dallas corporate waste repor draft

8/11/2019 Dallas Corporate Waste Repor Draft

1/36

Corporate Waste Research

ReportDRAFT

Prepared For

Prepared By

May 22, 2014


2/36

Table of Contents

Slide NumberGeneral Research Project Notes 3

Participation Rates and Data Analysis 8

Executive Summary 13

Detailed Findings 16

Monthly Generated and Diverted Waste 17

Recycling Activities 24

Association Scorecards 33

2


3/36

GENERAL RESEARCH PROJECTNOTES

3


4/36

Project Background

The City of Dallas, home to more than 1.2 million residents, generates a

total of 2.2 million tons of solid waste each year from residents,

businesses, industries, and governmental facilities.

The majority of this waste is buried in landfills. Landfill space is

becoming increasingly limited, and more than 85% of waste can be

diverted from landfills to other reusable sources.

As the waste industry evolves to include more waste diversion tools andopportunities, so too is the City of Dallas.

The City has implemented the Local Solid Waste Management Plan.

The first phase of the Plan aims to increase the amount of waste

diverted by Dallas businesses through education and voluntary

programs. The goal is to have 40% diversion by 2020, 60% diversion by 2030,

and zero waste by 2040.

The City of Dallas partnered with Decision Analyst to conduct an Internet

survey within the commercial sector in Dallas to gauge and track waste

practices. 4


5/36

Research Objectives

The primary objective of this research is to track levels of wastegeneration and diversion among commercial businesses (including

office buildings, apartments, and hotels) over time.

This tracking data will quantify the behavioral changes as a result

of outreach.

Additional research objectives include: Understanding how diversion rates vary by:

Type of property

Facility size

Identifying barriers to diverting waste.

Tracking survey participation rates in total and by industry.

5


6/36

Research Methodology

Kick-offmeeting

Surveydevelopment

Online surveyprogramming

Recruitmentand online

data collectionData analysis Report writing

Presentationof results

6

The research will occur in two waves.

Wave 1

Status: Completed

Purpose: To collect benchmark wastediversion data

Conducted December 2013 through

February 2014

Wave 2

Status: To occur in January/February2015

Purpose: To assess the success ofprograms/pilot projects implemented in

2014

Wave 1 Steps

Survey reviewOnline surveyprogramming

edits

Recruitmentand online

data collectionData analysis Report writing

Presentationof results

Wave 2 Steps


7/36

Sample Sources and Recruitment

The City of Dallas and Decision Analyst worked closely with three local

commercial-property organizations to recruit appropriate properties for

survey participation.

7

Building Owners andManagers

Association Dallas

(BOMA)

ApartmentAssociation ofGreater Dallas

(AAGD)

Hotel Association ofNorth Texas

(Hotels)

These three associations prepared lists of potential respondents, sent

email invitations, and followed up with reminder emails as needed.

Sanitation Services also sent email reminders to the properties.

During the last two weeks of data collection, phone call reminders to eachproperty were used to boost participation. This process was managed by

Decision Analyst.


8/36

PARTICIPATION RATES ANDDATA ANALYSIS

8


9/36

Survey Participation Rates

Data collection occurred December 16, 2013 through February 7, 2014.

Each respondent was able to enter waste management information for up to

three properties. (This is the reason that the actual number of properties in

the report is higher than the number of surveys completed [reported below].)

9

Number of surveys completed = 44

Number of survey invitations sent = 209BOMA

Response Rate

21%

Number of surveys completed = 160Number of survey invitations sent = 673

AAGD Response Rate24%

Number of surveys completed = 24

Number of survey invitations sent = 173Hotels

Response Rate

14%

22% Overall Response Rate


10/36

Outlier Analysis

An outlier analysis was performed to identify any properties whose data was

outside of the norm.

Generated waste and diverted waste numbers were compared to property

characteristics such as square footage, number of units, and number of

tenants. If a propertys generated or diverted waste numbers were either too

high or too low considering the property size, then the property was flagged

as an outlier and omitted from analysis.

