Townsville City Council case study
| Queensland Government funding provided | $242,000 |
|---|---|
| Trial suburbs |
Heatley and Vincent (GO)
Idalia and Burdell (FOGO) |
| Number of households involved | 1,457 |
| Waste services provided |
FOGO trial:
GO trial:
|
| FOGO items provided |
Kerbside organics bin (240L) to GO suburbs and Burdell
Vented kerbside organics bin (240L) to Idalia 8L kitchen caddy 150 certified compostable liners |
| Total organic waste collected | 463 tonnes |
| Presentation rate of FOGO bins | 65% FOGO and 54% GO |
| Recovery rates | 83.6% total organic waste 54.7% FO 95.4% GO |
| Compost produced | 360 tonnes |
| Contamination | The average FOGO contamination rate was 3.2% (range from 0.65% to 5.5%) The average GO contamination was 0.3% |
About the trial
Townsville City Council (Council) undertook a kerbside organics collection trial across four suburbs, trialling food organics and garden organics (FOGO) in Idalia and Burdell and garden organics (GO) in Heatley and Vincent. Accepted FOGO items included an extensive list of food and other organics such as cardboard and paper. Accepted GO items included garden waste and grass clippings. The waste collection service was delivered in-house by council’s waste collection staff.
FOGO was collected from both suburbs weekly, and the general waste collection service was reduced to fortnightly. The two FOGO trials were identical except the Idalia households were given a vented 240L FOGO bin and Burdell residents were given a non-vented 240L FOGO bin.
GO was collected fortnightly, with no changes to the weekly general waste service.
Council utilised two local processors to process GO and FOGO organic waste. FOGO materials were composted using an open windrow systems and GO materials were composted using Covered Inoculated Static Pile. The materials collected through the trial were mixed with other organic materials accepted by the organics processor/s and the finished product was used by Council on their parks and gardens.
Trial evaluation
Results and learnings from the trial included:
- The post-trial attitudinal survey showed that 73% of trial households supported the service.
- Results from Idalia demonstrated that a vented FOGO bin (collected weekly), did not provide any more moisture evaporation or odour reduction than the non-vented bin. A clearer benefit from the use of vented bins may be apparent if collected fortnightly or monthly.
- Reducing the general waste bin collection frequency to fortnightly increased FOGO recovery, however also increased contamination rates.
- Reducing the general waste bin collection frequency to fortnightly in a tropical climate was identified as an issue by some trial households.
- The certified compostable liners initially provided by Council were supported by participants. However, when supplies were exhausted, householders identified substantial challenges in identifying liners to purchase that met the Australian standard.
- Clear audit standards would provide additional guidance for Councils in undertaking data collection activities and would generate more consistent and comparable data across organics collection locations and periods.
- Council would have benefited from a contact database to enable direct-to-household communications.
Challenges relating to the trial included:
- 2% of trial households were considered problematic in relation to contamination:
- common contaminants included nappies and food packaging – processors relied heavily on manual picking to decontaminate organic materials
- contamination may have been reduced by excluding cardboard and paper from the FOGO service and including only food and garden waste
- the lower GO contamination rate (as compared to FOGO) was likely due to the greater simplicity in messaging and behaviour change, and because the frequency of general waste collection in GO suburbs did not change
- targeted communications and waste management solutions were required for specific areas of high contamination
- disposal of contaminants from the processor’s facility created additional costs for Council
- councils identified the need to consider changes to local laws to improve compliance options and address wilful contamination.
- A number of activities relating to the trial presented challenges to Council in relation to staffing, including:
- effective design and delivery of the communication and behaviour change products required significant council resources
- the cost of completing waste compositional audits and attitudinal surveys was challenging (noting that Queensland Government funding was contributed towards the cost of waste compositional audits).
Communication and education
Communication methods and resources used during the trial included:
- invitation letter
- ‘start up pack’ with caddy, liners and resources
- flyers and bin tags
- social media and events.
A community survey was also completed that measured attitudes towards the new service for both FOGO and GO participants.
- The participating households generally accepted the trials and the majority believed that the introduction of a FOGO or GO service was the “right thing to do” to divert organics from landfill. However, some indicated that they would not be willing to pay extra for the service.
- Council also received feedback on the challenges that a fortnightly FOGO bin can present to large families (particularly those with more than one child in nappies) or households generating large volumes of medical waste.