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

Page ii

© 2011, North Shore Recycling Program. All Rights Reserved.


Page iii

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 single-

family 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. Study 1: Organic Waste Diversion

2. Study 2: Suitability of the Mega Composter

3. 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 multi-

bin 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 iv

Measured (with training)

Calibrated Baseline (no training)

Total Organics 452 kg 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 “non-

contact” extrapolation in the Township of Langley’s 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 Seattle’s 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.

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 Shore’s diversion rate is 67.2%: our single-family

diversion rate is higher than we’ve 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 MV’s estimate; the regional residential sector diversion rate may be higher than

currently estimated.

Sophia (left) holds one week’s accumulation of

the family’s garbage while Melanie (middle) and

Ariadne (right) hold their household

compostables from the same week!


Page v

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 Shore’s

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

With training, households compost almost 100 kg more each

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.

We only made 2.5 kilograms of garbage in the

last 2 months and almost 50 kg of compost!

Melanie Solheim


Page vi

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. Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................................... 53

7. Works Cited .................................................................................................................................. 54


Page vii

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 viii

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


L Page 1

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.

Following on from four years of research, surveys, pilot programs and evaluations focused on the topic of single-

family organic waste, the NSRP has come to believe that Metro Vancouver’s 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

Composting in Action!


L Page 2

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.

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. Study 1: Organic Waste Diversion

2. Study 2: Suitability of the Mega Composter

3. 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.

The NSRP subsidizes “Garden

Gourmet” composters like the ones

below to residents of the North

Shore.


L Page 3

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.


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.


L Page 4

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 carbon-

rich 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 high-

carbon “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.


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.


L Page 5

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.

October 2009 May 2011

Jan 10 Apr 10 Jul 10 Oct 10 Jan 11 Apr 11

30-Oct-09

Recruitment

Letter

MailedNov - Dec

Volunteer

Selection

Jan-10 - Dec-10

Data Recording

Jan - Feb

Set-up

and

Training

Jan - Feb

Wrap-up

Visits

31-Dec-10

Data

Recording

Ends

3-Feb-11

Wrap-up Party

Feb - May

Data Analysis

and Reporting

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.


L Page 6

Study Number of Volunteer

Households

Organic Waste Diversion 11

Mega Composter 5

Green Cone 9

Total 25 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 pre-

study 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

Volunteers were provided with a

collection container, a scale and a

book with instructions and data

recording forms.

A separate container and scale were

provided for yard trimmings.


L Page 7

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.

Materials included

Study 1:

Organic

Waste

Diversion

Study 2:

Mega

Composter

Study 3:

Green Cone

Food Scraps All food scraps, cooked or raw, including fruits,

vegetables, meats, fats, grains, dairy and bones No No Yes

Household

Organic

Waste

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)

Yes Yes No

Yard

Trimmings

Grass clippings, soft and woody plant prunings,

weeds, fallen leaves Yes Yes

Yes*

*In supplementary

compost bin only 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

North Shore Black Bear Society. A NSRP staff

member with composting experience visited each

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.

A Green Cone study volunteer and NSRP

staff member discuss the best place to

locate the Green Cone

during a personalized at-home

Compost Coaching session.


L Page 8

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.


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 Mega Composter

Volume 11 cubic feet 23 cubic feet

Dimensions 2' W x 2' D x 3'3" H 2'10" W x 2'10" D x 3'6" H

Price $45.00 (subsidized) $70.00

Manufacturer Scepter 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.


L Page 9

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.

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.

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.


L Page 10

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).

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 all-

ages wrap-up party in February 2011 attended by 47

members of the volunteer households.

Jenny and Grant talking garbage

(or lack thereof).

The volunteers in front of

a finished compost pile at

Fraser Richmond Soil & Fibre.

Cascadia Society Garden Tour.


L Page 11

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 didn’t 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)




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.

The 25 volunteer households

diverted a grand total of

7280 kg of organic waste from

curbside collection.


