Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview: 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: ✗ Not sound
Research score: 77 of 100
Analysis rating: 810
Head to head, this task: won 2 of 9

Why it is not sound

The survey

Presumed the stakeholder's view instead of testing it
A leading question: Q3
A leading question: Q5
A leading question: Q6
A leading question: Q7
A double-barrelled question: Q8

The analysis

Made a recommendation that does not follow from the data

Scorecard

Numbers 11 of 11 right

Question		Its answer	True
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 points	4.69 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)	✓	No	No
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?	✓	209	209
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?	✓	9	9
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

Proceed with introducing three-weekly general waste collections, but specifically using the model that provides 'extra support for households that need it'. This option neutralizes the strongest, most valid opposition (hygiene risks for families with infants and medical waste) while delivering the environmental outcomes desired by supportive households. A district-wide flat rollout or just offering larger bins will fail to mitigate the specific hygiene concerns.

What would change it

Evidence that the logistical cost of delivering 'extra support' (like bespoke hygiene waste collections) outweighs the financial savings of the three-weekly collection, or evidence from a localized trial showing unmanageable spikes in fly-tipping enforcement costs.

Findings

To the Cabinet Member for Environment: Do not drop the proposal based on the open consultation. The 77.5% opposition there is highly skewed by an organized campaign ('Keep Brookfield Tidy') which produced 209 identical or near-identical copied responses. The representative residents' panel shows a much closer division (45.3% oppose vs 40.8% support).

High confidenceBase 1740

Open consultation shows 77.5% net opposition and Brookfield accounts for 38.0% of respondents. Panel shows 45.3% oppose, 40.8% support.
To the Council Leader: We cannot tell the full council that residents strictly 'support' the change. Support is not a majority (40.8% on the panel), and opposition is slightly higher at 45.3%. However, only 24.6% of the panel actively chose 'Keep collections every two weeks' as their preferred option, showing openness to some form of 3-weekly model.

High confidenceBase 422

Panel Q2 support is 40.8% with margin of error +/- 4.7%. Panel Q4 shows 24.6% prefer keeping 2-weekly collections.
To the Head of Waste Services: Offering a larger bin to everyone who opposes the change will not win them round. Only 22.5% of opposed panel members would change their mind, leaving 61.3% still in opposition.

High confidenceBase 191

Panel Q3 shows 22.5% of opposed respondents would support the change if offered a larger bin, while 61.3% would still oppose it.
Households with children under 3 or hygiene product users face severe negative impacts but are highly receptive to targeted support. They strongly oppose the standard change (74.1%), but a majority (55.6%) actively prefer a 3-weekly collection if extra support is provided.

Medium confidenceBase 54

Panel Q2 shows 74.1% opposition among this cohort. Panel Q4 shows 55.6% prefer 'Every three weeks, with extra support'.

Caveats

The open consultation findings cannot be generalized to the broader district due to the highly organized and localized response from Brookfield residents.
While the residents' panel is matched to the district's demographics, the 21.1% response rate means self-selection bias may still be present.
Self-reported intent to recycle more (40.5%) may be slightly inflated by social desirability bias.

Next steps

experimentPilot the 'three-weekly with extra support' model in a representative subset of wards first.
monitorDevelop a communications campaign linking council tax value directly to environmental outcomes and increased recycling services.

Open-text themes it coded

Organized campaign template (Keep Brookfield Tidy) 209Value for money and council tax concerns 39Environmental benefits and recycling motivation 57Fly-tipping and dumping of waste 15Hygiene, smell, maggots, and vermin 35

The survey it planned

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

S1
Are you aged 18 or over?
One answer
- Yes
- No
Continues if Yes
S2
Where do you currently live?
One answer
- Within the Hollinbrook District Council area
- Outside the Hollinbrook District area
Continues if Within the Hollinbrook District Council area
Q1
Which of the six Hollinbrook District wards do you live in?
One answer
- Ward 1
- Ward 2
- Ward 3
- Ward 4
- Ward 5
- Ward 6
- I don't know
Q2
Does anyone in your household use disposable nappies or adult continence and hygiene products?
Any that apply
- Yes, disposable nappies for babies or young children
- Yes, adult continence or hygiene products
- No, neither of these
- Prefer not to say
Q3
The council must find £3.1m in savings next year. Changing general waste (black bin) collections from every two weeks to every three weeks would save about £600,000 a year and encourage recycling. Food waste would stay weekly and recycling every two weeks. Overall, to what extent do you support or oppose this proposal?
Scale

