O slideshow foi denunciado.
Utilizamos seu perfil e dados de atividades no LinkedIn para personalizar e exibir anúncios mais relevantes. Altere suas preferências de anúncios quando desejar.

Research on Convenience Standards for Carpet Recycling in California

268 visualizações

Publicada em

Interim research presentation by Cascadia Consulting on convenient collection study for California Carpet Stewardship Program

Publicada em: Meio ambiente
  • Seja o primeiro a comentar

  • Seja a primeira pessoa a gostar disto

Research on Convenience Standards for Carpet Recycling in California

  1. 1. RESEARCH ON CONVENIENCE STANDARDS FOR CARPET RECYCLING JULY 29, 2018 | CRRA Conference
  2. 2. CONVENIENCE STANDARD RESEARCH CONTEXT FOR STUDY ▪ Propose a collection convenience standard and evaluate whether the standard is currently met in California ▪ Convenient through the lens of : “easy and cost-effective” (time and money) ▪ Who is most important for convenience? What is convenience? STUDY GOALS ▪ Propose potential standards for tear-out carpet based on: ▪ Researching existing standards for other products ▪ Identifying and understanding preferences of key audiences ▪ Analyze up to three potential standards for CARE to consider
  3. 3. CONVENIENCE STANDARD RESEARCH RESEARCH PLAN Research existing standards for other products Survey key affected audiences regarding perceptions of convenience Propose potential standards + obtain stakeholder feedback Analyze potential convenience standards + costs Draft summary report
  4. 4. TASK 1. RESEARCH
  5. 5. TASK 1. RESEARCH  Products similar to carpet ▪ Bulky and hard to handle ▪ Generated infrequently ▪ Often delivered/removed by professionals ▪ Low or negative market value  Other EPR or similarly regulated products in California ▪ Even if not similar to carpet  Examples of EPR standards in Canada and Europe ▪ Even if not similar to carpet
  6. 6. TASK 1. RESEARCH PRODUCTS RESEARCHED Regulated (non-EPR) in CA ▪ Beverage containers ▪ Rechargeable batteries ▪ Cell phones ▪ Used oil, mercury-containing lights, electronics, tires, sharps EPR Elsewhere ▪ Mattresses (CA, CT, and RI) ▪ Mercury-containing lights (WA, VT) ▪ Tires (BC) ▪ Electronics (OR, PA, BC, EU) EPR in CA ▪ Mattresses ▪ Mercury thermostats ▪ Paint ▪ Pesticide containers
  7. 7. TASK 1. RESEARCH EXAMPLES OF DEFINITIONS Proximity ▪ Sites per county, per city (over a certain population), or per 10,000 population ▪ Percent of population within specified distance or drive-time to sites ▪ Percent of transfer stations participating as collection sites ▪ Recycling sites or retail take-back within convenience zones around retail sites ▪ Take-back required at retail sites or during delivery of new product Access ▪ Minimum days per month or hours per week that collection sites must operate to be certified or count toward convenience standard Cost ▪ Free drop-off at certified collection sites or pre-paid mailing label
  8. 8. 8 TASK 1. RESEARCH California EPR Programs Cost Proximity Access Covered Product Freedrop-off Financialincentive Densityor geography Distancefrom collection Percentageof facilitytypes Minimumfrequency ofoperation Retailertake-back Mail-back Mattresses     Mercury thermostats     Paint     Pesticide containers
  9. 9. 9 Cost Proximity Access Covered Product Freedrop-off Financialincentive Densityor geography Distancefrom collection Percentageof facilitytypes Minimumfrequency ofoperation Retailertake-back Mail-back Beverage containers       Rechargeable batteries   Cell phones    Used oil   Electronics  California Non- EPR Programs for Regulated Products TASK 1. RESEARCH
  10. 10. Cost Proximity Access Location Covered Product Freedrop-off Financialincentive Densityor geography Distancefrom collection Percentageof facilitytypes Minimumfrequency ofoperation Retailertake-back Mail-back CT, RI Mattresses    WA, VT Mercury-containing lights   OR Electronics    PA, BC Electronics   EU Electronics   BC Tires  EPR Programs Elsewhere TASK 1. RESEARCH
  11. 11. TASK 2. SURVEY
