Yes,  but  what  did  they  really  say?  

 
A  Social  Research  Study  for  the  Groundswell  Project  
Rosemary  Crane,  March  2011  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
mosquito productions
48 Bingley Way Wamboin NSW
0488 200 636

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Yes  –  But  What  Did  They  Really  Say?     Mosquito  Productions  2011  
  
Yes  -­‐  But  What  Did  They  Really  Say?  
A  Social  Research  Study  for  the  Groundswell  Project    
 
1.  Scope    
   
The  purpose  of  this  research  is  to  explore  the  effectiveness  of  the  information,  tools  
and  motivators  used  in  the  Groundswell  trial  to  get  people  to  source  separate  their  
waste.  
 
   
2.Background    
 
The  Groundswell  project  was  trialed  in  four  council  areas  during  the  period  2008  to  
early  2011.  Full  implementation  of  the  program  including  the  City  to  Soil  collection  
Service  was  achieved  in  the  Lachlan  Shire  and  in  Goulburn/Mulwarree  with  the  
scheme  being  active  for  a  period  of  34  months  in  the  Condobolin  and  Goulburn  area  
at  the  time  of  interview.  
 
3.  Method  
 
3.1  A  camera  crew  travelled  to  both  Condobolin  and  Goulburn  to  speak  to  and  
record  conversations  with  residents  who  were  actively  engaged  in  separating  their  
waste.  The  intent  was  to  cover  the  topics  outlined  in  the  scope  of  the  research  in  a  
way  that  allowed  people  to  respond  in  their  own  words.  These  comments  were  then  
edited  into  a  video  clip  to  be  uploaded  onto  the  web  to  allow  easy  assess  by  
interested  parties.  
 
By  adopting  this  approach  we  are  able  provide  credible  and  rich  content  in  relation  
to  the  topic.  This  method  presents  material  directly  as  the  respondents  have  
delivered  it.  By  nature  this  approach  includes  the  information  that  becomes  hidden  
in  methodologies  where  response  choices  are  limited  (e.g.  closed  question  
questionnaire)  and  language,  verbal  and  nonverbal  content  is  lost.  
 
The  value  in  hearing  from  people  directly  and  seeing  them  when  they  speak  is  that  
we  can  assess  their  response  using  all  of  the  following  information;  
 
Language  –  we  hear  people  speaking  in  their  own  words  in  response  to  the  
topic.  The  choice  of  words  that  people  use  and  the  sequence  in  which  they  
link  ideas  can  give  us  insight  into  the  connections  that  they  make  and  their  
thought  process  regarding  the  topic.  
 
Voice  Cues  -­‐  such  as  volume,  intonation,  emphasis,  rate  and  pitch.  

Yes  –  But  What  Did  They  Really  Say?     Mosquito  Productions  2011  
  
Vocalizations  -­‐  such  as  grunts,  laughs,  uh  ha’s,  etc  
 
Facial  cues  that  reflect  the  attitude  of  the  respondent  –  such  as  enthusiastic,  
ambivalent,  bored,  interested  etc  as  well  as  facial  cues  that  convey  a  
particular  response  e.g.  surprise  (I  didn’t  know  about  that)  
 
Gestures  –  While  the  camera  framing  for  the  interviews  is  generally  head  and  
shoulders,  upper  body  gestures  will  still  be  apparent  
   
Context  –  the  age  (approximate),  gender  and  setting  in  which  the  conversation  
takes  place.  Even  clothing  worn  by  the  respondents  can  also  give  us  context  
for  our  understanding  of  the  response.  (Businessperson,  rebel,  etc)  
 
This  represents  all  the  information  that  we  unconsciously  take  on  board  in  the  
everyday  process  of  communication.  By  keeping  this  intact  and  packaging  it  for  the  
web  we  are  able  to  bring  together  those  with  a  direct  experience  of  the  Groundswell  
project  and  those  who  are  interested  in  the  community’s  experience  of  Groundswell.  
 
 
 
3.2  Choosing  the  respondents  
 
Two  methods  of  selecting  respondents  were  used.      
 
