group was 4.5% and 7.5% for Guinness Housing Trust. Therefore, the effects on behaviour of welcome packs to new tenants will not be shown in this campaign period.

Lessons learnt Following phase 1, Districts were asked that no changes be made to collection

rounds. In terms of the organics, this proved to be more difficult as in summer month’s participation rates increase due to garden waste; therefore rounds tend to get changed at short notice to meet those demands.

Identifying private landlords is a barrier that was presented throughout all of

the campaigns, mainly due to data protection issues and absent landlords. The short timescale of the campaign and limited resources meant Project Officers were unable to gather this information. A more positive outcome was achieved by working with social housing providers. Generally social housing officers were already looking for solutions to waste problems and welcomed the support provided as part of the campaign. It is therefore recommended that campaigns targeting the private rental market should be delivered over a longer timescale, or be focused on social housing.


B5: Golden Bin The campaign was initiated to overcome issues with low recycling levels and

high contamination rates in student rental areas; issues that are generally caused as students move out of halls to privately rented accommodation after their first year; moving from a managed communal waste system to managing their own waste in domestic properties. Most students are unfamiliar with the ‘4 bin’ waste management system used in Greater Manchester.

To change students’ attitudes to recycling and engage fully with the target

community of students, the campaign was delivered through social media via a #RubbishSelfie competition which offered a reward for correct recycling. Recycling ambassadors were also recruited through the Universities and encouraged to act as waste advisors in their community; as well as promoting the competition. The campaign ran over 2 semesters (covering both Phases 1 and 2).

Photo 5: Facebook Entry for Rubbish Selfie competition

Full details of this campaign are given in the B5 case study (see Appendix J). B5:Golden Bin

Manchester Results

The number of student Recycling Ambassadors recruited and trained

17

Number of leaflets distributed to private rental properties

3150

The number of campaign prizes awarded 12

Increase in waste prevention and recycling participation (survey questions)

Key indicator - % recycling more following the campaign

+37%

Increase in positive attitudes Super Committed: 0%

Committed: +1%

Non-Committed: -1%

Key achievements Respondents were asked if receiving the recycling campaign materials had

changed their behaviour towards waste and recycling. Positively, over a third (37%) claimed to now recycle more, followed by just over half (55%) recycling the same as they did before. The campaign had the highest recall across the whole Up and Forward project at 87%.

Levels of awareness increased for both the dry recyclate waste streams.

Awareness of the shared pulpables (paper and card) increased by 12%, from 85% to 97%, followed by 10% more respondents being aware of the shared blue commingled recycling bin from 85% pre to 95% post evaluation.


Modifications In the Inception Report approval was gained to move the Golden Bin campaign

away from the Halls of Residence activity included in the bid, to targeting student residential areas in Fallowfield, Longsight and Rusholme, Manchester; these areas were identified as having particular problems with high contamination rates and low levels of recycling.

The assumptions made for this campaign of the items contained within grant

agreement did not match the needs identified by the student private rental community. To promote the Golden Bin competition The Authority purchased leaflets and bin tags instead of the anticipated promotional posters (see section 7.1.6).

Conclusions The campaign successfully engaged with university students living in rented

accommodation to promote the use of the recycling facilities available to them. Success was also seen with more respondents being aware and presenting fewer barriers to using the dry recycling services. Campaign recall was high, and the knock on effect towards recycling more due to this is positive. Although the level of commitment to recycling is low, this could be due to the demographic targeted i.e. students being less likely to be fully committed.

Although entries into the competition via social media were lower than

expected, the campaign received the highest recall across the whole Up and Forward project at 87%. The low entries could be due the relatively small target area of 1,500 households (rather than university wide).

When compared to other LIFE+ campaigns within the Project, Project Officers

found that student volunteers were easier to recruit and remained active and committed for longer (as volunteering could be linked to their course). The ambassadors were at ease with door step engagement tasks and frequently put forward their suggestions of how to improve uptake and increase promotion of the campaign.

Using social media as the main communication tool meant that marketing costs

were kept relatively low; allowing this campaign to be easily replicated across Europe.

Lesson learnt Due to the relatively small target area of private rental properties, the majority

of Manchester students were unable to participate in the #RubbishSelfie competition. It is therefore recommended that this part of the campaign would be more suited to students living in halls of residence.

The campaign encountered problems due to constraints of the academic

calendar. Developing initial university links, recruiting volunteers and identifying student homes within the target area took longer than anticipated. This led to a delay in the start of the #RubbishSelfie competition and led to the campaign running over two academic years. This in turn led to problems as Project Officers had to re-recruit for ambassadors (as many had left) and also new students had moved into the targeted areas; so rather than re-affirming the message, Project Officers and ambassadors were starting afresh. It is therefore recommend that this campaign is confined to one academic year.


B6: Recycling Games As students are known poor performers in terms of recycling, the B6 recycling

campaign looked to promote recycling amongst students in a fun and non-patronising way through the use of a real-life, competitive game that would be played at organised events on university grounds. The recycling games competition was run at the University of Bolton and targeted two halls of residence, Hollins and Orlando Halls, and two private accommodation sites, The Packhorse and The Bank.

The campaign ran over 2 semesters from September 2013 to April 2014. In

semester 1, a competition was held for students to design a recycling game. The competition received 6 group entries. The judging panel received presentations from all entrants and the ‘Beat the Bin-men’ game was chosen as the winning entrant. The game involved two teams going head to head to collect and sort recyclable items through an assault course. The game was subsequently produced and used at 2 major events.

Full details of each campaign are given in the B6 case study (see Appendix J).

Key achievements The B6 action has shown an increase in awareness of facilities by almost 60%

together with a decrease in barriers to recycling and a high claimed usage of facilities at 88%. The key indicator shows that 25% of respondents are claiming to recycle more. In addition to increases in recycling and usage of facilities, the campaign has also fostered closer working relationships between the University and Bolton Council, which will allow for continued future collaboration in the promotion of student recycling.

B6:Recycling Games

Bolton Results

The number of requests for the competition brief 17

The number of competition entries 6

Recycling Ambassadors recruited and trained 4

The large scale event has been held 27th March 2014 and 22nd September 2014.

Increase in waste prevention and recycling participation (survey questions)

Key indicator - % recycling more following the campaign

+25%

Increase in positive attitudes Super Committed:

+12%

Committed: +12%

Non-Committed: -12%

Modifications The assumptions made for this campaign of the items contained within grant

agreement did not match the needs identified by the student community. Due to the bespoke nature of the game design the hire of an inflatable obstacle course was not feasible. The Authority therefore procured an external company to take the main elements of the winning design and reproduce it to allow for easy storage, construction and transportation. The game was made into a portable stand with four rooms available - kitchen, bedroom, bathroom and garden. Each room is designed to encourage recycling of objects in a fun way; keeping the main elements of the original winning design. The portable game will take a prominent role in future Authority campaigns and events. For


financial implications see section 7.1.6. It was not possible to obtain collection weights or participation rates in student

halls of residence as the waste was incorporated into a round that covered other properties, or was collected by a private company. Therefore, surveys were conducted before and after to assess the campaign. A key indicator was set to explore the change in respondents’ claimed recycling behaviour since receiving some form of campaign communications.

Photo 6 and 7: Beat the Bin Men at Orlando Halls, Bolton University and

Permanent Beat The Bin Men Game (Messy Bedroom)

Conclusions The campaign successfully engaged with students by involving them in the

creation and staging of a ‘real life’ game which encouraged other students to recycle in a fun way. There was a positive effect on behaviour with 25% claiming to recycle more since receiving communications materials. Success was also seen with increased levels of awareness for both waste collection services. Barriers are still being presented, such as forgetfulness, while accessibility is still a concern to some pre and post evaluation. The level of committed recyclers has increased, which shows a shift in perceptions towards pro recycling behaviours.

Whilst the costs associated to this campaign seem high, an educational game is

now available for future use across Greater Manchester by Districts and partner organisations to encourage correct recycling behaviour; in particular amongst the student and youth population.

Lessons learnt During the campaign, delivery problems arose with gaining access to the halls of

residence; therefore this resulted in the surveyors standing outside the main entrances and walking around the general area to speak to students living at one of the four selected halls of residence. In addition, during the post evaluation some of the halls were only partially occupied, which reduced the available sample size.

The campaign also encountered problems due to constraints of the academic

calendar. It is recommended that the research period including making contacts should commence in the summer break to allow the main activities to commence once the students returned for the 2013/14 academic year when students are more receptive to communications. Recruit of volunteers should also take place at the start of the new academic year with the new intake of students; this is a time when students have less pressure of exams and assignments.

As the University of Bolton is mainly a commuter university with few hall of


residence; it is suggested that the recycling game campaign is better suited to a university with a high proportion of students living in concentrated halls of residence. This would also be beneficial when activities are held at Fresher’s fairs as the majority of first year students live in halls. In this campaign and due to the lack of halls, whilst fresher’s fair allowed for an increased captive audience, relatively few students engaged were living in the targeted halls.


c) Objective 3: Demonstrate the use of communication media to increase participation in waste prevention and recycling in communities with a high proportion of people from different cultures through an innovative process

Each area selected for delivery of Objective 3 was identified as low yielding for

the amount of recyclable materials collected at the kerbside, had high levels of deprivation and a higher proportion of a particular faith. On average each area selected had high proportions (87-96%) of ACORN category 4 (Financially stretched) and 5 (Urban adversity) households.

Traditionally, areas of high deprivation tend to have lower levels of

participation in recycling schemes, be they household kerbside collections, or bring sites. Many studies have also implicated ethnic minority groups as being less likely to recycle, and indeed, lower recycling rates have been observed across Greater Manchester in areas where ethnic minorities form a significant proportion of the community.

It is against this back drop that the B7-B9 campaigns were delivered. The

recycling message was refocused and moved into the community with the help of faith groups/leaders in the target areas. In addition to lack of prioritisation of recycling these campaigns had to overcome language barriers and cultural sensitivities to enable these communities to have access to services and deliver equality.

B7: Faith Campaign The faith campaign aimed to promote recycling behaviour in low performing

areas where there are clusters of people that follow a particular faith. Officers worked with local places of worship to explore whether religious beliefs, core attitudes and the way of life promoted by particular faiths could influence communities waste prevention and recycling behaviour.

Communication materials were designed with the help of faith leaders that

presented the recycling message in a clear way, often in multiple languages. Engagement and delivery was focused around key events in the faith group’s calendar and delivered in a way recommended by faith leaders.

During phase 1 the results mainly indicated that the 2 campaigns have had

limited or no positive change to residents participation in recycling. The Project Team acknowledge that both campaigns managed to successfully engage with residents and language barriers were identified has one of greatest hurdles. Moving forward, new approaches were trialled in Period 3, Phase 2, such as greater use of a translation service, recruitment of Community Leaders as Ambassadors and a period of more intense engagement within the communities.

