Final Report-tnaz

Running head: ZERO WASTE AT UALBERTA

MONITORING OF ZERO WASTE STATIONS AT UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA: STRENGTHS AND SHORTCOMINGS

By

TAIFOOR NAZ

M.Sc. Botany, University of Karachi, 1991

A Practicum Report submitted in partial fulfillment ofthe requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

in

ENVIRONMENTAL PRACTICE

We accept this report as conformingto the required standard

..........................................................Dr. Liza Ireland

Practicum CoordinatorSchool of Environment and Sustainability

ROYAL ROADS UNIVERSITY

March 2015

© Taifoor Naz, 2015

ZERO WASTE AT UALBERTA

Abstract

Waste accumulation due to irresponsible exploitation of natural resources is a global

issue. Traditionally, waste management is irrelevant of production system that is now being

criticized at national and global levels including Higher Educational Institutes (HEIs). HEIs at

university levels have key potential to change the perception of the society about sustainable

development. Reviewing academic literatures, this research explores underlying issues of global

waste management, role of HEIs in waste reduction, and current status of “Zero Waste”

initiatives around the globe to evaluate the newly implemented “Zero Waste” pilot project of

University of Alberta. The evaluation process comprised of data collection through bin

monitoring and spot audits of the Lister Center and Student Union Building, analysis to

determine current material recovery and waste contamination status, and overall response of the

users of the campus. Results indicate total material recovery rate as Marina (33%), Market

(58%), and SUB (49%). Regarding percent purity, the highest waste stream is the organics with

over 80% from all of the stations studied followed by recyclables (approximately 50%). The

observations suggest substantial lack of knowledge and awareness among users as well as a lack

of interest towards recycling. The study also finds plenty of room for intensified strategies to

improve recycling behavior throughout the campus and proposes some thoughts for these

strategies.

Keywords: Waste management, HEIs, Zero Waste, waste diversion, contamination

2


Acknowledgement

I am using this opportunity to express my gratitude to the professors and staff members

of Royal Roads University for providing me their genius guidance and aspiring support

throughout my endeavor of this Master degree. It would not have been possible without

invaluable constructive criticism of my teachers and friendly support of my class fellows. I am

especially thankful to Dr. Liza Ireland for her guidance and continuous support in completion of

this research project.

I would like to thank Dr. Daryl McCartney for providing me the opportunity of working

on this project and introducing me to Kentson Yan, my project supervisor who helped me in

every aspect of this journey. I would like to express my deepest regards and appreciation to

Kentson Yan for his crucial role in my project. His contribution in stimulating suggestions and

encouragement helped me to coordinate my project especially in writing this report.

Furthermore I would also like to acknowledge all of UAlberta Office of Sustainability

personnel who provided me the possibility to complete this report. I give a special gratitude to

Shannon Leblanc and Jessie Kwasney for their warm welcome and friendly and supportive

attitude throughout the project.

Last but not least, I cannot thank my family enough, specially my husband, for their

selfless and tireless support that gave me the nerve to continue learning. I must say that this

journey would not have been imaginable deprived of the sustenance of my family.

3


List of Abbreviations

BGS Buildings and Ground Services, University of Alberta

DG Daily Grind coffee shop

EMSO Energy Management and Sustainable Operations, University of

Alberta

EWMC Edmonton Waste Management Center

EWMCE Edmonton Waste Management Center of Excellence

HEIs Higher Education Institutes

LF Landfill materials of the waste

Main Main Zero Waste Station in SUB

MP Mixed paper waste stream

OR Organic waste stream

OS Office of Sustainability, University of Alberta

RE Recyclable waste stream

Stg Zero Waste Station beside stage in food arena of SUB

SUB Students’ Union Building

SW Zero Waste Station beside Subway in SUB

UAlberta University of Alberta

UG Under Grind coffee shop in the basement of SUB

UK United Kingdom

UN-SD United Nations Division for Sustainable Development

List of Tables

4


Table 1: Summary of Percentage of users of Marina who correctly recycled……………… 22

Table 2: Summary of Percentage of users of Market who correctly recycled………………. 23

Table 3: Total Cross Contamination in Marina……………………………………………… 24

Table 4: Percent Cross Contamination in Marina…………………………………………… 25

Table 5: Total Cross Contamination in Market……………………………………………… 26

Table 6: Percent Cross Contamination in Market…………………………………………… 26

Table 7: Summary of Total of Categories Analyzed, Marina……………………………….. 28

Table 8: Summary of Total of Categories Analyzed, Market……………………………….... 28

Table 9: Summary of Percentage of users of SUB who correctly recycled………………….. 30

Table 10: Total Cross Contamination in SUB………………………………………………... 31

Table 11: Percent Cross Contamination in SUB……………………………………………... 31

Table 12: Summary of Total of Categories Analyzed, SUB………………………………….. 33

Table 13: Percent Purity of Marina, Lister Center…………………………………………… 34

Table 14: Percent Purity of Market, Lister Center…………………………………………… 35

Table 15: Percent Purity of SUB……………………………………………………………… 36

5


List of Figures

Figure 1: Zero Waste Station, Marina………………………………………………………. 15

Figure 2: Zero Waste Station, Market……………………………………………………… 16

Figure 3: Data Collection Hierarchy for Analysis…………………………………………. 18

Figure 4: Sample Bin Monitoring Recording Sheet………………………………………... 19

Figure 5: Sample Spot Audit Recording Sheet……………………………………………... 20

Figure 6: Graphic illustration of cross contamination in Marina………………………… 25

Figure 7: Graphic illustration of cross contamination in Market………………………… 27

Figure 8: Graphic illustration of Total Material Recovery, Marina……………………… 29

Figure 9: Graphic illustration of Total Material Recovery, Market……………………… 29

Figure 10: Graphic illustration of Cross Contamination, SUB……………………………. 32

Figure 11: Graphic illustration of Total Material Recovery, SUB………………………… 33

Figure 12: Graphic illustration of % Purity, Marina……………………………………….. 35

Figure 13: Graphic illustration of % Purity, Market……………………………………….. 36

Figure 14: Graphic illustration of % Purity, SUB…………………………………………... 37

6


Table of Contents

Abstract................................................................................................................................................... 2

Acknowledgement............................................................................................................................... 3

List of Abbreviations........................................................................................................................... 4

List of Tables.......................................................................................................................................... 4

List of Figures........................................................................................................................................ 6

Table of Contents.................................................................................................................................. 7

Chapter 1: Introduction................................................................................................................... 10

Waste Management: A global issue......................................................................................................... 10

Role of Higher Education Institutes (HEIs) in Waste Reduction...................................................12

What is Zero Waste?..................................................................................................................................... 13

The “Zero Waste Pilot Project” of UAlberta (Lister and SUB).........................................................14

Zero Waste Stations (Lister and SUB).....................................................................................................15

Scope of This Study....................................................................................................................................... 17

Chapter 2: On-Site Activities (Methodology)............................................................................18

Bin monitoring............................................................................................................................................... 18

Spot Audits....................................................................................................................................................... 20

Chapter 3: Data Analysis / Results............................................................................................... 22

Quantified Analysis....................................................................................................................................... 22

Bin monitoring............................................................................................................................................... 22

Lister Center Data Analysis.........................................................................................................................................22

SUB Data Analysis..........................................................................................................................................................29

