NSRP Backyard Composting Undervalued - Full Report

148 East 2nd Street North Vancouver, BC V7L 1C3 Canada p: 604-984-9730 f: 604-984-3563 northshorerecycling.
ca
Backyard Composting Undervalued New Data Reveals Underestimated Diversion Rates and Collection Cost Savings
Prepared by: Christine Pinkham Project Coordinator and Elizabeth Leboe Community Programs Coordinator
North Shore Recycling Program May, 2011
Backyard Composting Undervalued
2011, North Shore Recycling Program. All Rights Reserved.
Page ii
Summary
Backyard composting is undervalued; it is far more important than we thought. Each year in North and West Vancouver, between 8,398 and 10,514 tonnes of single-family organic waste is generated but never placed curbside for municipal collection and disposal. This rivals the curbside Yard Trimmings collection service in diversion tonnages (10,638 tonnes), but minus all the associated municipal costs (~$2,100,000) and environmental implications of an industrialized collection and composting system. Without backyard composting, North Shore municipalities would require an additional 1,500 truck trips to the transfer station, for which they would be charged $874,227 in tipping fees each year. Factoring backyard composting into the equation increases the singlefamily diversion rate from 59.5% to 67.2%, approaching our Regional target of 70%. Over the past five years, backyard composting has saved the municipalities about $3.5 million in tipping fees alone.
Study Context and Methods

The North Shore Recycling Program (NSRP) administers the residential curbside recycling program and provides waste reduction education in North and West Vancouver, BC, member municipalities of Metro Vancouver (MV). This study was initiated to address municipal and regional data gaps in the calculation of organic waste diversion rates attributed to backyard composting. Three studies were run concurrently to provide an accurate average annual per-household diversion rate through backyard composting and to evaluate compost bin alternatives: 1. 2. 3. Study 1: Organic Waste Diversion Study 2: Suitability of the Mega Composter Study 3: Suitability of the Green Cone Food Waste Digester
Twenty-five volunteer composting households were recruited to participate in this project. After receiving personalized Compost Coaching in January 2010, volunteers weighed their composted household organic waste and yard trimmings for the remainder of the year (11 months).
Suitability of Alternative Composter and Digester

Neither the Mega Composter nor the Green Cone presents a viable alternative to the compost bin currently available to North Shore residents. Capacity issues are better addressed by emphasizing the benefits of a multibin system. The Green Cone could be considered as a component in an onsite organics management system that includes backyard composting, but only for qualified North Shore residents and only once a support program is in place.
Organic Waste Diversion Measurements

Twenty-five volunteer households diverted over seven tonnes of organic waste from curbside pickup in 2010. The average study household kept 452 kilograms (kg) off the curb during the year. We calibrated an earlier baseline estimate from households composting without any support or training to derive an estimate of 361 kg/hh/year.
Page iii
Total Organics
Measured (with training) 452 kg
Calibrated Baseline (no training) 361 kg
Weights kept of the curb per household per year due to backyard composting.
Unlike other studies in our region, our research measured the combined total of organic waste composted from both inside and outside the single-family home. Results for the indoor component were on par with the noncontact extrapolation in the Township of Langleys 2010 study. Results for the outdoor component matched Seattle Public Utilities calculated findings from the 1990s. Our overall results are 20-30% higher than the National Backyard Composting Program (USA) findings from 1996. Metro Vancouver bases their per-composter diversion on Seattles yard trimmings estimates, which is a significant underestimate.
Curbside Collection Implications

Seventy-nine percent of participating households increased the amount of material they composted and reduced the amount of waste they put in the garbage. Compared to the 2008 North Shore average, participants decreased what they placed at the curb by half a can of yard trimmings and a full can of garbage each week. All composting households on the North Shore compost 8,398 to 10,514 tonnes that the municipalities never need to handle or pay to tip each year; this is equivalent to approximately 1,500 truck trips and is almost the same quantity (10,638 tonnes) as the current Yard Trimmings collection service, which costs $1,500,000 in fleet and salary-related collection costs each year.
Sophia (left) holds one weeks accumulation of the familys garbage while Melanie (middle) and Ariadne (right) hold their household compostables from the same week!
Diversion Rate Implications

The North Shore does not currently include backyard composting in its municipal diversion rates calculation of 59.5% (2010). When composting is factored in, the North Shores diversion rate is 67.2%: our single-family diversion rate is higher than weve been reporting to municipal staff. Metro Vancouver (MV) uses the number of bins distributed multiplied by 250 kg/bin to generate an estimate of organics generated and managed onsite (4,052 tonnes). We find that the actual diversion due to composting households on the North Shore is 10,514 tonnes, 2.5 times greater than MVs estimate; the regional residential sector diversion rate may be higher than currently estimated.
Page iv
Backyard Composting Undervalued Tipping Fees Avoided

Two-thirds of the total garbage and yard trimmings annual collection service costs are in the form of tipping fees. At 2011 rates, each study household saves the municipality $35.44 in tipping fees each year. For the North Shores population of composting households, this extrapolates to $874,227 each year in avoided tipping fee costs. Tipping fee savings are cumulative so long as a composting household maintains its composting behaviour. Over the last five years on the North Shore, we have invested approximately $16,100 in bin subsidies and backyard composting has resulted in avoided tipping fees of approximately $3,500,000.
Personalized Compost Coaching
We only made 2.5 kilograms of garbage in the last 2 months and almost 50 kg of compost!
With training, households compost almost 100 kg more each Melanie Solheim year than unsupported households. Supported study participants increased their diversion of low-quality household papers from the garbage to the compost, kept more leaves for onsite use, used alternative recycling depots for non-curbside collected materials and altered buying habits to reduce waste at source. Compared to its low cost of delivery, personalized Compost Coaching services provide immeasurable social and environmental value beyond the direct tipping fee savings and decreased curbside collection requirements.
Selected Recommendations
Include backyard composting in the annual North Shore Single-Family diversion rate calculation, using a per-household rate between 361 kg and 452 kg. On an annual or bi-annual basis, collect statistically-significant data on the number of households composting and usage of composting best practices. Recognize annual costs avoided due to composting as a line item in budget summaries and planning documents to municipal staff. Increase support for onsite composting, the lowest-cost municipal waste diversion tool in the suite of collection programs which has diversion and cost-saving results disproportionate to its minimal investment. Allocate staff and resources to significantly increase the number of composting households, recognizing that the scale of diversion through onsite composting is on par with curbside Yard Trimmings collection and that the scale of incremental cost savings will be in the six figure range annually. Introduce Compost Coaching or similar personalized training and troubleshooting service as a core support component for all composter sales. Completely integrate composter sale operations with community outreach functions. We respectfully suggest that Metro Vancouver consider the following recommendations: Request that municipalities submit number of households using compost bins derived from statistically significant surveys, instead of using total number of bins distributed. Capitalize on the advantage of scale to conduct more economical statistically-significant surveys determining the number of households composting by municipality and for the overall Region. Revise the 250 kg per bin factor upwards to between 361 kg and 452 kg per household. Page v
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 1 A Need for Research and Testing ....................................................................................................................... 1 Objectives .......................................................................................................................................................... 2 2. Methods And Materials ................................................................................................................... 5 Volunteer Recruitment ....................................................................................................................................... 5 Set-Up and Training ........................................................................................................................................... 6 Study 1: Organic Waste Diversion ...................................................................................................................... 8 Study 2: Mega Composter .................................................................................................................................. 8 Study 3: Green Cone Food Waste Digester ......................................................................................................... 9 Volunteer Support.............................................................................................................................................. 9 Project Wrap-Up .............................................................................................................................................. 10 3. Data And Survey Results ................................................................................................................ 11 Composting Practices ...................................................................................................................................... 11 Study 1: Organic Waste Diversion .................................................................................................................... 15 Study 2: Mega Composter ................................................................................................................................ 18 Study 3: Green Cone Food Waste Digester ....................................................................................................... 21 Curbside Set Outs of Garbage and Yard Trimmings.......................................................................................... 29 Summary of Waste Diversion by Composting .................................................................................................. 30 4. Discussion And Research Implications ............................................................................................. 33 Other Onsite Organics Diversion Measurement Studies ................................................................................... 33 Curbside Collection Implications .......................................................................................................................37 Diversion Rate Implications .............................................................................................................................. 40 Tipping Fees Avoided ....................................................................................................................................... 43 Personalized Compost Coaching ...................................................................................................................... 46 Implications of Test Results for Garden Gourmet Alternatives.......................................................................... 47 5. Conclusions And Recommendations ............................................................................................... 49 Conclusions ...................................................................................................................................................... 49 Recommendations ........................................................................................................................................... 51 6. 7. Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................................... 53 Works Cited ..................................................................................................................................54
Page vi
Backyard Composting Undervalued Table of Figures

Figure 2-1: Project timeline. ................................................................................................................................... 5 Figure 3-1: Volunteers confidence in their ability to compost/digest before and after the study........................... 12 Figure 3-2: Perceived change in quantity of organics diverted from curbside collection. ....................................... 14 Figure 3-3: Volunteers ratings of Compost Coaching sessions.............................................................................. 14 Figure 3-4: Organics Diversion: household organic waste diverted per household by month. ............................... 16 Figure 3-5: Organics Diversion: yard trimmings diverted per household by month. ...............................................17 Figure 3-6: Mega Composter: household organic waste diverted per household by month (n = 5). ....................... 19 Figure 3-7: Mega Composter: yard trimmings diverted per household by month (n = 5)........................................ 20 Figure 3-8: Types of food waste diverted to the Green Cone. ............................................................................... 22 Figure 3-9: Location of Green Cones in sun or shade. ........................................................................................... 23 Figure 3-10: Number of households experiencing problems with the Green Cone ................................................ 23 Figure 3-11: Food scraps diverted to the Green Cone per household. .................................................................... 25 Figure 3-12: Food scraps being diverted to a supplemental backyard composter per household. .......................... 26 Figure 3-13: Total weight of food scraps diverted with the Green Cones and the composters. .............................. 27 Figure 3-14: Yard trimmings diverted by Green Cone households to a backyard composter (n = 5). ...................... 28 Figure 3-15: Amount volunteer households reduced their garbage over 2010. ...................................................... 29 Figure 3-16: Total household organic waste and yard trimmings actually diverted. .............................................. 30 Figure 4-1: Average annual diversion rates for household organic waste and yard trimmings. .............................. 36
List of Tables
Table 2-1: Number of Volunteer Households per Study. ......................................................................................... 6 Table 2-2: Definitions of the categories of organic waste used and the studies they apply to. ................................ 7 Table 2-3: Comparison of the Garden Gourmet and Mega Composters. ................................................................. 8 Table 3-1: Variety of indoor household materials composted, before and after study. .......................................... 12 Table 3-2: Variety of outdoor household materials composted before and after study. ........................................ 13 Table 3-3: Organics Diversion: household organic waste diverted per household by month.................................. 16 Table 3-4: Organics Diversion: yard trimmings diverted per household by month. ................................................17 Table 3-5: Mega Composter: household organic waste diverted per household by month (n = 5).......................... 20 Table 3-6: Mega Composter: yard trimmings diverted per household by month (n = 5). ....................................... 21 Table 3-7: Food scraps diverted to the Green Cone per household. ....................................................................... 25 Table 3-8: Food scraps being diverted to a supplemental backyard composter per household.............................. 26 Table 3-9: Amount of food scraps diverted with the Green Cones and backyard composters. .............................. 27 Table 3-10: Yard trimmings diverted by Green Cone households to a backyard composter (n = 5). ....................... 28 Table 3-11: Average amount of garbage and yard trimmings placed at the curb. .................................................. 29 Table 3-12: Total household organic waste and yard trimmings actually diverted................................................. 31 Table 4-1: Percentage of households composting low-quality papers compared to 2008 baseline........................ 38 Table 4-2: Average amount of garbage and yard trimmings put out for collection in 2008 and 2010. ................... 38 Table 4-3: Measured and calibrated per household annual diversion rates due to backyard composting. ............. 39 Table 4-4: Extrapolated tonnages of waste diverted by SF households that municipalities never handle. ............. 39 Table 4-5: Differences between Metro Vancouver diversion rate factors compared to NSRP findings .................. 42 Table 4-6: Variations in North Shore diversion rate calculations (2010 and 2008 data). ........................................ 43 Table 4-7: Actual tipping fees avoided by the volunteer households in 2010. ........................................................ 44 Page vii