Photo 8: Residents with graffiti artist Simon Carrigan as part of an activity day


Appendix J).


Key achievements The faith campaigns engaged with 7 Mosques/Churches and over 20 local

community groups. 23 Recycling Ambassadors were recruited to help disseminate the recycling message within their communities.

B7: Faith Results

Recycling Ambassadors recruited and trained

23

The number of religious leaders recruited to the campaign

8

Number of household surveys undertaken by Recycling Ambassadors

209

Setting up a faith led focus group 11

Campaign materials developed and approved by community leaders

Yes

Participation of community leaders in campaigns

Yes

The number and type of campaign materials delivered

4500 recycling leaflets, 900 Ramadan recycling leaflets, 400 sorry we

missed you cards and 990 promotional water bottles, 1500 Big Tidy up leaflets, 1 x Advert in Asian

leader, 1 x electronic recycling guide, 1,000 ‘Respect’ fridge

magnets, 3 x ‘Respect’ banners, 1,500 Action Week leaflets.

Changes in waste prevention – participation

Pulpables: -4%

Commingled: -35%

Organics: -10%

Changes in waste prevention - tonnages Pulpables: -4.2 tonnes

Commingled: -7.6 tonnes




agreement did not match the needs identified by the community. The Authority purchased multi language leaflets and promotional water bottles instead of the anticipated posters, information packs and bin stickers (see section 7.1.6).

Conclusions

Despite undertaking different approaches in phase 1 and phase 2 and using different media the results show that all 4 campaigns had limited or no positive change to resident’s participation in recycling. In the Rochdale campaign (Phase 2), focusing engagement on women seems to have had more success, with some increase in participation levels (+5% pulpables and +3% commingled). However, it is reasonable to assume that changes will take time and further engagement is required over a longer period to obtain and sustain a change in behaviour.


Lessons Learnt As the campaign was on a short timeframe it proved difficult to gain full support

from community and faith groups as it can take time to build up contacts and make links. It is suggested that the approaches used throughout the B7 Faith campaign should form part of a long term programme of education within targeted ethnic communities.

Engaging with the Muslim community proved difficult; not only due to the

language barriers, but also due to women not being able to attend services at the mosques within the campaign area. To overcome language barriers, especially in door-to-door canvasing, it is recommended that ambassadors are recruited from the local community or translators used (as we did with campaigns in B8 culture).


B8: Culture Campaign The culture campaign aimed to increase recycling in low performing areas where

there were high proportions of a particular. The recycling message was refocused to incorporate cultural ideals and sensitivities of residents and moved into the community with the help of cultural and community groups in the target area. To ensure any campaign literature produced was directly relevant to the community focus groups and discussions were held with community groups and religious leaders.

During phase 1, whilst work was undertaken to engage with the residents,

changing residents’ attitudes of recycling was not as successful as anticipated. Moving forward Outworker Workers were mainly based within the campaign area to enable more intensive engagement to take place. A large scale event a ‘Recycling Mela was also held in Rochdale to encourage participation and increase engagement. In addition Project Officers worked alongside translators to overcome the main language barriers identified.

Photo 10: Using translators to engage with residents


Key achievements During the culture campaigns over 1200 residents were directly engaged with

(face to face contact) through events and doorstep engagement. There were 64 recycling ambassadors recruited and trained who worked alongside 8 key leaders from the faith community.

In addition a Bollywood themed music video was launched which is now available

for download on the Project website. https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=3ZqPvBGViYM


64


294

The setting up of a community led focus group 7

Campaign materials, and delivery mechanism developed by the community

Yes

The number and types of communication media delivered

1,400 activity books 7,400 bin stickers, 3,900 campaign

leaflets, 1 film, 1 recycling Mela, 2,500 recipe books, 1 x

B8: Culture Results

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=3ZqPvBGViYM

http://gmwdasharepoint/Life Plus/Image Library/B8 - Rochdale/Mela event/_JFP7040.jpg


advert in Asian leader newspaper

Participation of community in delivering the campaigns

Yes, 8 recycling themed children’s sessions, 3 family

fun days held, 1 Mela, 1 Roadshow, 11 days of door

step engagement

Changes in waste prevention – participation Pulpables: -17%

Commingled: -33%

Organics: -29%

Changes in waste prevention - tonnages Pulpables: +2.6 tonnes



achieved across all campaigns due to seasonality and inconsistencies in round data. Please refer to individual case studies for available data. Tonnage data for the commingled and pulpables waste streams is from 3 campaigns only out of the 4 only due to a round restructure in one campaign area rendering the results incomparable.


agreement did not match the needs identified by the community. Therefore changes were made to allow communications to fully meet the aspirations of the community and hence to try and maximise engagement and behavioural change in the campaign areas (see section 7.1.6).

Conclusions By establishing links with Mosques (in particular the Bolton Council of Mosques),

and by developing campaigns which are led by the community a greater reach has been possible. Although the participation and tonnage results show little or no positive change in behaviour, the culture campaigns have been able to reach residents who would historically have resisted engagement through the traditional approach of door knocking. Often, door step campaigns engage with the group of people that are already committed to recycling and are interested in finding out more about recycling, rather than those that do not understand or are not aware of the recycling collections available in their area.

It is reasonable to assume that changes in behaviour may take time and that the

approaches used throughout this action should form part of a long term programme of education within targeted ethnic communities.

Lessons Learnt Cultural and language barriers added to the difficulties associated with areas of

high deprivation making engaging in these communities and gaining a response that shows a positive behaviour change challenging. Recruiting volunteers from the community allowed for improved engagement as did the use of translators.

In addition, the support of community leaders was essential in developing

targeted campaign messages. It is important to locate and engage with established groups in order to understand cultural norms and standards. This understanding is vital in the development of communication materials and activities.


B9: Diverse Campaign The B9 campaign was delivered to increase recycling in areas where a mix of

different cultures and languages in recent years has made traditional approaches less successful. To ensure the campaign developed a message that was acceptable to all ethnic groups identified in the area and to address cultural sensitivities, Project Officers worked closely with local housing partners, community groups, faith and cultural leaders.

Campaign materials were developed to tap into faith and cultural

messages/themes and included ‘Love Halliwell’, ‘Be Responsible’, ‘Recycle Right’ and ‘Recycle for your Community. Doorstep engagement work was also carried out in some areas, assisted by the recruitment of Guajarati, Urdu and Hungarian translators to help deliver the recycling message. This was well received in the community.

Photo 11: Example of Recycle for your Community Guide


Appendix J).

Key achievements Increase in participation across all 3 recycling waste streams and an increase of organics of 20.6 tonnes.


8


595

The setting up of community led focus groups 7

Campaign materials, and delivery mechanism developed by the community

Yes

The number and types of communication media delivered

1,500 recycling leaflets, 4,000 bin stickers, 1000 x Love Old

Trafford recycling leaflet, 900

B9:Diverse Campaign Results


x lapel recycling stickers, 1,000 x recycling guides,

1,500 commingled bin stickers, 1,500 ESOL

workbooks, 1,700 recycling information guides

Participation of community in delivering the campaigns

Yes – including 11 community groups engaged with, 3

Drop-in sessions held, 6 ESOL classes attended, 2 primary schools engaged with and a design a sticker competition

held.


Commingled: +4%

Organics: +10%

Changes in waste prevention – tonnages* Pulpables: -1.4 tonnes


*Tonnage data for the organics waste streams is not shown as full data could not

be achieved across all campaigns due to seasonality and inconsistencies in round data. Please refer to individual case studies for available data.


agreement did not match the needs identified by the community. Therefore changes were made to allow communications to fully meet the aspirations of the community and hence to try and maximise engagement and behavioural change in the campaign areas (see section 7.1.6).

Conclusions

The campaign met the objective of involving the community by working closely with community groups and key faith leaders in a variety of settings, with positive results shown in participation levels across all 3 recycling waste streams. These results suggest that more people are now recycling, in particular the garden and food waste (organics) and pulpables (mixed paper and card). Reductions in the weight collected of pulpables and commingled could be due to seasonal changes or the fact that residents have removed contaminations from these streams, thus lowering the tonnages collected. It should be noted that establishing behaviours can take time to bed in and hopefully the range and/or weight of recycling will gradually increase.

This campaign encountered difficulties with cultural and language barriers due to the diverse community targeted. Project Officers also found it difficult to engage with residents through organised sessions. Due to a lack of feedback gained, and the lack of volunteers recruited the development of a campaign that appealed across the community was problematic. Therefore, this campaign was developed by targeting pockets of the community through drop-in sessions. Using this approach has seen better results than the B7 and B8 faith and culture campaigns.


Lessons learnt Due to the high proportion of non-English speakers in the area, pictorial images and translations were used in campaign materials alongside a greater focus on direct face to face contact (drop in sessions); both improved engagement. Translators whilst expensive also proved beneficial in overcoming any language barriers.

Developing one message e.g. ‘Recycle for your community’ to incorporate a mix of ethnic groups was cost effective. Also the development of separate drop in sessions tailored to represent both ethnic groups, and delivered at meeting places specific to these groups enabled Project Officers to effectively engage across the whole community.

Cultural and language barriers added to the difficulties associated with areas of

high deprivation making engaging in this community and gaining a response that shows a positive behaviour change challenging. Engaging with and developing partnerships (whilst beneficial) was also difficult due to time constraints. It is therefore recommended that the campaign take place over a longer period (preferably one year) with the approaches used throughout the campaign forming part of a long term programme of education.


d) Objective 4: Demonstrate the use of communication media, alongside collection modifications, to increase participation among individuals living in apartments through an innovative process

Prior to commencing Objective 4 intensive research was undertaken to

understand the key issues affecting recycling. The evidence clearly shows that convenience, ease of access and structural issues are significant barriers (Waste Watch, 2006) and these need to be addressed alongside any communications. Pertinently, the Sita study (2010) found that blanket communications did not work, suggesting that micro level engagement could work, though this was not demonstrated. It is against this backdrop that the B10, B11 and B12 campaigns were delivered.

B10: Bags and Caddies The aim of the campaign was to change residents’ attitudes to recycling, through

the introduction of recycling services into the flats. All campaigns faced the same challenges; which were: overcoming landlord’s

reservations about introducing food waste; distributing bags and caddies; and gaining access to the buildings to enable door knocking engagement to be undertaken.

Whilst the campaigns were challenging, and a lot of lessons were learnt in phase

1 to enable more focused campaigns moving forward. Campaigns in phase 2 were carried out in Salford and Bolton. Salford targeted 883 low performing households across nine apartment sites and Bolton targeted 560 low performing households across seven sites. Throughout all 4 campaigns a range of communication techniques and materials were used to try to engage with residents; this included permanent signage and leaflets.