7


Spot Waste Audits.......................................................................................................................................... 34

Lister Center Data Analysis.........................................................................................................................................34

SUB Data Analysis..........................................................................................................................................................36

Qualified Analysis.......................................................................................................................................... 37

Users’ Attentiveness....................................................................................................................................................... 37

Users’ behavior.................................................................................................................................................................38

Common Confusions About Materials...................................................................................................................39

Chapter 4: Discussion....................................................................................................................... 40

Waste: An Opportunity................................................................................................................................ 40

HEIs and Waste Management: Current Initiatives.............................................................................41

Role of Signage in Service quality............................................................................................................ 42

Waste Reduction Through Educational Programs.............................................................................42

Waste Reduction Through Procurement...............................................................................................43

Chapter 5: Conclusions and Recommendations......................................................................44

Conclusion........................................................................................................................................................ 44

Future Recommendations for “Zero Waste Goal”...............................................................................44

Web- based Communication........................................................................................................................................45

Educational Initiatives....................................................................................................................................................45

Volunteer Incentives.......................................................................................................................................................46

Procurement....................................................................................................................................................................... 46

Final Words..................................................................................................................................................... 46

References............................................................................................................................................ 48

Appendix 1 – Summary of Outreach Initiatives of UAlberta................................................53

Appendix 2 – Sample Bin Monitoring Data Sheet....................................................................54

8


Appendix 3 – Sample Spot Audit Data Sheet.............................................................................55

Appendix 4 – Data Analysis of Lister and SUB Bin Monitoring...........................................56

Appendix 5 – Data Analysis of Lister and SUB Spot Audits..................................................57

9


Monitoring of Zero Waste Stations at University of Alberta: Strengths and Shortcomings

Chapter 1: Introduction

Zero waste is a philosophy and a design principle for the 21st Century; it is

not simply about putting an end to landfilling. Aiming for zero waste is not an

end-of-pipe solution. Zero waste efforts, just like recycling efforts before,

will change the face of solid waste management in the future. Instead of

managing wastes, we will manage resources and strive to eliminate waste.

(Schumpert & Dietz, 2012, p. 5)

Waste Management: A global issue

Industrial revolution and development in technology brought comfort and prosperity to

the economies and day-to-day lives of human societies of the current era, but it is also associated

with the massive generation of waste that is an evil part of each developmental process. The

cause is the random exploitation of natural resources without establishing a cyclical lifecycles of

the products produced by these resources. The lack of this sort of resource management resulted

in frightening increase in the numbers and areas of landfills all around the globe. These landfills

are a major cause of environmental pollution in terms of leachate and open burning, which has

resulted in the alarming increase of global temperature and frequency of natural disasters.

Traditionally, management of the issue of irrepressible waste is considered a system that

“flames, flushes, or flings” all unwanted or unusable products that a society generates (Seadon,

2010, Introduction, para 1). This insufficient approach without controlling the source point of

wastes has turned the world a global unsustainable society. United States Environmental

Protection Agency (USEPA) reports that Americans generated 251 million tons of waste in 2012

and recycled only 87 million, which is 34.5% of total trash (USEPA, 2014, MSW page, para. 2).

10


Canada has generated approximately 25 million tons of non-hazardous residential and non-

residential waste in 2010 while the conversion rate to recycling facilities was 33% for residential

and 19% for non-residential waste (Giroux, 2014, p. 8). UK has generated approximately 27

million tons of household waste in 2012, while the diversion or recycling rate was only 43.9%

(UK Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs, 2014, p. 2).

These statistics are just a glance over the current waste management situations in

developed countries of the world while the situation in developing countries is relatively

intimidating. According to United Nations Environment Program (UNEP, 2013) guidelines for

national waste management strategies, global statistics shows that more than 1.3 billion tons

waste have been generated in 2012 while almost 50% of the world population does not have

access to the waste management services and open dumping is still the method of disposal of all

kinds of wastes in most low income countries (p. 7). Further, waste collection rates in low and

middle-income countries are also as low as 40% compared to the 98% for high-income countries

(UNEP, 2013, p. 7).

Perhaps the issue lies in the conventional approaches of dealing with waste because

common waste management system operates irrelevant to the production system. This global

issue was also addressed in agenda 21 of the “United Nations Conference on Environment &

Development, June 2012” that defines environmentally sound waste management as one step

ahead to disposal or recovery of wastes to change unsustainable pattern of production and

consumption, which is the source point of the problem (United Nations Division for Sustainable

Development (UN-SD), 1992, para. 21.4). The agenda 21 provided a conceptual and

methodological framework for countries to develop an integrated life cycle management concept

in their national waste management strategies to reconcile development with environmental

11


protection (UNEP, 2013, p 8 & UN-SD, 1992, para. 21.4). This proposed framework is a

hierarchy of waste-related action plans in an order of preference, which are prevention and

reduction, reuse and recycling, better disposal and treatment, and higher waste service coverage

(UN-SD, 1992, para. 21.5 & UNEP, 2013, p. 18).

Role of Higher Education Institutes (HEIs) in Waste Reduction

Sustainable development starts with the awareness and knowledge of the need to comply

with the nature and natural processes around it and us and it can be best achieved by sustainable

education. Higher Education Institutes (HEIs) at university levels have key potential to change

the perception of the society about sustainable development because they develop professionals

and skilled community members who can shape social insights, lead technological innovations,

and influence policy making processes at national as well as international levels. This potential is

evident through the declaration of United Nations for the period of 2005-2014 as “Decade of

Education” to promote sustainability in all the aspects of educational processes (UNESCO,

2009). Regarding this directive, universities can assimilate sustainability into their curricula,

research, operations, and assessment (Gomez, Navarrete, Lioi, & Marzuca, 2014).

Another point of consideration for the vital role of HEIs for sustainability is the growing

international aspect of knowledge through several factors like urbanization, migrations, broader

access of learning resources, and greater technical supports that makes HEIs a multi-cultural

community of teachers, students, researchers, and future professionals (Gomez, et al. 2014 &

UNESCO, 1993). Over recent decades, this global and multicultural era of HEIs builds students’

personalities through “a complex network of experiences” and makes them responsible to elevate

the degrees of cognizance and ethics necessary for a sustainable global future (Gomez, et al.

2014). Moreover, most of the HEIs are located in the central areas of big cities, which are

12


already environmentally vulnerable in most of the cases and that also make them compelled to

integrate enhanced sustainability measures in all of their operations to advocate sustainable

development. A good example is University of Huston that is located in down town Huston,

covers approximately 550 acres with more than 100 buildings, and is being obligated by

regulatory bodies to reduce their wastes, specially chemical and hazardous wastes from their

more than 700 laboratories (Sullivan, O’Riley, & Shiwprasad, 2010).

What is Zero Waste?

The term “zero waste” is neither new for environmentally efficient communities nor only

a campaign of “empty trash bins”, but the zenith of the waste management hierarchy that aims to

improve resource efficiency to achieve sustainability (Jessen, 2003). The “Zero Waste Goal” was

first introduced in 1996 in Canberra, Australia, when the city government passed “No Waste by

2010” bill (Paul, 2006). After this advance, several countries initiated different aspects of the

zero waste tactic such as resource recovery park of Canberra, residual screening facilities of

Nova Scotia, and new source separation and collection system of San Francisco with huge

achievements towards waste reduction (Paul, 2006). Further, more than half of New Zealand

districts, Seattle, and North Carolina have began the zero waste programs for different passages

of time for achieving zero waste goals from 2015 to 2025 (Paul, 2006). Jessen (2003) also has

reported several well-established companies and businesses such as Interface Inc., Kimberley

Clarke, Hewlett-Packard of USA, Bell Canada, Toyota, and Ogihara in Japan, who are gaining

the extra environmental and economic benefits trough their zero emission initiates (p 4).