Table 4-8: Average tipping fees that will be avoided in 2011 by households with compost training. ..................... 44 Table 4-9: Tipping fees avoided by North Shore municipalities due to onsite composting in 2011. ....................... 45
Page viii
1. Introduction
The North Shore Recycling Program (NSRP) is a tri-municipal agency of the City of North Vancouver, the District of North Vancouver and the District of West Vancouver in British Columbia that administers the residential curbside recycling program and recycling drop-off depot. Since its inception in 1990, the NSRP has also provided a variety of community education programs that support residential waste reduction. However, while recycling is important, it is only part of the waste reduction solution. There is much that can be done to reduce the amount of garbage municipal residents generate and that municipal utilities collect. In addition to considering the other three Rs: Reduce, Reuse, and Rethink, Backyard Composting has a large role to play in partially diverting the heaviest and largest component of the residential waste stream: organics. Backyard composting is the most effective and environmentally-friendly way to manage the organic waste a home produces, transforming trash into treasure while keeping organic material in the biological cycle. Metro Vancouver (MV), the inter-municipal governing body of the Greater Vancouver Regional District, estimates that each compost bin distributed keeps 250 kilograms (kg) of organics off the curb per year, resulting in free fertilizer for the garden and fewer trucks on the road. But still, 37%1 of the garbage sent for disposal from single-family homes could be backyard-composted. Composting in Action!
Following on from four years of research, surveys, pilot programs and evaluations focused on the topic of singlefamily organic waste, the NSRP has come to believe that Metro Vancouvers diversion rate attributed to composters may be an underestimate and that North Shore residents may benefit from additional onsite compost options for their households.
A Need for Research and Testing

Weigh Organics Composted per Household
Presently, the NSRP estimates the weight of organic waste composted by North Shore single-family (SF) households (hh) using the following data: 61% of households use backyard composters.2 38,132 SF households on the North Shore.3 26.9 L/week average self-reported estimate of volume diverted by composting.4, 5 0.8 kg/L and 0.36 kg/L for food waste and 0.2 kg/L for yard waste density conversion factors.6, 7 L Page 1

Based on these factors, we estimated that baseline North Shore households (with no composting support) are keeping 415 kg/hh/year5 off the curb, resulting in 9,600 tonnes removed from curbside collection each year. In a 2009 evaluation of a personalized Compost Coaching program8, we estimated (using the same methodology), that households receiving training and support could keep 520 kg/hh/year off the curb. With new household composting initiatives on our horizon, ranging from outreach techniques to curbside collection systems, the NSRP required a more accurate measure of actual and maximum possible diversion rates of household organics through backyard composting.
Test Alternatives to the Garden Gourmet

Of the many different types of composters available on the market today, the NSRP chose to subsidize (by $6.44) the Garden Gourmet composter (by Scepter, right) for residents of the North Shore. In our 2008 Composter Follow-up Survey4, 5, 77% of the 950 respondents were satisfied or very satisfied with the Garden Gourmet. However, 47% of respondents indicated that the Garden Gourmet was not large enough to handle the amount of organic waste they wanted to compost, or had complaints about the top lid or lower access hatch. Also, 16% of respondents never aerate their compost, mainly due to time constraints and perceived difficulty in doing so. Based on these results, the NSRP decided to test and evaluate alternatives for managing household organic wastes (HOW) for North Shore households.
The NSRP subsidizes Garden Gourmet composters like the ones below to residents of the North Shore.
Objectives
Three separate studies were run concurrently to provide an accurate average annual per-household diversion rate through backyard composting, and to evaluate alternatives for managing household organic waste at the source (home): 1. 2. 3. Study 1: Organic Waste Diversion Study 2: Suitability of the Mega Composter Study 3: Suitability of the Green Cone Food Waste Digester
The volunteers who participated in this project were drawn from a pool of North Shore residents who were already composting and who participated in the January 2008 Composter Follow-up Survey4. A number of tasks were shared between the three studies for efficiency.
Page 2
Backyard Composting Undervalued Study 1: Organic Waste Diversion

The primary objectives of the Organic Waste Diversion study were to: refine the per-household annual estimates calculated from the January 2008 Composter Follow-up Survey4, 5; and more accurately estimate overall diversion rates through backyard composting on the North Shore. The following were key tasks to meet these objectives: For 11 months, volunteers weighed their household organic waste (food scraps, newspaper and low quality papers such as paper towel and tissue, egg cartons and toilet paper rolls), and yard trimmings being composted. Extrapolation of the volunteers data to estimate the total weight of organic wastes composted on the North Shore.
Study 2: Suitability of the Mega Composter

The main reason the Mega Composter (Mega) was chosen for testing is because it is significantly larger than the Garden Gourmet (see photo on the right). Also, it has a large, spring-loaded lid that can be operated with one hand and four lower access panels. In addition to capacity, a number of other issues identified in the January 2008 survey4 were also tested to determine if the Mega Composter was a viable alternative to the Garden Gourmet (GG). The primary objectives of this study were to: determine if the Mega is durable enough to handle a large volume of material (kitchen waste, low-quality household paper products, and yard waste); and assess ease of installation, operation and resistance to pests. The following were key tasks to meet these objectives: For 11 months, volunteers weighed the amount of household organic waste and yard trimmings being composted. This data was also analyzed for Study 1, Organic Waste Diversion. Volunteers completed a post-study survey which included questions about installation, operation, capacity and resistance to pests.
The Mega Composter (right) is more than double the volume of the Garden Gourmet (left). You can tell the difference in size by the Wingdigger aerating tool propped in front of the composters.
Page 3
Backyard Composting Undervalued Study 3: Suitability of the Green Cone Food Waste Digester
The Green Cone (GC) is not a composter it is a food waste digester that can accept all types of food waste, including those that are not recommended for composting due to pest and bear concerns: meats, dairy, bones and fats. The digestion process occurs below ground, where microorganisms break down the waste into nutrient rich water and carbon dioxide leaving a small residue. Sunlight, rather than carbonrich materials, provides energy and the double walls of the cone trap heat and permit air circulation to encourage the growth of bacteria9. Requiring good drainage and a year-round sunny location, the GC is not an obvious choice for the North Shore which is heavily treed and on low-permeability glacial till (hardpan). But its potential for diverting otherwise non-compostable food items without the requirement of manual aeration or addition of highcarbon browns was worth considering, since these are significant barriers to successful onsite organic waste diversion. The primary objectives of this study were to: determine if the GC is durable and large enough to handle typical household food waste volumes; determine how effective the GC is for all types of food scraps; assess ease of installation, operation and resistance to pests; and determine if the GC is suitable for use on the North Shore as a viable alternative or companion to the Garden Gourmet. The following were key tasks to meet these objectives: For 11 months, volunteers weighed the amount of household food scraps being digested and excess food scraps and yard trimmings being composted. Volunteers completed a post-study survey which included questions about installation, operation, capacity and resistance to pests.
The Green Cone can take all types of household food waste - meat, dairy, bones and vegetables. It cannot handle yard waste.
Page 4
2. Methods and Materials

Twenty-five households from the North Shore volunteered their time and were willing to weigh and track their organic waste for an entire year. This project ran from October 2009 through to May 2011 and involved the following stages: Volunteer Recruitment (October December 2009) Set-up and Training (January February 2010) Data Recording (January December 2010) Volunteer Support (Throughout) Project Wrap-up (January February 2011) Data Analysis and Reporting (February May 2011) The figure 2-1 shows the project timeline and key milestones.
30-Oct-09 Recruitment Letter Jan - Feb Mailed Nov - Dec Set-up Volunteer and Selection Training
31-Dec-10 Data Recording Ends
3-Feb-11 Wrap-up Party Jan - Feb Wrap-up Visits Feb - May Data Analysis and Reporting
Jan-10 - Dec-10 Data Recording
Jan 10
October 2009
Apr 10
Jul 10
Oct 10
Jan 11
Apr 11 May 2011
Figure 2-1: Project timeline.
Volunteer Recruitment
The volunteers who participated in this project were drawn from a pool of residents who were already composting, not new to composting. Potential participants were contacted through a general letter mailed to a list of 483 residents who had participated in the January 2008 Composter Follow-up Survey4 and had indicated an interest in learning about pilot projects. The letter was mailed on October 30, 2009 and those interested were requested to contact the NSRP directly (Appendix A). 104 households responded indicating interest in participating. These households were then contacted by telephone and given a short interview to determine suitability for the project and which study would be the best fit. Initially, twenty four households were selected to participate with one more household joining the Green Cone study in June, 2010 (table 2-1). They represented a wide variety of composter types and household sizes.
Page 5

Number of Volunteer Households 11 5 9 Total 25
Study Organic Waste Diversion Mega Composter Green Cone
Volunteers were provided with a collection container, a scale and a book with instructions and data recording forms.
Table 2-1: Number of Volunteer Households per Study.
Set-up and Training

During January and early February, 2010, volunteer households were required to undergo two separate training sessions: Project Start-up Training Session; and, Compost Coaching Households that received a Mega Composter or Green Cone picked them up from the NSRP prior to their training sessions and were required to transport and set them up on their own. All households received organic waste collection containers, scales and a data book with instructions and data recording forms (Appendices B-D). The container and scale(s) assigned were specific to the study the household participated in.
Project Start-up Training Session

Individual project training sessions were held at participants homes to get them up and running on the project. Each household was required to complete a prestudy survey (Appendix E) at the start of the project. Topics of discussion at the session included: types of acceptable organic wastes from yard and household specific to the study (as outlined in table 2-2); how to weigh and record their compostables; how low quality household paper waste was to be collected and recorded with food waste; and how to record the amount of garbage and yard trimmings put at the curb each week. Different organic materials were included in different studies, depending on the diversion technique in use L Page 6 A separate container and scale were provided for yard trimmings.

and the participants willingness to weigh materials outside of their home (table 2-2). Data recording started upon completion of the training session and continued to the end of the calendar year. Study 1: Organic Waste Diversion No Study 2: Mega Composter No
Materials included
Study 3: Green Cone
Food Scraps
Household Organic Waste Yard Trimmings
All food scraps, cooked or raw, including fruits, vegetables, meats, fats, grains, dairy and bones Selected food scraps (fruits, vegetables, coffee grounds and tea, eggshells) and low-quality household papers (shredded newspaper, paper tissue and toweling, cardboard rolls, egg cartons and other pressed-fibre containers) Grass clippings, soft and woody plant prunings, weeds, fallen leaves
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
*In supplementary compost bin only
Yes*
Table 2-2: Definitions of the categories of organic waste used and the studies they apply to.
Compost Coaching
In 2008, a NSRP Compost Training Pilot program evaluation8 indicated that participants would be most successful and maximize their waste diversion if we provided personalized Compost Coaching. After the start-up training session was complete, all participants received a personalized at-home Compost Coaching session based on the Composting in Bear Country Guidelines10 jointly developed by the NSRP and A Green Cone study volunteer and NSRP North Shore Black Bear Society. A NSRP staff staff member discuss the best place to member with composting experience visited each locate the Green Cone participating household. In the 45 minute session, the following topics were covered (modified to suit the needs of the household): Basic biology and chemistry of composting and how it works. Best practices and rules of thumb for successful composting. Analysis and troubleshooting of existing compost efforts. Review of easily-sourced carbon-rich materials to keep compost active. Additional reduce, reuse and recycle options to help curb waste generation. L Page 7 during a personalized at-home Compost Coaching session.