Photo 13: Bags and caddies being delivered in Bolton


Appendix J). Key achievements Over a quarter of residents are now recycling more as a result of the campaign,

with phase 2 campaigns showing greater increases of up to 47%. In addition, campaign recall was high with at least three quarters remembering some form of communication.


B10:Bags and Caddies Results

The number of bags and caddies distributed Bags: 4402

Caddies: 3106

Increase in participation (based on questions in survey below)

Increase in positive attitudes Super Committed:

+11%

Committed: +22%

Non-Committed: -22%

Key indicator – Average % recycling more following the campaign

37.25%

Modifications During phase one, the logistics and level of resources required to distribute the

bags and caddies to 1500 households over many apartment blocks (in excess of 20) proved to be very time consuming and made the delivery of an intense communication campaign very challenging. Moving forward, phase two campaigns reduced the campaign target to focus on the maximum of 10 apartment blocks, with a minimum of 60 households in each block (i.e. minimum of 600 households to be targeted). By reducing the sample size a more focused and quality campaign has been delivered, with significant improvement in results.

All campaigns were delivered within budget even though additional expenditure

was spent on communication materials (at the request of residents) to aid the delivery of the campaign (see section 7.1.6).

Conclusions

The overall results suggest that a combination of informative and appropriate campaign literature as well as providing the tools to store and carry recycling has had a positive effect on resident behaviour in the targeted apartment blocks.

Lessons learnt Gaining access to the buildings and getting residents to actually open their doors is a barrier that was presented for most of the communal engagement activities. To overcome this issues Project Officers were in close contact with management agents and caretakers. However due to the short timescales of the Project it was on occasion difficult to make contact resulting in a delay to door step activities taking place. Recommendations to assist in overcoming this barrier are: gain uptake in the campaign from the managing agents prior to evaluation activities; and once uptake in is gained, send out Council branded letters to residents explaining the up and coming activities.


B11: Ambassadors

The ambassador campaign focused on changing resident’s attitudes to recycling through the recruitment of Ambassadors, who would promote and educate residents on recycling in low performing, high density housing areas. Ambassadors were contacted regularly (every two weeks) to ascertain campaign progress, assist in any further training that was required, and to collect information provided by residents. Ambassadors were asked to maintain a log to record their activities including any issues or questions they were asked.

In addition to recruiting ambassadors, campaign materials were developed from resident and housing provider feedback. This included the provision of bespoke information guides and recycling information signage for communal bin store areas. These provided an alternative delivery point for this campaign.

Photo 15: Recycling Guide distributed to all flats within Barker Street, Oldham

Photo 16: Recycling Ambassadors (caretakers) in Salford


Key achievements 54 Ambassadors were recruited across the four campaigns. On average 14.5%

claims to recycle more. The highest change was in Oldham where one quarter of residents claimed to have changed their behaviour.

B11:Ambassadors Results


54

Increase in participation based on survey questions are given below

Increase in positive attitudes Super Committed: +22%

Committed: -3%

Non-Committed: +3%


14.5%


Modifications Moving forward and building on lessons learnt from phase 1, the methodology for

Phase 2 changed. Campaigns targeted fewer households with a maximum of 10 blocks of high-rise apartments to enable a more management approach to be undertaken.

Conclusions There are signs that the campaign has had an influence on respondents’

behaviours. However, time constraints of the campaign have not accounted for the continued role of ambassadors. It is reasonable to assume that the role of the ambassador would come into its own after a period of time when information has been forgotten, misplaced or new residents move into the blocks. Further evidence of their ability to change resident’s behaviours in the long term may therefore be seen post campaign.

From the feedback gathered it is clear that there is no single solution to

providing better waste provision and increased recycling. The only way to tackle these issues is to provide a range of solutions that can be applied on a need by need basis. However, this in itself is a task as the needs of each block and their residents’ needs to be understood and bespoke solutions put in place.

Lessons learnt The primary lesson learnt from phase 1 was that residents were generally

unwilling to volunteer as ambassadors. However, it was found that housing providers were keen to see recycling facilities used correctly and had ongoing issues with waste management. It was therefore decided to adopt a different approach for phase 2, with Project Officers focusing on the recruitment of caretakers and other housing provider employees based on-site (e.g. concierge) to become ambassadors; this approach had greater success.

It is recommended that the recruitment of ambassadors forms part of a

continued and sustained approach; building solid relationships with management companies and social landlords.


B12: Facilities This campaign targeted low performing multi occupancy dwellings to make

recycling easier and more accessible for residents by addressing some of the main barriers to apartment recycling including: access; convenience and structural issues.

The campaign sought active participation from residents, caretakers and housing

providers to develop strategies throughout the campaign. These strategies included: improving or installing new recycling facilities on site; providing residents with bags and caddies to store and carry recycling; engagement stands and focus groups to support residents in using recycling services; doorstep engagement activities; and the production of be-spoke communication material including leaflets and installation of permanent signage on or near to the recycling bins.

Photo 17: New communal facilities installed at Margaret House, Tameside

Photo 18: Bags and caddies delivery in Salford


Key achievements Overall, over a quarter of residents have changed their behaviour and are now recycling more, in some locations the change was as much as 44%. The recall of the campaign was also high amongst residents; on average three quarters remembered some form of communication (up to 95%). In total 73 new facilities were installed across 22 locations in Greater Manchester.

http://gmwdasharepoint/Life Plus/Image Library/B12 Tameside/Margaret/20141114_124906.jpg

http://gmwdasharepoint/Life Plus/Image Library/B10 - Salford/delivery images/IMG_7722.JPG

http://gmwdasharepoint/Life Plus/Image Library/B10 - Salford/delivery images/IMG_7723.JPG


B12: Facilities Results

Number of facilities installed 73 communal containers

Increase in participation based on survey questions are given below

Increase in positive attitudes Super Committed: +14%

Committed: +17%

Non-Committed: -17%


29.75%

Modifications

As with B10/B11, the methodology for Phase 2 changed. Campaigns targeted fewer households with a maximum of 10 blocks of high-rise apartments to enable a more management approach to be undertaken.

Conclusions Concentrating on providing better facilities, tailored recycling information and

signage has resulted in a positive shift towards pro recycling behaviours. The campaign has had a positive impact with residents claiming to now recycle

more since receiving some form of communications material. Success was also seen in the levels of awareness and claimed usage increasing for all waste streams. In addition to this, the level of commitment to recycling also increased.

Lessons learnt The frequency of waste collections needs to be considered when installing new

facilities. Shared recycling bins can fill up quickly if the recycling scheme is positively welcomed by the residents. A failure in keeping the bins empty could result in recyclable waste being diverted back to the residual containers. Residents may also become demotivated, moving them away from the adoption of a pro recycling behaviour.

It is important to make sure that the recycling containers are placed in an

accessible location: the ease of use will minimise the use of residual bins. Recycling facilities should be located together with residual waste where possible. Clear and pictorial labelling of shared recycling bins to reinforce recycling behaviour is recommended.

General deprivation issues impose other priorities for residents: this can prevent

them from participating in what they consider to be more peripheral activities such as recycling. Dedicating resources on active engagement with residents improves communication and can help to carefully define the social context; it is highly recommended to avoid a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach.


e) Objective 5: Demonstrate innovative communication media using employment and education opportunities as a means of community engagement

B13: Engaging Young People using innovative video and social media This action aimed to promote recycling through the use of social media, whilst

developing the skills and employability of university students. The Authority procured a company, Bellyfeel, to work with students undertaking Film and Media Production degrees at Bolton University to produce 8 short films which are now uploaded on YouTube and also available on our website. During the film production stage a student editor was employed on a freelance basis to work directly on the film production, and 16 third year students gained experience in working with industry doing a variety of roles including developing storyboards, filming, script writing, performing and editing, which will benefit their future employment prospects. A four stage approach was taken in delivering this action:-

Stage 1: Bolton University’s 3rd year students worked with Bellyfeel to deliver the 8 films. As part of this stage, residents from local communities, drama and dance studies were engaged in film participation.

Stage 2: Editing and Production – upon filming of the raw footage, the students worked with Bellyfeel to edit and produce the broadcasts

Stage 3 Broadcasts have been disseminated through a number of social media formats as well as traditional techniques.

Stage 4 Students working on the films were encouraged to apply for awards.

Students at Bolton University have been fully engaged in producing the films and

the quality of the films improved as each film was produced. Hyperlinks to the films (available also as subtitled and signed versions) are contained within the dissemination section of this report.

Photo 25: Filming by Bolton University students working along Bellyfeel.

This action has been delivered to time and budget and has achieved the following

results.

B13: Filming through social media

The number of films completed. 8

The number of films uploaded to the website 8

Coverage of each campaign Yes (see below)

The number of young people trained or employed 1 employed, 16 trained


Action Theme of Film Coverage: You tube views (as at

September 2015)

B1: Documentary of the Recycling Awards Campaigns

431

B2: Documentary based on celebrating recycling 32

B4: Documentary of Private Rental Market Campaign

710

B5: Comedy sketch about students and recycling 31

B6: Documentary on Recycling Games 183

B7: Documentary about Eco-faith campaign 94

B8: Bollywood musical promoting Recycling 64

B11: Comedy sketch on recycling in a block of apartments

233

B14: Engaging Young People using innovative Gaming Technology This action was to design, develop, and evaluate video games to enhance the

communication of the campaign to the identified target student demographic. The action was delivered by MMU (the Associated Beneficiary).

The Project started with a requirements analysis. This centred upon discussions

between the Authority and MMU to identify the primary message to be delivered and its tone. It was decided that the message was to raise recycling awareness and specifically encourage correct waste sorting. It was decided that tone was to be ‘edgy’ to appeal to students. We agreed that the game needed to be fun and engaging with the educational and awareness rising aspects integrated into the core gameplay and not after-thoughts bolted-on that would distract from the core game play. We agreed to focus on 3 mobile platforms that are increasing becoming the prevalent platform for casual gaming. Specifically, we agreed to develop for IOS (iPhone, iPod Touch, iPad) and the Android platform (HTC, Samsung, Motorola) and also to create a version for web browsers using HTML5.

We carried out focus group testing with first year MMU game students to

generate initial game ideas and concepts. A game mechanic of throwing or flicking waste into the appropriate recycling bins emerged from the focus group.

Software development is notoriously challenging to manage because it is difficult

to accurately estimate the development time of additional features. Therefore, we chose an Agile development methodology. Agile development is characterised by short fixed-time development ‘sprints’ where a small amount of fixed functionality is added before a review and development priorities are set for the next sprint. During development of the game MMU continued to use their usability lab to evaluate the game to ensure it met the goals of being fun and engaging to play whilst delivering the recycling awareness message.