L Page 12

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) Pre-Study Post-Study

Fruits and vegetables 100% 100%

Dairy, meat, grains, fats 13% 38%

Egg shells, coffee grounds, tea bags 25% 94%

Household cleanings (floor sweepings, lint) 19% 31%

Paper towels, tissue, paper napkins 56% 75%

Paper bags, paper towel or toilet paper roll cores 44% 50%

Newspaper 44% 63%

Table 3-1: Variety of indoor household materials composted, before and after study.

17

4

4

Confidence in Composting Ability Before Study

7

6

<=514

10

1

Confidence in Composting Ability After Study

7

6

<=5


L Page 13

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) Pre-Study Post-Study

Grass/lawn clippings 60% 56%

Fallen leaves 92% 96%

Soft plant prunings 88% 84%

Woody plant prunings 32% 40%

Table 3-2: Variety of outdoor household materials composted before and after study.

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).

“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 we’ve ever had in the past five years. I am so excited to be rid of the sludgy, stinky mess we usually have.”

Jennifer Read


L Page 14

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.

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

79%

21%

0%0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Increased Remained the same Decreased

Perc

en

tag

eQuantity of Organic Materials Diverted from

Curbside Collection has...

17

4

22

Value of Compost Coaching Session

7

6

5

<=425

Recommend Compost Coaching?

Yes

No


L Page 15


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)

Waste Diversion

The amount of organic waste diverted per household is broken down into the following two categories:

Household organic waste, and

Yard trimmings

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

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 it’s 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.


L Page 16

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.

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 Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Total diverted

(kg) 134.3 142.7 122.5 127.5 160.9 172.1 218.0 133.6 114.4 191.8 133.9

Average (kg)/

household 13.4 14.3 12.3 12.8 14.6 15.6 19.8 13.4 12.7 21.3 13.4

Number of

Households 10 10 10 10 11 11 11 10 9 9 10

Table 3-3: Organics Diversion: household organic waste diverted per household by month.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Feb Mar AprMay Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

We

igh

t (k

g)

Average Weight (kg) of Household Organic Waste Diverted per Volunteer Household

Average

Minimum

Maximum


L Page 17

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.

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.

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.


Total diverted (kg) 63.0 237.6 232.5 112.9 169.2 90.5 148.6 105.1 141.9 70.5 69.0

Average (kg)/

household 31.5 59.4 116.3 28.2 28.2 22.6 29.7 26.3 47.3 35.3 13.8

Number of

Households 2 4 2 4 6 4 5 4 3 2 5

Table 3-4: Organics Diversion: yard trimmings diverted per household by month.

0

50

100

150

200

250

Feb Mar AprMay Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

We

igh

t (k

g)

Average Weight (kg) of Yard Trimmings Diverted per Volunteer Household

Average

Minimum

Maximum

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


L Page 18


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 Composter’s

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.

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.


L Page 19

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

they’ve 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.

Household Organic Waste

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 Hallowe’en pumpkins. Table 3-5

lists the corresponding average per household and total

amounts of household organic waste diverted per month.

Figure 3-6: Mega Composter: household organic waste diverted per household by month (n = 5).

0

10

20

30

40

50

60


We

igh

t (k

g)

Mega Composter: Average Weight (kg) of Household Organic Waste Diverted per Household

Average

Min

Max

The 5 Mega Composter households diverted 1805 kg of organic waste from curbside collection between Feb and Dec 2010:

Household: 1156 kg



L Page 20


Total diverted

(kg) 98.6 101.5 98.9 109.6 107.6 102.7 78.3 99.8 107.2 144.4 107.4

Average (kg)/

household 19.7 20.3 19.8 21.9 21.5 20.5 15.7 20.0 21.4 28.9 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.

Figure 3-7: Mega Composter: yard trimmings diverted per household by month (n = 5).