For those involved in the Mega Composter and Green Cone studies, emphasis was placed on determining installation location if needed and best practices specific to the unit in question.
Study 1: Organic Waste Diversion

Eleven households participated in the Organic Waste Diversion study using their existing composting system. They represented a wide variety of composter types and household sizes. All 11 volunteer households tracked their household organic waste while three additionally tracked the amount of yard trimmings they composted over the same time period.
Study 2: Mega Composter

Two of the issues with the Garden Gourmet was that some residents found it was not large enough to handle the amount of organic waste they wanted to compost and that the lid was hard to manage with one hand3. The Mega Composter was chosen to be tested as an alternative because it is significantly larger than the Garden Gourmet (see table 2-3 for dimensions). Garden Gourmet Volume Dimensions Price Manufacturer 11 cubic feet 2' W x 2' D x 3'3" H $45.00 (subsidized) Scepter Mega Composter 23 cubic feet 2'10" W x 2'10" D x 3'6" H $70.00 Keter Group
Table 2-3: Comparison of the Garden Gourmet and Mega Composters.
Five households were selected to test out the Mega Composter. Preference went to those who: had identified problems with the Garden Gourmet particularly volume limitations; and were willing to weigh and track their household organic waste and yard trimmings. Mega Composters and a Wingdigger aerating tool were provided to these participants free of charge.
Page 8
Study 3: Green Cone Food Waste Digester

Unlike a composter, the Green Cone is a food waste digester that can take all types of food waste - meat, dairy, bones and vegetables but it cannot handle yard waste or high-carbon materials. Eight Green Cones were available for testing either as a stand-alone waste diversion option or in tandem with an existing composter. Each household was provided with a Green Cone, a 4L kitchen caddy, bacterial accelerator powder and a powder shaker. Preference went to households that were: willing to try out all types of food waste - meat, dairy, bones and vegetables; willing to put in the required effort to dig a hole 90 cm wide x 70 cm deep for installation; not larger than an average family of four or five; met the minimum sunlight and drainage requirements recommended by the manufacturer; and willing to weigh/track their compostable materials throughout an entire year. Three households also weighed and tracked their yard trimmings composted in a conventional composter.
The Green Cone (below right) measures <70 cm in height above ground, 59 cm in diameter at the base, narrowing to 28 cm at the top. The Garden Gourmet (left) measures 99 cm in height.
Significant effort is required to dig the hole for the Green Cone.
Volunteer Support
Guidance and support were available to the volunteers throughout the duration of the study from the project team at the North Shore Recycling Program. Site visits were conducted in late spring to check in and ensure data recording was being done correctly and to troubleshoot any problems they may have had with their composter or Green Cone. Monthly newsletters containing information on the project status and upcoming events were sent out, an online private social network was established to share stories and photos and periodic telephone calls were conducted to keep in touch.
Page 9

Three volunteer appreciation and learning events were held throughout the duration of the project: Jenny Rustemeyer and Grant Baldwin presented a humorous and inspiring 20 minute summary of their Clean Bin Project11 at the Lynn Canyon Ecology Center (May 2010). Fraser Richmond Soil & Fibre Ltd. provided a tour of their industrial composting facility that handles all yard trimmings waste collected on the North Shore (June 2010). The Cascadia Society, one of the Green Cone households, hosted an end-of-summer garden party lunch and tour of their intensive backyard composting systems (September 2010). Jenny and Grant talking garbage (or lack thereof).
The volunteers in front of a finished compost pile at Fraser Richmond Soil & Fibre.
Project Wrap-up
In January 2011, individual visits to volunteers homes were conducted to wrap up their role in the project and included: completion of a post-study survey (Appendix F); collection of data books and scales; and presentation of a gift of appreciation. The post-study surveys collected information about the volunteers garbage and composting practices, demographic information, the installation and use of the Green Cone or Mega Composter for Studies 2 & 3 and any particular problems that were encountered. The data was reviewed and compiled in a database for further analysis. The completion of the project was celebrated with an allages wrap-up party in February 2011 attended by 47 members of the volunteer households.
Cascadia Society Garden Tour.
Page 10
3. Data and Survey Results

When the project was proposed, it was hoped that compost data would be obtained for the entire year from January through December 2010. Due to a number of reasons, such as frozen ground preventing Green Cone installation, most volunteers didnt get up and running until February 2010. Only data recorded for full months was used in the analyses. Some of the results discussed below include data from all of the studies and some are study-specific: Composting Practices (includes data from all studies) The 25 volunteer households Study 1: Organic Waste Diversion diverted a grand total of Study 2: Mega Composter 7280 kg of organic waste from Study 3: Green Cone Food Waste Digester curbside collection. Curbside Set Outs of Garbage and Yard Trimmings (includes data from all studies) Summary of Waste Diversion by Composting (includes data from studies 1 & 2) Different organic materials were included in different studies, depending on the diversion technique in use and the participants willingness to weigh materials outside of their home (table 2-2).
Composting Practices
To ensure all volunteer households were using best composting practices, all participants were required to have a personalized at-home Compost Coaching session subsequent to the start-up training sessions. During the start-up training, volunteers were required to complete a pre-study survey that had specific questions designed to evaluate the following composting practices when compared with the post study-surveys: Confidence level in composting ability Materials composted Perceived change in volumes composted
Confidence Level in Composting Ability

One of the questions asked on both pre- and post-study surveys (Appendices E and F) was: How confident or comfortable are you in your ability to compost or digest your kitchen scraps and yard trimming successfully? on a scale of 1 to 7 with 7 being Very confident. In the pre-study survey, 17 of the 25 volunteers indicated they were very confident (7) in their composting abilities (figure 3-1). Of the eight that initially rated themselves a 5 or 6, five indicated their confidence level improved while three indicated no change. The average confidence rating, both before and after the study, was 6.5.
Page 11
Confidence in Composting Ability Before Study
Confidence in Composting Ability After Study
4 7 4 17 6 <=5 10
1 7 6 14 <=5
Figure 3-1: Volunteers confidence in their ability to compost/digest before and after the study.
Materials Composted
To assess any changes in the variety of household organic waste and yard trimmings materials composted, volunteers from Studies 1 and 2 were asked the following questions in the pre- and post-study surveys and asked to check composted items from a list: 1. Which of these items from inside your home or kitchen do you put in your compost? 2. Which of these yard and garden items do you put in your compost bin? Before Compost Coaching and this study, the only categories of organic materials composted by more than half the volunteers were fruits and vegetables and paper towels, tissue, paper napkins (table 3-1). The percentage of volunteer households composting increased for all categories of organic materials. More than half of all study participants are now composting in all seven categories except household cleanings (floor sweepings and/or lint) and dairy, meat, grains, fats. Surprisingly, in this latter category of food items that are considered less than desirable for composting in bear country, there was a noticeable jump in the percentage of households that were comfortable and confident enough to compost these significant items from their organic waste stream.
(n = 16) Fruits and vegetables Dairy, meat, grains, fats Egg shells, coffee grounds, tea bags Household cleanings (floor sweepings, lint) Paper towels, tissue, paper napkins Paper bags, paper towel or toilet paper roll cores Newspaper
Pre-Study 100% 13% 25% 19% 56% 44% 44%
Post-Study 100% 38% 94% 31% 75% 50% 63%
Table 3-1: Variety of indoor household materials composted, before and after study.
Page 12

The categories of outdoor materials composted both before and after the study are virtually the same (table 3-2). Post-study survey comments and interviews indicated that even though the number of households composting leaves stayed almost the same, most households increased the quantity of leaves composted. (n = 25) Grass/lawn clippings Fallen leaves Soft plant prunings Woody plant prunings Pre-Study 60% 92% 88% 32% Post-Study 56% 96% 84% 40%
Table 3-2: Variety of outdoor household materials composted before and after study.
Our composting practices have changed dramatically. We now understand the mix of green and brown waste. With the addition of leaves, we have the best compost weve ever had in the past five years. I am so excited to be rid of the sludgy, stinky mess we usually have. Jennifer Read
Perceived Change in Volumes Composted

Volunteers from Studies 1 and 2 were asked to indicate their perception of any changes in the quantities of organic materials that their household composts since the Compost Coaching session: Please select the statement that BEST describes the volumes of organic material you divert from curbside collection. "Since the Compost Coaching session, the quantity of organic materials that we compost or mulch in our yard has... remained the same." increased." decreased." "We do not compost any organic materials in our yard; it is all placed at the curb for collection" Over three-quarters of all study participants reported that they increased the quantity of organics they divert from curbside collection since the start of the study and the Compost Coaching sessions (figure 3-2).
Page 13
Quantity of Organic Materials Diverted from Curbside Collection has...

90% 80% 70% Percentage 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Increased Remained the same Decreased 0% 21% 79%
Figure 3-2: Perceived change in quantity of organics diverted from curbside collection.
Compost Coaching
In the post-study survey, all volunteers were asked: On a scale of 1 to 7, how useful did you find the Compost Coaching Session at the beginning of the study (1 = Not at all, 7 = Very), and would you recommend a session to others? 68% rated the Compost Coaching session as Very useful (figure 3-3). Those who rated the Compost Coaching session a 4 or 5 did so because they were already very knowledgeable about composting and much of the information presented was familiar. While these volunteers may not have found the session as useful as others did, 100% of participants recommended Compost Coaching sessions for North Shore residents, particularly those new to composting. Value of Compost Coaching Session Recommend Compost Coaching?
2 4
7 6 5 17 <=4 25 Yes No
Figure 3-3: Volunteers ratings of Compost Coaching sessions.
Page 14

Eleven households participated in the Organic Waste Diversion study weighing their compostables and using their existing composting systems. Nine of the eleven households had at least one Garden Gourmet on site. Five of the households were using a different type of composter. The others systems in use included: NatureMill Electric Composter; Earth Machine; Homemade wooden compost corral; and Plastic construction fencing (below)
The 11 Study 1 households diverted 3082 kg of organic waste from curbside collection between Feb and Dec 2010: Household: 1641 kg Yard Trimmings: 1441 kg
Waste Diversion
The amount of organic waste diverted per household is broken down into the following two categories: Household organic waste, and Yard trimmings
One family uses simple orange plastic construction fencing to define their compost heaps. It works for them because air can get at the composting material, it is easy aerate the compost with a pitchfork, and when its ready to harvest, the orange fence is removed altogether to shovel away. Bears and other potential pests have not been attracted to their well-maintained composting operations.
Page 15

Household Organic Waste
The average and range of household organic waste in kilograms (kg) diverted per household between the months of February and December 2010 is shown in figure 3.4. Table 3-3 lists the corresponding average amounts per household and total amounts of household organic waste diverted per month. Average Weight (kg) of Household Organic Waste Diverted per Volunteer Household 60 50 Weight (kg) 40 30 20 10 0 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Average Minimum Maximum
Figure 3-4: Organics Diversion: household organic waste diverted per household by month.
Eleven households participated in the study however the number of complete data sets per month varied due to factors such as extended vacations. The number of households used to calculate the monthly averages and total numbers are listed in the final row of the table. The total amount of household organic waste diverted from curbside collection by Study 1 households was 1641 kg.
Feb Total diverted (kg) Average (kg)/ household Number of Households 134.3 13.4 10
Mar 142.7 14.3 10
Apr 122.5 12.3 10
May 127.5 12.8 10
Jun 160.9 14.6 11
Jul 172.1 15.6 11
Aug 218.0 19.8 11
Sep 133.6 13.4 10
Oct 114.4 12.7 9
Nov 191.8 21.3 9
Dec 133.9 13.4 10
Table 3-3: Organics Diversion: household organic waste diverted per household by month.
Page 16

Yard Trimmings
Six of the eleven households weighed and recorded the amount of yard trimmings they diverted for the year. Figure 3-5 shows the average and range of weights of yard trimmings in kilograms (kg) diverted per household between the months of February and December, 2010. Table 3-4 lists the corresponding average per household and total amounts of yard trimmings diverted per month. Average Weight (kg) of Yard Trimmings Diverted per Volunteer Household 250 200 Weight (kg) 150 100 50 0 Feb Mar AprMay Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Average Minimum Maximum
Figure 3-5: Organics Diversion: yard trimmings diverted per household by month.
The number of households composting yard trimmings in a given month ranged from 2 to 6 due to the fact some garden sporadically (table 3-4). The total amount of yard trimmings diverted from curbside collection by Study 1 participants was 1441 kg.
I've been adding more carbon in the form of leaves and more dedicated layering. I also add more paper products such as napkins and paper towels. Peter Chappell
Combining the household organic waste total with the yard trimmings total gives a grand total of 3082 kg of organic waste diverted from curbside collection by the volunteer households in Study 1. Feb 63.0 31.5 2 Mar 237.6 59.4 4 Apr 232.5 116.3 2 May 112.9 28.2 4 Jun 169.2 28.2 6 Jul 90.5 22.6 4 Aug 148.6 29.7 5 Sep 105.1 26.3 4 Oct 141.9 47.3 3 Nov 70.5 35.3 2 Dec 69.0 13.8 5
Total diverted (kg) Average (kg)/ household Number of Households
Table 3-4: Organics Diversion: yard trimmings diverted per household by month.
Page 17

All five households testing the Mega Composter (Mega) participated to the end of 2010. They all plan to continue composting but only three will continue using the Mega. One composter was completely trashed at the end of the project and thrown out. The other was infested by rats and falling apart; it will be used for leaf storage in the future once the compost is harvested. Household size ranged from two adults to a family of five with three kids.
Survey Responses
Volunteers were asked to evaluate the Mega Composters capacity, durability, resistance to pests and ease of installation and operation on the post-study survey (Appendix F): Ease of Installation: Rated an average 6 out of 7, where 1 was Not and all and 7 was Very. It was easy to transport, the instructions were clear and it took between 15 and 60 minutes to set up. Lid operation: 4 of 5 volunteers found the lid was easy to operate (the 5th broke). Lower doors: 4 of 5 volunteers had problems with the doors at the bottom of the composter bowing out, popping off and/or breaking. They used a variety of methods to stop this from happening. Capacity: 4 of 5 found the capacity sufficient for the amount of material they wanted to compost. Construction: All five found the plastic thin, weak and flimsy and less durable than the Garden Gourmet. Performance: Two volunteers said the Mega performed better than expected compared to the Garden Gourmet, 1 the same as and 2 worse than expected. Aerating: One volunteer reported difficulty aerating due to the size of the Mega when the volume of material inside approached capacity. Pests: 3 of 5 had a major problem with pests, 1 a minor problem and 1 no problem. In addition to regular aeration and addition of carbon-rich material, a variety of methods were used to deter pests such as providing barriers to prevent the doors from being opened by crafty raccoons (see bottom photo in sidebar), plugging holes to prevent access and using rat traps. L
Four out of five households had problems with the lower doors of the Mega Composter bowing out (below), popping off or breaking.
They used a variety of methods to prevent this from happening and to deter pests from popping off the doors or gaining access.
Page 18

Recommend: 3 of 5 would recommend the Mega Composter to other North Shore residents. Continued use: 3 of 5 are continuing to use the Mega as a composter however 1 will cease using it when theyve built a composter made of wood and mesh. Another who had major rat issues will use it only for leaf storage once the existing compost is harvested.
Waste Diversion
In order to test the capacity of the Mega Composter, all five households weighed and recorded their household organic waste and yard trimmings.