In  Condobolin  the  community  was  invited  to  participate  and  were  therefore  self  
selecting.  Some  door  knocking  was  also  done  for  the  interviews.  
 
In  Goulburn  the  team  set  up  in  the  main  street  during  lunch  hour  and  respondents  
were  selected  at  random.  As  one  interview  finished  the  next  passers  by  were  
approached  and  asked  to  participate.  
 
 
3.3  The  Questions  
 
Questions  were  worded  to  encourage  people  to  speak  about  the  topic  with  
minimum  interruption  or  prompting  from  the  interviewer.  This  allows  us  to  see  
how  people  have  put  this  experience  together  in  their  own  mind  and  also  gives  us  
content  that  works  in  video  form.  Answers  to  closed  questions  i.e.  ‘good’,  ‘bad’,  ‘yes’,  
‘no’  do  not  work  well  as  video  content.  
 

Yes  –  But  What  Did  They  Really  Say?     Mosquito  Productions  2011  
Questions  were  also  framed  in  a  way  that  encouraged  people  to  talk  broadly  about  
their  experience  of  the  project  and  perhaps  offer  insights  that  had  not  been  
considered  by  the  research  team.    
 
The  wording  of  questions  varied  over  the  course  of  the  research  as  we  learned  what  
worked  best  to  encourage  people  to  talk  freely  on  the  topic.  Questions  sometimes  
varied  from  person  to  person  as  individuals  respond  differently  to  different  
wording.  
 
Questions  were  asked  with  a  tone  of  curiosity  to  convey  that  there  was  no  right  or  
wrong  answer  to  encourage  people  to  talk.  
 
A  sample  list  of  the  questions  used  is  listed  at  attachment  A.  
 
4.The  Results  
 
Results  in  this  report  should  be  read  in  conjunction  with  video  material  available  at  
www.goundswellproject.blogspot.com.au  
 
4.1  Information  about  Groundswell  
 
Questions  that  relate  directly  to  this  component  include;  
 
  How  did  you  become  aware  of  the  city  to  Soil  Program?  
  What  were  your  impressions  at  that  time?  
  What  made  you  decide  to  give  it  a  go?  
  Tell  me  about  getting  started  with  it  at  your  house?  
What  would  you  say  to  other  councils  that  might  be  considering  this?  
   
These  questions  were  designed  to  test  the  efficacy  of  the  information  material  in  
action.  Rather  than  ask  for  subjective  comment  on  the  quality  of  the  information  
itself  we  were  looking  for  evidence  of  understanding  of  the  overall  program  as  well  
as  understanding  about  how  to  participate.  
 
When  asked  ‘how  did  you  find  out  about  it?’  respondents  nominated  either    -­‐  a  letter  
in  the  mail,  the  arrival  of  the  bins  and  bags  or  newspaper  articles  and  advertising.  
 
“Getting  a  notice  in  the  mail  and  getting  our  bin  and  I  thought  it  was  a  great  
idea”  
  “Letter  then  bins”  
  “Through  the  paper  and  then  through  the  shire”  
   “It  was  basically  delivered  to  the  door”  
 

Yes  –  But  What  Did  They  Really  Say?     Mosquito  Productions  2011  
Respondents  reflected  an  air  of  ease  regarding  the  introduction.  No  respondents  
expressed  any  confusion  about  the  program  during  its  introduction  despite  having  
to  absorb  information  about  a  new  concept  and  its  aims,  instructions  for  use  and  
changes  to  existing  waste  collection  services.  The  theme  ‘easy’  and  ‘convenient’  
emerges  repeatedly.    
 
Respondents  volunteered  information  to  explain  how  they  used  the  system  within  
their  homes.  This  use  was  consistent  with  the  program.  On  one  occasion  the  
respondent  had  used  her  knowledge  learned  from  the  instructions  to  put  the  bags  to  
other  uses  i.e.  sending  them  to  her  daughter  in  Sydney  to  use  in  her  worm  farm  
 
In  opening  questions  ‘How  did  you  find  out  about  it  and  what  did  you  think  of  it?’  
many  respondents  reflected  a  strong  link  in  their  thinking  about  the  program  to  an  
environmental  outcome.  Words  such  as  ‘recycling’  come  up  despite  not  being  used  
in  the  questions.  
 
