Applying a gender impact assessment to a kerbside waste and recycling collection service

• Food waste accounts for 36% of landfill bin contents. Food preparation and clean-up behaviours affect the amount of food waste diverted from landfills (Sustainability Victoria 2022).
• There are few waste management service providers. Research into major suppliers reveals a lack of women across all levels and classifications of their workforces. Providers are chosen through a competitive tendering process (Victorian Auditor-General 2021).
• Council's Waste & Recycling team is relatively gender equal. However, the council depot is largely staffed by men. Women and gender diverse people are underrepresented in decision-making roles in local government (Local Government Victoria n.d.).

Jax and their team now recognise that women and gender diverse people are underrepresented in the waste and recycling sector. They discuss options to promote gender equality in this workforce.

• Women spend more time than men doing unpaid domestic work, including household waste management (ABS 2022).
• Women are often responsible for food purchasing, meal preparation and clean up (Upston et al. 2017). They spend almost 2.5x longer performing these tasks than men (Upston et al. 2017).
• Women are more likely to sort recyclables and minimise wastage (OECD 2020).
• Women are more likely to report feeling time-poor (ABS 2022). People who feel time-poor are less likely to sort recycling efficiently (Quantum Market Research 2019).
• Women are disproportionately responsible for parenting, including changing nappies (OECD 2020).
• Over their lifetime, people who menstruate may use up to 15,000 pads or tampons (OECD 2020).

Jax and their team now realise women are more likely to be responsible for sorting recycling and to feel ‘time-poor’. The team will consider ways to reduce the time burden in the new four-bin system.

• Men often take less responsibility for food purchasing, meal preparation and clean up (Upston et al. 2017). They spend fewer hours than women on household tasks, including waste management (ABS 2022).
• Men are often less engaged in recycling and less likely to consider the environmental impact of their choices (OECD 2020).
• Men tend to decide on the purchase of durable items, such as cars. Women are often responsible for buying short-term use products that end up in waste (OECD 2020).

Jax and their team now recognise that changes to this service could exacerbate the unequal division of household labour. The team makes a note to develop strategies to challenge gendered household roles.

• In a study from the United States, trans and gender diverse couples reported an equal division of household labour (Tornello 2020).

Most available data use a binary definition of sex and gender. This means the team finds little evidence about the waste and recycling practices of gender diverse people. The team aims to learn more about this by consulting with gender diverse people.

• Adult incontinence products represent a significant proportion of landfill waste. Women over 60 are most likely to experience incontinence (Rounsefell et al. 2022)
• Heavy kerbside waste and recycling bins can be difficult to move for older people and people with disability or mobility issues. Heavy kerbside bins are also linked to injuries in older people. These issues can be mitigated by measures such as smaller bins and council-assisted bin handling (Niu et al. 2013)
• Older people in areas without kerbside collection may struggle with waste disposal. They may have less access to central collection points. This difficulty may be compounded for older women living alone. Older women tend to experience more access and transport barriers and health and mobility issues (Dickins et al. 2020)
• Some councils provide an in-home bin collection service for residents who are unable to put their bins out for collection (Manningham City Council 2023). This service can assist older people and people with disability, health conditions or mobility issues
• Some people with disability or chronic health conditions produce additional forms of waste. For example, incontinence products, medical gloves and other medical waste (Hawkes 2021)
• Some people with disability find that aspects of waste sorting and collection are inaccessible. For instance, complex sorting processes can be inaccessible for people with cognitive disability. Central collection points can be inaccessible for people with physical disability (Jensen & Nielsen 2000)
• Couples with children under 15 are more likely to report feeling pressed for time than couples without children (ABS 2022). This has implications for efficient waste sorting
• Families, particularly those with young children, generate more waste. Families need enough bin capacity to be able to follow waste sorting guidelines (Quantum Market Research 2019)
• Australians use around 3.75 million disposable nappies per day (Dombroski 2019). Households that use disposable nappies use around 54 nappies per child per week, depending on the child’s age (Nest Nappies 2017). This is a significant proportion of a standard landfill bin
• Culturally and linguistically diverse people report two key barriers to sustainable recycling practices. These include a lack of time and limited awareness about recycling (Cultural & Indigenous Research Centre Australia 2015).

Jax and their team now understand that this service will have different impacts for different community members. They will apply this knowledge to develop a more inclusive kerbside collection service.