MMU developed an initial version based on a 3D flicking motion. This was tested

in the usability lab at MMU and with focus groups. The feedback gained indicated that the game was not fast-paced enough and the 3D screen layout reduced the number of types of recycling bins we could use, which impinged on the awareness raising aspects of the game. As a result of this feedback MMU changed the game to have a top-down view with time constraints.

During development MMU students were mainly used as representatives of the

target demographic but we also held a focus group with a local college (Manchester College) that represents a slightly younger group of students (16-18).


This younger group appeared very enthusiastic about the game and confirmed that the game was widely accessible. This also gave us another opportunity to get feedback on ‘Getting Wasted’ as a name for the game which reflected the ‘edgy’ brief, and was well received by the University students.

The game was officially launched on the 27th February, 2014 at MMU. The

launch event was an opportunity to further publicise the overall ‘Up and Forward’ campaign and had invited speakers from the Authority, and MMU’s environmental team. During the launch event we had stands setup so passing students were able to play the game.

Photo 26: L-R Dr. Darren Dancey, from Manchester Metropolitan University,

Councillor Neil Swannick (then Chair of the Authority) and Keith Miller, Manchester Metropolitan University at the Launch Event

In the initial bid MMU intended to use a two placement students for one year

supported by four academic members of staff. Due to the late start of the Project and delays with finalising contracts they re-profiled the staff time to use three graduate interns and replaced some of the academic support with an enterprise associate who was dedicated to this project. This allowed for a shorter more intensive period of development and allowed MMU to make up some of the earlier time slippage.

The game has been delivered on three platforms (phone, tablet and web based)

and a child friendly desktop version ‘Bin Bunny’ has also been created (as a result of initial feedback).This version was developed at no extra cost and has been promoted to schools across Greater Manchester. The apple version requires iOS 6.1 or later, is compatible with iPhone, iPad, and iPod touch and the app is optimized for iPhone 5. The Android version requires android 2.3 and up. Getting wasted web version: www.gettingwasted.co.uk Bin Bunny web version: www.binbunny.co.uk Apple iTunes Store: Getting Wasted App Store link Google Play: Getting Wasted Google Play link The game has been promoted throughout all of our campaigns/events. Below shows the number of downloads to date.

B14:Innovative Gaming Results to-date

Computer game specification drawn up Yes

Evidence that the game has been tested Yes

The computer game is made available Yes on 3 platforms

The number of times the game has been downloaded as at 20/09/2015

iOS Getting Wasted 1586 installs

Android Getting Wasted 43 installs

Web Getting Wasted 3591 sessions

Web Bin Bunny 256 sessions

http://www.gettingwasted.co.uk/

http://www.binbunny.co.uk/

https://itunes.apple.com/gb/app/getting-wasted/id773218915?mt=8

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=uk.ac.mmu.RecyclingGame


f) Objective 6: Robustly monitor the demonstration project A full outline of the monitoring and evaluation process is given in the Six Step

Approach Handbook (see Appendix L). Individual monitoring and evaluation reports for each action are given in the MEL Campaign Reports (see Appendix M).

Monitoring and evaluation was a critical part of the Project for the Authority, as

it enabled us to accurately assess the impact of the campaigns. It is also of great benefit in the pan Europe dissemination process, which of course is a central requirement of the EU funding. As such the impact of the Project was monitored using a combination of weight based monitoring, participation monitoring and surveys.

Monitoring and evaluation of the Project was initially sub-contracted to MEL – a

research consultancy specialising in the monitoring and evaluation of household waste communication campaigns and recycling behaviours. However, given the learning from Phase 1 (set out below), in –house resources to better direct and augment the MEL work were also put in place. These resources significantly boosted the interpretative capacity during the final campaigns in Period 4 of Phase 2 (August 2014 to December 2014) of the Project. The employment of a full-time person to lead on this within the Team, which is in addition to the existing part-time use of GMWDAs Research Officer, is of particular note.

Further work was also undertaken by the Project Team, to compliment and

strengthen the data provided to the Authority with more of an in-sight to residents’ barriers to recycling within the campaign areas. For Period 3 of Phase 2 (April 2014 – July 2014) questionnaires were trialled, in addition to the post participation monitoring, at the start and end of the campaign to enable the Authority to assess if residents attitudes to recycling have changed. Furthermore, the Authority piloted the undertaking of participation monitoring every week throughout the engagement and behavioural periods (rather than just pre and post participation) to obtain further data regarding the collection rounds; this enabled the Project Team to focus directly on those residents who were not recycling.

i) Activities undertaken and the output achieved Waste Weight Monitoring (Performance Indicator) The quantity of waste collected before and after the Project was monitored

using weigh-bridge data. Two consecutive Refuse Collection Vehicles weights were recorded before and after each campaign to ascertain the amount of waste. This was then converted to a yield per household to enable comparison.

Whilst examining the quantity of recycling was a useful indicator, it was

difficult to interpret in the short term due to seasonal, operational and householder influences. For that reason weight monitoring was only part of the suite of monitoring actions used to obtain robust data.

Participation Monitoring (Performance Indicator) Participation in recycling was monitored by examining the proportion of

households within the campaign area that presented their bin for collection over two consecutive collections/recycling opportunities.

Street level participation rates. The proportion of households that

participated were calculated on a street by street basis. This


helped to identify specific areas where the campaigns should be targeted.

Weekly set out rates. If there was a large difference between; the

proportion of households that set out their bins on each recycling occasion; and the overall participation rate, this indicated that there were a high proportion of partial participants, and it may be easier to improve recycling rates by targeting them.

Excess recycling. Monitoring the amount of excess recycling helped

to indicate if there were operational issues (e.g. bins full), though it should be noted that Districts operate a closed lid policy and little excess was recorded.

Participation by ACORN category. Participation was also examined

by ACORN category, which provided more detail on the type of households that may, or may not, have been participating.

Participation Monitoring using Surveys (Performance Indicator) Where the campaigns were in areas with communal collections, and it was

not possible to identify an individual householder’s waste receptacle, then surveys were used to establish a householder’s commitment to recycling. This involved asking a set of core questions which established:

How important recycling was to the respondent;

What their attitude was to recycling; and

How much they recycled. The responses to these three questions were then categorised into non-

committed, committed and super committed. The national average for committed recyclers is 75%, which provided a barometer to gauge performance.

In terms of measuring the overall success of campaigns through surveys a

key indicator was identified which explored the change in respondents’ claimed recycling behaviour since receiving some form of campaign communication. Therefore; the question ‘since receiving the recycling campaign materials has this changed your behaviour towards waste and recycling?’ was highlighted as a key measure.

Other monitoring indicators The following were also used as indicators across campaigns where there

were communal properties and in B4: % recycling more

Awareness of services Use of services (including reuse as a measure of waste prevention

behaviour) In addition specific questions supported the design of the campaign, such as

barriers to recycling, information/actions that would make recycling easier, and demographic such as how many householders were new to the area.


Volume Monitoring (Performance Indicator) The original brief required target setting and weight monitoring for all

campaign types. This included flat complexes where communal bins were used to enable the evaluation of individual campaign effectiveness. However after careful consideration of all the data available for these dwellings it was decided that no meaningful or comparable information would be forthcoming. It was therefore decided that no useful further work could be carried out and this activity was no longer pursued.

Project timescales

A revised project plan was agreed with contractor (reference Project Plan Appendix A). The Project was completed on-schedule with regards to the monitoring operations. However, there were delays in collating existing data and reporting the results of the campaign (referred to as Final Campaign Report [FCR]) on the project plan.

Modifications and Drawbacks In the original proposal the campaign rounds were to be monitored by

using: the recycle rate; waste produced per household; participation rate; surveys; and Weight based monitoring (where feasible) for flats.

The monitoring was to focus on areas of approximately 1,500 households

from both residual collection rounds, which would be matched as close as possible to recycling collection rounds. However, in practice it was found that there was poor overlap between the residual rounds and recycling rounds, which made using these indicators difficult.

The Recycling Rate and Waste Produced per household In Greater Manchester there are four collection streams – pulpables,

commingled, biowaste and residual. In many Districts the pulpables and commingled round will cover the same households. However, everybody participates in the residual waste collection, which means the round covers a different number of households, and may only cover part of the recycling rounds.

Overall, this means that estimating the recycling rate would not produce a

meaningful result. Inaccuracies in the measurement of each round would be added together so that the end result (i.e. the recycling rate) would be far more inaccurate than looking at how much recyclate was captured by each round individually. To improve accuracy, and give better information, campaigns were therefore measured based upon: Quantity of pulpables per household; Quantity of biowaste per household; and Quantity of commingled per household.

Participation rate The campaigns were budgeted for area on an estimated area of 1,500

households and were generally a bit larger (in the 1,500 to 2,500 households bracket), but the rounds involved in the campaigns have varied in size by an order of magnitude ranging from 900 households (Bolton B3) to 7,500 households (Rochdale B7 and B8 organics), which has made them difficult to manage.

The campaign area needs to be at least the same size, or larger than, the


monitoring area, but monitoring a whole round would have meant the opposite is true. To rectify this, a proportion of the round was identified for the campaign (or two rounds where they were small), which matched 1,500 households in-line with the project budget.

Surveys In the bid it was suggested that 1,500 households should be covered by the

campaigns delivered in apartments. However, in the initial campaigns it was found that this meant too many apartment blocks were involved in the campaign making it difficult to deliver the campaign.

It was also difficult in monitoring terms. The surveys covered 10% (150

households), which should theoretically deliver robust data that is representative of the 1,500 properties. In the campaign, however, the survey tended to be spread across a large number of apartment blocks, and the issues in each block may be significantly different so in essence the 1,500 householders were not a single target population. To improve the effectiveness of the monitoring the number of blocks of flats (and total number of householders) was reduced.

There were different issues with household surveys (B4). In the initial

surveys the pre and post survey showed that there were very different demographics, which essentially means the type of people surveyed was not the same even though a significant number of people were surveyed in a relatively small geographical area. Therefore, in the Phase 2 of the project the survey methodology was improved so that the same householder was visited pre and post campaign.

ii) Lessons Learnt

Understanding performance A more strategic approach to data collection in terms of continual

collection of round data is required.

There needs to be accurate data on the number of properties in a round to enable comparison.

To support data collection there needs to be a consistent approach to waste collections and recycling.

Household surveys The Committed Recycler measurement did not work well in low

performing areas, especially due to the relatively small sample size.

Access to apartment blocks proved difficult in most cases.

The demographics of population can differ significantly from street to street. Therefore, the survey is best measured by returning to the same households particular in small areas; however this can be costly because only a small proportion of those interviewed pre would then answer their doors post so a very large sample is required. A compromise is to return to selected streets that are more intensively monitored.

Apartment blocks vary widely both in demographics and the set-up of waste recycling facilities, so they need to be treated separately as far as practical.

