WESCOE WASTE

AUDIT &

RECYCLING

ATTITUDES Spring 2012 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES-CAPSTONE Ben Burghart Sarah Davis Kelly Heiman Ashley Hudson Buddy Jeans John Lenherr

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

section one: Recycling Attitudes & Behaviors

1.1 Why is surveying important? 1.2 Methodology. 1.3 Results. 1.4 Recommendations for future surveys.

section two: Wescoe Waste Audit

2.1 Why are waste audits important? 2.2 Methodology. 2.3 Results. 2.4 Recommendations for future waste audits.

section three: Cardboard Recycling

3.1 Why is cardboard recycling in Wescoe important? 3.2 Methodology. 3.3 Results. 3.4 Recommendations for the future of cardboard recycling.

literature cited

3

ABSTRACT

The goal of this research project was to evaluate the current production of waste on Wescoe's third and fourth floors and the Underground food court area, and to compare the results of our audit with the results from past audits. We researched recycling behaviors on campus by conducting a survey of students, analyzing what influences an individual to recycle or to not recycle. Also, we experimented with the possibility of cardboard recycling on campus to see if could be a successful addition to KU’s recycling program. We conducted our waste audit on Friday, April 13th, 2012, using the same methods as the audit conducted in 2010. This comparison allows us to determine how recycling behaviors have changed since the audit was conducted in 2010. On Friday morning we collected all the waste that had accumulated on Thursday, and sorted out potentially recyclable materials from waste. We then weighed the materials in each category and determined an approximate volume for material that could have potentially been recycled instead of thrown away. Due to changes that were made after the audit in 2010 (mainly addition of recycling receptacles for newspaper), it was expected that the amount of recyclable material in trash would have decreased. They survey that was conducted evaluated students’ recycling behaviors by recording their year in school, major, gender and opinions regarding accessibility and convenience of recycling on KU’s campus. Temporary signage advocating cardboard recycling was used on campus. Over several days, the appearance of the signs were changed to see if that made a difference in the success of the cardboard recycling.

4

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Wescoe Waste Audit 2012 examined recycling behaviors and attitudes on the University of Kansas campus. In addition to conducting a waste audit of Wescoe, we conducted a survey on the campus to assess the relationship between attitudes towards recycling and recycling behaviors.

o We compared our results to a similar audit of Wescoe conducted in 2010, which audited the fourth floor and two large third floor auditoriums, and separately audited Wescoe’s cafeteria, the Underground.

o Our results indicate that the percentage of recyclable material found in Wescoe’s fourth and third floor auditorium waste stream has decreased substantially in weight, but increased in volume. The 2010 audit found that 78% of Wescoe’s waste by weight was recyclable material, while our audit found that only 66% waste by weight was recyclable. By volume, the 2010 audit found that 77% of the waste was recyclable while our 2012 audit found 82% was recyclable, 41% of which was bulky cardboard.

o We found that 68% by weight and 67% by volume of the Underground waste stream was recyclable material. At 21%, cardboard was the largest percentage of

recyclable materials found in the Underground’s waste stream. We attributed this to the large amount of food packaging used in the Underground, and the lack of cardboard recycling bins. As a side project, we attempted to make cardboard recycling available. We found that making cardboard receptacles available did not affect people’s cardboard recycling behaviors.

o We also conducted a survey of 57 students and faculty on campus. Our results indicate that 77% of respondents said they do recycle on campus. Plastic bottles and newspapers were reportedly the most frequently recycled items on campus.

o Our recommendations for future audits include continuing the baseline audit to continue to study recycling behaviors over time. We also recommend continuing the Underground audit,

5

since it services such a wide range of students and faculty, and performing more surveys to a larger population to potentially correlate recycling behaviors with attitudes.

6

SECTION ONE

1.1 Why is surveying important? Being that part of our mission was to study student attitudes concerning recycling, surveying on campus was an integral component of this task. Surveys can provide data about student attitudes, with which their actual behavior, as shown in the waste audit, can be compared. Surveying can also provide detailed demographic information and results can be broken down by gender, major, year in school, and countless other, more sophisticated ways. This allows for more in-depth discussion when comparing survey results with audit results, and can help provide more nuanced explanation as to why attitudes did or did not match up with behavior. Surveying also provides insight to changes that could be made with positive feedback.