0

50

100

150

200

250


We

igh

t (k

g)

Mega Composter: Average Weight (kg) of Yard Trimmings Diverted per Household

Average

Min

Max


L Page 21


Total diverted

(kg) 24.8 38.1 33.8 74.8 83.4 98.2 58.0 76.7 87.8 71.0 2.4

Average (kg)/

household 6.2 9.5 8.5 18.7 16.7 19.6 14.5 25.6 29.3 17.8 2.4

Number of

Households 4 4 4 4 5 5 4 3 3 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 resident’s

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 Cone’s 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 time-

consuming 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

wasn’t removed during installation, as recommended.


L Page 22

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.

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 wasn’t 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.

0

2

4

6

8

10

Meat and bones

Bread and grains

Cooked fruit and veg

Raw fruit and veg

Dairy Egg shells, coffee

grounds

Household cleanings

Animal excrement

Nu

mb

er

of H

ou

se

ho

lds (

n=

9)

Types of Household Organic Waste Diverted


L Page 23

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 wasn’t 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.

Figure 3-10: Number of households experiencing problems with the Green Cone

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Summer Full Sun

Summer Partial Sun

Summer Mostly Shade

Winter Full Sun

Winter Partial Sun

Winter Mostly Shade

Num

ber

of

Hou

seh

old

s (

n=

9)

Amount of Sunlight Available in Summer and Winter

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Wildlife Excavation

Slow Degradation

Flies Maggots Smell Bears

Num

ber

of H

ousehold

s (

n=

9)

Number of Households Experiencing Problems with...


L Page 24

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.

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.

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:

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


One example of post-installation

reinforcement by a volunteer who

used beach rocks to deter digging

around their Green Cone by the

local skunk.

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


L Page 25

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.

Figure 3-11: Food scraps diverted to the Green Cone per household.


Total diverted

(kg) 81.1 122.3 104.4 104.6 72.1 100.7 107.4 100.9 112.9 100.5 80.6

Average (kg)/

household 10.1 15.3 14.9 14.9 10.3 12.6 13.4 12.6 14.1 12.6 11.5

Number of

Households 8 8 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 8 7

Table 3-7: Food scraps diverted to the Green Cone per household.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60


Weig

ht

(kg

)

Average Weight (kg) of Food Scraps Diverted per Household in Green Cone Only

Average

Minimum

Maximum


L Page 26

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.

Figure 3-12: Food scraps being diverted to a supplemental backyard composter per household.


Total diverted

(kg) 13.8 20.8 17.0 28.1 35.1 43.0 32.4 44.5 43.3 54.3 55.0

Average (kg)/

household 6.9 6.9 5.7 7.0 7.0 8.6 6.5 8.9 8.7 13.6 11.0

Number of

Households 2 3 3 4 5 5 5 5 5 4 5

Table 3-8: Food scraps being diverted to a supplemental backyard composter per household.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60


We

igh

t (k

g)

Average Weight (kg) of Food Scraps Diverted per Household by Composter when a Green Cone is also in

use.

Average

Minimum

Maximum


L Page 27

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.

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.


Green Cone 81.1 122.3 104.4 104.6 72.1 100.7 107.4 100.9 112.9 100.5 80.6

Composter 13.8 20.8 17.0 28.1 35.1 43.0 32.4 44.5 43.3 54.3 55.0

Total 94.9 143.1 121.5 132.7 107.1 143.7 139.9 145.4 156.1 154.8 135.6

Number of

Households 8 8 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 8 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.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180


We

igh

t (k

g)

Total Weight (kg) of Food ScrapsDiverted per Household

Composter

Green Cone

99% of the food scraps from our kitchen go into the Green Cone digester

or our Garden Gourmet compost bin.

Karen Todd


L Page 28

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.

Figure 3-14: Yard trimmings diverted by Green Cone households to a backyard composter (n = 5).


Total diverted

(kg) 10.0 11.0 24.1 263.0 104.4 28.9 44.8 24.1 36.5 31.0 7.7

Average (kg)/

household 5.0 5.5 24.1 65.8 26.1 9.6 14.9 8.0 12.2 31.0 3.9

Number of

Households 2 2 1 4 4 3 3 3 3 1 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.

