FINAL DOWN PAPER TO BE EDITED AND FORMATTED · DOWN:!Divert!Organic!Waste!Now! 2! TableofContents! 1.0.!Introduction!! 3! 1.0.1.Stakeholders ! 3! 1.1.!Program!Overview!! 3! 1.2.!Justification!for!DOWN!Brand!

M e a g a n S e e l e y , R a c h e l C l a u s , G r e g G i l m o r e , K e n d r a M c G r e i s h , K a i t l y n P e l l e t i e r

Implementation Plan for the City of Victoria This program addresses point 5.2.5 of the Community Energy and Emissions Plan (CEEP) by incentivizing businesses within the local food service industry to increase diversion of organic waste. This approach focuses on branding waste diversion to inspire sustainable behavior change.

ES 405

Branding Sustainable Waste Diversion

DOWN: Divert Organic Waste Now 1

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to address the City of Victoria’s goals of reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by diverting organic waste from the Hartland Landfill. A framework is provided to encourage restaurants of the industrial, commercial, and institutional (ICI) sector to practice sustainable waste management throughout the city of Victoria. The focus is to develop programs to promote waste diversion, specifically by increasing knowledge about sustainability to increase organics recycling.

Prepared for:

Kara Shaw, University of Victoria Allison Ashcroft, City of Victoria

Prepared by:

Meagan Seeley Rachel Claus Greg Gilmore

Kendra McGreish Kaitlyn Pelletier

December 3, 2012


Table of Contents

1.0. Introduction 3

1.0.1. Stakeholders 3

1.1. Program Overview 3

1.2. Justification for DOWN Brand 4

2.0. Barriers to Implementing Organic Waste Diversion Programs in Restaurants of the ICI Sector

4

2.1. Addressing Barriers to Composting in Restaurants of the ICI Sector 5

2.1.1. Cost 5

2.1.2. Space 5

2.1.3. Knowledge 6

2.1.4. Perceived Lack of Services 6

3.0. Benefits 6

4.0. Plan Implementation 6

4.0.1. Action #1: Establish the Parameters of the DOWN Brand 7

4.0.2. Action #2: Determine Design Elements 7

4.0.3. Action #3: Create Awareness & Promote Visbility of the DOWN Brand & of Program to Consumers

7

4.0.4. Action #4: Create Awareness Within the CRD, the City, and Businesses to Further Strengthen Organic Waste Diversion Practices

8

4.0.5. Action #5: Set Goals to Monitor & Evaluate the Success of the Project 9

4.1. Timeline 9

4.2. Budget 10

5.0. The Future of DOWN 11

Appendix A: Restaurant Interviews to Determine Barriers to Composting 12

Appendix B: Why a Marketing Approach? 14

Appendix C: Details of San Francisco Case Study-‐ Greening Businesses 14

Appendix D: Auditing Details 14

Appendix E: Acknowledgements 15

Appendix F: References 15


1.0. Introduction

This proposal includes public education and awareness initiatives, organic waste collection, and branding sustainable waste management practices. This program will ease the transition towards a compulsory ban of organic waste in the landfill that begins January 2015. This implementation plan has been created in order to provide the City with a framework to address the goals pertaining to the waste section in the Community Energy & Emissions Plan (CEEP). In order to address issues related to waste management, an approach focused on branding has been chosen. This brand, known as Divert Organic Waste Now (DOWN), will recognize businesses participating in the composting program, by promoting more sustainable practices. By establishing the DOWN brand, local businesses in the food service industry can participate in reducing the city’s environmental impacts. This strategy has been selected to leverage socially responsible behavior by reframing perceived barriers to composting in order to enhance sustainable development within the City of Victoria.

1.0.1. Stakeholders

The inclusion of a variety of stakeholders will be essential to successfully achieving the desired outcomes of the project. Groups to be engaged in the development of the project must include waste collection companies, food service providers, consumers, the city of Victoria, and the Capital Regional District (CRD). Maintaining this approach within the City of Victoria will strengthen existing waste management infrastructure and reinforce the need for sustainable business practices. The success of DOWN will be directly tied to the overall satisfaction of businesses prior to, during and after the implementation process, as well as how compliant the businesses are in meeting the DOWN standards. Their inclusion is fundamental to the evolution of the project. Though consumers are not directly affected by the implementation of the DOWN program, their inclusion will affect a greater level of purchasing power within user groups, supporting those businesses engaged with the program. The City of Victoria is expected to benefit from the program, as it directly addresses the targets CEEP and has the potential to make Victoria a leader in sustainability. Additionally, the program will increase recognition of local businesses for being environmentally conscious thus benefiting the local economy. The CRD will also benefit, as diversion rates are expected to increase significantly prior to the 2015 ban, further extending the lifetime of Hartland Landfill.