Figure 3-6 shows the average and range of weights of household organic waste in kilograms (kg) diverted per household between the months of February and December, 2010. During that time, the average amount of household organic waste being diverted to the Mega Composter per household was 21 kg per month, with a low point in August and the peak in November due to Halloween pumpkins. Table 3-5 lists the corresponding average per household and total amounts of household organic waste diverted per month.
The 5 Mega Composter households diverted 1805 kg of organic waste from curbside collection between Feb and Dec 2010: Household: 1156 kg Yard Trimmings: 649 kg
Mega Composter: Average Weight (kg) of Household Organic Waste Diverted per Household 60 50 Weight (kg) 40 30 20 10 0 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Average Min Max
Figure 3-6: Mega Composter: household organic waste diverted per household by month (n = 5).
Page 19
Feb Total diverted (kg) Average (kg)/ household 98.6 19.7
Mar 101.5 20.3
Apr 98.9 19.8
May 109.6 21.9
Jun 107.6 21.5
Jul 102.7 20.5
Aug 78.3 15.7
Sep 99.8 20.0
Oct 107.2 21.4
Nov 144.4 28.9
Dec 107.4 21.5
Table 3-5: Mega Composter: household organic waste diverted per household by month (n = 5).
The total amount of household organic waste diverted from curbside collection by the Mega Composter households between February and December was 1156 kg.
Yard Trimmings
The average and range of weights of yard trimmings in kilograms (kg) diverted per household between the months of February and December, 2010 is shown in figure 3-7. Table 3-6 lists the average per household and total amounts of waste diverted per month. Mega Composter: Average Weight (kg) of Yard Trimmings Diverted per Household 250 200 Weight (kg) 150 Average 100 50 0 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Min Max
Figure 3-7: Mega Composter: yard trimmings diverted per household by month (n = 5).
Page 20
Mar 38.1 9.5 4
Apr 33.8 8.5 4
May 74.8 18.7 4
Jun 83.4 16.7 5
Jul 98.2 19.6 5
Aug 58.0 14.5 4
Sep 76.7 25.6 3
Oct 87.8 29.3 3
Nov 71.0 17.8 4
Dec 2.4 2.4 1
Table 3-6: Mega Composter: yard trimmings diverted per household by month (n = 5).
The number of households composting yard trimmings in a given month ranged from 1 to 5 due to the fact some volunteers garden sporadically (table 3-6). The total amount of yard trimmings diverted was 649 kg. Combining the household organic waste total with the yard trimmings total gives a grand total of 1805 kg of organic waste diverted from curbside collection by the volunteer households in Study 2.

Of the eight volunteer households involved in this study, one returned their Green Cone after two months due to pest issues. Raccoons were attracted to the Green Cone and dug deep all around it destroying the residents perennial garden. The Green Cone and materials were returned and given to another household for testing, bringing the total to nine households participating in the study. All other participants used their Green Cones until the end of the study period except when limited by capacity (see below).
Survey Responses
Volunteers were asked to evaluate the Green Cones ease of installation and operation, effectiveness at digesting food scraps, capacity, durability and resistance to pests on the post-study survey (Appendix F).
Installation and Operation

Ease of installation was rated an average of 5.6 out of 7, (1 = Not at all and 7 = Very), with participants responses spanning the entire range. It was easy to transport, the instructions were clear to most volunteers and it took between one-half hour to two days (due to first moving a shrub) to set up but averaged around 3-4 hours. Digging the hole for installation proved to be quite a challenge in some locations and was the most timeconsuming task. The Green Cone lid was easy to operate. There were a few issues with the small size of the hole for adding food scraps resulting in food pouring down the outside. This was due in part to the bar across the top of the Cone if it wasnt removed during installation, as recommended.
Page 21

Food Scrap Digestion
Prior to using the Green Cone, all of our participants composted their raw fruit and vegetable scraps but disposed of their other household food waste in the garbage. Figure 3-8 shows the types of materials that were diverted to the Green Cones during the study. Types of Household Organic Waste Diverted Number of Households (n=9)
10 8 6 4 2 0 Meat and bones Bread and Cooked fruit Raw fruit grains and veg and veg Dairy Egg shells, Household Animal coffee cleanings excrement grounds
Figure 3-8: Types of food waste diverted to the Green Cone.
Capacity
According to the installation manual9, the maximum amount of food scraps recommended for addition to the Green Cone is one full caddy (4 L) every one to two days during summer and one full caddy every two to three days during winter. During the colder months, the Green Cone digestion process did not adequately handle the amount of food waste generated by the participating households. Some volunteers had to reduce the amount of food waste diverted to the Cone, and either used their existing composters for the excess or threw the food scraps in the garbage: One household found the capacity adequate with only one person living in the home. Two households overloaded the Green Cones and undigested food was up to half the height of the cone above ground. The remaining five households who participated to the end of 2010 found the Green Cone wasnt able to digest the amount of material they composted. All five were able to use their composters to handle the excess food scraps. As mentioned previously, the digestion process occurs below-ground; sunlight provides energy and the double walls of the cone trap heat and circulate the air to encourage the growth of bacteria. The volunteers were asked how much sun their Green Cone location received during the summer and winter, when the digestion processes slow down (figure 3-9). For the Green Cone to function at maximum efficiency, the more sun, the better.
Page 22
Amount of Sunlight Available in Summer and Winter

7 Number of Households (n=9) 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Summer Full Sun Summer Partial Sun Summer Mostly Shade Winter Full Winter Sun Partial Sun Winter Mostly Shade
Figure 3-9: Location of Green Cones in sun or shade.
Full winter sunlight is in short supply on the North Shore in the winter months, except in some neighbourhoods that have had most of the tall trees removed.
Issues:
All households experienced problems with the Green Cone, and most households had more than one. The five most frequently occurring problems are shown in the figure 3-10. The biggest problem was due to wildlife digging around the Green Cone; eight out of nine households had this occur and had to do post-installation reinforcement of the area around their Green Cone to deter the critters. One animal that wasnt a problem, however, was the black bear. One volunteer saw a bear wander by their Green Cone and ignore it; no other volunteers reported bear sightings or issues. Also absent as a problem was odour. Number of Households Experiencing Problems with...
9 Number of Households (n=9) 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Wildlife Slow Excavation Degradation Flies Maggots Smell Bears
Figure 3-10: Number of households experiencing problems with the Green Cone
Page 23

One household had so many maggots (fly larvae) inside the Green Cone and on the lid in the summer that they spilled over when the lid was open and the plastic of the cone on the inside was obscured. Only one household had an animal (in this case a rat) penetrate the plastic underground basket. This Green Cone was uninstalled to deal with rat problem but has been reinstalled and reinforced with metal hardware cloth around the buried plastic basket to preclude gnawing rodents.
One example of post-installation reinforcement by a volunteer who used beach rocks to deter digging around their Green Cone by the local skunk.
Recommend?
Four households indicated the Green Cone performed better than expected, three as expected and two worse than expected. Despite this and the pest problems, all nine volunteers would recommend the Green Cone to other North Shore residents. Eight households are continuing to use the Green Cone and one will not continue as the site on their property proved inadequate.
The Green Cone did not work for my garden yet I was extremely impressed with how well it worked. If I had not had the raccoon problem, I would have continued with this program. Randi Sinclair
Waste Diversion
The Green Cone was not able to handle the total amount of household organic waste that the volunteer households produced over the duration of the study with the exception of one household. Not enough sunlight during the winter months and adding too much household organic waste likely contributed to the slow digestion issues for most of the volunteers. Five of the households used a combination of their Backyard Composter and the Green Cone. The amount of organic waste diverted per household is broken down into the following categories: L
The 8 Green Cone households diverted 2059 kg of organic waste from curbside collection between Feb and Dec 2010: Green Cone: 1087 kg Composter: 387 kg Yard Trimmings: 585 kg
Page 24

Household food scraps only (no paper products): o Green Cone o Supplemental composter, and o Combined totals for Green Cone and supplemental Composter Yard trimmings
Household Food Scraps: Green Cone

Figure 3-11 shows the average weight and the range of household food scraps (kg) diverted to the Green Cone per household between the months of February December, 2010. Table 3-7 lists the average per household and total amounts of food scraps diverted per month. Average Weight (kg) of Food Scraps Diverted per Household in Green Cone Only
60 50 Weight (kg) 40 30 20 10 0 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Average Minimum Maximum
Figure 3-11: Food scraps diverted to the Green Cone per household.
Mar 122.3 15.3 8
Apr 104.4 14.9 7
May 104.6 14.9 7
Jun 72.1 10.3 7
Jul 100.7 12.6 8
Aug 107.4 13.4 8
Sep 100.9 12.6 8
Oct 112.9 14.1 8
Nov 100.5 12.6 8
Dec 80.6 11.5 7
Table 3-7: Food scraps diverted to the Green Cone per household.
Page 25

Household Food Scraps: Composter When Used as an Overflow for a Green Cone
Figure 3-12 shows the average weight and the range of food scraps (kg) diverted to a backyard composter to handle the overflow from the Green Cone. Table 3-8 lists the corresponding average per household and total amounts of food scraps diverted per month. Average Weight (kg) of Food Scraps Diverted per Household by Composter when a Green Cone is also in use.
60 50 Weight (kg) 40 30 20 10 0 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Average Minimum Maximum
Figure 3-12: Food scraps being diverted to a supplemental backyard composter per household.
Mar 20.8 6.9 3
Apr 17.0 5.7 3
May 28.1 7.0 4
Jun 35.1 7.0 5
Jul 43.0 8.6 5
Aug 32.4 6.5 5
Sep 44.5 8.9 5
Oct 43.3 8.7 5
Nov 54.3 13.6 4
Dec 55.0 11.0 5
Table 3-8: Food scraps being diverted to a supplemental backyard composter per household.
Page 26

Household Food Scraps: Green Cone and Composter Combined
The total amount of food scraps diverted each month by the Green Cone and the five supplementary backyard composters used for the excess is shown in figure 3-13 and listed in table 3-9. Total Weight (kg) of Food Scraps Diverted per Household
180 160 140 Weight (kg) 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Composter Green Cone
Figure 3-13: Total weight of food scraps diverted with the Green Cones and the composters.
One of the Green Cones was not in use during the months of April through June while a new volunteer household was recruited to replace the one that had to withdraw from the study. Feb Green Cone Composter Total Number of Households 81.1 13.8 94.9 8 Mar 122.3 20.8 143.1 8 Apr 104.4 17.0 121.5 7 May 104.6 28.1 132.7 7 Jun 72.1 35.1 107.1 7 Jul 100.7 43.0 143.7 8 Aug 107.4 32.4 139.9 8 Sep 100.9 44.5 145.4 8 Oct 112.9 43.3 156.1 8 Nov 100.5 54.3 154.8 8 Dec 80.6 55.0 135.6 7
Table 3-9: Amount of food scraps diverted with the Green Cones and backyard composters.
The amount of food scraps diverted from curbside collection by the Green Cone volunteer households in Study 3 was 1087 kg to the Green Cone and 387 kg to a supplemental composter for a grand total of 1474 kg combined.
99% of the food scraps from our kitchen go into the Green Cone digester or our Garden Gourmet compost bin. Karen Todd
Page 27