0

50

100

150

200

250


Weig

ht

(kg

)

Average Weight (kg) of Yard Trimmings Diverted per Household by Composting

Average

Minimum

Maximum


L Page 29

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 ¼ can increments. The average amount

per household is shown in Table 3-11.

Average

Amount per

Week

Range

Garbage

(77 L Can) 0.77 0.0 – 4.0

Yard Trimmings

(Bags or Cans) 1.18 0.15 – 18.50

Table 3-11: Average amount of garbage and yard trimmings placed at the curb.

One-third of the volunteer households put out less than ½

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.

Figure 3-15: Amount volunteer households reduced their garbage over 2010.

50%

29%

21%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Yes, significantly

Yes, a small amount

No

Perc

en

tag

e

Reduction in the Amount of Waste Put in Garbage Can

“We’ve always been environmentally

aware and have tried hard to cut down

on our waste. Seeing Jen and Grant’s

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


L Page 30

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

they’ve 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

Figure 3-16: Total household organic waste and yard trimmings actually diverted.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700


Weig

ht

(kg)

Total Weight of Organic Waste Diverted per Month

Yard Trimmings (n = 10)

Household (n = 16)


L Page 31

Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Totals

Household

(n = 16) 222.4 244.2 221.4 237.1 268.5 274.8 296.3 233.4 221.6 336.2 241.3 2797.3

Yard

Trimmings

(n = 10)

87.3 258.6 286.2 406.2 275.3 200.2 228.7 204.4 266.2 172.5 65.5 2451.0

Total 309.7 502.8 507.7 643.3 543.7 475.0 525.0 437.8 487.8 508.7 306.8 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 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.

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


L Page 32

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


L Page 33

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”.


L Page 34

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)

kg/hh/year =

YT placed at curb + YT dropped at depot

(residential & landscapers) + estimates of onsite management

_______________ # households

x

70% (weighted average of backyard compostable content

of yard trimmings collection streams)

x 90% (assumed

efficiency factor)

537 - 722 pounds (244 – 328 kg) /year/hh

self-reported household estimates of number of times

yard waste bin filled ___________

year

x 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 Seattle’s. 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:


L Page 35

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

Township of Langley (2010): Food Scraps

In 2010, the Township of Langley undertook “a study to

develop and pilot test strategies to enhance the

municipality’s 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 Non-

Contact 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.,

Harvesting Compost


L Page 36

grasscycling and garden mulching) into our measured diversion rate would further increase the gap between their

calculations and our results.

Figure 4-1: Average annual diversion rates for household organic waste and yard trimmings.

All three of Seattle’s 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 Seattle’s 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.

Langley’s 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 Langley’s

study, our apparent annual amount diverted from curbside collection calculates to the same as Langley’s higher

number: 262 kg/hh/year. Other than the week after Hallowe’en, most of our participants reported the highest

weights of household organic waste in the months of July and August.

246

165 150

198227

206

250

370

265 255

452415

520

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

NSRP 2011 (with training)

NSRP 2008 (baseline)

NSRP 2009 (with training)

Langley Seattle

We

igh

t (k

g/h

h/y

ea

r)

Comparison of Annual Household Diversion Averages

Yard Trimmings Household Organic Waste Combined


L Page 37

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, Langley’s annual food scraps diversion estimates may be

artificially high.

Using similar “educated guess” and extrapolation methodology, both Seattle’s and the NSRP’s earlier

estimates are surprisingly accurate.

By using 250 kg/bin/year, Metro Vancouver may be underestimating (by a factor of almost ½) 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

Materials Diverted from Curbside

Collection Stream

According to Metro Vancouver 2009 waste audits, 6%

of the Region’s 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).

Composting non-recyclable papers

and food scraps.


L Page 38

(n = 15) 20084, 5

Baseline

2010

Post-Study Increase

Paper toweling, tissue, paper napkins 23% 80% 57%

Paper bags, paper towel or toilet paper roll cores 12% 53% 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 2010 Decrease

Garbage (Cans) 1.7 0.77 55%

Yard Trimmings (Cans) 1.6 1.18 26%

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).