1.1. Program Overview

The program will specifically target the local restaurant industry, encouraging them to reduce the amount of waste entering the landfill as a result of their operations. This can be accomplished through a multifaceted approach including social media, news releases, and meetings with businesses. The plan is to create a recognizable brand that appeals to businesses and enables customers to identify which restaurants are participating in sustainable composting practices. The DOWN brand is expected to create a platform for easy communication between stakeholders and facilitate the implementation of further waste reduction programs. Waste audits will be employed to assist the management of the composting program. The DOWN brand has a zero organic waste standard that restaurants


must meet in order to earn the label, which will demonstrate their commitment to environmental responsibility. This recognition program is meant to assist the transition towards the Hartland Landfill’s ban on organics in 2015. However, there is great potential for the DOWN brand to provide greater support beyond this date, as there are many areas for program expansion.

1.2. Justification for DOWN Brand

As part of the City of Victoria’s goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) emissions, the CEEP was developed in order to highlight potential reduction strategies throughout different sectors. In Section 5.2.5, the CEEP recommends a 70% to 85% solid waste diversion rate by 2020. In order to accomplish this, a drastic reworking of waste collection programs is necessary. In January 2013, the CRD is commencing a pilot program that addresses both residential and commercial organic waste. The DOWN brand is a beneficial addition to the current pilot program, and will enhance its effects. It allows for easy implementation of composting programs, provides a platform for dialogue regarding possible solutions to barriers of composting, and enables monitoring and assessment of project progress.

By incentivizing participation in diversified waste management programs prior to the implementation of the 2015 landfill ban, existing waste collection infrastructure will be able to adapt and develop to suit the requirements posed by intensified organics diversion within the city. While establishing an additional contract to meet the new waste standards of the city may appear to represent an additional cost to businesses, reductions in landfill waste will offset the need for more regular waste collection. Promoting the adoption of sustainable waste practices has been shown to encourage consumer patronage when connected to a branding initiative focused on sustainability. The businesses that are involved in the DOWN program will be recognized by their application of the brand, generating increased competition between businesses, and encouraging sustainable practice. The program will establish environmental leadership throughout the local food service industry, and increase commitment to social responsibility.

The DOWN brand also directly addresses the CEEP’s goals. The recommended actions include developing programs and incentives to increase waste diversion, and developing key partnerships to increase waste diversion. These initiatives are explained in detail throughout this implementation plan.

2.0. Barriers to Implementing Organic Waste Diversion Programs in the ICI Sector

After surveying eleven restaurants and cafes in Victoria’s downtown core, it became evident that there are many reasons why businesses have not yet implemented composting programs. These can be summed into four main barriers:

1) Cost: Many restaurants believe organics collection is expensive, and will not provide enough benefits to justify spending extra money to diversify businesses’ waste management.

2) Space: Due to the density of Victoria’s downtown core, there is limited space


available to include adequate infrastructure to service organics collection.

3) Knowledge: After speaking to employees, managers, and owners of restaurants in Victoria’s downtown, it was evident that there is a general misunderstanding of what composting includes. It was revealed that many individuals were under the impression that composting only includes fruit and vegetable scraps, which is only a small portion of what composes organic waste streams.

4) Perceived lack of services: Many businesses were under the impression that waste management operators within the city do not provide organic collection services, or do so at an unaffordable rate.

These four barriers are not mutually exclusive, and must be simultaneously addressed. For example, lack of space can be addressed by more readily available services; however, this costs more money. In addition, many businesses do not want to invest in programs because the benefits are unclear. Knowledge and awareness must be provided to help businesses understand the benefits of participating in a composting program, so they are willing to spend the extra money and find solutions to the lack of space available.

2.1. Addressing Barriers to Composting of Restaurants in ICI Sector

After speaking to Sean Hepple, a sustainability consultant for Waste Management, it was evident that all of the barriers can be addressed through creative solutions. Private collection companies can work with individual businesses to address their specific needs.