Australian Bureau of Statistics (7 October 2022) Females do more unpaid work, males do more paid work [media release], ABS, accessed May 2023.

Australian Bureau of Statistics (2022) ‘How Australians use their time: key findings on how people use their time in Australia’, ABS, accessed May 2023.

Cultural & Indigenous Research Centre Australia (CIRCA) (2015) ‘CALD communities’ engagement with the environment’, report to NSW Environmental Trust, CIRCA.

Dickins M, Johnstone G, Renehan E, Lowthian K & Ogrin R (2020) ‘The barriers and enablers to service access for older women living alone in Australia.’, Ageing & Society, 42(4):849-867.

Dombroski K (5 July 2019) ‘What other countries can teach us about ditching disposable nappies.’, The Conversation, accessed May 2023.

Hawkes M (18 October 2021) ‘My waste journey’, Physical Disabilities Australia, accessed May 2023.

Jensen P & Nielsen CW (2000) ‘User-friendly waste disposal with emphasis on disability and accessibility’, Danish Building Research Institute [report].

Local Government Victoria (n.d.) Gender equality in local government, LGV website, accessed May 2023.

Nest Nappies (7 November 2017) ‘Breaking down the cost of nappies – cloth nappies vs disposables.’, Nest Nappies, accessed May 2023.

Niu R, Woodbridge AB, Smith BJ, Ruff SJ & Lawson RD (2013). ‘Mobile garbage bins and hand injuries’, Medical Journal of Australia, 199(7):491-492.

OECD (5-6 March 2020) ‘Session 5: Gender-specific consumption patterns, behavioural insights, and circular economy’ [issues note], 2020 Global Forum on Environment: Mainstreaming Gender and Empowering Women for Environmental Sustainability, Paris, accessed May 2023.

Quantum Market Research (2019) ‘Kerbside Collection Deep Dive: Final Report’, report to Infrastructure Victoria, Quantum Market Research.

Rounsefell B, Thompson-Brewster E & O’Brien K (20 October 2022) ‘Right now, more adult incontinence products than baby nappies go to landfill. By 2030, it could be ten times higher.’ The Conversation, accessed May 2023.

Sustainability Victoria (2022) ‘Kerbside organics collection', Sustainability Victoria website, accessed April 2023.

Tornello SL (2020) ‘The division of labor among transgender and non-binary parents: association with individual, couple, and children’s behavioral outcomes’, Frontiers in Psychology, 11(15).

Victorian Auditor-General (2021) ‘Council Waste Management Services’ [report], Victorian Auditor-General’s Office, accessed May 2023.

Upston B, Anderson R, Wojcik E (2017) ‘Serving up inequality: how sex and gender impact women's relationship with food’, Women's Health Issues Paper 11, Women's Health Victoria, accessed May 2023.

Option 1 proposes basic changes. These would align the service with the Victorian Government reforms. This option reflects the team's initial assumptions that all people have the same needs of the service.

In this option, the kerbside collection service will continue to use a cost-recovery model, with fees paid by service users. The costs for the service transition fit within the allocated budget.

Gendered risks of this model

• Some women, who are more likely to be disposing of nappies and medical waste may find the bin volume or collection frequency insufficient.
• As the area has a high proportion of older women living alone, they may find the waste sorting and collection system to be inaccessible, especially if they do not have kerbside collection.
• Complex written information in English about service updates is inaccessible for some people, and this may disproportionately affect women are more likely to dispose of nappies or medical waste.
• The approach does not address stereotypical division of household labour between people of different genders, which may perpetuate the burden of waste management for women.

Gendered benefits of this model

• Older women living alone have access to smaller bins which can be more easily moved.

Overall impact

This option does not consider:

• The needs of people of different genders and intersectional attributes.
• Waste production related to nappies or incontinence aids. Larger bins are not offered to address inequities.
• Unequal gender roles in household waste and recycling, or the ‘mental load’ of having responsibility for sorting waste.
• Impacts of location, or compounding impacts of age, gender and location on some residents. Kerbside collection is unavailable for some residents who need it most.
• The provision of accessible information and instructions about the updated service.

The team rates the overall gender impact of Option 1 as negative.