L Page 39

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 Measured Calibrated

With Compost Coaching 520 kg 452 kg -

Baseline (No Training) 415 kg - 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 This Study (2010)

Diverted from

hh/year Total/yr hh/year Total/yr

Household Organic Waste (tonnes)

Collection for Disposal

0.217 5,048 0.206 4,792

Yard Trimmings (tonnes) Collection for Composting

0.144 3,350 0.246 5,722

Total Organics 0.361 8,398 0.452 10,514

Table 4-4: Extrapolated tonnages of waste diverted by SF households that municipalities never handle.

From our study’s 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 40

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

data).

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:

A swamper is a person who lifts garbage and yard trimmings cans and empties them into

the collection truck on service day.


L Page 41

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”.

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 Vancouver’s Waste Diversion Rates

The derivation of Metro Vancouver’s 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

Curbside set-out

Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) is

an environmental policy approach in which

a producer’s responsibility for a product is

extended to the post-consumer stage of a

product’s 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.


L Page 42

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 Vancouver’s 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 Vancouver’s 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 Vancouver’s 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 NSRP Findings

Unit used in calculation Bins distributed by

municipality

Households

composting

Number of Units 16,208 23,261

Diversion per Unit (kg) 250 452

Estimated diversion (tonnes) 4,052 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 Vancouver’s 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


L Page 43

Weight per unit Number of Units Kept off curb

(tonnes)

Calculated

Diversion Rate

Not including composting n/a n/a 0 59.5%

Using MV Estimates 250 kg/bin 16,208 bins 4,052 62.7%

Using NSRP Study Findings 452 kg/hh 23,261 households 10,513 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 Shore’s 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) doesn’t 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 Vancouver’s

estimate.

The Regional diversion rate for the residential sector may be higher than currently estimated.

The North Shore’s 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 44

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)

Total Weight

(tonnes)

Total $

Saved

Household Organic Waste $ 82.00 4.481 $ 367.45

Yard Trimmings $ 59.00 2.799 $ 165.12

Grand Total 7.280 $ 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.

2011 Tipping

Fees ($/tonne)

Total Weight

(tonnes) Average/hh/year

Garbage $ 97.00 0.2057 $19.95

Yard Trimmings Feb - Dec $ 63.00 0.2459 $ 15.49

Total Saved $ 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.


L Page 45

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.

2011 Tipping

Fees ($/tonne) # Households Composting2

Average kg/hh/year

Fees Avoided

Garbage $ 97.00 23,261 206 $ 464,801

Yard Trimmings Feb - Dec

$ 63.00 23,261 246 $ 360,499

Total $ 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 ‘drop-

out 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 46

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 47

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

household’s 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 GC’s 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.


L Page 48

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.


L Page 49

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.

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.


L Page 50

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.


Although durable, the Green Cone is not large

enough to handle typical household food waste

volumes.

When not loaded beyond its stated capacity, the

Green Cone is very effective for digesting all types of

food scraps when sited in a well-drained, sunny spot.

Installation was a considerable, but one-time hurdle

that places a significant barrier to success; operation

of the Green Cone couldn’t be simpler when capacity

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.

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.

Green Cone Objectives:

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.


L Page 51

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.


L Page 52

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.


L Page 53

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.


L Page 54

7. Works Cited

1 North Shore Recycling Program (2009). NS Waste Composition Study [spreadsheet].

2 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.

4 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.

7 Michigan Recycling Coalition (date unknown). [Yard trimmings and food waste densities].

8 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: Cost-benefit analysis of home composting programs in the United States.

13 Seattle Public Utilities (1998) Measuring Backyard Composting.

http://www.cleanbinproject.com/

http://www.cleanbinmovie.com/


L Page 55

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).

23 North Shore Recycling Program (2010). Annual Report.

24 North Shore Recycling Program (2010): Composter Sales [spreadsheet].

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].

NSRP Backyard Composting Undervalued - Full Report

Documents

Transcript of NSRP Backyard Composting Undervalued - Full Report