Benchmarks / SurveyBench / What Hollinbrook residents think of three-weekly bin collections / DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017

Measured by Spring Prompt

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017: What Hollinbrook residents think of three-weekly bin collections

The decision: whether to move general waste collection to every three weeks across the whole district, to do so with extra support for households that need it (a larger bin, or extra collections of nappies and hygiene waste), to pilot it in some areas first, or to drop the proposal. The brief and the data →

Verdict
✓ Sound research
Research score
96 of 100
Analysis rating
1,221
Head to head, this task
won 9 of 13

Scorecard

Numbers 11 of 11 right

QuestionIts answerTrue
What percentage of open-consultation respondents tend to oppose or strongly oppose collecting general waste every three weeks (Q2)?✓77.5%77.5%
What percentage of residents' panel respondents tend to oppose or strongly oppose collecting general waste every three weeks (Q2)?✓45.3%45.3%
What percentage of residents' panel respondents strongly support or tend to support collecting general waste every three weeks (Q2)?✓40.8%40.8%
What is the 95% margin of error, in percentage points, on the share of residents' panel respondents who support the change (strongly or tend to)?✓4.7 points4.69 points
On the residents' panel, is the difference in the share supporting the change (strongly or tend to) between owner-occupiers and renters statistically significant at the 95% level? (1 for yes, 0 for no)✓NoNo
Among residents' panel respondents whose household includes a child under 3 or someone who uses continence or other hygiene products, what percentage chose 'every three weeks, with extra support for households that need it' as their preferred option (Q4)?✓55.6%55.6%
How many of the open-text answers are copies or near-copies of the template comment circulated by a local group?✓209209
How many of the open-text answers from residents' panel respondents mention hygiene: smell, flies, maggots or vermin, or nappies or hygiene waste sitting in the bin?✓99
As a percentage of all residents' panel respondents, how many oppose the change at Q2 and said they would support it if their household could have a larger bin at no extra charge (Q3)?✓10.2%10.2%
What percentage of residents' panel respondents said they would be very or fairly likely to recycle more if general waste were collected every three weeks (Q5)?✓40.5%40.5%
What percentage of the addresses invited by letter to the residents' panel produced a completed questionnaire?✓21.1%21.1%

Traps in the data 8 of 8 handled

  • ✓The open consultation is self-selected: anyone with the link could respond, Brookfield is 38% of it against 12% of households, and households with a young child or hygiene needs are over-represented. It shows 78% opposed, against 45% on the panel, which matches the district's age and tenure profile.
  • ✓209 open-consultation comments (16% of the consultation's responses) are copies or near-copies of a template circulated by Keep Brookfield Tidy.
  • ✓The council leader wants to show that residents support the change. Support is 41% on the panel (with 45% opposed) and 15% in the open consultation.
  • ✓Q3 was asked only of those who oppose: 22% of panel opponents would support the change with a larger bin, which is only 10% of all panel respondents; most opponents would still oppose.
  • ✓Wendle Vale (panel base 16) shows 62% support, far above any other ward.
  • ✓On the panel, owner-occupiers support the change more than renters (43% against 37%, bases 282 and 140), but the gap is not statistically significant at 95%.
  • ✓40% of the panel say they would be likely to recycle more: a stated intention about a hypothetical change.
  • ✓Only 422 of 2,000 addresses invited to the panel completed (about 21%); the panel is matched on age and tenure only, and those who replied may care more about bins than those who did not.

The analysis

Recommendation

Do not tell full council that residents back the change, and do not drop the proposal merely because the open consultation shows 77.5% opposition. The defensible reading is that opinion is split once the campaign-driven consultation is set aside. Proceed with a properly evaluated pilot of three-weekly general waste in representative areas, with a targeted support package from the outset for households with children under 3 or continence/hygiene waste and for large households: larger bins and/or extra nappy and hygiene waste collections. Do not move to district-wide three-weekly collections until the pilot shows acceptable resident acceptance, low contamination, no material rise in fly-tipping, and a clear net service/financial case. If a pilot cannot be resourced, retain fortnightly collections for now and improve targeted support rather than claiming a mandate for full rollout.

What would change it

A representative probability survey or a well-run pilot showing majority support for three-weekly collections with the support package, plus no material increase in fly-tipping, contamination or complaints and a clear net saving, would justify district-wide rollout. Conversely, representative evidence that a majority still oppose even with extra support, or pilot evidence of widespread overflow, fly-tipping, contamination or net cost increase, would justify dropping the proposal and retaining fortnightly collections.

Findings

  1. The residents' panel does not give the council leader a mandate to say residents support three-weekly collections: support is 40.8% and opposition is 45.3%.

    High confidenceBase 422

    Q2 residents' panel, base 422: strongly support 17.3% + tend to support 23.5% = 40.8%; tend to oppose 17.1% + strongly oppose 28.2% = 45.3%; neither 10.4%, don't know 3.6%. The 95% margin of error on support is about ±4.7 percentage points.