1.2 Methodology. We conducted a survey of KU students in order to find a

connection between the conveniences of the KU recycle system, and actual recycling practices on campus. We surveyed a total of 57 students located near the Wescoe area. Establishing when, where, and what is recycled by these students will hopefully help to improve the KU recycle system, and help to gain a better understanding of the attitudes students have toward recycling.

Survey Questions 1. What is your major and year? 2. What is your gender? (figures 1.6 & 1.7) 3. Do you recycle at home? (figure 1.1) 4. Do you recycle on campus? (figure 1.2)

If yes: i. What do you recycle? (figure 1.3) ii. How often? (scale of 1-5; 1 = never 5 = always) iii. How would you rate KU’s recycling program in terms of

convenience? (scale 1-5; 1 = inconvenient, 5 = very convenient) (figure 1.4)

If no: iv. Is convenience a factor? (scale of 1-5; 1 = not a factor, 5 =

convenience is a factor) (figure 1.5) v. If not because of convenience, why not?

7

DO YOU RECYCLE AT HOME?

NO

30% YES

70%

DO YOU RECYCLE ON CAMPUS?

YES

77%

NO

23%

1.3 Results. More than 70% of participants said they recycled at home and on campus. The majority of materials recycled on campus by students were plastics (mostly water bottles). The second most recycled material was newspaper, followed by office paper. Aluminum cans and cardboard were some of the least recycled materials (figure 1.3). However, no list of recyclable items were made available on the survey, therefore the answers given were based on what the participants could think of on the spot. The results pertaining to how often students recycled on campus showed more than 50% claiming they nearly always or always recycled on campus (figure 1.2). On rating the KU recycling system in terms of convenience, approximately 60% rated the system good- excellent (figure 1.4). For participants who felt that the KU recycling system was not sufficient, approximately 46% felt that convenience was definitely a factor in contributing to why they did not recycle on campus (figure 1.5). For those who did not feel convenience was a factor, the top reasons behind their non-recycling habits on campus were due to a lack of producing any recyclables, and a lack of motivation. Unfortunately, there were no significant differences between male and female students in terms of recycling behaviors; 76% of males and 78% of females said they recycled on campus (figures 1.6 & 1.7). Also, when gathering majors and years of the students, there was no significant correlation found when comparing these two variables to recycling on campus.

Figure 1.1 Figure 1.2

8

Is Convenience a Factor?

23%

8%

15%8%

46%

STRONGLY DISAGREE

SOMEWHAT DISSAGREE

NEITHER AGREE OR

DISAGREE

SOMEWHAT AGREE

DEFINITELY AGREE

How Would You Rate KU Recycle System

in Terms of Convenience?

7%

34%

34%

25%

FAIR ADEQUATE GOOD EXCELLENT

How Would You Rate KU Recycle System

in Terms of Convenience?

7%

34%

34%

25%

FAIR ADEQUATE GOOD EXCELLENT

WHAT IS RECYCLED?

7

11

5

39

21

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

plastic newspaper cardboard office paper cans

Figure 1.3

Figure 1.4

9

Female Recycle on Campus (36)

NO

22%YES

78%

Males Recycle on Campus (21)

YES

76%

NO

24%

Figure 1.5

Figure 1.6 Figure 1.7

1.4 Recommendations for future surveys. If a future survey was to be done on this topic of recycling, some suggestions would include:

Surveying more students (at least 1,000) in order to gain a better sample from the large population of students.

Make sure there is a uniform distribution of surveys between genders, years, and departments.

Survey more faculty members and other frequent visitors to campus who may contribute to the overall waste produced.

Survey individuals in various locations on campus, not just the Wescoe area.

Have more decisive questions, establish that “home” is where you live when not attending school (excludes on-campus dormitories), and when surveying, find a better scale to use besides 1-5 (because of some confusion and clarification issues).