This revolutionary idea of waste reduction has become a global movement that puts

emphasis on such type of resources input in the consumer’s society that would be 100% reusable,

recyclable, or compostable after consumption (Paul, 2006). In other words, “Zero Waste” mimics

13


the nature for the cyclical nature of natural resources, as there is no waste in nature. The idea of

no waste has also captured the attention of renowned HEIs in the world such as research from

University of Southampton highly recommended new policies for better resource recovery

(Anonymous, 2011). For example, Arizona State University (ASU) initiated their “Roadmap to

zero solid waste” program with the goal of more than 90% waste reduction by 2015 (PR

Newswire, 2012) and “zero waste campus” commitment of Aquinas College, Michigan by 2014

(Dewey, 2014).

The “Zero Waste Pilot Project” of UAlberta (Lister and SUB)

Having a leading role in the community, five campuses, sixty four departments, 8000

staff members, 36000 students from 130 countries of the world, over 400 research laboratories,

and covering an area of 1.5 million square meters, the University of Alberta (UAlberta) is more

than a mini city within the city of Edmonton (University of Alberta, 2008). The UAlberta Office

of Sustainability is actively involved in streamlining, reduction, and diversion of their wastes

through campus sustainability initiatives (e.g., outreach and operations) and collaboration of

many organizations to achieve the University’s set target of diverting 50% (by mass) of landfill

waste by 2015 (University of Alberta, 2002-2015a). In order to accomplish this commitment, the

University of Alberta has initiated several programs and courses with the collaboration of

Edmonton Waste Management Centre of Excellence (EWMCE) to improve their waste

management system and to develop best waste management practices across the campus

(University of Alberta, 2002-2015b).

Currently, the University of Alberta is piloting a new zero waste project with the

collaboration of EWMCE and Tetra Tech EBA. This project “Post-implementation Monitoring

of Zero Waste Stations” is designed to observe users’ responses/behavior against the new set-up

14


of waste disposal. The data obtained through this observation will be used to further improve

waste diversion and awareness through initiatives such as enhancing the user experience through

better signage, ease of use, and convenience. Two buildings, Students’ Union Building (SUB)

and Lister Centre, were selected for this pilot project with the implementation of new “Zero

Waste Stations” in the dining areas of these buildings. The monitoring process comprises of bin

monitoring and spot waste audits. Bin monitoring involves recording data for users’ recycling

behaviors, their awareness about recycling, and their attention to the new signage system. Spot

audits are periodical audits of designated waste stations to quantify the actual waste and the

contaminants (wrong waste materials in wrong bins) of all four waste streams.

Zero Waste Stations (Lister and SUB)

As shown in Figures 1 and 2, Zero Waste Stations contain four containers that are color

coded for specific types of material streams. The signage system is fairly elaborate with stencil

prints on the front of each bin and a headboard above each bin, which are highly visible to the

users. The headboards holds pictures of materials belonging to that bin that are common in the

campus. Besides these sign, each main station has a big hanging decal with the logo of “Zero

Waste” with a slogan “Waste Less, Recycle More”

on top of the waste station that is noticeably visible and readable from a distance.

Each station has four material streams. The “Recyclable Bins” are bright blue in color

and have graphic signs of beverage containers, plastics, and glass/light metals. The UAlberta

prefers paper be recycled as oppose to be

composted, hence the MP material stream goes into golden oak colored “Mixed Paper

Bins” with the graphics of papers and cardboard materials on the headboard. The

“Organic Bins” are green and have signs of leftover food, napkins, receipts, and

Figure 1: Zero Waste Station, Marina

15


compostable food wrappings like pizza trays and French-fries containers. Lastly, the “Landfill

Bins”, which are black in color and meant to have all the non-recyclable and non-compostable

materials such as Styrofoam containers, Tim Hortons cups, chips, chocolates, and cookie

wrappers, and non-recyclable plastics.

In the Lister Center, Marina is located on the main floor in Lister Center and a busy

“takeout or eat-in area” of the building. There are two Zero Waste stations in Marina, which are

placed beside each other near the exit door. Marina has Tim Hortons, a pizza and Chinese food

restaurant, and loads of frozen, packaged, Juices and junk food items. The dining gears include

biodegradable paper-based food containers and napkins and recyclable plastic crockery. The only

items that belong to landfill bins are Tim Hortons’ coffee cups with lids, disposable juice cups,

and chocolate and cookie wrappers. The

second dinning area is the Market that is upstairs and surrounded by several conference halls. It

is a formal dine in area that completely serves their food in reusable serve wares. The zero waste

station is located beside the main door with an organized set up of waste disposal with a big

slotted cart beside the waste station for reusable dishes. The station has an additional Organic bin

because most of the waste is biodegradable in nature.

The second studied building for this project is the Student Union Building. It is a busy

place because of high frequency of different students activities such as student’s campaigns,

occasional stalls, pet therapy, and student’s performances. There is one huge food arena and

three sitting and dinning areas on the main floor and one food area is in the basement. The main

food arena comprises of variety of food shops such as Daily grind (a coffee shop), Greek food,

Pita Shop, Edo, and Subway. It has four waste stations to cover three dinning areas. Among

16


several Zero Waste Stations, five stations were chosen for bin monitoring and named as SUB

Main, DG (Daily Grind), SW (By Subway), Stg (SUB Stage), and UG (Under Grind).

Scope of This Study

The scope of this study is the post-implementation monitoring of “Zero Waste” stations

in the Lister Center and Students Union Building of UAlberta campus. This research is being

conducted on behalf of EWMCE. Three objectives are chosen for this paper: 1) Study of

behavior/response of the users regarding waste disposal, recycling, and attentiveness towards

“Zero Waste” stations, 2) Data collection and analysis to determine current status of recycling,

material recovery, and contamination, and 3) Discussion about strengths, weaknesses, and key

areas of concern of the project in the light of literature review and potential examples of similar

sustainability initiatives of other HEIs in the world. Furthermore, based on a literature review,

this paper recommends certain initiatives (e.g. procurement, more effective signage and

awareness programs) to enhance the effectiveness of the program for University of Alberta.

17


Chapter 2: On-Site Activities (Methodology)

For this study, the methodology used for the collection of data is basically to monitor the

effectiveness of the new initiative of Zero Waste within the campus. It was done in two

dimensions: 1) Observation of users behaviors regarding this new waste disposal system and 2)

Determination of incorrect use or cross contamination within different waste streams through

spot audits. In so doing, first dimension was carried out through bin monitoring and the data is

mostly used for qualitative analysis, while spot audits are used for the data collection for

quantitative analysis. Finally the data obtained from these activities was used to identify the

strength and shortcomings, key challenges, potential for improvement, and recommendations for

future improvements. Figure 3 illustrates the hierarchy of data collection and analysis.