Yard Trimmings: Composter Only
Five of the Green Cone households weighed and recorded their yard trimmings regularly throughout the year. Figure 3-14 shows the average weight and the range of yard trimmings in kilograms (kg) diverted per household between the months of February and December, 2010. Table 3-10 lists the average per household, total amounts of waste diverted per month and the number of Green Cone households that composted and recorded yard trimmings weights that month. Average Weight (kg) of Yard Trimmings Diverted per Household by Composting
250 200 Weight (kg) 150 100 50 0 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Average Minimum Maximum
Figure 3-14: Yard trimmings diverted by Green Cone households to a backyard composter (n = 5).
Mar 11.0 5.5 2
Apr 24.1 24.1 1
May 263.0 65.8 4
Jun 104.4 26.1 4
Jul 28.9 9.6 3
Aug 44.8 14.9 3
Sep 24.1 8.0 3
Oct 36.5 12.2 3
Nov 31.0 31.0 1
Dec 7.7 3.9 2
Table 3-10: Yard trimmings diverted by Green Cone households to a backyard composter (n = 5).
The number of Green Cone households that composted yard trimmings in a given month ranged from one to four (table 3-10). The total amount of yard trimmings diverted by Study 3 participants was 585 kg.
Page 28
Curbside Set Outs of Garbage and Yard Trimmings

All households were asked to record the amount of garbage and yard trimmings put at the curb each week, estimated in can increments. The average amount per household is shown in Table 3-11. Average Amount per Week Garbage (77 L Can) Yard Trimmings (Bags or Cans) 0.77 1.18
Range Weve always been environmentally 0.0 4.0 0.15 18.50 aware and have tried hard to cut down on our waste. Seeing Jen and Grants presentation on their Clean Bin Project really was a catalyst for our family of 6 to push us to take it to the next level: recycling beyond the blue box at community depots; only buying products with no or recyclable packaging; and maximizing our composting. Composting was the critical step to get us almost to zero waste. If we install a Green Cone for our meats and bones, there will be not much left but fruit stickers! Jennifer Read
Table 3-11: Average amount of garbage and yard trimmings placed at the curb.
One-third of the volunteer households put out less than a can of garbage each week on average while two-thirds put out less than 1 can of garbage per week. Only one third of the households put out more than 1 can per week. At the end of the project on the post-study survey, all households were asked: Over the study did you notice a reduction in the volume of waste you put into your garbage bin? Figure 3-15 shows the percentage of households that did or did not reduce their garbage over the course of the study.
Reduction in the Amount of Waste Put in Garbage Can 60% 50% Percentage 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Yes, Yes, a small significantly amount No 29% 21% 50%
Figure 3-15: Amount volunteer households reduced their garbage over 2010.
Page 29

Seventy-nine percent of households indicated that they had reduced the amount of waste they put in the garbage by the end of the project, with two-thirds of households reducing their curbside garbage set-outs to less than one can per week. Although we did not specifically ask on our post-study surveys, 20% of households mentioned that theyve been able to slash their garbage volumes dramatically. This was done by altering their purchasing habits over the course of the study to reduce waste even more than simply by maximizing their composting diversion.
Summary of Waste Diversion by Composting

Data from all three studies were used to generate an average organics diversion rate per household. The data from Studies 1: Organic Diversion and 2: Mega Composter was combined to show the total amount of household organic waste diverted by composting between February and December 2010. Data from sixteen volunteer households was used (figure 3-16 and table 3-12). As described previously, only some participating households weighed the amount of yard trimmings they put in their composters. The data from ten households from all three studies were used in the diversion calculations: Organic Diversion: three households Mega Composter: four households Green Cone: three households
Total Weight of Organic Waste Diverted per Month

700 600 500 Weight (kg) 400 Yard Trimmings (n = 10) 300 200 100 0 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Household (n = 16)
Figure 3-16: Total household organic waste and yard trimmings actually diverted.
Page 30

Feb Household (n = 16) Yard Trimmings (n = 10) Total 222.4 Mar 244.2 Apr 221.4 May 237.1 Jun 268.5 Jul 274.8 Aug 296.3 Sep 233.4 Oct 221.6 Nov 336.2 Dec 241.3 Totals 2797.3
87.3 309.7
258.6 502.8
286.2 507.7
406.2 643.3
275.3 543.7
200.2 475.0
228.7 525.0
204.4 437.8
266.2 487.8
172.5 508.7
65.5 306.8
2451.0 5248.3
Table 3-12: Total household organic waste and yard trimmings actually diverted.
Average Household Organic Waste Diversion

To estimate the average annual amount of household organic waste diverted by backyard composting, the data collected over the 11 months was extrapolated to 12 months resulting in a diversion rate of 206 kg/hh/year.
Average Yard Trimmings Diversion

Although we began our study with the highest hopes for simple, clean data, the interpretation of yard trimmings data proved to be challenging for several reasons:
The average annual diversion rates, based on 11 months of actual measurements are: HOW: 206 kg/hh/yr Yard Trimmings: 246 kg/hh/yr Combined: 452 kg/hh/yr
the per-month data is highly variable between households; the per-month data is highly variable over the course of the year; and the regularity of data entries varies widely from household to household. We should have expected high variability: there are so many variations in yard size (garden lots vs. patio gardens); gardening techniques (grasscycling, mulching); and styles (major spring or fall clean-ups vs. regular, smaller-scale gardening work). The quantity of material actually composted in a bin (compared to being used directly elsewhere in the yard) is highly dependent on individual households gardening practices. The criteria used to screen data for this important final summary was that a household had to have recorded regular yard trimming data entries for at least seven of the eleven study months. This allowed us to be confident that all yard trimmings were weighed as they were amassed. The average amount of Yard Trimmings diverted by backyard composting is 246 kg/hh/year, assuming no yard trimmings composted in the month of January. If all households data were summarized, including those with less consistent data entries, the average total of yard trimmings decreases to 167 kg/hh/year.
Page 31
Backyard Composting Undervalued Combined Average Organic Waste Diversion

The average annual diversion rates for household organic waste plus yard trimmings, based on the backyard composting data measured for eleven months in this study, totals 452 kg/hh/year.
I really believe that we owe you and your team working on the NSRP Compost Research Project a huge debt of gratitude. You've given us the opportunity to do something so worthwhile not just for our immediate community but beyond it and as far as the positive results of our study can spread. I wouldn't presume to speak for anyone other than my partner Nancy and me, but opportunities like the one we have been lucky enough to be part of over the last year, dealing with reduction and diversion of organic waste, are few and far apart. Your pilot project regarding waste management and composting has been genuinely instructive, supportive, and above all has given us the feeling that we are accomplishing something of real value because of the literally tangible nature of our results. Thank you. Peter Chappell
Page 32
4. Discussion and Research Implications

The results of our data measurements and pre- and post-study surveys suggest some important avenues to explore, ranging from our local North Shore to the broader region. In this section, we will compare our results and describe possible consequences of our findings on the following solid waste themes: Other onsite organics diversion measurement studies Curbside collection implications Diversion rate implications Tipping fees avoided Personalized compost coaching Test results for Garden Gourmet alternatives
Other Onsite Organics Diversion Measurement Studies

Although we are not aware of any backyard organics diversion study as detailed, accurate or long-running as this one, we are not the first West Coast municipal agency to attempt to more accurately quantify the weights of organics diverted from curbside collection due to residential backyard/onsite organics management. Following are two other municipalities in the region that have undertaken to quantify backyard organics diversion by their single-family households, and comparisons to our findings from this study and previous NSRP studies in 2008 and 2009. We also make a brief comparison to an American nation-wide review of backyard composting programs: National Backyard Composting Program (1996)12 Seattle Public Utilities (1998)13 North Shore Recycling Program (2008)5 and (2009)8 Township of Langley (2010)14
National Backyard Composting Program (1996)

In 1995, The Composting Council in Virginia, with funding from the United States Environmental Protection Agency, commissioned a nation-wide survey of home composting programs. Data was obtained from 41 programs in the United States and two in Canada (including the Greater Vancouver Regional District). Four of the study participants were from our bioregion, the coastal rainforest areas of Washington and BC. Of the 43 study participants, 12 provided measured data yielding an average of 770 pounds (350 kg) per year composted at home by participating households (it is unstated which programs provided measured data). Home composting was variously defined, ranging from amounts composted in bins only to a broader definition including grasscycling and other organic source reduction methods. The study concludes that there is a very high probability that the true nationwide average is somewhere between 467 lbs (212 kg)/hh/yr and 825 lbs (375 kg)/hh/yr.
Page 33
Backyard Composting Undervalued Seattle Public Utilities (1998): Yard Trimmings

In a presentation summarizing earlier studies and calculations related to the potential yard trimmings (YT) component of composting12,15, Seattle Public Utilities reported three different estimates for the amount of yard trimmings that could be backyard composted: 562 pounds (255.5 kg) /year/hh (Figure 4-1) (Derivation below)
YT placed at curb + YT dropped at depot (residential & landscapers) + kg/hh/year = x estimates of onsite management _______________ # households
537 - 722 pounds (244 328 kg) /year/hh
70% (weighted average of backyard compostable content of yard trimmings collection streams)
90% (assumed efficiency factor)
self-reported household estimates of number of times yard waste bin filled ___________ year
conversion factor (unstated)
500 pounds (227.3 kg) /year/hh ("non-scientific study of individuals weighing their yard waste") (on Figure 4-1). Seattle used the first calculation of 562 pounds (255 kg) for their estimates of diversion rates that might be achieved if yard trimmings were composted in backyards instead of collected curbside. Metro Vancouver and consequently the North Shore have been basing their estimates of diversion due to backyard composting on this number since 199416, using 250 kg/bin as a standard factor in diversion calculations.
NSRP (2008 and 2009): Household Organic Waste and Yard Trimmings
In 2008, at an earlier stage in our single-family organics research, the North Shore Recycling Program conducted a survey of 950 households that had purchased municipally-subsidized Garden Gourmet compost bins within the previous 10 years4, 5. One of the main objectives of the survey was to generate an initial estimate of the diversion from curbside that can be attributed to backyard composting. In two separate questions, participants were asked to report weekly volume estimates of the organics that they composted from both inside and outside the home. Using food waste and yard trimming density estimates from Michigan7 and Waterloo6, these self-reported volumetric estimates were converted into weekly weights and then extrapolated to an entire year, in a manner similar to Seattles. These are baseline numbers we have been using for our in-house waste diversion calculations since 2008 and which we had wished to calibrate by way of this study:
Page 34

250 kg/hh/year for household organic waste 165 kg/hh/year for yard trimmings 415 kg/hh/year: total organics composted In 2008 and 2009, following on from our 2008 survey, the North Shore Recycling Program conducted a series of pilot programs designed to increase SF organics diversion. Using the same methodology as for the 2008 survey, evaluation of our personalized compost training pilot8 (Compost Coaching) showed that households receiving compost training increased their diversion over the baseline significantly: 370 kg/hh/year for household organic waste 150 kg/hh/year for yard trimmings 520 kg/hh/year: total organics composted
Harvesting Compost
Township of Langley (2010): Food Scraps