10

SECTION TWO

2.1 Why are waste audits important? Waste audits are an important step to develop a systematic and productive approach to reduce waste generation. These audits are used to look at a given waste stream to find ways to reduce waste, increase recycling, and cut costs. Audits are great measuring tools that enable businesses, schools, or any other institutions to gather information and make decisions on how to allocate resources in a more efficient manner. By creating better efficiency we are not only cutting costs, but also reducing the environmental impact we are making on the planet. It is important to know about the composition of waste being produced. This makes conducting waste audits on a semi-regular basis very important. Having a baseline audit is important because it establishes a set framework that can be replicated in the future. By having a set procedure it is much easier to look at the waste stream and discover trends over time. For this project we a previous audit from 2010 which was developed by Environmental Studies seniors as a baseline audit. They were able to describe their procedures and methodology well enough for our group to replicate their work. This is important because we can now look for trends in waste streams over time. By having a good baseline audit it is easier to identify wasteful practices and create opportunities for people to increase recycling efficiency into the future.

2.2 Methodology. We used the auditing procedure established in “2010 Waste Audit of Wescoe, Strong and the Spencer Art Museum.” This audit sought to establish a “unified sampling procedure” for future KU audits to enable comparisons; “When results from past and present audits can be compared, students and environmental organizations can target a particular waste stream and determine the best course of action to alleviate or lessen this type of waste.” (Gibson, 2010). Following this baseline, we used the waste audit table provided by the Kansas Green Teams, a group of volunteers in Kansas

11

“that work to improve environmentally responsible stewardship practices such as recycling, waste reduction, and environmentally responsible purchasing practices in their own place of work or school.” (Kansas Green Teams). The table separated waste into sixteen different categories, including trash, compostable items, newspaper, #1 & #2 plastics and paper cups (see appendix for table). With the help of Vic Kane at Facilities Operations, we collected about 30 bags of trash from Wescoe’s 3rd floor auditoriums and 4th floor. We collected about 30 more bags from the Underground, with the help of Jason Arnett. We used 30 and 36-gallon bags to sort the waste into sixteen different categories. We weighed the trash using a scale that rounded to the half-pound, estimated volume, and recorded our results. For future audits, we recommend using a more accurate method of assessing volume. Kari Cantarero and Aileen Dingus of Environmental Stewardship let us perform the audit in their warehouse, and provided tables,tarps and moral support during the audit.

About Wescoe Number of Classrooms: 35 Number of Offices: 42 Square Feet: 179,844 Area Audited: Fourth floors and third floor large auditorium It is estimated that Wescoe has over 400+ small trashcans, and 6 large trashcans in the hallways. We audited about 30 from the 4th floor and 3rd floor auditoriums. There are 25 recycling bins on the 4th floor alone, including 2 big units (for office pack, newspaper and magazine), 16 bottles/cans, and 5 newspaper receptacles.

2.3 Results. In order to determine if progress has been made in regarding recycling in Wescoe, our results were compared to the results of past audits. The past audits did not incorporate the waste from the underground into the results, only the waste from the 3rd and 4th floors were used. Our audit of the Underground is regarded as a separate audit.

12

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

card

board

chip

boar

d

office

paper

newsp

rint

maga

zines

alum

inum

cans

steel

cans

plastic

#1 &

#2

plastic

#3-7

food/c

omposta

ble

coffe

e/drin

k cups

styro

foam

batte

ries

glass

hazar

dous mat

erial

stra

sh

other:

reus

eable

other:

plasti

c

Sorted Materials by Weight (lbs)

Weight (lbs)

The Underground The material that accounted for the largest amount of waste (by both weight and volume) was trash (figures 2.1 & 2.2). Of the material that was collected; by weight 68% were recyclables and 32% was trash (figure 2.3); by volume 67% were recyclables and 33% was trash (figure 2.5). This means that most of what is being thrown away could actually be recycled. Most of the recyclables that are being thrown away are; by weight newspaper, food, cardboard and plastic (figure 2.4); and by volume newspaper, cardboard and plastic (figure 2.6).