  2. The 'nearly four in five oppose' figure is an open-consultation figure, heavily affected by self-selection and a campaign, and should not be presented as district opinion.

    High confidenceBase 1318

    Open consultation Q2 base 1318: net oppose 77.5% vs net support 14.7%. But Brookfield is 38.0% of open-consultation respondents versus 12% of district households; 209 of 417 open-text comments are near-copies of the Keep Brookfield Tidy template; the group shared the link on 1 June. The residents' panel, with profile matching, shows 45.3% oppose and 40.8% support.

  3. Offering a larger bin would not bring most opponents round; it would convert only about one in five panel opposers.

    High confidenceBase 191

    Q3 residents' panel, base 191 Q2 opposers: 22.5% would support with a larger bin at no extra charge; 61.3% would still oppose; 9.4% neither; 6.8% don't know. As a share of all 422 panel respondents, this is about 10.2 percentage points of potential support. Open consultation opposers were similar: 17.4% would support, base 1021.

  4. There is no clear preference for full-district three-weekly collections; the panel is split, with a trial and targeted extra support marginally ahead of keeping fortnightly.

    High confidenceBase 422

    Q4 residents' panel, base 422: every three weeks district-wide 22.0%; every three weeks with extra support 23.7%; three-weekly trial in some areas first 25.4%; keep every two weeks 24.6%; don't know 4.3%. Differences are within or near sampling error.

  5. Households with a child under 3 or someone using continence/hygiene products are the most opposed and the most likely to favour a targeted support package.

    Medium confidenceBase 54

    Q2 residents' panel subgroup, base 54: support 14.8%, oppose 74.1%. Q4 same subgroup, base 54: 55.6% prefer three-weekly with extra support, 25.9% prefer keeping fortnightly, 5.6% prefer district-wide three-weekly, 13.0% prefer a trial. Small base means medium confidence.

  6. There is a plausible recycling upside from three-weekly collections, but it is self-reported and should be tested operationally.

    Medium confidenceBase 422

    Q5 residents' panel, base 422: 15.6% very likely + 24.9% fairly likely = 40.5% likely to recycle more. Open consultation was lower at 24.2% (base 1318).

  7. The apparent tenure difference in support is not statistically significant.

    High confidenceBase 422

    Q2 residents' panel: owner-occupier support 42.6% (base 282), renter support 37.1% (base 140); difference 5.5 percentage points, z about 1.1, not significant at 95%.

  8. The residents' panel response rate is moderate and nonresponse bias cannot be ruled out despite age/tenure profile matching.

    Medium confidenceBase 2000

    422 completed questionnaires from 2,000 invited addresses = 21.1%; 460 started and 422 completed. Panel places were filled to match district age and tenure profile.

  9. Several panel subgroup figures rest on small bases and should not be over-interpreted ward by ward.

    High confidenceBase 422

    Residents' panel ward bases: Wendle Vale 16, Brookfield 47, Stanmoor 67, Kettlewell 76, Ashby Marsh 83, Hollinbrook Town 133. Child-under-3/hygiene subgroup is 54.

  10. The open-text comments are dominated by a coordinated campaign template, so the volume of opposition comments overstates independent opposition.

    High confidenceBase 417

    209 of 417 open-text answers are copies or near-copies of the Keep Brookfield Tidy template, centred on overflowing bins, smell, flies/rats and fly-tipping, plus 'keep fortnightly collections'.

Caveats

  • The open consultation is self-selected and was actively promoted by a local group; its 77.5% opposition cannot be treated as a representative district estimate. It over-represents Brookfield (38.0% vs 12% of households) and contains 209 near-template comments out of 417 open-text answers.
  • The residents' panel is the stronger source but is not a perfect probability survey: 21.1% of invited addresses completed, and although age/tenure were matched, nonresponse bias may remain. Subgroup bases are small (child/hygiene n=54; Wendle Vale n=16).
  • Q3 is hypothetical: stated willingness to support with a larger bin is not the same as actual acceptance or uptake, and it was asked only of Q2 opposers.
  • Q5 is self-reported intended behaviour, not measured recycling tonnage or contamination.
  • The survey contains no cost, operational feasibility, collection-round logistics or disposal-contract data, so it cannot by itself establish whether three-weekly collections save money or cause fly-tipping/contamination.
  • The 'campaign_comments' count depends on treating the core wording variants as near-copies; it is a judgement count, not a pre-coded questionnaire variable.

Next steps

  • decisionRule out both 'we have their backing' and 'drop it now' as the formal council position; approve a pilot with targeted support instead of full rollout.
  • experimentRun a 12-month pilot in representative wards, including high-need households, offering larger bins and/or extra nappy and hygiene waste collections from day one.
  • researchCommission a representative probability survey or weighted panel with deliberative workshops among high-need and large households to test support with and without the support package.
  • decisionDesign and cost the support package before the pilot: eligibility, larger-bin criteria, extra hygiene/nappy collections, application process and communications.
  • monitorMonitor fly-tipping, contamination, missed collections, bin-capacity requests, nappy/hygiene waste volumes and resident satisfaction throughout the pilot.
  • researchPublish the consultation findings separately for open consultation and residents' panel, with the campaign intervention, Brookfield over-representation and response-rate caveats clearly stated.