Surveys were carried out in campaign areas with communal bins (or where additional data was required). These gave a good indication as to whether there had been a change in attitudes to recycling, but there


is evidence that more people will say that that they recycle compared to observed data. We could therefore see if one campaign was successful relative to another, but the actual results couldn’t necessarily be taken at face value.

It was difficult to assess a single measure of success; therefore a range of factors should be analysed including: Awareness and claimed usage; Barrier to using the service; Do they recall the campaign (provides a good indication about whether the campaign has been successful in term of reaching the target audience); Do they recycle more post campaign (gives an indication about whether the campaign has been successful).

In order to be successful the campaign has to both reach people and change the behaviour so both need to be measured. For example, some ambassador campaigns were good at changing behaviour but there are too few volunteers to reach many people.

Participation monitoring Participation monitoring is highly variable at low geographical levels.

Whilst it is good for assessing general scheme performance, and confirming areas of low performance it is probably not sensitive enough to measure the effect of a campaign. Some of the campaign for example may only expect a 1-2% increase, yet audit of the campaign monitoring showed that even without considering seasonality, weather etc. then the accuracy of the individual monitoring on the ground can vary by around 5%.

It is very difficult to measure an organics campaign success due to seasonality over a period less than a year long.

Participation monitoring is very expensive.

Campaign areas or measurement can be limited by round boundaries, and the poor overlap between different round types.

Tonnage monitoring Tonnage monitoring was also high variable over a small geographical

area, and affected significantly by changes in seasonality.

There was often a common overlap between the three rounds – Pulpables, Commingled and organics (where the intervention took place) which meant there were households on the rounds that fell outside the intervention zone.

Tonnage monitoring is often affected by operational issues.

Tracing tonnage data to rounds may be difficult where Districts rely on manual crew records.

Contamination monitoring Contamination monitoring was again highly variable. It only reflected

what monitors could see, and unfortunately contamination may be deliberately hidden. It is also highly subjective to what the person on ground, as it may not always be clear from looking in a bin.

No measure of weight/volume so only gives a very partial picture, which is not accurate enough to compare with tonnage data to see if increase/decrease in tonnage may be due to changes in contamination.

Contamination monitoring was beneficial to officers. Whilst it only gives a partial picture it allows officers to gather an understanding of resident behaviour and recycling knowledge.


g) Objective 7: Disseminate the project across EU member states via a variety of forums

With the Project having a slower than anticipated start the initial process

regarding the Authority’s strategy to disseminate the Project was not prioritised until the Authority had robust project management in place.

Since the commencement of the new interim staffing arrangements, the

dissemination of the Project was prioritised. Since September, 2013 a tremendous amount of work has been undertaken and implemented so that the Authority had a clear vision and plan of how the Project would be disseminated across the EU member states.

In both September 2013 and 2014, the Up and Forward Project Team had a stall

at the National Recycling and Waste Management (RWM) annual conference, held in Birmingham. At the 2013 conference the Dissemination Officer was involved in a number of focus workshops and presentations about the Project. For the 2014 conference the Senior Campaign Officer was a member of a panel discussion relating to recycling in hard to reach communities and lessons learnt from the Project to date.

Through these conferences, the team was able to successfully raise the profile of

the Project and build upon the contact list of interested parties who wanted further information on the Project’s progression and key findings. The GMWDA Director of Contract Services also attended the conference again in September 2015 and further disseminated the Project findings.

The Interim Project Manager attended a LIFE+ Platform meeting in January 2014,

held in London and both the Project Manager and Dissemination Officer, attended a further Platform meeting which was held in Paris in February, 2014. Through these meetings, good contacts were made.

In October 2014 the Senior Campaign Officer attended the Local Authority

Recycling Advisory Committee (LARAC) conference attended by local authorities across the UK. This allowed the Authority to build on its list of stakeholders and showcase campaigns, in particular the B6 Recycling Games.

Further contact was also made with our Brussels Office representative, who

arranged a 2-day visit for the Project Manager and Senior Campaign Officer (in December 2014) to meet with key personnel in the European Commission and Eurocities to disseminate the work of the project. A presentation was given to the Eurocities Working Waste Group and meetings were held with MPs and MEPS. A return visit was made to Brussels by the Project Manager in June 2015, which allowed for further dissemination through Eurocities.

The Up and Forward Team held its first seminar on the 3rd September, 2014 to

disseminate findings from Phase 1. The final end of project seminar was held on 24th March 2015 at The Lowry, Salford Quays and was well attend with over 100 attendees. The seminar presented detailed and insightful presentations on project findings including results, achievements and key learning points for all 42 campaigns undertaken throughout Greater Manchester. Presentations at each seminar are available to view on our website: http://upandforward.recycleforgreatermanchester.com/forward-seminar-2/ The second seminar was also filmed and presentations can be viewed on our website: http://upandforward.recycleforgreatermanchester.com/closing-seminar-videos/ A third networking meeting was held in May 2015 at the ACR+ (beneficiary of the

http://upandforward.recycleforgreatermanchester.com/forward-seminar-2/

http://upandforward.recycleforgreatermanchester.com/closing-seminar-videos/

http://upandforward.recycleforgreatermanchester.com/closing-seminar-videos/


LIFE12 INF/BE/000459 project - The European Week for Waste Reduction conference on Circular Economy and Sustainable Resource Management held in Budapest. Here a partner portal was hosted disseminating results and key learnings; and raising awareness of the project to other LIFE+ partners and projects. A fourth network meeting was held at The Authority with the LIFE+ Project REPURPOSE (LIFE13 ENV/UK/000493). Since this meeting the Senior Campaign Officer is now a member of the REPURPOSE steering group and attended the first meeting in September 2015. The LIFE+ Up and Forward team also attended the National Recycling Awards presentation evening in London, as the team was shortlisted for the Team of the Year award.

Full details of the dissemination strategy and objectives carried out for the

entire duration of the Up and Forward project as well as the ‘after LIFE’ period, are available in the LIFE+ Communications Plan (see Appendix N). For dissemination information relating to Action B1 – B14, see section 6.3 below.

6.3 Dissemination Actions 6.3.1 Objectives The dissemination of the LIFE+ Project has aimed to: ensure information is easily

accessible to all; embrace new technologies and media; create a dedicated website; deliver targeted communications across all Actions; create visual images of the Project in action; attend key conferences; and deliver two seminars to disseminate results and key learnings.

The project has a dedicated website linked to the already well established and highly

valued Recycle for Greater Manchester website: www.recycleforgreatermanchester.com/upforward. To enable the continued availability of the project outputs, ensuring easy access and availability to EU interested bodies, all documents will be available for download (following approval of the final report). These documents (mainly in pdf format) include: Case studies, Final Reports, Socio-economic Report, Six Step Approach Handbook, Non-technical Report, Photographs, Campaign Materials, Films, Seminar Presentations and Films. The website will be maintained for 5 years after the end of the project to 2010. The Project has fully embraced social media with a dedicated Facebook page (www.facebook.com/upandforward) and twitter hashtag (www.twitter.com/recycle4gm #UpandForward).

As part of this Project interactive computer software was developed to support

engagement with residents and improve ‘one to one’ communication. The software was designed for a tablet style device (Android and Apple) and used in the field to support resident’s understanding of waste reduction, reuse and recycling, and to aid those working in the field to deliver consistent and correct information. The software was an important aid in all campaigns, helping residents to visualize, and guide them through recycling in Greater Manchester. To support communication with residents of all ages, disabilities and to overcome language barriers, the software was designed pictorially and in a simple format. In addition, the data collected by residents undertaking activities on the tablets was recorded and available for easy download. This enabled resident behaviour to be monitored e.g. what they were recycling wrong and what things they did not understand.

A mobile game application has also been developed (Action B13) by the associated

beneficiary Manchester Metropolitan University (MMU) and 8 films have been produced as part of Action B14 (see section 6.2.2e).

http://www.recycleforgreatermanchester.com/upforward


Targeted communications produced across all Actions (B1-14) are given in 6.3.2. In

addition printed materials to aid dissemination have been produced as appropriate and include 500 units of a 40 page project review document that has been distributed at various events (both internal and external) and posted as required. 1 information leaflet, 2 project newsletters and 3 member newsletters have been released to stakeholders. A final newsletter will be released on approval of case studies and final reports.

An image library has been maintained throughout the Project lifespan. In addition various events and EU conferences have been attended and 2 project seminars held (see 6.2.1 g).

6.3.2 Overview of Dissemination Work per Action A full list of deliverables for each Action (B1-B14) is given in Appendix O. B1 Recycling Rewards

The communications successfully engaged the community raising the awareness of the campaign and the importance of recycling. The communities valued the schools in their area as in most cases they acted as the only community focal points. Feedback was positive with many neighbouring collection rounds asking if they could also run a similar campaign. The schools which took part fed back that their pupils had been spreading the word of recycling at home encouraging parents to recycle better. This campaign illustrated how it is essential to engage with schools when trying to communicate effectively with deprived hard to reach communities. In particular the competition element between the schools helped to drive the campaign forward as each area competed to collect the most rewards for their own school.

B2 Celebrating Recycling Achievement

The communications successfully engaged with the community, helping them to understand how to recycle correctly via a team of dedicated Recycling Ambassadors. Insights gathered during the campaign were incorporated into campaign materials and in the development of a community led family fun event. The community events were promoted through leaflets, posters and social media; and were well attended. In Bury, the Council felt the format of this campaign was successful and are looking at replicating the template to engage with other hard to reach communities. In Stockport 87% of residents said the event made them think more about recycling, 76% in Trafford, 96.5% in Bury and 87.9% in Rochdale.

B3 Community and Business Recycling

The campaign successfully engaged with local businesses in the target areas. To help residents recycle correctly these businesses provided recycling information points with a display of leaflets and guides. As an incentive to help residents take part and raise awareness; free reusable bags for life were also distributed. Feedback was positive and all businesses agreed to stock communications materials throughout campaign delivery, and in some cases after the campaign had finished. The effectiveness of the communications materials In Bolton was affected, as the behavioural period of this campaign was reduced. However, despite a delayed start and shorter communications period, all communications were successfully distributed. In Phase 2 campaigns were planned to allow more time to promote the campaign and also allow residents to claim their free bag for life.


In Tameside, the campaign also looked to promote the donation of WEEE (Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment) through a two week campaign involving local schools and community groups; four locations acted as WEEE collection points. £100 educational prize money was awarded to St. Joseph’s primary school for collecting the most WEEE items.

B4 Private Rental The communications were successful in raising awareness of recycling in the

community. Communications were distributed to all properties and additional permanent notices were created to be placed in private rental properties. In Manchester, the effectiveness of the communications was illustrated by the large turnout of the community at the ‘Big Tidy Up’ event. The response from the community and housing providers was positive and members welcomed the intervention that the campaign provided. In Phase 2 more focus was added to waste prevention and reuse and engaging with established organisations; as the communications for Phase 1 focused upon recycling messages.