Scale 1-5: Strongly oppose to Strongly support

Judges: leading
The introduction frames the proposal through required savings and presents increased recycling as a certain benefit, steering the support measure towards approval.
The preamble frames the proposal with the savings pressure and states as fact that it would 'encourage recycling'. It gives only benefits and no possible drawbacks, which pushes respondents towards support.
Q4
Overall, how do you think moving to a three-weekly general waste collection would affect your household?
Scale

Scale 1-5: Very negatively to Very positively
Q5
Councils that have moved to three-weekly general waste collections report higher recycling rates. If this change was made in Hollinbrook, how would it impact your household's recycling habits?
One answer
- We would recycle a lot more
- We would recycle a little more
- It would not change our habits, we already recycle as much as we can
- It would not change our habits, we would not recycle more
Judges: leading
The introduction primes increased recycling, and the options allow increases or no change but exclude recycling less.
The preamble presents higher recycling rates elsewhere as fact, priming respondents to say they would recycle more. The options are unbalanced: there is no 'recycle less' option, so responses can only show neutral or positive effects.
Q6
If the council provided extra support for households that need it (such as a larger black bin or extra collections for nappies and hygiene waste), would this make you more likely to support the three-weekly collection proposal?
One answer
- Yes, much more likely to support
- Yes, somewhat more likely to support
- No, it would make no difference to my view
- I already fully support the proposal
Judges: leading
The wording and options allow extra support to increase support or leave views unchanged, but do not allow it to reduce support.
The options offer only 'more likely' or 'no difference', with no 'less likely' option. This one-directional set inflates the apparent effect of extra support.
Q7
Considering the £600,000 savings needed and the potential benefits to recycling, which of the following approaches do you most prefer the council to take?
One answer
- Move to three-weekly general waste collections across the whole district immediately
- Move to three-weekly collections, but provide extra support (larger bins/extra hygiene collections) for households that need it
- Pilot three-weekly collections in a few areas first before making a final decision
- Drop the proposal and find the £600k savings elsewhere in the council budget
Judges: leading
The question foregrounds savings and recycling benefits, describes the £600,000 as savings needed, and attaches finding savings elsewhere specifically to dropping the proposal. This frames the choice in favour of proceeding.
The preamble 'Considering the £600,000 savings needed and the potential benefits to recycling' restates only pro-change arguments before the choice, steering respondents away from dropping the proposal. It also misstates the £600k as savings 'needed'; the needed figure is £3.1m and £600k is the saving from this change.
Q8
Please briefly explain the reasons for the option you just selected, and any specific concerns you have about how the change might affect your household.
Open text

Judges: double-barrelled
It asks for two different things in one response: the reasons for the option chosen, and specific concerns about the effect on the household.
It asks respondents to explain their reasons for the selected option and to list specific concerns they have in a single open-ended question.
Q9
To help us ensure we are hearing from a representative group of residents, which of the following best describes your housing situation?
One answer
- Own my home outright or with a mortgage
- Rent from the council or a housing association
- Rent from a private landlord
- Other
Q10
Finally, which age group do you belong to?
One answer
- 18-24
- 25-34
- 35-44
- 45-54
- 55-64
- 65-74
- 75 or older

Sample plan

The survey will run concurrently via two channels: 1) An open public link promoted on the council website and social media (no quotas, open to all), and 2) A representative residents' panel recruited via letter to randomly selected addresses, targeting 420 completes. For the panel, quotas will be set on Age (Q10) and Tenure (Q9) to match the district profile. *CRITICAL METHODOLOGICAL NOTE*: Ward councillors requested ±6% margin of error at 95% confidence for EACH of the 6 wards. Achieving ±6% MoE requires approximately 267 completes per ward (roughly 1,600 total). With a constrained panel sample of 420 (~70 per ward), the MoE per ward will be approximately ±11.7%. The council must either increase the panel sample to ~1,600 or accept lower precision at the ward level.