10

Number of Properties That Were

Identified as Outliers

BOMA 19

AAGD 16

Hotels 1


11/36

Data Analysis by Property Size

Properties were also categorized by size for analysis.

Definitions for small, medium, and large properties differed by property type.

11

Definition of Property SizeNumber of Properties

Included in Results

BOMA

Small property 0 to 249,999 property square feet 12

Midsized property 250,000 to 999,999 property square feet 17

Large property 1,000,000+ property square feet 9

AAGD

Small property 0 to 199 units 53

Midsized property 200 to 399 units 72

Large property 400+ units 32Hotels

Small property 0 to 150 hotel rooms 7

Midsized property 151 to 500 hotel rooms 11

Large property 501+ hotel rooms 5


12/36

Analysis Notes

All reported data is aggregated across respondents and properties to ensure

anonymity.

Thus, the data reported are averages across the groups.

Sample sizes for some analytic subgroups are small and should be

interpreted with caution.

12

Sample Size Strength of Statistical AnalysisN = 100+ Strong

N = 50-100 Moderate, should be interpreted with mild caution

N =


13/36

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

13


14/36

Executive Summary of Findings:

Waste Diversion

The average monthly diversion rate among commercial properties in Dallas

was 9%. However, diversion rates varied greatly by property type and

property size.

Office buildings had the highest diversion rate (21%).

Apartment buildings and hotels had similar diversion rates (6% and 10%,

respectively).

For BOMA and AAGD, the larger the property, the higher the diversionrate. This trend, however, did not occur among hotels.

Note: Diversion Rate = Diverted Waste Tons / Generated Waste Tons

The numbers reported above are averages. The average diversion

rate among all properties surveyed was 9%. Calculating the average

of the individual associations diversion rates (21%, 6%, and 10%)does not equal the grand average of 9% because the number of

surveyed properties from each association differed. For instance,

since more BOMA properties completed the survey than Hotel

properties, the Hotel property diversion rates are underrepresented in

the overall average compared to BOMA property diversion rates.

14


15/36

Executive Summary of Findings:

Recycling Activities

Roughly half of all properties surveyed recycle (48%).

Recycling was highest among office properties (84%) and lowest amongmultifamily properties (37%).

The top reasons for not recycling included not having enough space, and

property owners/managers not requesting it.

Forty percent of office properties offered paper shredding programs.

Fewer properties (14%-17%) composted/mulched landscaping waste. Composting/Mulching rates were higher among BOMA properties (32-37%)

than AAGD (11-15%) or Hotel (9-13%) properties.

Twenty percent of all properties recycled specialty items, the most popular being

batteries, light bulbs, and electronics.

Not surprisingly, hotels were the most likely properties to recycle organics (22%).

Twenty-one percent of properties surveyed have waste diversion goals or timelinesin place.

Hotels were most likely to have goals or timelines in place (44%).

15


16/36

DETAILED FINDINGS

16


17/36

Monthly Generated and DivertedWaste

17


18/36

Average Monthly Generated Waste Per Property

18Base: N = 218 Total Properties, with n = 38 BOMA, n = 157 AAGD, and n = 23 Hotels

28.26

27.2327.68

33.91

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

Wave 1

(January 2014)

Wave 2

(January 2015)

AllProperties

BOMA

AAGD

Hotels

Ton

s

(Tons) Mean (Average) Range Median (Midpoint Response)

All Properties 28.26 1.00 - 279.77 19.29

BOMA 27.23 4.00 - 168.96 18.70

AAGD 27.68 1.00 - 128.52 20.16

Hotels 33.91 1.89 - 279.77 15.77

Generated Waste = Trash/Waste + Recycles + Organics


19/36

Average Monthly Generated Waste Per Property

By Property Size

19

27.23

9.8821.38

61.43

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

Wave 1(January 2014)


BOMA by Property Size

Tons

33.91

11.88

27.68

78.48

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00



Hotels by Property Size

Tons

27.68

12.1127.01

54.94

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00



AAGD by Property Size

Tons

All Association Properties

Small Properties

Midsized Properties

Large Properties

Base: N = 218 Total Properties, with n = 38 BOMA, n = 157 AAGD, and n = 23 Hotels