In 2010, the Township of Langley undertook a study to develop and pilot test strategies to enhance the municipalitys current backyard composting program, utilizing Community-Based Social Marketing (CBSM) principles and approaches to effectively foster behavioural change.14 Thirty-two of their participating residents weighed and reported the amount of food scraps they put in their backyard composters for a six week period in July and August 2010. The participants did not record the amount of yard trimmings composted. Two strategies were employed; Personal Contact and Non-Contact. The participants who received a personal level of coaching and communication diverted an average of 5.1 kg/week compared to 3.8 kg/week for those in the NonContact strategy. Converting these weekly averages to an annual rate gives: 265 kg/hh/year for the Personal Contact participants; and, 198 kg/hh/year for the Non-Contact participants. During the same time period, the NSRP volunteers from Studies 1 & 2 (Organics Diversion and Mega Composter) diverted an average of 5.04 kg/week, virtually the same as the 5.1 kg/week Langley reported for Personal Contact participants.
Comparisons
The average amount of diverted organic waste actually measured during this 2010 NSRP study was 206 kg/hh/year for household organic waste (food scraps + low quality paper waste) and 246 kg/hh/year for yard trimmings. Figure 4-1 shows a comparison of these results to the latter three studies mentioned above. Our total organics diverted by composting per household per year (452 kg) is 20% higher than the high end of the range and 30% higher than the average calculated in the 1996 National Backyard Composting Program study. In our heavily-treed rainforest ecosystem, the proportion of onsite-compostable organics generated from the yard is likely higher than the American average. The inclusion of gardening techniques that keep organics onsite (e.g., L Page 35

grasscycling and garden mulching) into our measured diversion rate would further increase the gap between their calculations and our results.
Comparison of Annual Household Diversion Averages 600 520 500 Weight (kg/hh/year) 400 300 200 100 0 NSRP 2011 (with training) NSRP 2008 (baseline) NSRP 2009 (with training) Langley Seattle 250 165 150 452 415 370 265 198 255 227
246 206
Yard Trimmings
Combined
Figure 4-1: Average annual diversion rates for household organic waste and yard trimmings.
All three of Seattles calculated potential diversion rates for yard trimmings are very much in line with our actual, measured annual diversion rates for yard trimmings. Despite basing all of their late-90s estimates on calculations, conversion factors, weighted averages and depot tonnages, their estimates were almost the same as our measured backyard composting of yard waste. Our earlier attempt in 2008 followed Seattles lead in making extrapolations based on what little data we had. Quantifying backyard organics diversion using self-reported volumetric estimates, conversion factors and extrapolations was surprisingly close to our actual, weighed measurements for both yard trimmings and household organic wastes. Although we overestimated household organic wastes and underestimated yard trimmings, our estimated total organics diversion was only 37 kg under our actual, measured diversion. Langleys lower, non-contact extrapolation is virtually the same as our actual, measured annual diversion rates for household organic waste. However, when we compare our data for the same six week period as Langleys study, our apparent annual amount diverted from curbside collection calculates to the same as Langleys higher number: 262 kg/hh/year. Other than the week after Halloween, most of our participants reported the highest weights of household organic waste in the months of July and August.
Page 36

Only our study has measured the combined total of organic waste composted from both inside and outside the single-family home, and our measured diversion is almost double the estimate currently used in our Region.
Implications
Comparisons to backyard composting averages for the continental United States likely underestimates the yard trimmings portion of organics composted onsite in our rainforest ecosystem. By using data from only July and August, Langleys annual food scraps diversion estimates may be artificially high. Using similar educated guess and extrapolation methodology, both Seattles and the NSRPs earlier estimates are surprisingly accurate. By using 250 kg/bin/year, Metro Vancouver may be underestimating (by a factor of almost ) the actual diversion from curbside collection due to backyard composting.
Curbside Collection Implications

Although it was not a stated objective of this study, our findings provide insight on changes to the contents and quantities of the materials placed in the curbside collection stream by our study participants. In this section, we explore the implications of results related to: Materials diverted from curbside collection stream Weekly curbside set-out volumes Calibration of earlier estimates Annual quantities kept off the curb
Composting non-recyclable papers and food scraps.
Materials Diverted from Curbside Collection Stream

According to Metro Vancouver 2009 waste audits, 6% of the Regions waste stream (4% on the North Shore1) by weight is comprised of non-recyclable wrappers, paper plates and cups, tissue paper and towelling17. Comparing post-study survey results to our 2008 Composter Follow-up Survey4, 5 baseline shows that the percentage of households composting these low-quality, non-recyclable household papers has dramatically increased over the general composting population baseline (table 4-1).
Page 37

(n = 15) Paper toweling, tissue, paper napkins Paper bags, paper towel or toilet paper roll cores 20084, 5 Baseline 23% 12% 2010 Post-Study 80% 53%
Increase 57% 41%
Table 4-1: Percentage of households composting low-quality papers compared to 2008 baseline.
Although not explicitly quantifiable, we know from our autumn Leaf Exchange, our post-study surveys and conversations that the volunteers: are using more yard trimmings (leaves and grass clippings) as mulch or in large, low-maintenance compost heaps; are adding more leaves as browns in the compost; have altered their buying habits to reduce waste at source; and some are now using private recycling services for materials the NSRP does not collect instead of throwing material in garbage.
Weekly Curbside Set-out Volumes

Our post-study surveys show that 79% of households reported increasing the amount of material they composted and the same percentage reported reducing the amount of waste they put in the garbage (figures 3-3 and 3-15). To determine how the study participants weekly set-outs of garbage and yard trimmings (YT) compare to those of the baseline population, we compare our findings to those of our 2008 Curbside Collection Survey2 in table 4-2. 20082 1.7 1.6 2010 0.77 1.18 Decrease 55% 26%
Garbage (Cans) Yard Trimmings (Cans)
Table 4-2: Average amount of garbage and yard trimmings put out for collection in 2008 and 2010.
The decrease in weekly set-outs between our study volunteers and the baseline population of composting households on the North Shore is significant: half a can of yard trimmings and one full can of garbage.
Calibration of Earlier Estimates

In the absence of accurate, measured data, the NSRP had estimated annual per-household weights for materials composted by households without any compost training4, 5 (250 kg/hh/year of household organic waste and 165 kg of yard trimmings; 415 kg total) and with training8 (370 kg/hh/year of household organic waste and 150 kg/hh/year of yard trimmings; 520 kg total).
Page 38

With the results generated from this study, we can now calibrate our earlier baseline estimate of diversion due to backyard composters (no training) on the North Shore (table 4-3):
Calculated Estimates4,5,8 With Compost Coaching Baseline (No Training) 520 kg 415 kg
Measured 452 kg -
Calibrated 361 kg
Table 4-3: Measured and calibrated per household annual diversion rates due to backyard composting.
The calibrated annual baseline diversion for households without training is 361 kg: 144 kg of yard trimmings and 217 kg of household organic waste. With these two numbers, 361 kg and 452 kg, we now have accurate measures of baseline (no training) and maximum possible (with Compost Coaching) diversion rates of household organics through backyard composting.
Annual Quantities Kept off the Curb

Using our actual, measured per-household results, we are now able to more accurately estimate the waste tonnages entirely diverted from the collection stream due to onsite composting by North Shore single-family homes. Extrapolations of our results to the 2008 composting population of 23,261 households2 are displayed in table 4-4, and represent weights of materials that the municipalities never need to handle or pay to tip at the Transfer Station. A brief extrapolation to the number of truck trips avoided is calculated below. The organic materials managed onsite, had they been placed out for curbside collection, would have been separated into two different waste streams: household organic waste would be placed in the garbage stream, destined for disposal at the Cache Creek landfill or Burnaby incinerator; the yard trimmings would be placed into the Yard Trimmings program, destined for industrial composting at Fraser Richmond Soil and Fibre. Baseline (2008)4, 5 Diverted from Collection for Disposal Collection for Composting Total Organics hh/year 0.217 0.144 0.361 Total/yr 5,048 3,350 8,398 This Study (2010) hh/year 0.206 0.246 0.452 Total/yr 4,792 5,722 10,514
Household Organic Waste (tonnes) Yard Trimmings (tonnes)
Table 4-4: Extrapolated tonnages of waste diverted by SF households that municipalities never handle.
From our studys findings, we extrapolate that the annual materials kept off the curb by single-family households is between 8,398 and 10,514 tonnes due to onsite composting. Our original 2008 estimate of 9,600 tonnes fits neatly into the middle of this range. These numbers only represent backyard composting; our study did not L Page 39

attempt to measure yard trimmings handled onsite using other gardening practices such as mulching or leaving grass clippings on the lawn. Because of these common gardening techniques, the true quantity of organics generated and diverted from collection by SF homes may be even higher. The maximum capacity of trucks hauling materials to the transfer station is ten tonnes, but loads average between six and eight tonnes, depending on the route and material density18. Based on an average of seven tonnes, it would take 1,500 truck trips to transport all of the organics currently diverted by single-family households were they to cease composting and leave materials for the municipality to handle through curbside collection services. Currently, the North Shore municipalities spend $3,500,000 annually on garbage and yard trimmings collection services (not including tipping fees)19, 20, 21, about $1,500,000 of which is for yard trimmings only. The upper estimate of backyard-composted tonnages is approximately equal to the quantity of Yard Trimmings collected from curbside (10,638 tonnes)18 for industrial composting in 2010.
Implications
We can now use the following numbers with confidence: 361 kg/hh/year for untrained households and 452 kg/hh/year for households that receive compost training. Backyard composting precludes North Shore municipalities from handling and tipping up to 10,500 tonnes each year (using 2008 population and survey A swamper is a person who lifts garbage and data). yard trimmings cans and empties them into the collection truck on service day. Backyard composting prevents approximately 1,500 truck trips on the North Shore each year. Backyard composting diverts an amount almost equivalent to the current municipal Yard Trimmings program (which costs $1,500,000 for collection only), but with virtually no costs to the municipalities. A significant increase in backyard composting over current levels would create decreases noticeable both to swampers on collection routes and to managers overseeing collection budgets. Supported backyard composting can: remove low-quality (non-recyclable) household papers from the waste stream; increase the perceived value of yard trimmings as feedstock for healthy compost and gardens; translate into additional waste reduction activities; and reduce curbside set-outs by 25% for yard trimmings and 60% for garbage.
Diversion Rate Implications

By definition, a Diversion Rate is calculated as follows:
Page 40

Although it is a straightforward equation, there are many variations in calculation method based on the data available through measurements and estimates. Because our study results show that actual, measured best-case-scenario per-household annual weight being composted is almost twice as high as the 250 kg number previously assumed, we will explore the possible implications of this finding on two calculated diversion rates: Metro Vancouver (MV) region North Shore Single-Family residences But first, we will address the question of number of composters distributed compared to number of households composting.
Curbside set-out
Composters Distributed Compared to Households Composting

Our 2008 Single-Family Curbside Collection Survey2 found that there are 23,261 households composting on the North Shore, 44% more than the 16,208 municipally-subsidized composters distributed by that same year. Since the 2008 survey and through 2010, the NSRP distributed 903 additional compost bins to total 17,111. If we apply the 44% increase to this more recent number, we derive a more current representation of composting households on the North Shore. Our current estimate of the number of households composting on the North Shore in 2010 is 24,640.
Metro Vancouvers Waste Diversion Rates

The derivation of Metro Vancouvers regional waste diversion rate is a very complex and controversial calculation. Rather than being in the form of a simple equation, its current configuration is housed in numerous, complex spreadsheets. Data to populate the spreadsheets is submitted by or estimated for: municipalities (curbside collection, depot services and backyard composter sales); private waste and recycling processors (commercial, multi-family and construction material collection, processing and disposal); Extended Producer Responsibility participants (take-back tonnages); and MV's transfer stations. Backyard composters are factored into the regional calculation L Page 41 Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) is an environmental policy approach in which a producers responsibility for a product is extended to the post-consumer stage of a products life cycle. EPR shifts the responsibility (physically and economically) upstream to the producer and away from municipalities and tax-payers and provides incentives to producers to take environmental considerations into product design.

as follows: each municipality submits the total number of compost bins distributed to residents and that number is multiplied by 250 kg/bin. The calculated diversion rate is published in Metro Vancouvers annual reports. In 2008, the diversion rate for the entire region was 55% and for the residential sector (which combines single-family and multi-family residences) was estimated at 46%22. It is important to note that Metro Vancouvers reported diversion rates are not intended for performance comparisons between jurisdictions because of variations in calculation method and variability in source data and estimates.16 Between 1991 and 2008 (the year of Metro Vancouvers most recent report on regional diversion rates), the NSRP had distributed 16,208 composters to North Shore residents; this is the number Metro Vancouver used most recently to calculate residential organics diversion rates (for the North Shore) due to composters17.
Metro Vancouver Unit used in calculation Number of Units Diversion per Unit (kg) Estimated diversion (tonnes) Bins distributed by municipality 16,208 250 4,052
NSRP Findings Households composting 23,261 452 10,514
Table 4-5: Differences between Metro Vancouver diversion rate factors compared to NSRP findings (2008 data).
Our study results show that actual, measured per-household annual weight being composted is almost twice as high (452 kg) as the 250 kg number previously assumed. Also, the number of households composting exceeds the number of compost bins distributed by almost one-and-a-half times. The actual diversion due to composters on the North Shore is more than 2.5 times Metro Vancouvers estimate.
North Shore Single-Family Waste Diversion Rate

On the North Shore, the tri-municipal, single-family (SF) diversion rate is estimated as follows (measurement units are tonnes collected curbside or dropped off at the transfer station in the Residential Drop-off (RDO) category). Backyard composters are not currently factored into the equation:
The most recent solid waste statistics available are from 201023, with the exception of the RDO data which is collected by Metro Vancouver; the most recent RDO data made available to us is from 2008. Yard Trimmings: 10,638 tonnes Yard Trimmings RDO: 6,558 tonnes Garbage: 19,409 tonnes Recycling: 11,369 tonnes
Page 42