18

Data Collection

Bin Monitoring

Users' Bhavior/Attention to Signs

% of Users had Materials and Used Correct Bins

% of Cross Contamination (Incorrect Material in incorrect Bins)

Spot Audits

Weight of Correct Material in Correct Bins of 4 waste Streams

Weight of Contamination (Incorrect Material in incorrect Bins)

Figure 3: Data Collection Hierarchy for Analysis


Bin monitoring

Bin monitoring is actually the observation of the users’ pattern or behavior toward the

newly installed zero waste stations. Recording the users’ picks for bins to throw their waste did

it. The sample sheet (Figure 4) shows the method of data collection Abbreviations were used as

mixed paper bin (MP), recyclable bin (Re), organics bin (Or), and landfill bin (LF).

First two sections are quantified observations of number of users, the bins used by them,

and the actual waste material they had. Second section is used for qualified data that records

19

Figure 4: Sample Bin Monitoring Recording Sheet

Date: Location:Material Disposed Bin Used Observations Analysis

User

MP

Re Or LF MP Re Or LFPaus

e (sec)

Comments / Type of contaminant

had div, but did not

recycle123

Notes SUMMARY LFMP RE OR

MPMP in Re

MP in Or

RERe in

MP

Re in Or

OR Or in MP

Or in Re

LF LF in MP

LF in Re

Lf in Or

Total

Cross MP

Cross Re

Cross Or

Cross Contamination Matrix

Total # of users monitored# Of users had material# Of users had material and used correct bin# Of users had div material, did not recycle 0

Analysis% of total, had material% had material and used correct bin% had divertible, and did not divert (i.e. all landfill)

Average pause time (second)


about the details of their behaviors, their attentiveness, and the time they took for reading the

signs around the stations. This comment or observation section also covers the type of

contaminants i.e., which bin was contaminated by incorrect disposal and this data was separately

used for the analysis of contaminations. For example, if the user threw their leftover food in

recyclable bin then it will be recorded as contamination of recycle bin with organics. But, in the

case of that organics in landfill bin, it will be counted in analysis section as one user who had

divertible material but did not recycle.

The number of users has been recorded in one session ranged from four to forty seven

depending upon the factors like observer’s availability, time of the day, and ongoing events

around the observation area. The data is summarized into three categories: 1) Number of users

had material, 2) Number of users had material and used correct bin, and 3) Number of users had

divertible, but did not recycle. The last section quantifies the cross contamination data through

matrix to analyze the percentage of cross contamination in different waste streams.

Spot Audits

Weighing the total amount of correct waste materials of coordinating bins and incorrect

materials as contaminants did waste audits (Spot audits) for this study. This method is the

passive observation of the status of correct and incorrect uses of the Zero Waste stations by the

users. Figure 5 shows the methodology of data collection for the spot audits of Lister Center and

SUB.

20


Figure 5: Sample Spot Audit Recording Sheet

The material used for these audits are one full bag of all four waste streams from the

selected waste stations that were collected weekly and analyzed at the temporary stations at the

back of each building. In so doing, each labeled bag was sorted out into two bins, one as the

correct waste that belongs to that waste stream and other as incorrect or contaminants. Both bins

were weighed as the total weight of that waste stream and other as contaminants in that stream.

The correct waste shows the correct use of bins by the users, while contaminants are the

wastes that do not belong to their bins. For example, the organic components of waste from an

organic bin will be considered correct waste, while other components such as recyclables and

papers will be recorded as contaminants. The analysis of this data will determine the weekly

trend of percentage of contamination

For this study, two stations in the Lister Center, Marina and Market, were audited

weekly, while SUB was audited for three stations, Main, Daily Grind and SUB Stage. Weekly

spot waste audits include spot collection of wastes from zero waste stations, separation of the

21

UALBERTA - SPOT/MINI AUDIT FORM

Date: Conducted by: Time: to pm

Station: Station: Station:

MIXED PAPER STREAM MIXED PAPER STREAM MIXED PAPER STREAM

RECYCLABLE STREAM RECYCLABLE STREAM RECYCLABLE STREAM

ORGANICS STREAM ORGANICS STREAM ORGANICS STREAM

LANDFILL STREAM LANDFILL STREAM LANDFILL STREAM


waste of each bag in two streams (the correct waste and contaminants), and recording their

weights.

22


Chapter 3: Data Analysis / Results

The data collected for this study was analyzed as quantified and qualified data analysis.

Quantified Analysis

Bin monitoring

For this study, bin-monitoring data is analyzed in three dimensions: 1) Total numbers and

percentages of users who carefully and correctly recycled, 2) Total numbers and their fractions

of users who tried to recycle, but did it incorrectly and caused cross contamination in other waste

streams, and 3) Complete comparison of all aspects of analysis such as number of users, numbers

and their percentages of disposed, recycled, and non-recycled wastes. Further, the two buildings

(Lister & SUB) will be analyzed separately due to difference in nature, purpose, and activities.

Lister Center Data Analysis. The data was collected from August 28, 2014 to

November 12, 2014 and distributed into ten weeks. Table 1 for Marina and 2 for Market show

the percentage of correctly recycled wastes as first Dimension of the analysis.

Table 1

Summary of Percentage of users of Marina who correctly recycled

23

BinsPercentage of Users had Materials and Used Correct Bins, Marina

W1 W2 W3 W4 W5 W6 W7 W8 W9 W10 AVGMP -- -- 100% 0% -- 100% -- 100% -- -- 30%

RE 50% 63% 45% 20% 36% 17% 0% 20% 50% 9% 31%

OR 19% 36% 13% 43% 5% 29% 6% 20% 33% 38% 24%

LF 83% 14% 40% 100% 75% 100% 50% 75% 62% 56% 66%


Note. The Table shows weekly percentage of correct recycling of each waste stream in Marina;

W stands for Week; MP, RE, OR, and LF are the bins of four waste streams (see List of

Abbrevitions); AVG stands for Average that shows total percentage of correct recycling of each

waste stream.

It can be observed in Table 1 that the readings are not very consistent for MP materials.

The reason behind this could be the nature of the food area where it is not very likely to have

paper wastes and most of the readings are zero. Moreover, among very low number of users had

MP, if one user had MP and correctly disposed it, the percentage of that week is 100 and if not, it

is zero (No reading (--) denotes no use of that bin). So in this case, that data shows a 30%

recovery rate of MP waste stream. The RE waste stream is quite frequent in Marina and ranges

from 0% to 63% in ten weeks whereas the average ratio of correct disposal is 31%. Organics are

usually the main component of the waste in any food area to dispose but data presents only 24%

recovery of organic materials in Marina within a range of 5% to 43%. According to the obtained

data, landfill’s correct disposal average is 66%, which is the highest correct within all waste

streams. Observations reveal that it is mostly due to the highest rate of use by the users rather

than correct disposal.

Table 2

Summary of Percentage of users of Market who correctly recycled

24

BinsPercentage of Users had Materials and Used Correct Bins, Market

W1 W2 W3 W4 W5 W6 W7 W8 W9 W10 AVGMP -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 0%

RE 92% 100% 50% 100% 29% 67% 44% 20% 83% 100% 69%OR 62% 50% 54% 56% 61% 69% 55% 88% 57% 46% 60%LF 50% -- 67% 40% 67% -- 100% -- 25% 100% 45%


Note. The Table shows weekly percentage of correct recycling of each waste stream in Market;

description of table is same as Table 1.