2.1.1. Cost

In certain circumstances, especially in the food industry where a large portion of the waste is compostable, the additional costs of composting infrastructure can be offset. By removing organic waste from the landfill bins, the size of the landfill bins can be decreased. Therefore, less money can be spent on landfill garbage. These savings can go towards implementing a composting program.

2.1.2. Space

Many collection companies have creative solutions to addressing the space barrier. For example, a Molok® Deep Collection system (Figure 1) has been devised, in which 60% of the bin is stored underground. Only a small portion of the bin is visible from the street. Molok® systems also address smell and pest issues, as it is almost impermeable.

In addition, there are cases where businesses have opted to share bins. This not only addresses lack of space, but also helps to mitigate cost. Figure 1-‐ underground composting system.

http://www.rtscompaniesinc.com.


2.1.3. Knowledge

Lack of understanding can only be addressed through education and awareness initiatives. This can be accomplished through social media, news releases, meetings, and other interactive tools. It is imperative that waste collection companies provide proper signage and training to restaurant owners and their employees. This ensures that standards are being met and composting programs are being implemented correctly.

The DOWN brand directly addresses this barrier by increasing transparency to businesses as well as customers, enabling them to make sustainable decisions. In addition, the brand raises awareness and recognizes sustainable practices. It creates a sense of social responsibility, pushing businesses to adopt effective composting programs so they too can become a part of the brand.

2.1.4. Perceived Lack of Services

The DOWN brand directly addresses the fourth barrier. By marketing the brand and making the logo easily identifiable, businesses will become aware that composting is in fact a valuable option for their restaurant. Victoria offers a multitude of collection companies to cater to all scales of business.

3.0. Benefits

There are several outstanding benefits for all stakeholders involved with the DOWN Project.

For the public, benefits include consumer awareness and more green options–allowing for increased consumer choice.

The benefits for the City and CRD include closing the loop by selling compost back to local producers, showing environmental leadership, addressing the CEEP (move along targets and goals), further postponing additional landfill construction–therefore, saving money.

Benefits for collection companies include an increase in business, transition to adapt to the expected major load increase in 2015 and further develop existing infrastructure to accommodate for the ban.

Benefits for businesses include recognition as environmental leaders, saving money (on garbage bills) and giving them competitive marketing edge.

Overall, the program will promote the development of sustainable business practices within the City of Victoria and inspire broader environmental stewardship.

4.0. Plan Implementation

Implementation will require a specific set of actions involving all stakeholders. These actions include the following, which will be expanded on in sections 4.0.1 to 4.0.5.

1) Establish Parameters of the DOWN brand.


2) Determine Design Elements.

3) Create awareness and promote visibility of the brand and the program to consumers and the public.

4) Create awareness within the CRD, the City and businesses to further strengthen organic waste diversion programs.

5) Set goals to monitor, assess and evaluate the success of the project.

4.0.1. Action #1: Establish the Parameters of the DOWN Brand

The DOWN brand can be used as a representation to recognize those companies engaged in sustainable waste management practices. In order for the program to be effective, standards must be establish for businesses to abide by in order to gain recognition. Below are the suggested standards for the DOWN recognition:

1) The restaurant has implemented proper infrastructure for organics collection, including bins and collection services necessary to maximize organic waste diversion.

2) The company diverts 100% of its organic waste.

3) The DOWN brand is part of a larger movement towards ecological sustainability. Ensure that the brand is displayed in a way that reinforces the goals (Section 4.0.5.) of the program.

4) Effective monitoring and assessment of the composting program is occurring annually. These audits and inspections will be conducted at random time periods.

4.0.2. Action #2: Determine Design Elements

Figure 2 is the proposed design for the DOWN brand to be displayed in windows of businesses which are participating in the program and which meet the standards detailed above. Dialogue with stakeholders will help to determine effective management strategies to addressing space and containment concerns. Creative solutions including shared collection services and innovative bin design such as those used in Molok® systems may facilitate this approach.

4.0.3. Action #3: Create Awareness & Promote Visibility of the DOWN Brand & of the Program to Consumers and the Public

There is extensive literature regarding the power of social marketing strategies to inspire sustainable behaviour change in a community (Appendix B). In order for the program to be successful, the public must have a general grasp of the context as to why DOWN will help

Figure 2: Proposed DOWN logo


jumpstart mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions prior to 2015. Additionally, the consequences of prolonging the adoption of composting programs in restaurants of the private (ICI) sector must be addressed. Consumers must be able to recognize the businesses that are engaging in the program, and understand the standards of DOWN. Through an effective communications campaign, the public will be provided with the necessary resources to make environmentally sustainable decisions.