20/36

Average Monthly Diverted Waste Per Property

20

To

ns

(Tons) Mean (Average) Range

Median

(Midpoint Response, Excluding 0)

All Properties 2.18 0.0042.03 1.64

BOMA 5.48 0.0029.31 4.18

AAGD 1.29 0.0042.03 1.10

Hotels 2.77 0.0013.77 3.11

2.18

5.48

1.29

2.77

0.00

10.00

20.00



AllProperties

BOMA

AAGD

Hotels

Diverted Waste = Recycles + Organics



21/36

Average Monthly Diverted Waste Per Property

By Property Size

21

5.48

1.103.48

15.08

0.00

10.00

20.00




Tons

2.77

1.97

2.49

4.52

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00




Tons

1.29

0.45

0.89

3.59

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00




Ton

s


Small Properties

Midsized Properties

Large Properties



22/36

Average Monthly Diversion Rate Per Property

22

9%

21%

6%

10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%



AllProperties

BOMA

AAGD

Hotels

Diversion Rate = Diverted Waste Tons / Generated Waste Tons



23/36

Average Monthly Diversion Rate Per Property

By Property Size

23

21%

11%

23%

29%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%




6%

5%6%

8%

0%

5%

10%




10%

12%

7%

11%

0%

10%

20%





Small Properties

Midsized Properties

Large Properties



24/36

Recycling Activities

24


25/36

Properties That Recycle

25

48%

Total Properties

Surveyed That Recycle

84%

37%

61%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Wave 1 (January 2014) Wave 2 (January 2015)

BOMA

AAGD

Hotels

Base: N = 218 Total Properties, n = 38 BOMA, n = 157 AAGD, and n = 23 Hotels

Q5. What type(s) of recycle container(s), if any, do you have at this location?

(Did not select Recycle collection is not offered at this propertynor This property recycles specialty items only.)


26/36

Specialty Items That Are Recycled

26

12% 11% 9% 7% 5% 6% 5% 4% 4% 1% 1% 0 1%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Base: N = 218 Total Properties (n = 44 recycle specialty items)

Q17b. What specialty recycling items are collected at this property?Note: This question was asked only of the properties that indicated specialty recycling is available. Percentages are reported

among the total sample to show what percentage of all properties surveyed recycle these items.

20%

Total Properties Surveyed ThatRecycle Specialty Items


27/36

Properties That Recycle Organics

27

6%

Total Properties Surveyed

That Recycle Organics

Base: N = 218 Total Properties, n = 38 BOMA, n = 157 AAGD, and n = 23 Hotels

Q6. What type(s) of organics container(s) do you have at this location?

(Did not select Organics collection is not offered at this property.)

3.60

Average Number of Organic TonsRecycled Per Month Among Those

That Participate

3%

5%

22%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%


BOMA

AAGD

Hotels


28/36

Paper Shredding

28

Base: N = 38 BOMA Properties

Q7a. Does this property offer a shredding program to tenants?

Q17a. How many pounds or tons are removed from shredded paper containers at this property monthly?

40%

Total BOMA Properties

Surveyed That Shred Paper

% of BOMA Properties That Shred

Small property 17Midsized property 47

Large property 56

3.51

Average Number of Tons of Paper Shredded

Per Month Among Those That Shred


29/36

17%

Properties Surveyed That

Compost/Mulch Grass

Landscaping Waste Diversion

29

Compost/

Mulch

Grass

%

Compost/

Mulch

Leaves

%

Compost/

Mulch

Brush

%

BOMA (Total) 37 32 32

Small property 50 50 50

Midsized property 29 18 18

Large property 33 33 33

AAGD (Total) 14 15 11

Small property 6 8 4

Midsized property 15 17 11Large property 25 22 22

Hotels (Total) 9 13 9

Small property -- 14 --

Midsized property 9 9 9

Large property 20 20 20

Base: N = 218 Total Properties, n = 38 BOMA, n = 157 AAGD, and n = 23 HotelsQ7b. Which, if any, of the following types of landscaping waste does this property compost or mulch?