Table 2 shows that data obtained from the Market of Lister Center. Market is a formal

diner place with a highly organized disposal system. In the Market observations for ten weeks

show 0% recovery of MP materials. There could be two explanations, one that no one had MP

waste or nobody used MP bin because it is evident in Figure 2 that MP bin is the far most bin of

the station in the corner. In this case, users had MP materials but did not use the correct bin. For

recyclable waste, data shows better recovery rate of an average of 69%, which is within the range

of 20% to 100%. Organic recovery is 60% within the range of 46% to 88%. The data in table 2

appeared slightly consistent for OR recovery that is probably because of the restaurant style food

and use of reusable dinning accessories. Lastly, LF recovery of 45% demonstrates low frequency

of landfill materials in the Market because theoretically, it should be quite lesser than observed.

The reason could be that the LF bin is the first reachable bin for the users (Figure 2) and users

have been observed using LF bin for napkins during bin monitoring.

Second dimension of the analysis used in this study for bin monitoring is total numbers

of users who tried to recycle, but did it incorrectly and instigated cross contamination. Table 3

will show contamination of total of all three waste streams in Marina while table 4 shows

percentage of contamination of each waste stream.

Table 3

Total Cross Contamination in Marina

25


Note. The Table shows total amount of incorrect recycled materials in MP, RE, and OR waste

streams; % Contamination is calculated by dividing total numbers of contamination and users.

Table 4

Percent Cross Contamination in Marina

Note. The Table shows percentage of the data in Table 3; the percentage is obtained through

division of each individual contamination with total of contaminations in all waste streams.

Regarding second dimension, Figure 4 demonstrates the matrix that is used to analyze

bin-monitoring data to determine the percentage of cross contamination of MP, RE, and OR

waste streams. Landfill data is not included in this analysis because this dimension has more

focus on the purity of divertible rather than material recovery from landfills as waste audits. It

26

Total Cross Contamination, Marina

MP RE OR Total # Of Users % ContaminationWeek 1 7 0 1 8 28 29%Week 2 4 1 4 9 15 60%Week 4 12 3 0 15 23 65%Week 6 0 0 0 0 11 0%Week 7 24 7 1 32 72 44%Week 8 10 4 1 15 26 58%Week 9 3 5 1 9 27 33%Week 10 1 1 0 2 25 8%

% Cross Contamination, MarinaMP RE OR Total

Week 1 88% 0% 13% 100%Week 2 44% 11% 44% 100%Week 4 80% 20% 0% 100%Week 6 -- -- -- --Week 7 75% 22% 3% 100%Week 8 67% 27% 7% 100%Week 9 33% 56% 11% 100%Week 10 50% 50% 0% 100%


can be observed in Tables 3 and 4 that weeks 3 and 5 are not included. This was done to keep the

data consistent with the activity table, as no data of contamination was available for these weeks.

Figure 6: Graphic illustration of cross contamination in Marina. % Contamination

represents the data obtained from Table 3.

It can be observed in Figure 6 that after week 3, overall cross contamination in the bins

is slightly decreasing (From 65% to 8%), which is obviously a good sign regarding the success

towards this new waste reduction initiative around the campus.

The second place in the Lister Center that was observed in this study is the Market.

Regarding cross contamination, the Market is slightly lower than Marina within a range of 32%

to 4%. The data was analyzed in Tables 5 and 6 and Figure 7 expresses the data graphically.

Table 5

Total Cross Contamination in Market

27

Total Cross Contamination, MarketMP RE OR Total # Of Users % Contamination

Week 1 0 1 2 3 49 6%Week 2 2 0 0 2 18 11%Week 4 11 2 0 13 55 24%Week 6 1 1 2 4 25 16%Week 7 3 1 1 5 62 8%Week 8 1 0 2 3 20 15%Week 9 4 3 1 8 25 32%Week 10 0 0 1 1 26 4%


Note. Description of the Table is same as Table 3.

Table 6

Percent Cross Contamination in Market

Note. Description of the Table is same as Table 4.

Figure 7: Graphic illustration of cross contamination in Market. % Contamination is obtained

from Table 3.

Third dimension of the analysis summarizes the data into aforementioned three

categories. Tables 7 and 8 show the summary of the data collected from Lister bin monitoring

including Marina and Market. Summary of Table 7 shows that 227 users in Marina have been

monitored using Zero Waste station during the period of ten weeks. Most of the users had wastes

of more than one waste stream and summarized by their number of disposal attempts and types

28

% Cross Contamination, MarketMP RE OR Total

Week 1 0% 33% 67% 100%Week 2 100% 0% 0% 100%Week 4 85% 15% 0% 100%Week 6 25% 25% 50% 100%Week 7 60% 20% 20% 100%Week 8 33% 0% 67% 100%Week 9 50% 38% 13% 100%Week 10 0% 0% 100% 100%


of materials they had. It can be observed that total of 314 waste materials had been disposed in

which there were 8 (3%) mixed paper material, 82 (26%) recyclables, 165 (52%) organics, and

60 (19%) landfill material present. Regarding the details of the four waste streams, recycling rate

of MP is 62%, RE is 30%, OR is 23%, and LF is 60%, while the rest of the materials were either

went into incorrect bins (Contaminants) or LF bins. Overall, out of the total waste recorded, only

33% was correctly recycled while 67% was wasted. The data obtained from Market shows fairly

high concentration of OR material in their waste (76%) and the recovery rate of 59% is indeed a

positive sign. LF materials are only 7% of the total waste that is an achievement for a diner

regarding their procurement strategy. As mentioned before, MP is the least used bin in the

Market, as the data appears zero activity here.

Table 7

Summary of Total of Categories Analyzed, Marina

Note. The Table displays total of the data obtained from Marina in three categories; Number of

users is the data from ten weeks observations; Number of materials is the total amount and

attempts of users in all four streams; Number of materials in correct bin is the total of recycling;

Number of divertible not recycled is the total of the use of LF bins.

Table 8

Summary of Total of Categories Analyzed, Market

29

Summary of Analyzed Categories, Market

Categories MP RE OR LF Total

Total Number of users monitored 279

Numbers of materials users had 0 59(18%) 257(76%) 22(7%) 338

Number of materials in correct bins

0 34(58%) 151(59%) 12(55%) 197(58%)

Number of divertible not recycled 0 25(42%) 106(41%) 10(45%) 141(42%)

Summary of Analyzed Categories, Marina


Total Number of users monitored 227

Numbers of materials users had 8(3%) 82(26%) 165(52%) 60(19%) 314

Number of materials in correct bins 5(62%) 25(30%) 37(23%) 36(60%) 103(33%)

Number of divertible not recycled 3(38%) 57(70%) 128(77%) 24(40%) 212(67%)


Note. The Table displays total of the data obtained from Market in three categories; description

of the table is same as Table 7.

Further, graphical illustrations of the analysis of total percentage of material recovery

(Number of materials in correct bins) in Marina and Market are shown in Figures 8 and 9.

Figure 8: Graphic illustration of Total Material Recovery, Marina. % Users who used correct

bins represents data analysis of all four waste streams from Appendix 4.

Figure 9: Graphic illustration of Total Material Recovery, Market. % Users who used correct

bins represents data analysis of all four waste streams from Appendix 4.