The second option complies with Victorian Government reforms. It includes some measures to mitigate the negative gender impacts of the service and it seeks to meet the needs of most residents. Measures include:

• Education campaigns that promote sorting waste and recycling as everyone’s responsibility. Messaging will target men to encourage their active participation. Campaigns will show a diversity of households and residents living alone.
• Clear guidelines on sorting waste that will be available in plain English and common community languages.
• Option to upgrade to a larger landfill bin for households disposing of nappies, incontinence aids or medical waste.
• In-home bin collection service for people with mobility issues.
• Recruitment of more women to council’s Environment & Sustainability Advisory Committee.
• Updates to council’s procurement policy to promote workforce gender equality.

Overall, these anticipated costs fit within council’s budget for this service transition. A small fee will be charged to households that obtain a larger landfill bin.

Gendered risks of this model

• Having to prove eligibility for larger landfill bins, as well as additional costs, are barriers for access – particularly for new mothers.
• Older people and people with disability may not have access to central collection points, which is a barrier for the high proportion of older women in the area.

Gendered benefits of this model

• Education campaigns show household diversity and encourage men to take an equal share of the responsibility for waste and recycling. This aims to reduce expectations on women to fulfil traditional gender roles.
• Clear instructions in several languages increases accessibility for people from non-English speaking backgrounds. Plain language instructions are more accessible to some people with disability or low literacy. This benefits women with such attributes, who often participate more in household sustainability.
• There are measures to increase the number of women in relevant decision-making roles.
• Procurement policy changes oblige waste and recycling services to advance workforce gender equality.

Overall impact

This option:

• Considers some of the needs of people with intersecting attributes. It considers the disposal of nappies, incontinence aids and medical waste.
• Includes education strategies to address the gendered division of household labour.
• Considers some of the impacts on people of different genders and seeks to mitigate these impacts.
• Does not consider the impacts of location, or compounding impacts of age, gender and location on some residents. Kerbside collection remains unavailable for some residents who need it most.

The team rates the overall gender impact of Option 2 as largely positive. The team also recognises this option would benefit from additional measures.

Option 3 meets the requirements of the Victorian Government reforms. It includes measures designed to mitigate the gendered impacts of the service and meet the needs of all residents.

Measures include:

• Gender transformative messaging and campaigns, challenging gender norms in household labour and waste management. They will encourage men’s equal participation in parenting, household labour and waste and recycling. This will be supported by community programs that work with men to challenge the unequal division of labour.
• Education campaigns that show a diversity of households.
• Option to upgrade to a larger landfill bin for certain households. For instance, households that need more bin volume due to nappies, incontinence products or medical waste. This will include a simple application process and opportunities for fee waivers.
• Program of low-cost reusable products such as nappies and sanitary and incontinence products. This aims to reduce single-use items that contribute to landfill.
• In-home bin collection service for people with mobility issues and older people living alone.
• Guidelines available in community languages and accessible formats including Easy English and braille.
• Expansion of the kerbside collection service to reach more households in rural areas. Council will cover this cost, rather than increasing household fees.
• Gender quota for the Environment & Sustainability Advisory Committee.
• Action Plan to increase the number of women in the waste and recycling workforce at council.
• External providers must demonstrate gender equality measures to qualify for tenders.
• Annual consultation with a diverse sample of community members to review the updated service.
• Investigations into alternative funding streams for the gender transformative service model.

The costs for Option 3 will exceed the budget allocated for this service transition.

Gendered risks of this model

• Minimal gendered costs and risks found.

Gendered benefits of this model

• This option considers gender and intersecting attributes, such as age, disability, and language.
• This option considers the compounding impacts of age, gender and location on some residents. It ensures kerbside collection is available for all residents who need it most.
• Campaigns encourage men to take equal responsibility for waste and recycling. Campaigns aim to reduce pressure on women to fulfil traditional gender roles. They also represent a diversity of households.
• Guidelines are more accessible to people with disability and low English literacy, benefiting women who often participate more in household sustainability practices.
• Quotas and a workforce equality action plan aim to increase the representation of women in the waste and recycling workforce.
• Procurement policy changes oblige waste and recycling services to advance workforce gender equality.

Overall impact

This option:

• Addresses the impacts on people of different genders and intersecting attributes.
• Seeks to promote gender equality by contributing to broader social change.

The team rates the overall gender impact of option 3 as positive.