B5 Golden Bin

The communications in this campaign have been successful in engaging with University students in private rental accommodation. The campaign embraced new media as a form of promoting the campaign with the use of Facebook and twitter; this was essential in engaging with the student community. Traditional leaflets have also been used by volunteers to raise awareness at events and during door knocking activities. In Phase 2 the communications were refreshed and revitalised to make sure the campaign carried on appealing to the student community. The campaign was positively received by students and would be easy to replicate across other EU municipalities at a relatively low cost.

B6 Recycling Games

The communications successfully promoted recycling amongst University students in halls of residence and privately rented properties in Bolton. A competition was held to develop a game around the theme of recycling. The game was successfully launched at 2 main events, one at the halls of residence and one on campus. As the attendance at the first event was lower than anticipated (in part due to very wet weather conditions), moving in to Phase 2 the event was promoted over a longer period of time and ran during fresher’s week. The game is an excellent medium, which could be used repeatedly to spread recycling messages, however, due to the scale and intricacy of the initial design, and to allow the game to be used across Greater Manchester, an external company was tasked with taking the main elements of the game and reproducing it to allow for easy storage, build/dismantling and transportation. The team also developed closer working relations with the University of Bolton to access internal communication channels. Permanent communications were successfully installed in the halls of residences helping to increase recycling levels on site. The information contained in the communication materials was recalled by almost eight out of ten (76%) respondents. The campaign was positively received by students and gained significant coverage in the local press.

B7 Faith

The communications successfully engaged with 3 Muslim communities and 1 Christian


community. In Muslim areas, communications materials were developed following feedback from the community and faith leaders incorporating relevant quotes from the Quran. Feedback was very positive. However, using the word ‘Allah’; prevented the materials from being posted through doors due to religious beliefs and this needed to be carefully considered. Materials were effectively distributed during the religious festival of Eid (breaking the fast events), a link was created on the Rochdale mosque’s website which directed users to a webpage containing recycling specific information. In addition some of the local schools also got involved in delivering the recycling message and drop in sessions were held at the community centres. In Tameside, the campaign involved engaging with a community following the Christian faith. Working with faith leaders from two local Christian churches the campaign was developed to link in with bible teachings in the principles of stewardship; with people being responsible for the world created by God. The theme of ‘Respect your environment’ was developed and built upon during the campaign and was well received by the community in particular the two local primary schools. Banners were designed to promote the recycling of items that had been shown to be poorly recycled from the results of door step surveys. The banners were placed in key community focal points for three months.

B8 Culture The campaign successfully engaged with communities that had a high proportion of a

particular culture. Communications were developed following feedback the team received from the community; in particular from established community leaders and groups. Cultural messages and themes were developed as part of this campaign. In Bolton the common theme was identified as ‘family’. Here a children’s activity was produced and distributed across the community. This was well received and the format has been replicated and used by several other districts in Greater Manchester. In Bury the feedback was that food was the common cultural bond and as a result a Recipe booklet was created raising awareness of both waste reduction and recycling. This has been positively received by the community and other districts. In Oldham, two common themes were highlighted, namely many of the residents had children and both the children and adults attended craft clubs. Using this information, the campaign was developed around a series of free children’s clubs which involved upcycling and reuse activities. Activities and communications were well received by the community. In Rochdale, by engaging with the Muslim community the campaign was able to develop innovative ways to increase recycling participation rates in the area using a cultural theme. This included the hosting of a large community event know as a ‘recycling Mela’ which was well attended with positive feedback received.

B9 Diverse Communities The campaign successfully engaged with communities with a high proportion of

households with a mix of different faiths and cultures. The development of the communications followed feedback from the community, local housing partners, community groups, faith and cultural leaders and officers. In phase 1 it was found that the options for promoting the activities were limited by possible promotion venues and time. In phase 2 promotions began earlier in the schedule. Campaign materials were developed to tap into faith and cultural messages/themes. In


Bolton this was based on the area specific ‘Love Halliwell’ theme which was designed to bring the community together. In Trafford, the campaign focused on a ‘Be Responsible’ theme, which aimed at getting residents to reflect on the importance of taking care and pride of the place where they live by recycling correctly, reducing waste and discouraging fly tipping; these had been identified as the main issues in the area. Recycling leaflets were developed to identify with the main two ethnic communities in the area, Asian and White British; leaflets followed the ‘Be Responsible’ theme; were designed pictorially; and translated into two main languages. Doorstep engagement work was also carried out in some areas, assisted by the recruitment of Guajarati, Urdu and Hungarian translators to help deliver the recycling message. This was well received in the community. In Manchester, communications followed feedback which showed that there were knowledge and understanding barriers amongst residents. Exploring further, it was found that some of the older brown wheeled bins for commingled waste had outdated information stickers on the lids therefore residents were unaware of what can/cannot go into the bins. Therefore, recycling information stickers were applied to all commingled bins in the area. The campaign also formed partnerships with the local Surestart centre, Gorton Market and Eastlands Housing Association, which helped to further emphasise the recycling message. For example several recycling information stalls were held at the Gorton Market directly engaging with residents.

B10 Bags and Caddies

The campaign successfully encouraged residents to recycle with the delivery of recycling aids and tailored communications. All communications and materials were developed following residents and housing provider consultations. In the majority of cases, this led to the development and installation of permanent pictorial signs, and the distribution of recycling aids; bags and caddies. The feedback in all campaign areas has been very positive with several housing providers adopting the communications to target new tenants in the future. In phase 2 consultations with caretakers were incorporated into the campaign plan; their feedback provided valuable information which helped to produce effective communications and timely delivery of recycling aids. However, in some cases, the distribution of these aids was hindered by Health and Safety concerns in apartment blocks which prevented some residents from receiving all the information. Following Phase 1 campaigns the number of households was reduced to cover a smaller selection of flats to improve the potential for messages to be received and taken on board.

B11 Ambassadors

The campaign successfully demonstrated how micro-level communications can work to encourage residents to recycle. Through engagement with residents and housing providers, ambassadors were recruited and trained in correct recycling behaviour and encouraged to speak to residents to provide information on correct usage and awareness of recycling facilities. Ambassadors delivered reusable recycling bags, food waste caddies and leaflets to residents where a need had been identified. Greater success in the recruitment of ambassadors was seen in Phase 2 as the focus was moved from recruiting residents to recruiting on-site housing provider employees, in particular on-site caretakers. Communication materials promoting the campaign were distributed to all sites; however, in Phase 1 due to the amount of flats involved the team struggled to engage with many of the residents. Due to the difficulties experienced in Phase 1, in Phase 2


the campaign area was reduced to include less sites and flats. Pictorial permanent signs or noticeboards were created and installed at all sites.

B12 Facilities

The campaign successfully encouraged residents to recycle by improving or providing new on-site recycling facilities; and by gaining community buy-in to ensure facilities were appropriate. Active participation was sought from residents, caretakers and housing providers to develop strategies throughout the campaign. These strategies included: improving or installing new recycling facilities on site; providing residents with bags and caddies to store and carry recycling; holding engagement stands and focus groups to support residents in using recycling services; carrying out doorstep engagement activities; and producing be-spoke communication material including leaflets and installation of new signage on or near to the recycling bins. The majority of residents reacted positively to the installation of new facilities. Some housing providers were hesitant about installing food waste recycling, however agreed to trial facilities for the duration of the campaign.

B13 Filming

This action successfully delivered 8 films which were developed and led by students on Media and Production degree courses at the University of Bolton. The production of the films within this project was managed by Bellyfeel, working in partnership with the University. During the film production stage a student editor was employed (freelance) to work directly on the film production, and 16 third year students studying a Media and Production Degree gained experience in working directly in the industry doing a variety of roles including: developing storyboards; filming; script writing; performing; and editing; which will benefit their future employment prospects. All of the 8 films have been completed and uploaded onto the Authority’s website and YouTube. Films have been promoted through Twitter and Facebook and during campaign delivery. Films have been featured in the local press, on the European Commission Life Programme website, the Green Action News blog, Bringing Europeans Together Association website, LARAC, Materials Recycling World website and newsletters (see Annex 13.1a). All films are also available with subtitles and signed.

B14 Getting Wasted Gaming Mobile Application

This action successfully engaged young people using innovative gaming technology. The ‘Getting Wasted’ application was developed in partnership with our associated beneficiary, Manchester Metropolitan University. The project used three graduate interns and an enterprise associate who was dedicated to the project, all of whom were supported by academic staff. Two of the interns had Master of Science (MSc) degrees in advanced computing, and the other a Postgraduate Diploma in computing. The three graduate interns received training in an economically relevant software engineering field, and gained experience of working on a tangible real-world project. All three have used their experience to now gain graduate level employment. The game was released in the Apple app store1 and was selected to be a featured app in Apple’s educational gaming category. The app store has a review and rating system built in and the game has received an average rating of 5 out of 5 stars. The app is also available in the Google play store2 as used by Android devices (HTC, Samsung etc.). The game was made available to play online at http://gettingwastedgame.co.uk. A child friendly version is available at http://www.binbunny.co.uk/

http://gettingwastedgame.co.uk/

http://www.binbunny.co.uk/


1: http://appstore.com/gettingwasted 2: https://play.google.com/store/app/details?id=uk.ac.mmu.RecyclingGame

6.4 Evaluation of Project Implementation 6.4.1 Methodology Applied The Project used various methods to evaluate the delivery of the actions. The

methodology for our data monitoring is set above in section 6.2.2(f) of this report and the additional indicators are set out below.

6.4.2 Results This report sets out, on an action by action basis, the results achieved, conclusions and

key learning points (see section 6.2.2). An overview of the results are also given in the Layman’s report (see Appendix P). Full case studies are available in Appendix J.

As expected, for any innovative project and the results from evaluation show a mixed

impact. They range from results which far exceed expectations,; such as B2 Rochdale (Celebrating Recycling) which reported up to a 21% increase in waste prevention and recycling, to ones which appear poor and counter intuitive, such as B8 Bury (Culture) which showed a decrease in participation post intervention.

Overall results support our initial premise (within the bid) that innovative community

led activity is critical to improving recycling within our urban area. The greatest level of success was observed in the deprivation campaigns (B1-3), so it is reasonable to suggest that in the future these are the ones that are most likely to be taken forward to the next phase and replicated in other areas. Overall project results are as follows:

Participation (Put out rates)

Pulpables Commingled Organics

+8% -22% +54%

Tonnages

Pulpables Commingled Organics Residual

-6.5 tonnes +1 tonne +70.2 tonnes -29.1 tonnes

Surveys

Super-committed Committed Non-committed

+80% +83% -83%

Key Indicator

Average % recycling more 33.8%

Other key achievements: 42 campaigns completed

Minimum of 63,000 GM residents directly engaged

183 Recycling Ambassadors recruited and trained

Active relationships developed with over 120 partner organisations

130 focus groups and 4800 attitudinal surveys completed

http://appstore.com/gettingwasted

https://play.google.com/store/app/details?id=uk.ac.mmu.RecyclingGame


Over 190 individually targeted communication materials produced

Getting Wasted App produced with 1586 downloads on Apple

8 films to promote recycling released There are also economic and social benefits to the LIFE+ project, which may be

derived through replication of the successful LIFE+ outcomes of the project that were delivered in low income areas. There are also potentially tangible benefits to the households in the areas in terms of reduced consumption and the availability of affordable second hand products. The benefits may extend beyond the area where the project is delivered by supporting charities, creating jobs by making more resources available to the recycling industry and reducing the cost of waste management to local authorities. Full details of the socio economic impacts of the project are given in section 6.4.4.