SUB Data Analysis. Bin monitoring in the Students Union Building (SUB) was slight

different from the Lister Center in terms of period of the semester, dates, frequency, number of

stations observed, and time of the day. As mentioned before, five Zero Waste Stations (Main,

30


DG, Stg, SW, & UG) were selected for this study and have been observed in different days and

time because it was difficult to monitor all the stations in one day. Observations started from

October 3 to November 26, 2014 and analyzed for six weeks periods where week 1 has only one

monitoring data while weeks 5 and 6 have all five stations covered. Because of this frequency

constraint, this study will examine the data on average of weeks. The data was analyzed in three

dimensions, same as the Lister Center.

First dimension of the analysis was the percentage of correctly recycled wastes.

Table 9 shows the quantitative observations. The data demonstrates higher percentages of

recycling activities in RE and LF streams. Observations clarified that in the case of RE bins,

users usually seemed confident about their disposal choice, but LF bins were used for many

reasons by users of the SUB such as lack of attention on the signs, lack of time, lack of

awareness about the product they have, and more frequently in the case of any confusion. This

trend resulted in higher recovery rate of landfill materials but lower the recovery frequency of

other waste streams specially MP and OR.

Table 9

Summary of Percentage of users of SUB who correctly recycled

Note. The Table shows weekly percentage of correct recycling of each waste stream in all five

waste stations of SUB; W stands for Week; MP, RE, OR, and LF are the bins of four waste

31

BinsPercentage of Users had Materials and Used Correct Bins

Week 1 Week 2 Week3 Week4 Week5 Week6 AVGMP -- 63% 75% 33% -- 60% 39%RE 100% 69% 61% 78% 66% 36% 68%OR 38% 14% 7% 17% 26% 11% 19%LF 75% 92% 93% 94% 84% 92% 88%


streams (see List of Abbreviations); AVG stands for Average that shows total percentage of

correct recycling of each waste stream.

Regarding second dimension of the analysis, which is total numbers of users who tried

to recycle, but did it incorrectly and caused cross contamination, data obtained from SUB was

used on average for six-week duration. Table 10 displays the analysis of cross contamination,

while Table 11 shows the percentage of contamination of individual waste streams.

Table 10

Total Cross Contamination in SUB

Note. The Table shows total amount of incorrect recycled materials in MP, RE, and OR waste

streams; % Contamination is calculated by dividing total numbers of contamination and users.

Table 11

Percent Cross Contamination in SUB

% Cross Contamination

MP RE OR TotalWeek 1 0% 67% 33% 100%Week 2 50% 25% 25% 100%Week 3 56% 33% 11% 100%Week 4 100% 0% 0% 100%Week 5 47% 26% 26% 100%Week 6 50% 25% 25% 100%

32

Total Cross Contamination

MP RE OR Total # Of Users % Contamination

Week 1 0 2 1 3 26 12%Week 2 6 3 3 12 122 10%Week 3 5 3 1 9 48 19%Week 4 7 0 0 7 62 11%Week 5 9 5 5 19 109 17%Week 6 6 3 3 12 132 9%


Note. The Table shows percentage of the data in Table 10; the percentage is obtained through

division of each individual contamination with total of contaminations in all waste streams.

The data presents a slight decrease in the rate of contamination from the highest 19% to

9%. According to the individual waste streams, MP has the highest rate of contamination. The

reason could be the common confusion of users about napkin and other biodegradable papers

such as food containers and paper cups, which were usually been put into MP bins. Graphical

illustration of the data also clarifies the decrease in contamination rate in SUB (Figure 10).

Figure 10: Graphic illustration of Cross Contamination, SUB. % Contamination is obtained from

Table 11.

Third dimension of the analysis demonstrates all the categories that have been analyzed

in this study. In SUB (Table 12), total 474 users were observed during entire sessions of bin

monitoring for all five stations that disposed 614 waste materials of all waste streams. The ratio

of correctly recycled and non-recycled materials is approximately the same (49 & 51%) but it

can be observed that the lowest recovery rate is of OR waste stream (only 20%) as compare to

the landfill (87%). MP rate of recovery is 61% that is close to the RE (64%). As mentioned in the

33


Lister bin monitoring analysis, higher rate of LF recovery is mostly due to non-recycling attitude

of the users rather than positive separation and recycling of the landfill materials from other

recoverable waste streams. It was fairly common observation in the SUB that users were

confused between biodegradable paper and Styrofoam food containers and most of the users

decided to throw then in LF bins. Same attitude was observed for napkins with the difference of

use of both MP and LF bins. A graphic illustration in Figure 11 expresses the trend of recycling

in SUB more explicitly.

Table 12

Summary of Total of Categories Analyzed, SUB

Note. The Table displays total of the data obtained from all five stations of SUB in three

categories; Number of users is the data from ten weeks observations; Number of materials is the

total amount and attempts of users in all four streams; Number of materials in correct bin is the

total of recycling; Number of divertible not recycled is the total of the use of LF bins.

34

Summary of Categories Analyzed, SUB


Total Number of users monitored 474Numbers of materials users had 36(6%) 112(18%) 301(49%) 165(27%) 614

Number of materials in correct bins 22(61%) 72(64%) 60(20%) 144(87%) 298(49%)

Number of divertible not recycled 14(39%) 40(36%) 241(80%) 20(13%) 315(51%)


Figure 11: Graphic illustration of Total Material Recovery, SUB. % Users who used correct bins

represents data analysis of all four waste streams from Appendix 4.

Spot Waste Audits

Lister Center Data Analysis. This study used the method of spot audits to measure the

percentage of “correct waste” present in the labeled bins and the percentage of all other types of

materials in that bin, considered as “contaminants”. In the Lister Center, total of six spot audits

have been done for the Lister Center (Both Marina and Market together) during the period of

September 10 to October 29, 2014. The data is analyzed as “% Purity” of the recovered materials

from landfills through the “Zero Waste Stations”.

Tables 13 and 14 show the percentages of purity of all four waste streams from Marina

and Market in the Lister Center. OR and RE wastes have higher rate of purity, or in other words,

less contamination than the other two streams.

Table 13

Percent Purity of Marina, Lister Center

35

% Purity – Waste Audit Results of Marina

Weeks MP RE OR LF

I 3% 35% 81% 13%2 0% 55% 90% 18%3 15% 34% 82% 10%4 0% 0% 86% 19%5 0% 38% 86% 5%6 3% 21% 93% 16%


Note. The Table explains the ratio of correct and incorrect recycling in all four waste streams in

Marina; the data is analyzed as percentage of purity of individual waste streams through the

formula: % Purity= 1- Weight of Contaminants / (Weight of Correct Waste + Weight of

Contaminants); data analysis is presented in Appendix 5.

Table 14

Percent Purity of Market, Lister Center


Market; description of the table is same as Table 13.

The data indicates better understanding of users about organic and recyclable waste

materials. However, the fact that organic food materials are fairly heavy than Styrofoam or

chocolate or cookie wrappers may alter this understanding. For example, if five users put

36

% Purity – Waste Audit Results of MarketWeeks MP RE OR LF

I 46% 78% 98% 27%2 57% 78% 84% 32%3 0% 65% 90% 12%4 64% 57% 91% 28%5 100% 93% 93% 16%6 77% 54% 89% 11%


Styrofoam food container in OR bin and one user threw an apple, the result will indicate higher

percentage of OR material in that OR bin. Other factor that can show higher percentage of purity

is lesser usage of the bin that is the case of higher percentage of purity in MP bin of Market.