Figure 2.1: The Underground

13

Percentage of Total Weight

Trash

32%

Recyclables

68%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

card

board

chip

boar

d

office

paper

newsp

rint

maga

zines

alum

inum

cans

steel

cans

plastic

#1 &

#2

plastic

#3-7

food/c

omposta

ble

coffe

e/drin

k cups

styro

foam

batte

ries

glass

hazar

dous mat

erial

stra

sh

other:

reus

eable

other:

plasti

c

Sorted Materials by Volume (gal)

volume

Figure 2.2: The Underground

Figure 2.3: The Underground; percentage of materials by weight

14

Percentage of Total Volume

Trash

33%

Recyclables

67%

Breakdown of Recylables Weight

cardboard

12%

chip board

5%

office paper

6%

newsprint

18%

magazines

5%aluminum cans

1%Plastic #1 & #2

10%

styrofoam

1%

Plastic #3-7

6%

food/compostable

14%

coffee/drink cups

9%

other: reuseable

5%

other: plastic

6%

glass

2%

Figure 2.4: The Underground; breakdown of the 68% recyclable material

Figure 2.5: The Underground; percentage of materials by volume

15

Breakdown of Recyclables by Volume

chip board

7% office paper

3%

newsprint

10%

aluminum cans

3%

Plastic #1 & #2

9%

magazines

1%

Plastic #3-7

15%Food/compostable

3%

coffee/drink cups

7%

styrofoam

1%

cardboard

22%

other: Reuseable

1%

other: plastic

18%

Figure 2.6: The Underground; breakdown of the 68% recyclable materials

Wescoe 3rd and 4th floors The materials that accounted for the largest amount of waste by weight were plastic, food/compostable materials, and coffee/drink cups (figure 2.7). The materials that accounted for the largest amount of waste by volume were cardboard, chipboard, and #3-#7 plastic (figure 2.8). Of the material that was collected; by weight 66% were recyclables and 34% was trash (figure 2.9); by volume 82% were recyclables and 18% was trash (figure 2.11). Most of the recyclables that are being thrown away are; by weight plastic and food/compostable material (figure 2.10); and by volume cardboard and plastic (figure 2.12).

16

0

20

40

60

80

card

board

chip

boar

d

office

paper

newsp

rint

maga

zines

alum

inum

steel

plastic

#1 &

#2

plastic

#3-#

7

food/c

omposta

ble

coffe

e/drin

k cups

styro

foam

batte

ries

glass

hazar

dous mat

erial

stra

sh

other:

reus

able

Sorted Materials by Weight

Weight (lbs)

0

50

100

150

200

card

board

chip

boar

d

office

paper

newsp

rint

maga

zines

alum

inum

steel

plastic

#1 &

#2

plastic

#3-#

7

food/c

omposta

ble

coffe

e/drin

k cups

styro

foam

batte

ries

glass

hazar

dous mat

erial

stra

sh

other:

reus

able

Sorted Materials by Volume

Volume (gal)

Figure 2.7: Wescoe 3rd

and 4th

floors

Figure 2.8: Wescoe 3rd

and 4th

floors

17

Percentage of Total Weight

Trash

34%

Recyclables

66%

Breakdown of Recyclables by Weight (lbs)

cardboard

12%

chip board

14%

office paper

3%

newsprint

5%

plastic #1 & #2

5%

plastic #3-#7

21%

food/compostable

22%

aluminum

2%

coffee/drink cups

15%

styrofoam

1%

Figure 2.9: Wescoe 3rd

and 4th

floors; percentage of materials by weight

Figure 2.10: Wescoe 3rd

and 4th

floors; breakdown of the 66% recyclable material

18

Percentage of Total VolumeTrash

18%

Recyclables

82%

Breakdown of Recyclables by Volume

cardboard

42%

office paper

0%chip board

13%

aluminum

1%

food/compostable

11%

newsprint

1%

plastic #3-#7

21%

plastic #1 & #2

4%

coffee/drink cups

6%

styrofoam

1%

Figure 2.11: Wescoe 3rd

and 4th

floors; percentage of materials by volume

Figure 2.12: Wescoe 3rd

and 4th

floors; breakdown of the 82% recyclable material

Previous Audits After the data was compiled for this audit we compared it to previous audits. Because the audits in the past did not include the underground, the waste from the 3rd and 4th floors was separated. The comparison between the 2004 and 2005 audits showed an increase in the total weight of cardboard/chipboard and #1 plastic (figure 2.13). Before the audit in 2010, an

19

extremely high percentage of the waste collected was from newsprint so it was decided to get recycling bins for newsprint. The findings of the 2010 audit indicated that the recycling bins for newsprint were a success because the amount of waste that was newsprint decreased (figure 2.14). This success was the inspiration for our attempt to start cardboard recycling on campus (will be discussed in section three). After the audit in 2010, it has been found that the total amount of recyclables by weight decreased in every category except cardboard (figure 2.15).