Open-text themes it coded

Campaign-template opposition (overflow, smell, flies/rats, fly-tipping, keep fortnightly) 209Non-template capacity and overflow concerns (large households, bin already full, bags left out) 65Non-template hygiene, smell, flies, maggots, vermin, nappy and continence-waste concerns 36Non-template fly-tipping, litter and dumped-bag concerns 15Non-template council tax, value-for-money and reduced-service concerns 39Environmental and recycling support for three-weekly collections 56Little or no impact; already recycling; small household 16

The survey it planned

2 screening questions and 10 questions, as the model wrote them.

  1. S1

    How old are you?

    One answer
    • Under 18
    • 18–24
    • 25–34
    • 35–44
    • 45–54
    • 55–64
    • 65–74
    • 75 or over
    • Prefer not to say

    Continues if 18–24; 25–34; 35–44; 45–54; 55–64; 65–74; 75 or over

  2. S2

    Do you live in the Hollinbrook District Council area?

    One answer
    • Yes
    • No
    • Not sure

    Continues if Yes

  3. Q1

    The council is considering changing general waste (black bin) collections from every two weeks to every three weeks. Food waste would still be collected every week, and recycling would still be collected every two weeks. To what extent do you support or oppose this change?

    Scale

    Scale 1-5: Strongly oppose to Strongly support

  4. Q2

    Which of these apply to your household? Please select all that apply.

    Any that apply
    • Children under 5
    • Children aged 5–17
    • Someone who uses nappies (including for a baby or young child)
    • Someone who uses continence or hygiene products
    • Someone with a medical condition or disability that increases household waste
    • None of these
    • Prefer not to say
  5. Q3

    If general waste were collected every three weeks instead of every two weeks, how would this affect your household?

    Scale

    Scale 1-5: Very negatively to Very positively

  6. Q4

    If the council had to choose one of these options, which would you prefer?

    One answer
    • Move all households to general waste collections every three weeks as proposed
    • Move to every three weeks with extra support for households that need it, such as a larger bin or extra nappy or hygiene waste collections
    • Pilot the change in some areas before deciding whether to apply it district-wide
    • Drop the proposal and keep general waste collections every two weeks, finding the savings elsewhere
    • Don't know
  7. Q5

    Would extra support, such as a larger general waste bin or extra collections for nappies or hygiene waste, make you more supportive, less supportive, or would it not change your view?

    One answer
    • Much more supportive
    • A little more supportive
    • Would not change my view
    • A little less supportive
    • Much less supportive
    • Don't know
  8. Q6

    If general waste were collected every three weeks, do you think you would recycle more, less, or about the same?

    One answer
    • Much more
    • A little more
    • About the same
    • A little less
    • Much less
    • Don't know
  9. Q7

    Before your general waste bin is collected, how often is it full with no space left?

    One answer
    • Always
    • Most times
    • About half the time
    • Occasionally
    • Never
    • Don't know
  10. Q8

    What concerns, if any, would you have about general waste being collected every three weeks? Please select all that apply.

    Any that apply
    • Smell
    • Pests or flies
    • Not enough storage space
    • Nappies or hygiene waste
    • Bin overflowing or missed collections
    • Extra cost to my household, such as bags or trips to the tip
    • Problems for someone with a disability or medical condition
    • None
    • Other
  11. Q9

    Please enter your postcode. We will use this only to check which ward you live in and will not publish it.

    Open text
  12. Q10

    Do you own or rent your home?

    One answer
    • Own outright
    • Own with a mortgage
    • Rent from the council or a housing association
    • Rent privately
    • Other
    • Prefer not to say
Sample plan

Two parallel routes using the same questionnaire. Residents' panel: letter invitation to randomly selected addresses in each of the six wards, aiming for about 420 completed questionnaires in total, with quotas set by ward and by age and tenure to match the district profile. The open consultation will be promoted on the council website, social media and in the residents' magazine, and will accept all eligible adults in the district who reach it; it will be reported separately and will not be treated as representative. Important precision note: a panel of about 420 gives roughly 70 completes per ward, which is about plus or minus 11.7 percentage points at 95% confidence for a 50% estimate, not plus or minus 6. To meet plus or minus 6 points per ward at 95% confidence, the panel would need about 267 completes per ward, or about 1,602 in total. If the panel must stay at about 420, report district-level panel results at about plus or minus 4.8 points and ward results as indicative with confidence intervals; do not claim ward-level plus or minus 6. If ward precision is mandatory, increase the panel to about 1,602 completes or aggregate wards for reporting. Remove duplicate open consultation responses by postcode and device where possible. Map Q9 postcodes to wards; missing or invalid postcodes are excluded from ward-level analysis. The questionnaire is worded neutrally and the analysis will report support, opposition, neutrality and don't know, not only support.