Key messages to communicate:

1) General context as to why action is required (Section 1.2). Include environmental, social, and economic benefits to the program contrasting the costs of not diverting organic waste in the ICI sector (Section 3.0).

2) Identify and address the barriers perceived by businesses (Section 2.1). Challenges to increasing participation in the program must be reframed and overcome.

3) The parameters of the DOWN brand (Section 4.0.1).

4) Identify businesses with the DOWN logo displayed and provide support to encourage the movement for other businesses to adopt sustainable waste management.

Possible Means of Communication:

1) Businesses that are engaging in the program provide leaflets made of 100% post-‐consumer recycled paper.

2) Social media – a Facebook page for DOWN, as well as establishing a Twitter hashtag (#DOWN) to stream related trends in waste sustainability.

3) Interactive website which includes a map of participating businesses.

4) Collaborate with residential education programs to foster new community networks.

5) Release the brand through a news release in local newspapers.

4.0.4. Action #4: Create Awareness Within the CRD, the City, and Businesses to Further Strengthen Organic Waste Diversion Practices

To enhance awareness throughout the business community, a communications plan will be created to inform and coordinate their inclusion in the program. Businesses will be provided with resources to enable them to establish a partnership with a local waste management company, which will best suit their collection needs. As well, reinforcing the visibility of the brand within municipal documents and throughout the urban realm will provide essential support to the program. Major food distributors such as GFS and SYSCO host annual food shows in Victoria to market new products to buyers. Participating in these conventions would affect greater understanding of program benefits, and would be an effective way to educate the local food industry about the DOWN program.


Key Messages to Communicate:

1) General context as to why action is required (Section 1.2.). Include environmental, social, and economic benefits to the program contrasting the costs of not diverting organic waste in the ICI sector (Section 3.0.).

2) Address each barrier to implementing compost collection with creative solutions to ease the process (Section 2.1.).

3) Benefits of becoming a member of the DOWN program, highlighting the potential for program expansion and the value of enhancing sustainable development within the city (Section 5.0.).

4) The parameters of the DOWN brand (Section 4.0.1.).

Possible Means of Communication:

1) Create an interactive website.

2) Enabling various downtown business associations to network within the business community.

3) Participate in local food shows to provide education.

4.0.5. Action #5: Set Goals to Monitor, Assess, & Evaluate the Success of the Project

Random bi-‐annual audits (Appendix D) will be required to assure that the companies participating in the DOWN program are consistently meeting the standards. Specific goals will additionally be set out to evaluate the success of the program as a whole.

Specific Goals:

1) Organics diversion in the food service is increased by 75% by April 2014.

2) 50 businesses participating in the DOWN brand by April 2014.

3) Expand program to other components of the ICI sector by 2015.

4) Establish new parameters with respect to other aspects of environmental sustainability to be met by the program by 2015.

5) Reduce total contribution of waste to the city’s greenhouse gas profile to 1% or less by 2020.

4.1. Timeline

Presented below is the suggested timeline, which can be used as a framework for implementation of the DOWN brand.


Program Implementation Timeline

!"!

!"#$%&'& !"#$%&(& !"#$%&)& !"#$%&*&• #$%&%'(!#$)*%+(!#,-'! • ./(-0'!#$)*%+(!

122$)3-,!• 4$%-(%!+)556'0+-7)'!2,-'!8)$!26/,0+9!+$%-(%!+)'($-+(&!:0(;!,)+-,!:-&(%!+),,%+7)'!+)52-'0%&!!

• <';-'+%!&(-=%;),>%$!?!/6&0'%&&@+)'&65%$!-:-$%'%&&A!+$%-(%!&)+0-,!5%>0-9!:%/!&0(%!2)&(%$&9!-'>!>%+-,&!

!B!!C!!D!!E!!F!!!G!!H!

!"#$%&+&!"#$%&,&!"#$%&-&!"#$%&.&

4)'&6,(-7)'!/%(:%%'!&(-=%;),>%$&!8)$!(;%!%&(-/,0&;5%'(!)8!-!20,)(!2$)I$-5!