MATERIAL % BY WEIGHT

(2004) % BY WEIGHT

(2005) CHANGE BY WEIGHT

NEWSPAPER 45.9 53 -41.5%

MIXED PAPER (OFFICE PAPER)

10 3 -85.4%

CARDBOARD/ CHIPBOARD

0.7 2 +33.3%

ALUMINUM CANS 1.7 2 -28.6%

STEEL CANS 0.5 0.5 NO CHANGE

#1 PLASTIC 6 19 +62.5%

#2 PLASTIC 0.7 1 -33-3%

GLASS 1.5 0.5 -83.3%

TRASH 33 19 -71.1% Figure 2.12: 2004 vs 2005

MATERIAL % BY WEIGHT

(2005) % BY WEIGHT

(2010) CHANGE BY WEIGHT

20

NEWSPAPER 53 11 -76%

MIXED PAPER (OFFICE PAPER)

3 12 +383%

CARDBOARD/ CHIPBOARD

2 10 +525%

ALUMINUM CANS 2 3 +40%

STEEL CANS 0.5 0 -100%

#1 PLASTIC 19 7 -60%

#2 PLASTIC 1

GLASS 0.5 <1 NO CHANGE

TRASH 19 56 +241% Figure 2.13: 2005 vs 2010

MATERIAL % BY WEIGHT

(2010) % BY WEIGHT

(2012) CHANGE BY WEIGHT

NEWSPAPER 11 3 -73%

MIXED PAPER (OFFICE PAPER)

12 2 -84.4%

CARDBOARD/ CHIPBOARD

10 17 +59%

ALUMINUM CANS 3 1 -66%

STEEL CANS 0 0 N/A

#1 PLASTIC 7 3 -57%

#2 PLASTIC

GLASS <1 0 N/A

TRASH 56 34 -40% Figure 2.14: 2010 vs 2012

2.4 Recommendations for future waste audits. Suggestions for future audits

21

This audit was the first to examine the Underground Food courts production of waste. Therefore a baseline has already been created for future audits. It would be great if future audits could also include the Underground, that way there could be a comparison. To determine what may increase the chances of a recyclable making it to the correct bin, mini experiments could be conducted within the audit. Perhaps two audits could be performed, the first on any average day, and the second a couple months past. In between the two audits, there could be experiments with recycling bin locations, creating a 1:1 ratio of trashcans and recycling bins, education lectures on the topic of conservation and recycling could be performed, etc. In the end, these experiments could possibly pinpoint what motivates people to recycle. Some limitations we experienced include accurately mimicking the audit of 2010. Their project lists what they did and how they did it, but vaguely.

Suggestions to reduce waste on campus According to an article in the Recycling-revolution.com, the average American sends 64 tons of waste to the landfill during a typical lifetime. That’s about 3.4 lbs per day. Every small recycling effort makes a difference, and there are many things that can be done to influence the rate of recycling at the University of Kansas. The main objective is to increase visibility on campus. In promoting recycling, one thing that can be done is to standardize recycling bins, their signs, and the types of presentation each person will have when they approach a recycling bin. This may include having a uniform setup of bins (clustered together with a trashcan), color code the bins (plastic=yellow, aluminum=green, paper=red, etc), at least two clearly marked labels (one on the side of the bin, one on the top of the bin, and maybe one on the wall above the bin), create a list of what can and cannot be disposed of in the recycling bins, and add images to the labels. Portland Community College utilized this approach and found it successful, increasing their recycling diversion rate. We also need to communicate the benefits of recycling, by creating programs that appeal to a variety of audiences. These efforts could include student and faculty orientations, public relation events (such as a green game day challenge (designed by EPA), or green move-in and move-out day), lectures and outreach programs, merchandise sold in campus stores, visual

22

aids (posters, fliers, chalk on the sidewalks, ads in the newspaper), public service announcements and social media. Communication, education and persistence can help us substantially in reaching our sustainability goals.