6.4.3 Effectiveness of Dissemination The strategy for this project was innovative in its approach by working with targeted

communities on a micro level and then using the information gathered to create bespoke communications which met their specific needs. The project has measured the level of this success and reported on key learning points to allow for successful elements to be replicated in similar communities within Greater Manchester and across the EU (see section 6.2.2). Dissemination of the Project by the Authority and other agencies is monitored in a number of ways including monitoring of press and media coverage, evaluation of the project website via google analytics and attendance at events, meetings and project seminars. As well as enquiries and networking connections achieved via LIFE+ platform meetings.

Dissemination Activity Monitoring

Articles featured in press 71

AVE value £18,042 (approximately

€24,500)

Networking meetings attended 4

Events attended 5

Seminars delivered 2

Connections (Stakeholders email database) 234

Residents engaged with 63,000

Active relationships with partner organisations 120

Communication materials developed 190

Films released 8

Newsletters released 2

Recycling computer games developed (for 3 platforms) 2

Case Studies completed 42

Noticeboards installed 20

Photograph bank Yes

Website developed and maintained Yes: 2,000 average visits per month

Handbook issued Yes

Socio Economic Report issued Yes

Technical Report issued Yes

Final report issued Yes

Layman’s report issued Yes

Presentations uploaded to website Yes

Communication plan including after LIFE plan complete Yes


The website has been a key tool in dissemination of the project across Europe and was

used as a central point for all campaigns delivered. The website has allowed organisations within the EU to visit the site and gather up-to-date information on campaign progress. www.recycleforgreatermanchester.com/upandforward

To gain the greatest coverage and success for this project key stakeholders were

targeted. The main stakeholders involved in the project have been ward councillors, district officers/leaders, associated district organisations such as housing organisations and re-use networks, representatives from the community, waste sector organisations including WRAP, Waste Disposal Authorities, influential stakeholders including Eurocities, Greater Manchester Brussels Office, ACR+, MP’s and MEP’s.

Full details of the dissemination strategy and objectives carried out during the Up and

Forward project as well as the ‘after LIFE’ period, are available in the LIFE+ Communication Plan – see Appendix N.

6.4.4 Analysis of Long-term Benefits

a) Quantitative environmental benefits

i. Increase in Recycling

The project has established the best campaigns interventions to increase recycling in low performing urban areas. This was measured by an increase in participation in recycling schemes, and any change in the quantity of recycling collected pre and post campaign. The greatest level of success was observed in the deprivation campaigns (B1-3), so it is reasonable to suggest that in the future these are the ones that are most likely to be taken forward and replicated in other areas. It is better to use this method as the basis of a cautious estimate rather than extrapolate based on the four LIFE+ campaign themes - deprived, transient, and cultural and apartment areas. If all these campaigns were extrapolated this would lead to double counting of the potential benefits because there is a significant overlap between the demographics. Many transient households for example are in deprived areas. Also, these campaigns were not as successful as the deprivation campaign and therefore are less likely to be repeated.

The table below shows the observed average increase in the quantity of waste collected due to the B1-3 campaigns for each waste stream. The observed increase shown has been used to estimate the potential increase in the quantity of waste that could be collected from all low income households, assuming the same level of success could be achieved across Greater Manchester.

Replication of the LIFE+ deprivation project across GM: Recycling Streams

Pulpables Commingled Biowaste

Percentage change in material collected %)

12.70% 15.90% 45.70%

Pre-campaign (tonnes) 26,827 27,045 51,518

Post campaign (tonnes) 30,234 31,345 75,061

http://www.recycleforgreatermanchester.com/upandforward


Change in the quantity collected from low income households (tonnes)

3,407 4,300 23,544

ii. Resource Savings

As a result of increased recycling rates additional material resources will be made available for industry. This reduces the demand on finite resources, and provides industry with the raw materials that enable them to make and develop products incorporating recycling materials. It also provides resource security. Secondary raw materials are becoming increasingly important in order to secure resources for EU industries, and to mitigate the risk to companies of resource scarcity.

The data has been produced by applying the proportion of each material

(determined by a waste compositional analysis undertaken by GMWDA in 2011) to the overall quantity collected. A slightly different approach was taken for biowaste were all the additional biowaste collected is assumed to be food waste, which reflects what has been observed in practice. The largest potential increase is observed for food waste, which is sent for co-composting when mixed with garden waste. The compost produced will provide nutrients for bagged horticultural products and is sold directly to residents, or will be used in agriculture. Food waste contains more nutrients than green waste, so will reduce the amount of inorganic fertiliser that needs to be used as well as improving soil structure.

The second largest fraction is glass, for which the end destination will depend

primarily on its size, but also content of contaminated material such as ceramics which affect is suitability for closed loop recycling. Essentially, the large glass fraction (approximately 50%) will be used in glass manufacture, whilst the small fraction will be recycled as aggregate. The other components of the mixed recycling stream (plastic bottles and metal packaging) arise in relatively smaller quantities, but are more valuable. These will be destined for closed loop recycling.

Although the paper and card fractions are shown separately, these are sent

onwards for processing as a mixed paper/card fraction. The tetrapaks will be removed in order to extract the valuable aluminium fraction. However, it is likely that paper and card will be processed together to make board, since that is the predominant market in UK and Europe. In recent years coated paper and newsprint production has shrank, but capacity for board manufacture has increased making that the most likely destination.

Potential resource availability through replication of successful LIFE+ project

across GM Quantity (tonnes)

Pulpables Commingled Biowaste

Paper 2,680

Card 712

Cartons 38

Glass

2,940


Plastic bottles

685

Ferrous cans and aerosols

499

Non-ferrous can and aerosols

157

Aluminium foil

20

Organic Catering waste

23,554

Total 3,407 4,300 23,544

iii. Decrease in Residual Waste The campaigns have been undertaken in areas where there is a good overlap of our three recycling streams. However, residual waste streams are organised differently, and do not always overlap. Whilst the residual waste reduction can be measured, it is noted that there will be many households on the round that fall outside the campaign area. The table below shows the observed average decrease in the quantity of residual waste collected due to the B1-3 campaigns. The observed decrease has been used to estimate the potential decrease in the quantity of waste that could be collected from all low income households, assuming the same level of success could be achieved across Greater Manchester.

Average decrease in residual waste by applying LIFE+ project

Residual

Deprivation campaign results

Percentage change in material collected %)

-19.40%

Waste collected in GM from low income households (tonnes)

Pre-campaign 114,617

Post campaign 92,381

Change in the quantity collected from low income households (tonnes)

-22,236

v. Waste Prevention The campaigns may have an impact on overall waste arisings but this is difficult to measure due to the lack of overlap between recycling and residual waste collections.

vi. Carbon footprint/Climate Change Impact

The impact on Climate Change can be calculated by using Defra carbon emission factors, and waste composition data to estimate tonnes of carbon may be saved by applying the campaign.


Defra carbon emission factors

Resource

Recycling Closed Loop/Composting

Kg Co2e

Landfill Kg Co2e

Paper 21 490

Card 21 490

Cartons 21 490

Glass 21 25.8

Plastic bottles 21 34.1


21 21.3


21 21.3

Aluminium foil 21 21.3

Organic waste 21 332

Total 21 490

Potential tonnes of carbon saved by applying LIFE+ project based on potential

resource availability above

Carbon

Emissions from recycling

Carbon emissions from

landfill

Potential carbon savings by applying

LIFE+ project

Paper 56,280 1,313,200 -1,256,920

Card 14,952 348,880 -333,928

Cartons 798 18,620 -17,822

Glass 61,740 75,852 -14,112

Plastic bottles 14,385 23,358.5 -8,974


10,479 10,628.7 -150


3,297 3,344.1 -47

Aluminium foil 420 426 -6

Organic waste 494,634 7,819,928 -7,325,294

Total 656,985 9,614,237 -8,957,252

b) Relevance of environmentally significant issues or policy areas The EU 7th Environmental Action Programme ‘Living well, within the limits of our

planet’ sets nine objectives, and three priority areas. The second priority area is to transform the EU into a ‘Resource Efficient, Low Carbon Economy’ with a special focus on turning waste into a resource.

The Waste Framework Directive (2008) has set a legal obligation on local

authorities to reach 50% recycling of household waste by 2020, and the anticipated ‘Circular Economy Package’ is expected to announce that target will increase to 70% by 2030. However, recycling is far more difficult in Urban areas, and even in the high performing European Countries their dense urban cities perform poorly. The EU estimates that by 2020 around 80% of its citizens are likely to live in or near a city. Without corrective action, therefore, the recycling rates across Europe may be expected to drop as Citizens gravitate


towards Urban areas. The project dovetails with many of the EU priority objectives: improving

implementation, making the Union’s Cities more sustainable and increasing the knowledge base. The project is also aligned to the Europe 2020 Package to become smart, sustainable and inclusive, and the EU Cohesion policy. By tacking poor recycling levels in the hardest to reach deprived areas, and across ethnic communities, the project will help to maintain recycling services and equality of services, where services are increasingly at risk due to the low returns on investment in recycling, and budget restraints emanating from pan Europe austerity programmes.

c) Qualitative Environmental Benefits

The implementation of the EU’s forthcoming circular economy package and the existing Waste Framework Directive will require the support of the public to make smarter purchasing choices, change the way they do things to use less waste, and separate materials for recycling. This project has provided municipalities across Europe with a route to increase participation in Urban areas with low recycling. The project therefore has spin-off effects across resource efficiency and waste management policies, which rely on public support, and is particularly relevant to the following articles of the Waste Framework Directive:

Article 4: (Waste Hierarchy)

Article 11: (Reuse and Recycling)

Article 22: (Biowaste)

Article 28: (Waste Management Plans)

Article 29: (Waste Prevention Programmes)

Article 31: (Public participation)

c) Qualitative economic benefits (Further detail are given in the Socio-economic report, see Appendix Q)

i. Waste management cost and increasing recycling revenues

As a result of increased recycling, revenue will be created for the sale of recyclates. This will be higher for some streams such as metals and plastic bottles, whereas the revenues for paper/glass are smaller. At the same time savings will be realised from reducing the quantity of waste disposed to landfill.