• J52,%5%'(!20,)(!2$)I$-5!8)$!-!2%$0)>!)8!)'%!5)'(;!

• J8!&6++%&&86,9!%K2-'>!2$)I$-5!()!-,,!-22,0+-/,%!2-$7+02-'(&!(;$)6I;)6(!(;%!+0(L!

M)'0()$!2$)I$-5!&6++%&&!(;$)6I;!-''6-,!:-&(%!-6>0(&9!-'>!->-2(!()!$%N'%!2$)*%+(!5-'-I%5%'(!

4.2. Budget

Throughout the development of the program, the consideration of logistical implementation components must be included to ensure that adequate social and financial assets are in place to enable its success. Identifying the range of stakeholders provides some initial insight as to the scale of the project, and indicates potential costs associated with processes occurring within each sector. This may allow for more beneficial forms of collaboration, which promote efficiency and the cost-‐effective development of program objectives in a cohesive way. The processes of monitoring, waste auditing and stream analysis, and the personnel these require will also represent areas of considerable investment, as professional input is essential to the effective management of organic waste reduction strategies. As well, finding solutions to satisfy the tangible design elements of the program represent another series of major costs to be met. These include:


Item Cost

Education programs -‐ Participation in food show: $2,500 -‐ News release: $275-‐$600

Decal $6.00/unit x 50 units = $300 to brand 50 businesses

Maintenance of website and social media -‐ Volunteers from Uvic Computer Science/Software Engineering.

-‐ $2,500 to $8,500 if unable to recruit volunteers.

Project oversight and management (includes audits and surveys)

-‐ Administration: $10,00

Total Costs $15,575 -‐ $17,000

Possible Funding Sources:

-‐ Gas Tax Fund.

-‐ Sale of compost.

-‐ Municipal and provincial funding.

5.0. The Future of DOWN

A question that has commonly been brought up is: Won’t the 2015 organics ban for the Hartland Landfill effectively make every restaurant in the city eligible for the label? When the organics ban becomes official, the DOWN label will expand beyond goals of diverting waste to other sustainability efforts. For example, the San Francisco Green Business Program (Appendix C) not only has standards on solid waste, but also has sections of Energy Conservation, Water Conservation, Pollution Prevention, Wastewater and General/ Staff Education. Those that wish to keep the label will be able to by meeting a new goal. For example, restaurants may be required to serve a certain number of their “to go” foods in compostable or recyclable containers.

Eventually, DOWN will also expand to other sections of the ICI sector, such as hospitals, schools and offices. The dynamic characteristic of the DOWN brand allows for it to be successful in the future and ensure that it brands Victoria businesses in the most effective and encompassing way. The DOWN program will not only benefit the City and businesses, but also spark further project developments on waste in Victoria and encourage socially normative environmental behaviors that can propagate into the future.


Appendix A: Restaurant Interviews to Determine Barriers to Composting

Restaurant

Interviewee

Do you currently have a composting system in place?

If yes, what are some of the characteristics of your program?

What are some of the barriers preventing your business from having a composting program?

Would you be interested in a program, such as the one we described?

Sam’s Deli & Bistro

Jane Goldsmith Jones (Employee)

No N/A -‐Lack of services available

-‐How and where to manage disposal

-‐Many unanswered questions; lack of understanding of how to deal with compost

-‐If there were an easily adoptable and affordable program, they would be interested.

Mirage Coffee Jessica Russel (Employee)

No N/A -‐Lack of understanding about what products can be composted

-‐Cost a big factor (not sure if composting would be worth it for their business

-‐Claims that not enough waste is generated to need to implement a composting program

Sandwich Corner Cafe

Olivia Golivitch (Manager)

No N/A -‐Was under the impression that composting was simply recycling.

-‐Takes coffee grounds to her own garden.

-‐Once composting was explained, she was interested in a smaller scale composting project.

The Black Hat Marc Wilson (Bar Manager)

No N/A -‐Lack of space available

-‐Cost not a barrier; would pay extra for a system

-‐Would be interested in a communal composting program that is used by many downtown restaurants

Sauce (Ryan Malcom (Manager)

Yes -‐Partnership with Synergy, works with ReFuse

-‐Train staff to use composting system during

N/A -‐Already have comprehensive program in place, so not interested


orientation

-‐Cost not an issue

-‐Weekly pickup, but large bin which is not always full for pickup

Qoola Antonio Sousa (Manager)

Yes -‐Friend of owner picks up compost for own personal use

-‐Only includes compostable cups and cutlery (not food scraps)

-‐Free service


-‐Limited space available. Would be interested in having a central location downtown where they can drop off the compost at the end of the day

-‐Very well informed, very interested in composting program.