23

SECTION THREE

3.1 Why is cardboard recycling in the Underground important? The Underground, a popular eatery on the first floor of Wescoe Hall, contains numerous recycling bins for cans, #1 and #2 plastic, newspaper, and office paper. However, there are no bins for cardboard recycling, even though in our audit, this material comprised 34 percent of all trash by volume and 7 percent by weight. This was due largely to the popularity of Pizza Hut, a salad bar and a Chinese restaurant, all of which use cardboard food boxes. Aileen Dingus of KU Environmental Stewardship acknowledged the lack of cardboard recycling bins in the Underground, and cited two main problems inherent in cardboard food box recycling to explain this fact. First, lots of trash and soiled, unusable cardboard inevitably enters the bin. Second, food waste from this unwanted material can contaminate the otherwise good cardboard that is in the bin. Realizing that eliminating unwanted material from the bins was the key to overcoming the problem of cardboard food box recycling, we came up with the idea of testing bins with improved signage as a way to discourage unwanted materials from entering the bin.

3.2 Methodology.

We first contacted Jason Arnett, general manager of the Underground, about the prospect of performing such an experiment. He was very supportive, and suggested separate locations for two bins to be placed – one adjacent to a pillar near the west main entrance, and one adjacent to a pillar in the back of the eating area. Our experiment took place for one week, from Thursday, April 19 to Wednesday, April 25. In addition, Wednesday, April 18 served as a “pilot day” on which to test tentative signage. Each

24

bin was a tall, blue, rectangular 50-gallon bin lined with a trash bag. “Clean Cardboard Only” signs were placed in the middle of the front of each bin. The experimental signage on April 18 was a 12” by 18” poster atop each bin educating students on how to properly dispose of cardboard. It featured a crimson and blue color scheme and a Jayhawk recycling logo, along with the phrase “Rock Chalk Recycle!” The poster was placed directly above each of the bins. A close-up of the experimental sign used can be seen below:

Figure 3.1:

12” by 18” sign used on experimental signage day

After the one-day trial period, this signage proved ineffective. We concluded that perhaps there was too much text, so for our official test we decided to go with a simpler, more obvious sign of the same size but with less text. The new sign was added above both bins. For the sake of experimentation, however, we decided to keep the original sign on the east bin, to test out if having both signs yielded different results than with just using the new sign. The new signage is shown below:

25

Figure 3.2: New 12” by 18” sign placed above both bins from April 19 through April 25.

This new signage was kept for the duration of the test, from April 19 to April 25. Bags from both bins were taken out at the end of each day. Total weight, total volume, as well as cardboard (clean) vs. non-cardboard/dirty cardboard weight and volume were recorded using a bathroom scale. On the evening of April 25, after recording the data, the bins were returned to KU Environmental Stewardship.

3.3 Results. The results were discouraging. In all instances except for one, non-cardboard significantly outweighed and outsized recyclable cardboard. The East Bin on Thursday, April 19 yielded the best rate: 100% recyclable cardboard. However, this was only .25 lbs, or .5 gallons worth. The worst rate of cardboard recycling was found in the West Bin on Tuesday, April 24, were no recyclable cardboard was found. In the rest of the instances, noncardboard outweighed and outsized cardboard by a heavy margin. The results are shown in Table 3.1 below:

DAY ONE: THURSDAY, APRIL 19 Total Weight/Volume Cardboard Weight/Volume Noncardboard Weight/Volume West Bin 4lb/8gal. .25lb/.5gal 3.75lb/7.5gal East Bin .25lb/.5gal .25lb/.5gal 0lb/0gal

DAY TWO: FRIDAY, APRIL 20 Total Weight/Volume Cardboard Weight/Volume Noncardboard Weight/Volume West Bin N/A N/A N/A East Bin N/A N/A N/A

DAY THREE: MONDAY, APRIL 23 Total Weight/Volume Cardboard Weight/Volume Noncardboard Weight/Volume