Figures 12 and 13 will express the results graphically.

Figure 12: Graphic illustration of % Purity, Marina. Data analysis obtained from six waste

audits is presented in Appendix 5.

Figure 13: Graphic illustration of % Purity, Market. Data analysis obtained from six waste audits

is presented in Appendix 5.

SUB Data Analysis. Sub spot audits started from October 8, 2014 and ended at

November 26, 2014. In SUB, Six reading were taken from week 5 to 10, to be consistent with the

Lister Center. For SUB, only three stations were chosen for spot audits, which are Main, DG,

37


and Stg stations. Same as bin monitoring data, analysis of SUB spot audits were done on an

average basis. Table 15 and Figure 15 show the percentages of purity in all three stations.

Table 15

Percent Purity of SUB


all five waste stations of SUB; description of the table is same as Table 13.

Figure 14: Graphic illustration of % Purity, SUB. Data analysis obtained from six waste audits is

presented in Appendix 5.

In comparison of the Lister Center, SUB data show a higher range of purity in all of their

waste streams that indicates enhanced acceptance of recycling initiatives in this busy place. The

38

% Purity – Waste Audit Results of SUBWeeks MP RE OR LF

I 46% 78% 98% 27%2 57% 78% 84% 32%3 0% 65% 90% 12%4 64% 57% 91% 28%5 100% 93% 93% 16%6 77% 54% 89% 11%


data also show lower rates of purity in LF stream that could be the observed confusion about

certain recyclable materials such as napkins and paper based food containers.

Qualified Analysis

Qualitative analysis was performed during bin monitoring and was focused on users’

attention to the new waste stations, time taken to read the signs on the bins, and overall users’

behaviors and habits towards waste disposal.

Users’ Attentiveness. For a hectic campus such as University of Alberta, proper waste

disposal is usually not the main priority of the people, which is mostly based on their habits and

convenience. Regarding observations of using these well organized, colorful, and eye-catching

“Zero Waste Stations”, it undeniably catches users’ attention most of the times. Even though the

concept of “Zero Waste” is relatively new for the society as well as around the campus, most of

the users have been observed paying attention to the overall set up of these waste stations. It was

frequently observed that users take time to read the signs on the bins prior to disposing their

wastes. Among all the stations observed in both buildings, most attentive users were observed in

the Market, Lister Center. It could be because of several sustainability initiatives taken in the

Lister center (S. Leblanc, personal communication (see Appendix 1 for details), February 26,

2015), but it seems more about the procured and organized environment of the Market where

users really take time to rub off their reusable dishes to put in the dirty dishes cart.

Users’ behavior. Most of the users observed for this study were students of UAlberta,

however faculty members, staff, construction workers, and a vast variety of visitors were also

observed occasionally (approximately 25% of users). It was observed frequently that when

students were in groups of three to six persons, they were busy talking and paid very little

attention to the waste stations or the signs around them. An interesting observation revealed that

39


the choice of bin of the first person influenced the subsequent choices of the rest of the group.

Seldom people chose a different bin than the first person. This behavior was very common in

Marina of Lister Center where the waste stations are in front of the exit door and most of the

users just pass by the waste stations without paying any attention to the signs or watching their

moves. Another place that experienced this behavior of users was the DG station in SUB, which

was also at the end corner of the food arena towards the exit door.

Besides this inattentiveness, some keen and watchful users have also been observed at all

of the stations, but most seemed like visitors or new to the campus. This behavior is very

common in the Market of Lister Center and Main Station of SUB. Both of these stations have

some special arrangements around them such as Market has a system of dirty dishes cart beside

the station and Main Station has an attached small kitchenette where people warm their food and

wash their reusable dishes. Both activities take time and while doing so, most people read the

decals and signs and try to follow it. But the main issue was lack of awareness about the

materials of the trash they had. Generally visitors or some students who were seen to be

observant and considerate regarding disposal of their wastes faced this problem. Some users

were found literally trying to match the waste in their hands with the pictures on the waste bins.

40


Common Confusions About Materials. Observations of users’ behaviors also revealed

some confusion among them regarding wastes. Although Zero Waste Stations have adequate

signs and pictures to encourage and guide the users, there are still some quandaries present for

certain products that are commonly used in the food areas around the campus. The most

perplexing item was the “Napkin”, which was commonly mistaken for MP or LF materials by

more than 90% of the users. Secondly, “Paper-based Food Containers and Cups” were mistaken

with Styrofoam containers and Tim Hortons’ cups and ended in the LF or MP bins more than

75% of the times. Another confusing material was the “Plastics”, which confused the users quite

frequently and was a common cause of contamination in RE bins.

41


Chapter 4: Discussion

Waste: An Opportunity

Wastes are currently taken as a challenge by industry and management, but proper waste

management strategies and policies can open a new prospect of social, economic, and

environmental opportunities (UNEP, 2013, p. 8). The global movement of achieving sustainable

development has inspired governments and communities to improve their waste management as

an integrated system that incorporates “environmental prestige, enhanced monetary profits,

social involvement and appreciation, and governmental assiduousness” (Chung & Lo, 2003).

Although, it is difficult to achieve desirable success for many countries, a significant number of

governments and environmental agencies have initiated researches and implementations of

sustainable waste management based on the waste hierarchy described above. Moreover, public

participations in Europe, UK, and USA has been developed for appropriate local waste strategies

in the form of Community Advisory Committees (CACs) that provide excellent technical and

professional judgments for policy makers (Petts, 2001). A good example is the “WasteWise

Program” of U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which reported a six-fold increase

in waste reduction (Approximately 26 million tons) by program partners in five years

(Anonymous, 2000). A recent example is the waste reduction grants of $2.93 million, announced

by Massachusetts Governor Duvall Patrick’s administration to 179 cities, towns, regions, and

communities for different waste reduction initiatives (Anonymous, BioCycle, 2014).

Canada has a plenty of room to develop new strategies for waste management because

most of the provinces and jurisdictions have poor records of wastes and have spend fairly large

amounts of public funds on collection and transportation, recycling and composting, and other

recovery treatments of wastes (Giroux, 2014, p. 9). In this regard, organizations like the National

42


Zero Waste Council by Metro Vancouver (2012) and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities

(FCM) initiated an approach to prevent waste upstream by engaging industries to drive

innovation and downstream by changing consumer’s behavior (Giroux, 2014, p. 15). Indeed,

there are many voluntary programs are working Canada-wide such as Canadian Electrical

Stewardship Agency, Clean Farms, “Recycle My Cell” by Canadian Wireless

Telecommunication Association, Call2Recycle, and Health Products Stewardship Association,

which are working towards waste reduction and recycling targets (Giroux, 2014, pp. 35-39).

HEIs and Waste Management: Current Initiatives

Importance of the roles of universities for sustainability was first highlighted in

Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment in 1992 and followed by several declarations

such as Talloires Declaration (1990), Halifax Declaration (1991), and Swansea and Kyoto

Declarations (1993) (Mason, Brooking, Oberender, Harford, & Horsley, 2003). Association of

University Leaders for a Sustainable Future (ULSF, 2008) recognizes the exceptional place of

universities and colleges to influence the developmental path of the societies as well as

responsible for doing so in a sustainable way. Talloires Declaration (1990) describes the role of

universities to educate, enhance awareness, and provide knowledge and trainings to the future

professionals as well as societies.