Solstice Café Anonymous No N/A -‐Cost & Space

-‐Too much waste, believes pick-‐up would need to occur daily

-‐Interested in program if cost is low and pick-‐ups are frequent.

Red Fish Blue Fish Simon Sobolewski (Owner)

Yes -‐Works with ReFuse, ensured they were using compostable products before opening their business

-‐Many large bins; pick up arranged by calling in when bins are full


-‐Red Fish Blue Fish designed their restaurant around the composting program; therefore, the barriers have been addressed and avoided.

They already have a program in place, so not interested.

Bin 4 Burger Lounge

Sarah Russ (Owner)

No -‐Currently no program, but have contacted some consultants to seek more information on implementing a program

-‐Largest recognized barrier is space

-‐Perceived lack of services available

-‐Interested, if it meets the demands and needs of their small businesses.

Canoe Brewpub Marina & Restaurant

Taryn Stewart (Events Coordinator)

Yes -‐Private company pick-‐up weekly

-‐Costly

-‐Cost not a deal-‐breaker, but would like to keep it minimal

-‐Interested, even though they currently have a system in place.


Appendix B: Why a Marketing Approach?

There is extensive literature regarding the power of social marketing strategies to inspire sustainable behaviour change in the public. Ross Gordon, Marilyn Carrigan and Gerard Hastings in their paper “A framework for sustainable marketing” (2011) emphasize that in order to overcome the barriers associated with behaviour change, consumers must not only become aware, but also sensitized of the connections between production, consumption and disposal systems and the inherent environmental impacts. Additionally, Gordon et al. suggests a combined approach of green marketing (DOWN brand) with social marketing (communications campaign) is the most effective method to invoke change. Through employing a social marketing regime, the public will be provided with the necessary resources to make environmentally sustainable decisions.

Appendix C: Details of San Francisco Case Study- Greening Businesses

San Francisco Green Business (SFGB) was established in 2005 by the City & County of San Francisco. Their website is very comprehensive, with an overview of what being a part of the green business program entails and a list of businesses that meet the green business standards. SFGB believes that greening business will provide many benefits to the companies that choose to participate. The companies participating will save money, protect the environment, and get recognized for their green efforts. For those interested in greening their business, there is a list of resources to help them get started. There is an introduction to the program, a list of program standards and a toolkit to provide resources for greening. There are different standards depending on the type of business wishing to become part of SFGB, but each of them has requirements under five sections: solid waste, energy conservation, water conservation, pollution prevention, and general/staff education.

Appendix D: Auditing Details

Auditing is an effective way to monitor businesses contribution to sustainable development. Many companies have also realized savings through their efforts to increase recycling. In 2006, a study of specific food service providers in the city of New York examined the impacts of engaging in sustainable business practices. The implementation of waste diversion measures was found to reduce businesses annual waste generation by more than 50 percent, saving it more than $25,000 a year in hauling and disposal costs.

In order to determine if restaurants are subscribing to the guidelines posed by the DOWN brand, random, biannual audits will be conducted. These audits will include lid flips, where the collection company will go through the garbage, recycling, and composting bins with the restaurants. In addition, a survey will be conducted in order to determine if any challenges to the program are occurring within the restaurant. The restaurant and the collection company will discuss these challenges and develop possible solutions. The collection company will determine if goals are being met. If standards have been met, further goals can be developed. The restaurant will also be rebranded until the next audit. If not, an action plan will be developed so that restaurants will be able to meet their goals for the next audit. They will lose


the brand until the standards have been met. Some questions that could be included in the survey are as follows:

• Are employees willingly complying with the composting program? • What level of training related to composting is included with new hires? • Are the bins properly sized for your operations? (e.g. are they full when pick-‐up occurs?

Are they overflowing?) • Are there any other challenges with the composting program specific to your

restaurant? • Have you noticed an increase in business since branded with the DOWN logo?