  12. 12. TASK 2. SURVEY GOALS Project Goal: ▪ Make recycling convenient for the primary generators of tear-out carpet Task 2 Goals: ▪ Better understand which groups handle the most tear-out carpet ▪ Obtain information from these groups to develop a convenience standard AUDIENCES 1. Small/medium flooring retailers 2. Installers serving small/medium retailers 3. Installer groups for big box and large retailers 4. Remodeling/demolition contractors 5. Commercial carpet installers 6. DIY residents
  13. 13. TASK 2. SURVEY KEY AUDIENCES Small-med flooring retailers Installers serving small- med retailers Installer groups for big box and large retailers Remodeling / demolition contractors Commercial carpet installers DIY residents
  14. 14. TASK 2. SURVEY SMALL/MEDIUM FLOORING RETAILERS What: Interview How: phone and In person Who: ~100 retailers Mix of retailers: ▪ Across the state ▪ In large and small counties ▪ Do / do not recycle METHOD TOPICS Share of carpet/flooring sold installed by pros versus DIY Current handling of tear-out Key convenience factors for recycling How recycling/disposal fees are handled
  15. 15. TASK 2. SURVEY INSTALLERS SERVING SMALL/MEDIUM RETAILERS What: Survey How: In person Where: Supply houses in four regions Who: ~100 installers Mix of installers: ▪ Across the state METHOD TOPICS Share of jobs where installer removes carpet Key convenience factors for recycling How recycling / disposal fees are handled Type of flooring installed Source of jobs Current handling of tear-out
  16. 16. TASK 2. SURVEY COMMERCIAL CARPET INSTALLERS What: Survey How: Web-based Where: Industry associations METHOD TOPICS Type of flooring installed Share of jobs where installer removes carpet versus carpet is already removed (excluding new construction) Decision-maker and current handling of tear-out carpet Awareness of potential for carpet recycling Key convenience factors for recycling carpet
  17. 17. TASK 2. SURVEY INSTALLER GROUPS FOR BIG BOX/LARGE RETAILERS What: Interview How: Phone Who: 6-12 Key managers at installation companies serving Home Depot, Lowes, and/or Empire Today METHOD TOPICS Key convenience factors for recycling How recycling / disposal fees are handled Current handling of tear-out Decision-maker for handling tear-out Share of jobs where installer removes carpet versus carpet is already removed
  18. 18. TASK 2. SURVEY REMODELING/DEMOLITION CONTRACTORS What: Survey How: Web-based Where: Industry associations METHOD TOPICS Awareness of carpet recycling Key convenience factors for recycling carpet Current handling of tear-out carpet Decision-maker for handling tear-out Share of jobs where contractor removes carpet versus carpet removed by installer
  19. 19. Have you ever disposed of tear-out in curbside cart or bulky? (a) how much? (b) why? Imagine you need to have carpet removed from your home: (a) who would remove it? (b) How would you handle it, if not removed by an installer/contractor? TASK 2. SURVEY DIY RESIDENTS What: Survey How: Web-based Who: 384 respondents through purchased panel list from SurveyMonkey METHOD TOPICS Key convenience factors for recycling
  20. 20. TASK 3. PROPOSE
  21. 21. TASK 3. PROPOSE Obtain Advisory Committee feedback in webinar covering: ▪ Findings and methodology from Tasks 1 and 2 research: ▪ Relative share of tear-out handled by installers versus construction/DIY ▪ Audience input on convenience factors ▪ Potential standards based on research findings Based on Advisory Committee feedback, CARE will select up to three standards for mapping analysis
  22. 22. TASK 4-5. ANALYZE + REPORT
  23. 23. TASK 4-5. ANALYZE + REPORT Map-based analysis: ▪ Create GIS map of existing recycling collection sites, carpet retailers and supply houses, and disposal sites ▪ Analyze whether existing sites meet potential standards ▪ Identify major gaps and potential options for filling them Estimate costs of creating additional collection sites to fill gaps using: ▪ Public site costs from CARE ▪ Private site costs from interviews with three to five industry representatives Summary report presenting ▪ Potential convenience standards considered with brief summary of: ▪ Benefits and drawbacks ▪ Current usage in other product stewardship programs ▪ Key stakeholder feedback regarding potential convenience standards ▪ GIS analysis of three definitions for convenience standards ▪ Estimated costs associated with creating additional collection sites 54
  24. 24. THANK YOU

×