Case Study Results

The results of the case study, namely the street assessments and the flyer communication, are addressed in three different sections.
Scores and averages, which looks at the numeric results. Maps, where the results can be viewed visually. And the Discussion, where a brief discussion summarizes the results within the context of the case study. Conclusions places these results within the greater context of Providence as a whole. For how the scores were determined, see Scoring Protocol.

Scores and averages

Total properties assessed: 426	Scores
garbage maps recycling maps	Recycling (Scale: 1-3)		Garbage (Scale: 1-5)
	Overall Average: 2.2		Overall Average: 2.8
	Overall Mode: 3		Overall Mode: 2
	Pre Flyer Average: 2.14	Post Flyer Average: 2.09	Pre Flyer Average: 2.73	Post Flyer Average: 2.87
	Total properties sighted with rat activity: 50

Total properties flyered: 168
flyer discussion
Total control properties: 258

Properties with rat presence: 50 Rat-free properties:376
rat maps rat discussion

Back to top

Maps

Discussion

There are a few observations that can be made immediately from the results above, and from the maps.

Recycling: The average recycling score, for the total area assessed (regardless of whether it was flyered or not) was 2.2. This average translates to every house in the area putting out an "almost" recycling bin, since having 1 bin received a score of 2, and no bins received a score of 3. However, the most common, or mode score, was a 3, meaning that there were always more houses with no recycling bins out than there were with one or two. In a recycling participation survey carried out by Groundwork Providence in the fall of 2000, 64.9% of homes in Smith Hill were recycling at least with one bin. If we compare this result with our mode score, it shows that if a small number of homes either began to recycle or moved from one bin to two, probably the mode score would no longer be 3.

It is also important to note that this measurement is one of recycling participation, looking at how many recycling bins, if any, are actually being used. It is not a measurement of recycling rate, in terms of percentage of waste materials being recycled. Even if a bin had only one bottle in it, it was counted. However, if a bin was empty on the side of the house, it was not counted.

Garbage: The average garbage score was 2.8. While on the garbage scale, this lands closes to a 3 (3 = covered garbage can w/ loose trash on the side), there were in reality, very few covered cans. So, this average is really the result of a mix between scores of 2 and 4. Indeed, the overall mode score was a 2, although the mode score on a weekly basis varied between 2 and 4. The important observation that comes from this result is that, whether there is loose trash and litter alongside the cans or not, the vast majority of cans are not covered.

Rats: Over the course of the seven week assessment, there were 50 properties sighted with rats. This translates to almost 12% of the properties assessed. This number does not signify that a full 12% have rat infestations. It does mean that at least 12% are close enough to an infestation to be experiencing rat activity at night. All of the rats counted in the survey were either in the trash (seen both in loose trash and going in and out of cans) or scurrying between or alongside houses.
Properties with a rat presence also averaged worse garbage and recycling scores than did those properties with no rat problems. (See chart).

Comparing Pre and Post (the flyer): There was no significant difference observed after the delivery of the flyer. In fact, the overall variation, both for properties that received flyers and those that did not, was slight. The number of recycling bins picked up at the library after 2 weeks was: 6. There are several possible explanations for the failure of the flyer to affect the garbage management of the test properties.

1. The flyer was only delivered once, without any follow-up or repeat afterwards, and without forewarning.
2. The flyer addresses a number of issues simultaneously, making it difficult to gauge a response by way of general observation, such as that used for the street assessment.
   
   

This does not signify, however, that the flyer could not potentially be an effective way of communicating to urban core residents. In Conclusions and Recommendations, I discuss ways in which this study could be applied more effectively, as well as overall conclusions and recommendations.

Back to top