17%


Compost/Mulch Leaves

14%


Compost/Mulch Brush


30/36

Waste Diversion Plans

30Base: N = 218 Total Properties, n = 38 BOMA, n = 157 AAGD, and n = 23 Hotels

Q18. Does this property have recycling or waste diversion goals or timelines in place?

21%

Total Properties Surveyed That HaveWaste Diversion Goals and Timelines in

Place

26%

16%

44%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%


BOMA

AAGD

Hotels


31/36

Waste Diversion Plans By Property Size

31Base: N = 218 Total Properties, with n = 38 BOMA, n = 157 AAGD, and n = 23 Hotels

26%

8%

24%

56%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%




16%

8%

19%22%

0%

10%

20%

30%




44%

0%

73%

40%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%





Small Properties

Midsized Properties

Large Properties


32/36

Properties That Do Not Recycle

32

52%

Total Properties

Surveyed That Do Not

Recycle

BOMA

%

AAGD

%

Hotels

%

Reasons for not recycling

Not enough space 50 39 50

Owners/ Managers have not requested it -- 41 50

Tenants/Guests have not requested it -- 33 17

Equipment/Staff training is too expensive 17 24 17

Tenant/Guest education is too expensive 17 15 17

15%

23%

31%

39%

40%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Tenant/Guest eduation is too expensive

Equipment/Staff training is too expensive

Tenants/Guests have not requested it

Owners/Managers have not requested it

Not enough space

Reasons for Not Recycling(Properties Could Select Multiple Answers)

Base: N = 105 Properties That Do Not Recycle and Who Were Asked, n = 6 BOMA, n = 93 AAGD, and n = 6 Hotels

Q7c. You mentioned that this property does not offer recycling. For what reasons is recycling not offered?


33/36

Association Scorecards

33


34/36

BOMA Findings

34

40% 37%32% 32%

37%32% 29%

18% 16% 13%5% 8% 5% 5%

0% 0% 0%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


16% Do NotRecycle

Top Reason:

Not enough space

(50%)

84% Recycle

SmallProp.

(58%)

MidsizedProp.

(94%)

LargeProp.

(100%)

Number ofTenants

Range = 4 to 2,000

Average = 130

Median = 27

Number ofBuildings

Range = 0 to 4

Average = 1.3

Median = 1

Square Footage

Range = 28,000 to 2,000,000

Average = 566,688

Median = 307,189

Average Diversion Rate Per Property

21%

January 2014

%

January 2015

Diversion Rate =

Diverted Waste Tons / Generated Waste Tons

26%

HaveWasteDiversion

Goalsand

Timelinesin Place


35/36

AAGD Findings

35

14% 15%

11% 3% 3% 2% 3% 3% 1% 3% 1% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


63% Do Not

RecycleReasons Include:

Propertyowners/

managershavent

requested

(41%)

Not enoughspace

(39%)

37% Recycle

SmallProp.

(30%)

MidsizedProp.

(35%)

LargeProp.

(53%)

Number of Residents

Range = 0 to 1,600

Average = 464

Median = 328

16%

HaveWasteDiversion

Goalsand

Timelinesin Place

Number of Units

Range = 1 to 904Average = 288

Median = 248


6%

January 2014

%

January 2015

Diversion Rate =



36/36

Hotels Findings

36

9%13%

9%

30% 30%22% 22%

0%

30%

13% 13%

26%

4%0% 0%

4%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


39% Do Not

RecycleReasons Include:

Propertyowners/

managershavent

requested

(50%)

Not enoughspace

(50%)

61% Recycle

SmallProp.

(14%)

MidsizedProp.

(73%)

LargeProp.

(100%)

Number of Guests Annually

Range = 1,500 to 700,000

Average = 112,886

Median = 80,000

44%

HaveWasteDiversion

Goalsand

Timelinesin Place

Number of Hotel Rooms

Range = 50 to 1,606Average = 370

Median = 248


10%

January 2014

%

January 2015

Diversion Rate =


dallas corporate waste repor draft

Documents