On  one  occasion  where  a  respondent  says  that  she  asked  her  husband  to  explain  the  
program  (see  video  clip),  the  respondent  is  clinically  blind.  While  this  did  not  
present  any  difficulties  in  this  case,  arrangements  for  introducing  information  to  
sight  impaired  people  may  require  consideration.  
 
4.2  The  Tools  
 
Questions  that  relate  to  this  component  include  
 
  What  were  your  impressions  at  that  time?  (Introduction  period)  
  How  do  you  find  it  to  use?  
What  about  the  bags  and  the  bins  –  what  are  they  like  to  use?  Is  there  
anything  you  would  change  about  them?  
What  would  you  say  to  other  councils  who  might  want  to  give  it  a  go?  
 
As  well  as  the  questions  the  research  team  also  recorded  a  community  member  as  
she  shows  us  how  she  uses  the  bin  in  her  home.  (See  video  clip)  
 
The  consistent  response  to  questions  regarding  use  of  the  tools/  system  in  the  home  
was  that  it  was  ‘easy’  and  ‘convenient’.  This  is  clearly  evident  in  the  voice  tone  as  
well  as  the  language  on  many  of  the  recordings  and  there  is  no  hesitation  between  
the  question  and  the  response,  also  indicating  confidence.  
 
“It’s  convenient  –  there’s  no  hassles  whatsoever    -­‐  you  just  put  your  green  
waste  in  the  little  basket  they  supply  in  the  recyclable  bags  and  there  is  no  
hassle  whatsoever.”  
 
When  asked  more  specifically  about  the  bins  and  bags,  ‘good’  was  the  most  frequent  
answer,  along  with  ‘no’  to  any  suggestions  for  improvements.  These  responses  were  

Yes  –  But  What  Did  They  Really  Say?     Mosquito  Productions  2011  
consistently  single  word  answers  and  so  not  considered  worthwhile  for  inclusion  in  
the  edited  video  clip.    
 
On  one  occasion  a  respondent  indicated  that  they  needed  a  bigger  bin.  On  further  
questioning  they  said  that  they  thought  this  was  different  for  them  because  they  had  
a  large  family.    
 
One  respondent  reported  the  lid  hinge  on  the  basket  had  broken.  
 
The  cornstarch  bags  proved  very  popular  with  two  respondents  passing  them  on  to  
friends  outside  the  area  to  use  in  their  home  composting  and  a  further  two  using  
them  in  their  home  composting  rather  than  the  collection  system.  
 
Additional  benefits  directly  related  to  the  tools  related  to  reduced  odor  and  pests.  
 
“It  keeps  the  flies  away  and  doesn’t  attract  cockroaches  to  the  bench  top  
‘cause  it’s  in  nicely  sealed  bags”  
 
“It  works  really  good.  Its  better  than  what  we  had  before  –  the  garbage  
doesn’t  stink  like  it  normally  used  too”  
 
 
4.3  The  Motivators  
 
Questions  that  relate  to  this  component  include  
 
  What  made  you  decide  to  give  it  a  go?  
  What  would  you  say  to  other  councils  that  are  considering  it?  
 
 
 
The  six  motivators  identified  by  the  Groundswell  project  were  to;  
  Win  prizes  
  Improve  agricultural  soils  
  Help  address  climate  change  
  Support  local  farmers  
  Reduce  waste  costs  
  Reduce  waste  to  landfill  
 
In  the  course  of  the  interviews  four  of  the  six  motivators  were  identified  
unprompted.  
   
  “Help  the  environment”  
“People  have  just  realized  that  we  have  to  do  something  to  help  –  something  
to  help  the  environment”  

Yes  –  But  What  Did  They  Really  Say?     Mosquito  Productions  2011  
   “Anything  that  gets  rid  of  waste  its  helping  global  warming”  
 
Winning  prizes  was  not  identified  as  a  motivator  for  participating  even  when  we  
interviewed  known  winners.  Further  investigation  would  be  required  to  determine  
the  role  that  prizes  might  play  in  quality  control  and  maintaining  interest  over  time.  
 