Weight per unit Not including composting Using MV Estimates Using NSRP Study Findings n/a 250 kg/bin 452 kg/hh Number of Units n/a 16,208 bins 23,261 households Kept off curb (tonnes) 0 4,052 10,513 Calculated Diversion Rate 59.5% 62.7% 66.8%
Table 4-6: Variations in North Shore diversion rate calculations (2010 and 2008 data).
When backyard composters are factored into the equation along with the number of households that compost, the North Shores single-family calculated waste diversion rate increases from the currently-used 59.5% to 66.8%. If we repeat these calculations using our updated estimate of composting households on the North Shore in 2010 (24,640), the diversion rate using our study findings increases to 67.2%.
Implications
Using the total number of compost bins distributed as a proxy for number of households composting underestimates the true number on the North Shore and perhaps for other municipalities as well; adding 44% to the number of bins distributed approximates the number of households composting. The 250 kg/bin/year estimate (derived by Seattle for yard trimmings) doesnt take into account household organic waste diversion and underestimates the total quantities diverted by backyard composting households by almost half. The actual diversion due to composters on the North Shore is 2.5 times greater Metro Vancouvers estimate. The Regional diversion rate for the residential sector may be higher than currently estimated. The North Shores single-family diversion rate is higher than we have been reporting to municipal staff.
Tipping Fees Avoided

The cost to municipal solid waste utilities for curbside collection services, whether contracted-out or handled by municipal staff, is not limited to the costs of drivers and swampers and fuelling and maintaining a fleet of heavy trucks as mentioned above in the Curbside Collection Implications section. Fully two-thirds of the garbage and yard-trimmings collection service costs on the North Shore are in the form of tipping fees. These fees are the charges levied to a municipality for dropping off collected materials whether for disposal or composting at regional transfer stations operated by Metro Vancouver. Each curbside collection stream taken to the transfer station has a different tipping fee set by Metro Vancouver: in 2010 (2011), yard trimmings cost $59 ($63)/tonne and garbage cost $82 ($97)/tonne. All of these costs are offset by the monies collected through the Solid Waste Utility levy assessed on residential properties. Residential drop-off (RDO) costs are paid by the resident at the time of tipping. Because our findings show that the average annual per-household diversion rate due to backyard composting is, in the best case scenario, significantly higher than current estimates, we will evaluate various implications of these findings as they relate to tipping fee costs: Fees saved by study L Page 43

Fees avoided per average composting household Total annual tipping fee savings on the North Shore Cumulative tipping fee savings
Fees Saved by Study

Over the course of the project in 2010, the 25 volunteer households diverted a total of 7,280 kg of organic waste from curbside pickup. Table 4-7 lists the amount of money saved by their management of organic wastes at the source. 2010 Tipping Fees ($/tonne) Household Organic Waste Yard Trimmings $ 82.00 $ 59.00 Grand Total Total Weight (tonnes) 4.481 2.799 7.280 Total $ Saved $ 367.45 $ 165.12 $ 532.57
Table 4-7: Actual tipping fees avoided by the volunteer households in 2010.
A total of $532.57 was saved in 2010 due to the volunteer efforts of the 25 participating households.
Fees Avoided per Average Composting Household

The tipping fees for 2011 are shown in table 4-8 along with the average, measured weights diverted by our study participants.
Garbage Yard Trimmings Feb - Dec
2011 Tipping Fees ($/tonne) $ 97.00 $ 63.00
Total Weight (tonnes) 0.2057 0.2459 Total Saved
Average/hh/year $19.95 $ 15.49 $ 35.44
Table 4-8: Average tipping fees that will be avoided in 2011 by households with compost training.
The average tipping fees saved per household managing organics onsite will be $35.44/household in 2011. As tipping fees in Metro Vancouver increase over time, so too will the fees avoided by the municipality.
Page 44
Backyard Composting Undervalued Total Tipping Fees Avoided on the North Shore
Our calculation of tipping fees avoided in the 2011 fiscal year, based on number of households composting in 2008 (23,261)2, is summarized in table 4-9.
Garbage Yard Trimmings Feb - Dec
2011 Tipping Fees ($/tonne) $ 97.00 $ 63.00
# Households Composting2 23,261 23,261
Average kg/hh/year 206 246 Total
Fees Avoided $ 464,801 $ 360,499 $ 825,300
Table 4-9: Tipping fees avoided by North Shore municipalities due to onsite composting in 2011.
In 2011, the municipal residential tipping fees avoided due to backyard composting will be $825,300, even before considering new households starting to compost since 2008 numbers were gathered. We have suggested above that the number of households composting on the North Shore exceeds the number of composters distributed by 44%. If we use our more current estimate of composting households on the North Shore (24,640), the total tipping fee savings for 2011 increases to $874,227. Since 2005, the NSRP has distributed an average of 476 composters per year24, equivalent to 685 composting households using the 44% extrapolation. At this rate, the annual tipping fee savings due to backyard composting increases by $24,300 each year, even before taking into consideration any future tipping fee increases. For single-family curbside-collected materials, the three North Shore municipalities spent $1,500,000 on garbage tipping fees and over $600,000 for yard trimmings tipping fees in 2010. The tipping fees avoided by the municipalities due to backyard composting exceed the total tipping fees paid for the curbside yard trimmings collection program.
Cumulative Tipping Fee Savings

It is important to note that tipping fees avoided by the municipalities is cumulative. Following any initial investment in composting equipment subsidies and staff time for composter sales, residents will continue to divert waste and save the municipality collection costs and tipping fees so long as they continue their onsite composting activities. There is no ongoing or annual cost to continue this benefit and there is a composting dropout rate of only 10% over a ten year period4. At the present time, the NSRP subsidizes compost bins by $6.44 and sells aerating tools at cost. Due to staff shortages, we are not offering any Compost Coaching services to anyone other than door prize draw winners or donation recipients. Other than the depot staff handling bin sales, no staff time is being directed to supporting diversion through backyard composting. The annual financial resources going toward supporting backyard composting in 2011 are in the range of $3,200. L Page 45

Over the last five years on the North Shore, we have invested approximately $16,100 in bin subsidies and backyard composting has resulted in avoided tipping fees (only) of approximately $3,500,000.
Implications
We can now estimate the tipping fee savings experienced by a municipality for each composting household at approximately $35/year (2011 rates). Annual tipping fees avoided due to backyard composters are much larger than they are being credited; $874.227 in 2011 (over one-third of the municipalities tipping fee costs) and increasing as more households start composting and tipping fees increase. Without training or support, initial investment is very low and ongoing costs are close to nil for status quo diversion due to backyard composting. Cumulative tipping fee savings due to backyard composters, over only five years, double the annual cost of all North Shore SF curbside collection tipping fees and are on the same order of magnitude as major budget expenditures and capital costs for solid waste handling.
Personalized Compost Coaching

Evaluating the effects of Compost Coaching (personalized, onsite compost training for households) was not the objective of this study; a pilot program and thorough evaluation were conducted in 2008/09 to directly test this approach to single-family organic waste diversion8. However, we will summarize below some of the implications of Compost Coaching combined with the personal support and joint learning events offered throughout the study that became apparent in our evaluation. Direct, quantitative participant feedback on Compost Coaching was very positive: all study participants rated their Compost Coaching experience between neutral (4) and very useful (7); and 100% of participants recommend Compost Coaching to others, particularly households new to composting. Qualitative anecdotal feedback on site visits and training, telephone and email check-ins, e-newsletters, the online community, group events and tours was extremely positive. The importance of these regular points of contact to volunteers success was reiterated by volunteers and evident in their actions, e.g., despite intense pest issues, all but one Green Cone participant stuck with the system for the duration of the study and plan to continue its use. Compared to pre-study surveys, post-study responses showed positive results that may be attributed to Compost Coaching and readily-available support throughout the year: number of participants with high to very high confidence levels increased; quantities composted and quality of compost are higher; odour and pest problems were reduced (except for Green Cone participants); and greater variety of materials were diverted from the garbage stream to onsite management. Anecdotally, many households also increased their enthusiasm for finding additional waste reduction methods, implemented shopping and recycling behaviours that resulted in dramatic reduction of garbage placed curbside; and became waste reduction champions within their social circles, supporting and exemplifying waste reduction behaviours.
Implications:
Personalized Compost Coaching and support increases residential waste reduction not only through composting but also through consumer behaviour changes. L Page 46

Compared to its low cost of delivery, personalized training services provide immeasurable social and environmental value beyond the direct tipping fee savings and decreased curbside collection requirements.
Implications of Test Results for Garden Gourmet Alternatives

The NSRP currently subsidizes the Garden Gourmet (GG) compost bin for North Shore residents. Two of the three objectives of this study were to assess the suitability of two alternatives to the GG that may address some of the capacity and ease-of-use concerns that were raised during our 2008 Backyard Composter Follow-up Survey4, 5: Mega Composter Green Cone
Mega Composter
Five Mega Composters were tested to see if a considerably larger bin with a spring-operated lid and four lower access doors would address capacity, lid and access hatch concerns. Feedback related to the initial phases of the testing was positive: the bin was easy to transport in its sales packaging; assembly of the unit was straightforward; and the flip-top, spring-operated lid (which could easily be operated with one hand) was much appreciated. However, feedback related to the longer-term usage of the bin was generally negative: the lower access doors were too small and did not stay closed on their own; the bin did not maintain structural integrity after months of usage; aeration of a taller bin was more difficult; and the bin was abnormally susceptible to pests despite proactive management and reactive solutions. Overall, the bin rated neutral compared to the GG; three of five families would recommend it and only two of five will continue to use it.
Green Cone
Eight Green Cones (GC) were tested by nine households to assess if this in-ground digester might be a viable alternative for households that wish to manage food scraps onsite without having to aerate or add high-carbon materials. Feedback on all stages of testing was very mixed: although transportation of the GC was easy, finding suitable sites and installation was very challenging; the top lid was rated highly, but the opening was considered too small by some; variety of materials diverted surpassed composting, but the GC could not handle the total volume of a households food scraps; ease of use rated highly and there were no odour or bear issues, but there were surprising lessons in biology (maggots, flies) that tested volunteers commitment to the digester. All but one household dealt with regular and frustrating excavation of the GCs basket by small wildlife and all households reported at least one problem with the system. Overall, however, participants testing the GC rated its overall performance as neutral to high compared to expectations, and despite apparent challenges, seven of nine households will continue to use the Green Cone and 100% would recommend it to others.
Page 47
Backyard Composting Undervalued Implications:

Small, moving parts on compost bins are delicate and do not stand the test of time and usage. A larger bin is not the best way to handle residents desire for greater capacity. The Green Cone is not well-suited to the North Shore, but there may be selected circumstances where it could serve as either a primary or secondary onsite organic diversion system that is safe in bear country.
Page 48
5. Conclusions and Recommendations

Backyard composting is undervalued; it is far more important than we thought. Each year in North and West Vancouver, between 8,398 and 10,514 tonnes of single-family organic waste is generated by never placed curbside for municipal collection and disposal. This rivals the curbside Yard Trimmings collection service in diversion tonnages (10,638 tonnes), but minus all the associated municipal costs (~$2,100,000) and environmental implications of an industrialized collection and composting system. Without backyard composting, North Shore municipalities would require an additional 1,500 truck trips to the transfer station, for which they would be charged $874,227 in tipping fees each year. While the municipalities put almost $6,000,000 into annual collection services and tipping fees, there is currently no staff, budget or activated program specifically dedicated to recruiting and supporting households that keep organic waste off the curb through backyard composting and tangential waste reduction behaviours (other than ~$3,200 in compost bin subsidies). It is not surprising that North Shore municipal governments are spending millions on collection services and very little for onsite solutions not knowing the current diversion, related cost savings and diversion potential of backyard composting. Now, with measured data revealing the substantial tonnages diverted from curbside collection, the seven figure magnitude of costs avoided and the derivative social and environmental benefits, a pairing of composter sales operations and meaningful support for households choosing to compost would be prudent. The incredible potential of a marriage between compost bin sales operations and targeted, personalized outreach is a topic for other reports and calculations25, 26, but the following study conclusions and overall recommendations are a direct result of our research findings within this report. Based on the research data, survey results, calculations and discussion, the following conclusions are made with respect to our three studies original stated objectives.
Conclusions
This research project initially set out to weigh organics composted per household and to test alternatives to the Garden Gourmet compost bin. Three concurrent studies were coordinated to achieve these goals, each with their own specific set of primary objectives. Here are the conclusions we draw for those specific objectives:

The measured average weight of organics diverted from curbside collection is 452 kg/hh/year for households that have received Compost Coaching. The calibrated annual estimate of organics diverted from curbside collection is 361 kg/hh/year for baseline households that have not received any training. L
Organic Waste Diversion Objectives: refine the per-household annual estimates calculated from the January 2008 Composter Follow-up Survey4,5 more accurately estimate overall diversion rates through backyard composting on the North Shore.
Page 49

On the North Shore, between 8,398 and 10,514 tonnes of single-family organic waste is generated but never placed curbside for municipal collection and disposal, saving municipal utilities $874,227 per year and almost $3.5 million in the past 5 years in tipping fees alone. The North Shore Single-Family diversion rate, when including backyard composting, is 67.2%.