The table shows the cost that would be incurred if the deprivation campaigns

were replicated in all relevant areas. GM wide replicated long term financial benefit of LIFE+ project

Pulpables Commingled Biowaste Residual Total

Quantity

(tonne) 3,407 4,300 23,544 -22,236

Cost

€/tonne -€31.9 -€31.9 €71.8 €393.6

Total cost

(€‘000) -€ 108.77 -€137.28 €1,689.7 -€8,752.6 -€7,308.9


ii. Jobs

The project has had a direct impact providing employment to people involved in the delivery of the campaigns, and training opportunities to young people involved in parts of the project carried out in partnership with local universities (actions B13 and B14) to develop computer games and films.

Jobs created in project delivery

At the peak of delivery of the LIFE+ project there were fourteen roles created. The team consisted of six Campaign Officers, six Outreach Workers, and two dedicated roles for Dissemination, and Monitoring and Evaluation. Due to the short term nature of the contracts, which meant some personnel sought more permanent alternatives, and were unable to complete their contract then more people were employed. Overall, 17 people were employed to work only upon on the LIFE+ project.

Wider industry employment It is challenging to measure the exact impact that the LIFE+ project has had on

the wider industry. However, the Environment Services Association (ESA 2013) estimate that 5-10 jobs are created for every thousand tonnes of materials recycled, compared to 0.1 jobs for every thousand tonnes of waste sent to landfill. In addition, larger waste management projects maybe expected to generate around 300 jobs in construction.

Potential job creation through replication of successful LIFE+ project across GM

Recycling Waste

Disposal Total

Jobs per 1000 tonnes 5.0 0.1

Change in waste (tonnes) 31,251 -22,236

Number of job created 156 -2 154

iii. Resources for industry

The resource value of materials (through replication of successful LIFE+ projects across Greater Manchester) to the economy is estimated below. The overall value is estimated at €469,329 based upon WRAP 2015 Materials Pricing Report. Biowaste has been excluded from the calculation since this is not traded as a material commodity but undergoes further waste treatment with no market value.

Resource value through replication of successful LIFE+ projects across GM Value (€)

Pulpables Commingled Total

Paper (€45/tonne) €119,783 €119,783

Card (€67/tonne) €47,734 €47,734

Cartons (€0/tonne) €0 €0


Glass (€1/tonne) €1,877 €1,877

Plastic bottles (€102/tonne) €69,469 €69,469

Ferrous cans and aerosols (€109/tonne)

€54,164 €54,164

Non-ferrous can and aerosols (€996/tonne)

€156,381 €156,381

Aluminium foil (€996/tonne) €19,921 €19,921

Total €167,517 €301,813 €469,329

iv. Reduced demand for infrastructure Increasing recycling will reduce residual waste, which in turn reduces the cost of

developing expensive residual waste infrastructure so it will benefit EU citizens if less capacity is needed.

The savings to society as whole that would be derived from not having to build

further capacity are difficult to estimate since the cost of building and operating energy from waste plant varies significantly. Defra (2013) provided some data on the cost of building facilities, processing between 150 ktpa to 350 ktpa, which fell in the range €185-255 million. Over a typical 25 year lifespan of a facility, however, the cost in terms of the total contract which includes additional cost such as debt charges, processing, replacement parts, administration etc. may be around four times the build cost.

One way to consider the financial benefit to the local authority is in terms of market gates fees, so taking the landfill saving figure of €4 million calculated (above) and assuming any spare capacity would be charged at a competitive rate for an energy from waste facility compared to current market gate fees (€126/tonne, WRAP 2014/15) then a further €4 million may be gained in selling spare capacity. The net benefit is, therefore, estimated at a total of €8 million.

d) Qualitative social benefits i. Reducing consumption Educating residents to reduce consumption will have a direct impact on their

household finances. There is evidence that getting people involved in composting food waste develops an appreciation of how much food is wasted, and leads to waste reduction. Average household cost saving in Greater Manchester for active participants in food waste separation

Quantity of food waste thrown away by UK Households

Average household disposal to bin, sewer and pet food (kg/hh/wk) 5.00

Average household disposal to bin only (kg/hh/wk) 3.30

Average reduction by active participants in food waste collection services (kg/hh/wk)

1.09

Costs

Average household expenditure on wasted food (per annum) €600


Cost saving per annum for active participants €130

Based on the replication model (i.e. an estimated 300,000 low income properties in Greater Manchester) this would have a significant impact on the economy making around €38 million available overall to be spent on other goods and services.

ii. Affordable second hand products In some campaigns residents have been encouraged to donate items (B4 in

particular) for subsequent sale. The success of the campaign was measured through survey data. However, a clear pattern did not emerge in terms of changes to claimed behaviours; perhaps due to the fact different people were interviewed pre and post campaign. The most interesting data came from the Stockport Private Rental Campaign, where the furniture reuse organisation monitored how many residents had made a donation after seeing the leaflet. This showed that 29% of donations were due to the campaign. WRAP (2011) calculated that the average charity shop sells 30 tonnes of material per annum. Therefore, a similar successful campaign could promote the diversion of approximately 8.7 tonnes from landfill for each charity shop supported by a council campaign. In Greater Manchester that would result in an approximate saving of €3,425 per charity supported. The value to the charity shop is more challenging to ascertain since an items condition needs to be assessed on delivery to determine what it may be worth. However, if we assume a fairly low estimate of €51 for an item of furniture, and an average sofa weight of 37kg (Wrap, 2011, derived from Furniture Reuse Network data) then the value of the campaign to the charity shop (or organisation) can be calculated at €11,991.

iii. Community participation The Project has actively engaged with a diverse range of residents (64,000) in 42

campaign areas across Greater Manchester. Events held by the project have helped to bring the community together to promote environmental issues and community cohesion e.g. Big Tidy Up events (B4 Manchester and B7 Tameside), Action Week (B7 Salford), family fun days (B2 Bury, Trafford, Rochdale, Stockport. The community has been encouraged to actively participate in campaigns through focus groups, events and in the recruitment of community volunteers. Over the lifetime of the project over 150 volunteers were recruited and trained as Recycling Ambassadors. During project delivery active relationships were developed with over 120 partner organisations. In addition, the project has fostered networking and collaboration between neighbourhoods and local organisations. For example: B4 Campaign in Manchester - work has continued with engaged residents and has led to a number of successes, particularly around the environmental crime and burglary agenda. A community partnership was formed during the campaign which meets regularly to discuss a wide range of issues including waste and will contribute to long term changes in recycling behaviour.

e) Continuation of the project actions by the beneficiary/stakeholders The key learnings, methodology and positive outcomes from the LIFE+ Up and


Forward project have been taken forward and used as good practice in the GMWDA communications plan for 2015/16. The 1-year plan aims to improve recycling through targeted community led campaigns, as opposed to big-picture messages (as in previous years). Further details are given in the After LIFE+ Communications Plan (see Appendix N)

f) Replicability, demonstration, transferability, cooperation The Up and Forward project has delivered considerable EU added value as

municipalities increasingly need to understand how to maximise their waste prevention and recycling services, which are directly dependent on public participation. The project has provided best practice methods to communicate with key target audiences, within municipalities, to achieve higher waste prevention and recycling goals in low performing deprived areas: Deprivation, Transience, Faith and Culture and Apartments. This is directly applicable across Europe where all large cities have pockets of deprived areas where it is difficult to delivery policies, and EU is becoming increasingly transient as movement across borders become easier leading to more diverse communities with specific communication needs. As citizen gravitate towards cities, then apartment living is likely to become more prevalent.

g) Best Practice Lessons Currently the use of blanket style communications is widely used to affect a

change in behaviour towards increased recycling and waste prevention across a mix of demographics. This project has demonstrated how waste policy can be more effectively implemented by Municipalities through targeted communications (combined traditional methods of communication with more innovative techniques) in specific low performing areas identified by waste collection data and local demographic statistics. Results of this project show the most effective best practices are:

It can be advantageous to develop campaigns from within the community; making information more easily understood and appropriate for the target market; hence delivering key outcomes (e.g. more and better recycling).

A data-driven approach to identify low performing properties enables campaigns to effectively target specific areas and focus efforts.

Monitoring can have many variables and is the manifestation of a series of changes that occur at the individual household level. It is not always a definite measure of campaign success because of the impact of operations and seasonal changes may be higher than that expected by the campaign. Monitoring, however, should build an understanding of an area and changing behaviours over-time.

To effectively evaluate a campaign, a large mass of data is required over a long period to: reduce variability due to seasonality and operational issues; so that the campaign can be compared against a control for the same peaks and troughs in seasonality; some campaigns had relatively low contact rates indicated by low campaign recall, and much longer is needed to get the message through to householder. This could then be compared against a control over a longer period of time to see whether a rise or fall in tonnage or participation is mirroring what is happening anyway. For example a smaller fall in tonnage compared to a control may still indicate a success.

A Six Step Approach Handbook (see Appendix L) has been developed which shows


best practice for engaging communities early in the communication process. h) Innovation and demonstration EU funding has added demonstration value at national and international level by

providing the following: Communication process – the project has demonstrated the steps that

need to be followed to develop successful communications targeting specific demographics (deprived, transient, diverse communities, and those living in apartments);

Methods and tools – the project has made all communication tools used e.g. films, leaflets etc. available on line for other municipalities to follow; and

Measurement – lessons have been captured regarding campaign measurement which will be useful to other municipalities in the EU.

i) Long term indicators of success At a local level the long term success of the project will be measured in

terms of whether it can help the Authority meet its overall recycling targets, and at a national or EU level on whether the lesson learnt can be applied by other municipalities.

6.5 Risk Register 6.5.1 A detailed review of risks has been completed and a revised risk register is attached as

Appendix R. Using PRINCE II methodology, the risk register was kept under continual review and was subject to detailed ‘page turn’ reviews on a quarterly basis by the Project Decision Board.

7. Bibliography 1. WRAP (2008), ‘Barriers to recycling at home’, www.wrap.com 2. Belerdo, J. (1995), ‘The Prediction of household recycling of newspapers: The role of attitudes,

intentions and situational factors’, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 16, pp 24-41. 3. Beer, M. and Nohria, N. (2000), ‘Breaking the Code of Change’, New York: Harvard Business

School. 4. Skinner, B.F. (1974), ‘About Behaviourism’, Random House. 5. Kotter, J.P. (1995), ‘Leading Change: Why transformation efforts fail’, Harvard Business School,

Volume 73, number 2, pp 59-67.

http://www.wrap.com/

Date post:	18-Jul-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	4 times
Download:	0 times

LIFE Project Number LIFE11/ENV/UK/000389 31/09/15 · Final report: GMWDA LIFE+:...

Documents