Additional  motivators  for  participation  were  convenience,  reduced  odor  and  pests  
at  home  and  the  novelty  value  of  something  new.  
 
Novelty  as  a  motivator  showed  up  in  both  locations  but  particularly  in  Condobolin.  
The  fact  that  this  shows  up  as  a  positive  motivator  rather  than  negative  (resistance  
to  change)  may  indicate  the  ease  with  which  people  are  able  to  pick  up  the  
information  and  use  the  tools.  
 
People  who  liked  the  idea  of  composting  but  were  unable  to  compost  at  home  
nominated  this  as  their  primary  motivator  for  adopting  the  program.  This  may  have  
implications  for  the  design  for  materials  targeted  at  sites  in  high-­‐density  living  areas  
where  this  situation  may  come  up  more  frequently.  
 
  “I’m  too  busy  to  compost  at  home”  
  “Because  I  was  not  allowed  to  have  a  compost  heap  in  the    
garden…”  
   
 
While  community  members  did  not  nominate  ‘reduced  waste  cost’  as  a  motivator,  it  
rated  very  highly  in  discussions  with  council  staff  and  is  an  important  motivator  for  
participation  at  this  level.  Communicating  this  benefit  at  the  community  level  may  
present  problems  as  savings  in  one  area  of  a  council  budget  may  be  absorbed  
elsewhere  and  therefore  not  be  apparent  to  the  individual.  Reduced  waste  to  landfill  
however  was  understood  and  was  a  motivating  factor.  
 
5.  Conclusion  
 
The  information,  tools  and  motivators  have  been  fit  for  purpose  in  achieving  
community  cooperation  for  source  separation  of  waste  as  part  of  the  Groundswell  
project.  Change  to  this  way  of  handling  waste  at  the  household  level  has  been  
perceived  as  easy  and  convenient  and  has  had  the  added  benefit  of  giving  people  a  
sense  that  they  are  contributing  to  environmental  outcomes  in  a  positive  way.    
 
The  successes  of  these  separate  elements  are  interdependent,  i.e.  all  have  to  be  well  
designed  for  any  of  them  to  work.  In  the  participants  mind  there  is  no  separation  
between  the  information,  the  tools  or  their  reasons  for  participating  (motivators).  
We  see  this  particularly  well  illustrated  where  ‘ease  and  convenience’  has  been  the  
primary  motivator  for  using  the  system.  It  is  because  the  tools  and  information  are  
well  deigned  that  they  are  motivated  to  use  it.  

Yes  –  But  What  Did  They  Really  Say?     Mosquito  Productions  2011  
  
Additional  motivators  were  identified  during  the  course  of  the  research.  Motivators  
such  as  a  personal  commitment  to  composting  combined  with  a  life  situation  that  
precludes  the  activity  should  be  considered  in  the  design  of  materials  for  
communities  where  this  is  more  likely  to  occur.  
 
 The  design  of  information  for  sight  impaired  community  members  requires  
consideration.  
 
 

Yes  –  But  What  Did  They  Really  Say?     Mosquito  Productions  2011  
Attachment  A  
 
 
Questions  asked  in  interviews  for  Social  Research  Video  
 
How  did  you  hear  about  the  city  to  soil  trial?  
 
What  did  you  think  about  it?  /What  were  your  first  impressions?  
 
What  did  you  do  with  your  kitchen  waste  before  the  trial?  
 
What  made  you  decide  to  take  part?  
 
How  did  you  find  it  to  use?  
 
What  about  the  bags  and  bins?  /Is  there  anything  that  you  would  
change?  
 
People  in  the  waste  industry  will  say  that  you  can’t  get  people  to  source  
separate  their  waste…  
 
Do  you  know  what  happens  to  the  waste  after  it’s  picked  up?  
 
What  advice  would  you  give  to  other  councils  thinking  about  using  the  
city  to  soil  process?  
 
 
 

Yes  –  But  What  Did  They  Really  Say?     Mosquito  Productions  2011