The Mega Composter is not durable enough to handle large volumes of household and yard waste materials. Although easy to install and operate initially, the Mega Composter presented operational challenges and persistent pest problems.
Mega Composter Objectives: determine if the Mega is durable enough to handle a large volume of material (kitchen waste, low-quality household paper products, and yard waste); and assess ease of installation, operation and resistance to pests.

Although durable, the Green Cone is not large Green Cone Objectives: enough to handle typical household food waste determine if the GC is durable and large volumes. enough to handle typical household food When not loaded beyond its stated capacity, the waste volumes; determine how effective the GC is for all Green Cone is very effective for digesting all types of types of food scraps; food scraps when sited in a well-drained, sunny spot. assess ease of installation, operation and Installation was a considerable, but one-time hurdle resistance to pests; and that places a significant barrier to success; operation determine if the GC is suitable for use on the North Shore as a viable alternative or of the Green Cone couldnt be simpler when capacity companion to the Garden Gourmet. instructions are followed; although not an attractant to black bears, the Green Cone was beset by pest and excavation issues. The Green Cone is only somewhat suitable for use on the North Shore and then only in very specific circumstances (right site, right household attitude, lots of available support) and would best be used as a component in an onsite organics management system that includes backyard composting.
Page 50
Recommendations
Following on from the study results, analyses and conclusions, we make the following recommendations:
Mega Composter:
Abandon the Mega Composters as a viable option for North Shore residents. Handle capacity concerns by emphasizing the benefits of a multi-bin system.
Green Cone:
Do not offer Green Cones as a standard alternative to the Garden Gourmet. Make Green Cones available at a minimally-subsidized rate to qualified North Shore residents but only with the following pre-requisites established: o repeat support opportunities are available through Compost Coaching or similar personalized training and troubleshooting program; o household has adequate sunshine, drainage and time for installation (create checklist); o household already composts, using the Green Cone as a component of a more comprehensive organics management system; o household is aware and accepting of expected pest challenges (create info sheet); or o household intends to manage pet waste only. Consider an at-cost installation service to overcome this barrier for otherwise qualified households.
Compost Coaching:
For prize draw or donations, provide compost bins only with mandatory training and an aerating tool. Introduce Compost Coaching or similar personalized training and troubleshooting service as a core support component for all composter sales. Completely integrate composter sale operations with community outreach functions. Create multiple access points (phone, email, online, in-person) for residents to learn of and book Coaching appointments whether for new bin purchases or troubleshooting existing bins. Build on the strong relationships built with residents involved in this study and past composting pilot programs to champion, support and possibly staff this new program. Position program proposal to municipalities as a cost-saving measure with minimal investment (no capital, low personnel and start-up expenditures), significant carbon-footprint reductions and very substantial short- and long-term seven figure savings to municipal utilities.
Curbside Collection and Tipping Fees

Recognize annual costs avoided due to composting as a line item in budget summaries and planning documents to municipal staff. Commission a focused study on the carbon emissions avoided by current onsite composting and the potential for further reductions as households shift from curbside collection to onsite management.
Page 51

Increase support for onsite composting, the lowest-cost municipal waste diversion tool in the suite of collection programs which has diversion and cost-saving results disproportionate to its minimal investment. Allocate staff and resources to significantly increase the number of composting households, recognizing that the scale of diversion through onsite composting is on par with curbside Yard Trimmings collection and that the scale of incremental cost savings will be in the six figure range annually.
Diversion Rates
Include backyard composting in the annual North Shore Single-Family diversion rate calculation, using a per-household rate between 361 kg and 452 kg. On an annual or bi-annual basis, collect statistically-significant data on the number of households composting and usage of composting best practices. We respectfully suggest that Metro Vancouver consider the following recommendations: Request that municipalities submit number of households using compost bins derived from statistically significant surveys, instead of using total number of bins distributed. Capitalize on the advantage of scale to conduct more economical statistically-significant surveys determining the number of households composting by municipality and for the overall Region. Revise the 250 kg per bin factor upwards to between 361 kg and 452 kg per household.
Information Sharing
Present report findings to municipal solid waste staff and councils. Share study results with Pacific Northwest municipalities and North American solid waste associations and publications.
Page 52
6. Acknowledgments
We would like to acknowledge our wonderful volunteers. Their contribution is invaluable we could not have done this project without them. Thank you to all of you and your families for committing to this project for a whole year: Kathryn Allison Nick Bartley Lawrence Carota Jim Cathcart Peter Chappell Lesley Childs Lesley Daniel Mary Delaney Dan Frketich Bill Hall Chris Lofting Robyn Palliardi Jennifer Read Julie Rudd George Rushworth Randi Sinclair Melanie Solheim John Speers Judy Stott Karen Todd Ruth Tschannen Karen Vail Heather Van Halteren Rosalie Vlaar Locinne Wallace
We would also like to thank: Jeff Malmgren of Durable Solutions Inc. for providing Green Cones at a reduced cost. Jenny Rustemeyer and Grant Baldwin of the Clean Bin Project for their inspiring presentation to the volunteers. Tricia Edgar and the staff at the Lynn Canyon Ecology Center for generously letting us use the Center for our volunteer appreciation event. Steve Aujla of Fraser Richmond Soil & Fibre Ltd. for his informative tour of their industrial composting facility. Ruth Tschannen and everyone at the Cascadia Society for hosting our end-of-summer garden party lunch and providing tours of their intensive backyard composting systems. District of West Vancouver for donating a rain barrel for a prize draw. Mike Stringer (Metro Vancouver), Brian Meslo (District of North Vancouver), Richard Charlton (City of North Vancouver) and Jennifer Bagby (Seattle Public Utilities) for providing valuable information through personal communication.
Page 53
7. Works Cited
North Shore Recycling Program (2009). NS Waste Composition Study [spreadsheet].
Points of View Research (2008). 2008 Curbside Collection Survey: North Shore Residents in Single Detached Homes, a Survey Research Report prepared for North Shore Recycling Program, District of North Vancouver, City of North Vancouver, and District of West Vancouver.
3
2009 Curbside Collection Contracts and Municipal Tax Records.
Maxwell, S. (2008). Composter Follow-up Report: A Summary of Interviews Conducted in January & February 2008 on use of Composters Sold through the North Shore Recycling Program Between 1998 and 2007.
5
North Shore Recycling Program (2008). Results Analysis and Implications for Community Programs: Supplement to Composter Follow-up Report, 2008.
6
Regional Municipality of Waterloo. (2000). Backyard Composter Utilization Study. Michigan Recycling Coalition (date unknown). [Yard trimmings and food waste densities].
North Shore Recycling Program (2009). Increasing Diversion through Backyard Composting: Coaching Residents New to Composting (A Single-Family Organics Reduction Pilot Program).
9
Green Cone Limited. All about your Green Cone: A Unique Food Waste Digester System NOT a Garden Composter. Instruction Manual.
10
North Shore Recycling Program (2008). Composting in Bear Country Guidelines for the North Shore: Summarized from the final version of Composting in Bear Country Workshop Outline (dated November 6, 2008), a document jointly created by the North Shore Black Bear Society, Bear Aware and the North Shore Recycling Program.
11
www.cleanbinproject.com or www.cleanbinmovie.com.
12
Applied Compost Consulting for the Composting Council (1996). National Backyard Composting Program: Costbenefit analysis of home composting programs in the United States.
13
Seattle Public Utilities (1998) Measuring Backyard Composting.
Page 54
14
Lura Consulting (2010). Township of Langley Backyard Composting Community-Based Social Marketing Study. Township of Langley.
15
Jennifer Bagby, personal communications, December 2007, January and June 2008 and April 2011. [RE: Seattle diversion estimate calculations].
16
Mike Stringer, Metro Vancouver, personal communications, March 11 and 14, 2011. [RE: MV diversion rate calculations].
17
Technology Resource Inc. (2010). Metro Vancouver Solid Waste Composition Study 2009.
18
Colette Scott-Sibley, North Shore Recycling Program, personal communication, May 2011. [RE: average tonnages contained in trucks unloading at transfer station].
19
Brian Meslo, District of North Vancouver, personal communication, May 2011. [RE: 2010 garbage and yard trimmings fleet and salary costs].
20
Richard Charlton, City of North Vancouver, personal communication, May 2011. [RE: 2011 garbage and yard trimmings collection costs].
21
Allen Lynch, North Shore Recycling Program, personal communication May 2011. [RE: 2010 garbage and yard trimmings collection contract costs for District of West Vancouver].
22
Metro Vancouver, Recycling and Solid Waste Management 2008 Report (2008). North Shore Recycling Program (2010). Annual Report. North Shore Recycling Program (2010): Composter Sales [spreadsheet].
23
24
25
North Shore Recycling Program (2009): Outreach Alternatives to Curbside Organics Collection for the North Shore: Ten Scenarios with Related Cost and Time Estimates.
26
North Shore Recycling Program (2010). Cost and Diversion Estimates [Spreadsheet: Return on investment calculations for sales-integrated Compost Coaching program].
Page 55

NSRP Backyard Composting Undervalued - Full Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

NSRP Backyard Composting Undervalued - Full Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

148 East 2nd Street North Vancouver, BC V7L 1C3 Canada p: 604-984-9730 f: 604-984-3563 northshorerecycling.

North Shore Recycling Program May, 2011

Backyard Composting Undervalued

2011, North Shore Recycling Program. All Rights Reserved.

Backyard Composting Undervalued

Study Context and Methods

Suitability of Alternative Composter and Digester

Organic Waste Diversion Measurements

Backyard Composting Undervalued

Measured (with training) 452 kg

Calibrated Baseline (no training) 361 kg

Curbside Collection Implications

Diversion Rate Implications

Backyard Composting Undervalued Tipping Fees Avoided

Personalized Compost Coaching

Backyard Composting Undervalued

Backyard Composting Undervalued Table of Figures

Backyard Composting Undervalued

Backyard Composting Undervalued

A Need for Research and Testing

Backyard Composting Undervalued

Test Alternatives to the Garden Gourmet

Backyard Composting Undervalued Study 1: Organic Waste Diversion

Study 2: Suitability of the Mega Composter

Backyard Composting Undervalued

2. Methods and Materials

31-Dec-10 Data Recording Ends

Jan-10 - Dec-10 Data Recording

Apr 11 May 2011

Figure 2-1: Project timeline.

Backyard Composting Undervalued

Study Organic Waste Diversion Mega Composter Green Cone

Table 2-1: Number of Volunteer Households per Study.

Set-up and Training

Project Start-up Training Session

Backyard Composting Undervalued

Study 3: Green Cone

Household Organic Waste Yard Trimmings

*In supplementary compost bin only

Backyard Composting Undervalued

Study 1: Organic Waste Diversion

Study 2: Mega Composter

Table 2-3: Comparison of the Garden Gourmet and Mega Composters.

Backyard Composting Undervalued

Study 3: Green Cone Food Waste Digester

Backyard Composting Undervalued

Cascadia Society Garden Tour.

Backyard Composting Undervalued

3. Data and Survey Results

Confidence Level in Composting Ability

Backyard Composting Undervalued

Confidence in Composting Ability Before Study

Confidence in Composting Ability After Study

Pre-Study 100% 13% 25% 19% 56% 44% 44%

Post-Study 100% 38% 94% 31% 75% 50% 63%

Backyard Composting Undervalued

Perceived Change in Volumes Composted

Backyard Composting Undervalued

Quantity of Organic Materials Diverted from Curbside Collection has...

Figure 3-3: Volunteers ratings of Compost Coaching sessions.

Backyard Composting Undervalued

Study 1: Organic Waste Diversion

Backyard Composting Undervalued