West Bin 16lb/45 gal. 1.5lb/4gal. 14.5lb/41gal East Bin 4lbs/8gal .125lb/.25gal 3.875lb/7.75gal

DAY FOUR: TUESDAY, APRIL 24 Total Weight/Volume Cardboard Weight/Volume Noncardboard Weight/Volume West Bin 4.5lb/13gal. 0lb/0gal 4.5lb/13gal East Bin 3.5lb/10gal .25lb/.5gal 3.25lb/9.5gal

DAY FIVE: WEDNESDAY, APRIL 25 Total Weight/Volume Cardboard Weight/Volume Noncardboard Weight/Volume

26

West Bin 4lb/8gal. .25lb/.5gal 3.75lb/7.5gal East Bin .25lb/.5gal .25lb/.5gal 0lb/0gal

Table 3.1: Results of Cardboard Recycling Test *Note that “Cardboard” refers to clean, recyclable cardboard; “Noncardboard” refers to everything else, including cardboard that was unrecyclable because of contamination.

Clearly, the problems that Aileen had mentioned with cardboard food box recycling were present in our experiment, despite the very large and obvious signage that we used. Plenty of cardboard went into the bins, but very little of it was clean and recyclable. The instructions on the signs went largely unheeded. We postulated that perhaps due to the crowded nature of the Underground, students were in too much of a rush to take the time to thoroughly read the signs. The “tunnel vision” that goes along with being in a hurry also may have contributed to the students’ not even seeing the signs; in some cases, perhaps just seeing a black trash bag in the corner of one’s eye indicated that it was merely trash. Whatever the case, our experiment, however meticulously performed, failed to yield the results that we were hoping.

3.4 Recommendations for the future of cardboard recycling.

Time constraints were a big setback for this project. We were limited to trying this after the audit, so a more prolonged, more revealing audit was not possible. Perhaps after a few weeks or months, more students would have caught on to the proper method of recycling, but we were unable to test this. A future group may want to consider doing a semester- or half-semester project, and look for any variances in results over time. Another big setback was the unavailability of a lid with a thin slit on top. Such a lid would have prevented any drink cups, large food items, and other trash from entering the bin. It would have required students to take some time in order to get their item to fit through the slit, and this may have led them to read the signage more carefully. A future group should definitely consider this item when performing another test.

27

LITERATURE CITED

"Case Studies." 301 Moved Permanently. Waste Management Inc., 2012. Web. 01 May

2012. <http://www.wm.com/enterprise/college-and-university/case-studies.jsp>.

Derksen, Linda and John Gartrell. “Social Context of Recycling.” American Sociological

Review 58.3 (1993): 434-42 Environmental Stewardship Program. “Wescoe Hall Waste Audit 2004 and 2005 results.”

Chart. KU Facilities Operations. Apr. 2005. Web. http://recycle.ku.edu/pages/events_and_projects/earth_day/wescoewaste_compare.shtml.

Environmental Studies Capstone Project, Lauren Keith, Lydia Gibson, Karin Scott, Ryan

Rastok, Renee Boyd. “2010 Wescoe Waste Audit.” 2010. "Game Day Challenge Press | WasteWise." EPA. Environmental Protection Agency, 24

Apr. 2012. Web. 01 May 2012. <http://www.epa.gov/osw/partnerships/wastewise/challenge/gameday/wycd.htm>.

Kansas Green Teams. How to Conduct a Waste Audit.

http://www.kansasgreenteams.org/how-conduct-waste-audit “KU Dining Services — Sustainability.” KU Memorial Unions. University of Kansas, 2010.

Web. 27 Apr 2010. http://www.union.ku.edu/sustainability.shtml Mannetti, Lucia, Antonio Pierro, and Stephano Livi. “Recycling: Planned and Self-

expressive Behaviour.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 24.2 (2004): 227-36. Web.

Personal Communication. “Aileen Dingus, Program Coordination for Environmental

Stewardship Program.” 28 February 2012. Personal Communication. “Jason Arnett, Manager of the Underground.” Several

meetings throughout Spring 2012. Personal Communication. “Vic Kane, Assistant Director for Facilities Operations

Custodial Services.” 13 March 2012.