Appendix E: Acknowledgements

We gratefully acknowledge support from Kara Shaw, our Environmental Studies professor at the University of Victoria, who was always available and willing to provide ample feedback on our project.

In addition, we gratefully acknowledge Allison Ashcroft, city planner for the municipality of Victoria, for guiding our project and for providing us with many contacts to further our research.

We gratefully acknowledge Sean Hepple, a sustainability consultant for Waste Management, for taking the time to answer our many questions about addressing barriers to composting programs.

Thank you to the many restaurants that generously participated in our survey regarding composting barriers.

Thanks to Steve Stead, general manager of Gordon Food Services, who helped us estimate the cost of participating in their annual food show at Save on Foods Memorial Center.

We acknowledge our Environmental Studies 405 classmates for providing feedback on our draft proposal and our presentation.

Finally, we acknowledge Wendy Dunn, corresponding in place of Russ Smith, for giving us information on the upcoming organics ban at the Hartland Landfill.

Appendix F: References

Barr, S., & Gilg, A. (2011). ‘Helping People Make Better Choices’: Exploring the behaviour change agenda for environmental sustainability. Applied Geography , 31; 712-‐720. Boston, A., Licker, A., McEwen, B., Wilmot, S. (2010). Victoria Energy and Emissions Baseline Mapping. Retrieved October 21st from http://www.victoria.ca/assets/Departments/Sustainability/Documents/Victoria%20Ener gy%20and%20Baseline%20Mapping%20Report%20July%202010.pdf.


Boyes, E., & Stanisstreet, M. (2012). Environmental Education for BehaviourChange: Which actions should be Targeted? International Journal of Science Education , 34; 1591-‐1614. Carroll, J. (2012). San Fran voters not interested in ending deal with Recology. Waste & Recycling News, 15(8). Retrieved from http://bi.galegroup.com.ezproxy.library.uvic.ca/essentials/article/GALE|A293083782/fd 7c8d9d6c73610cddebd77413767400?u=uvictoria. Frutas, N. G., & Egea, J. M. (2011). Environmental Information Influences on Pro-‐environmental Behaviour Aimed at Fighting Climate Change: Main and Moderating Effects. Advances in

Advertising Research , 2: 75-‐90.

Green Municipal Fund (2009). Getting to 50% and Beyond: Waste Diversion Success Stories From Canadian Municipalities. Retrieved November 1st, 2012 from http://www.fcm.ca/Documents/presentations/2009/Getting_to_50_and_Beyond_Wast e_Diversion_Success_Stories_from_Canadian_Municipalities_Presentation_EN.pdf. National Resources Defense Council (2012). Greening Advisor. Accessed November

30th, 2012 from http://www.nrdc.org/enterprise/greeningadvisor/wm-‐audits.asp. Gordon, R., Carrigan, M. & Hastings, G. (2011). A framework for sustainable marketing. Marketing Theory 11(143). Retrieved November 1st, 2012 from http://mtq.sagepub.com/content/11/2/143. Griskevicius, V., Cantu, S. & van Vugt (2012). The Evolutionary Bases for Sustainable Behavior: Implications for Marketing, Policy, and Social Entrepreneurship. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing 31(1). Retrieved November 1st, 2012 from http://www.professormarkvanvugt.com/files/Sustainability_JPPM_2012(1).pdf. Hargreaves, T. (2011). Practice-‐ing behaviour change: Applying social practice theory to pro-‐ environmental behaviour change. Journal of Consumer Culture , 11; 79-‐99. McGrath, G. As cities seek to cut reliance on landfills, a green solution emerges in San Francisco. Recology: Waste Zero. Building a Smarter Planet. Retrieved from http://www.sunsetscavenger.com/building_a_smarter_planet.htm. Infrastructure Canada (2012). Gas Tax Fund. Accessed November 30th, 2012 from

http://www.infrastructure.gc.ca/prog/gtf-‐fte-‐eng.html. McKenzie-‐Mohr, D. & Smith, W. (1999). Fostering Sustainable Behaviour. Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers.


Organico (2011). Organico Waste Recovery Systems Ltd. Retrieved October 21st from http://www.organicovictoria.com/Pages/Home.aspx.

San Francisco Green Business Web site. (2009). Retrieved November 2, 2012, from http://www.sfgreenbusiness.org/. Spencer, R. (June, 2008). Public/Private Partnering Facilitates Organics Diversion. Biocycle 49, 20-‐25.