During recent decades, HEIs have been featuring values of sustainable development in

their educational and operational environment worldwide (Glavic, Lukman, & Lozano, 2008).

An example is the 4th international conference on environmental management for sustainable

universities (EMSU) held in University of Wisconsin, USA (2006) with the theme of

“Transforming ideas into action: building sustainable communities beyond university campus”

(EMSU, 2006). Glavic et al, (2008) presented several examples of universities, especially

43


engineering schools that play a leading role for integrating innovative sustainability approach in

the actual technology and industrial practices. University of British Columbia (UBC) took a good

Canadian waste reduction initiative, which is among the best HEIs for environmental activities.

In 1998, a thorough waste audit was performed for the campus solid waste to provide directions

to achieve the campus goal of 50% waste reduction with vital future recommendations (Felder,

Petrell, & Duff, 2001). U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) appreciated voluntary

waste reduction initiative of Seattle University in its five years report on WasteWise program in

2000 for composting approximately 200 tons of their organic waste and distributing reusable

mugs to students that saved 2.5 million paper cups to be wasted (Anonymous, 2000).

Role of Signage in Service quality

Signage quality is of utmost importance for businesses or services to allow the user to

develop an expected perception. Bonfanti (2013) argues that the signage system should give an

information review on the theme, ascertains users’ needs, and offers theoretical background. The

studied Zero Waste Stations are fairly supplemented by informative signs and decals, but

findings of this study suggest more enhanced functional value for these signs to improve users’

understanding to zero waste concept and the correct way to use it.

Waste Reduction Through Educational Programs

As discussed earlier, universities have better opportunities to educate sustainable

practices in two ways: Prepare sustainability conscious professionals and create a role model

sustainable environment throughout the campus. University of Alberta has taken this opportunity

in its maximum extent to change the culture of waste disposal through new “Zero Waste”

initiative. Although Office of Sustainability has led several educational programs to enhance

awareness towards its waste reduction initiatives (See Appendix 1), finding of this study

44


emphasizes for more achievements and further improvement in overall waste reduction culture

around the campus. For example, “Resource Efficient Program” of Scottish government

established a user-friendly, informative online tool to prepare businesses for new regulation

(Scottish Business Insider, 2013). This study found lack of online resources for “Zero Waste

Program” for helping students to be accustomed with new waste disposal system in the campus

and find literature for guidance.

Waste Reduction Through Procurement

As this study is focused on waste disposal analysis of food areas of the campus of

UAlberta, the discussion of procurement is limited to the food services. This study finds that

because adequate procurement strategy was already implemented in the Market; the results of

material recovery and recycling behavior of users are fairly high than other places like Marina

and SUB food area where Tim Hortons and Edo are still using non-recyclable products.

However, new strategies should be implemented to avoid non-recyclable products on the campus

with other initiatives to achieve the goal of a zero waste culture.

45


Chapter 5: Conclusions and Recommendations

Conclusion

Universities have a vital role in the society in terms of preparing professionals and

influence the values and norms of communities. Regarding sustainability, universities have

extensive responsibilities and incorporation of sustainable practices is being accepted in HEIs

worldwide through several declarations and organizational initiatives. Among other

internationally recognized HEIs, University of Alberta has implemented several sustainability

programs including “Zero Waste Stations”. In this study, these waste stations were analyzed for

their effectiveness towards the university’s set goal of 50% waste diversion by 2015. The study

was focused on users’ behavior towards recycling and current status of waste recovery and

diversion from landfill through bin monitoring and spot audits of newly implemented zero waste

stations. The data indicates total material recovery rate as Marina (33%), Market (58%), and

SUB (49%). Regarding percent purity, the highest waste stream is the organics with over 80%

from all of the stations studied followed by recyclables (approximately 50%).

Further, the study reviews the ways of improvement in outreach, signage, and

procurement fields in the light of literature review. The observations suggest a significant lack of

knowledge and awareness among users as well as slight lack of interest towards recycling. The

study also finds plenty of room for intensified strategies to improve recycling behavior

throughout the campus and proposes some thoughts for the improvement.

Future Recommendations for “Zero Waste Goal”

With the help of literature review, on-site observations, and data analysis, this study

recognizes tremendous environmental sustainability initiatives taken by UAlberta. Regarding

zero waste initiative, which is the focus of this study, quantitative findings and qualitative

46


observational summary find it a good start towards a zero waste campus. However, as every

initiative takes time and significant efforts to achieve its anticipated goals, this project also

requires overcoming its weaknesses to prompt the desired progress. Therefore, after a thorough

observation and data study, this paper recommends some strategies for improvement in the

project.

Web- based Communication. Although people are aware of zero waste project on

campus, this paper recommends a strong, educational and resourceful website to supplement the

project. This website could also contain surveys about users’ experiences and concerns about

waste disposal and provide activities like ecological footprints. This mode of communication

will definitely increase the prominence of this project within and outside the campus and could

bring potential new ideas of improvement.

Educational Initiatives. Being an educational institution, UAlberta can use this

opportunity by involving passionate staff members, students unions, sports and Information

Technology (IT) personnel, who volunteer to spread the concept of zero waste in its true and

literary meanings. This study highly recommends working towards capturing new students

attention on waste reduction plans because it is more convenient and faster way to convey the

message to new students. Some of the actions that can be taken easily are:

Conceptual and functional tours of zero waste stations during new student campus tour.

Distribution of free reusable cups during new students orientations.

Mandatory orientation of waste reduction strategies of UAlberta for new students.

Involvement of custodial staff for spot-checking of bins and correction of users.

Frequent events for promoting waste reduction habits and attitude towards recycling.

47


Volunteer Incentives. Enthusiastic volunteers are a great power for any institution and

certainly, UAlberta also has a wealth of them. There should be new and exciting incentives (e.g.,

Zero Waste Champion Award, Zero Waste Poster Winner Award, achievement awards and

grants) for these volunteers to promote behavioral and cultural change in recycling and waste

reduction strategies. This study proposes strong volunteer stewardship in Marina to motivate and

educate users of zero waste stations.

Procurement. Even procurement is a policy matter for an organization; this study finds

that there is a possibility of significant improvement in material recovery and recycling behavior

of users through the replacement of non-recyclable materials from food areas of the campus. The

observations through bin monitoring confirm that the use of non-recyclable plastic products and

Styrofoam is a major cause of contamination in recoverable materials in food areas as well as

confusion about waste materials among users. Although, UAlberta’s waste reduction goal for

2016-2020 is exploring ways to address this issue, this study strongly recommends more

effective outreach and procurement plans for Marina and SUB food area.

Final Words

According to 2007 FCM Community Energy Planning Mission, Edmonton’s integrated

and innovative waste management strategies such as street sand recycling and landfill gas

recovery plant, and 60% waste diversion rate make the city a leader in sustainable waste

management. EWMC and EWMCE is the hub for these remarkable achievements of the city

government. On the other hand, University of Alberta has award winning sustainability plans for

their campus sustainability such as Waste in Residence Outreach Program, Organic Diversion

Program, Waste Diversion Working Group and many others, which are working towards their

Sustainability Plan for 2016-2020 (University of Alberta, 2014). Assisted by EWMCE

48


professionals, the Zero Waste Pilot Project is one of these robust initiatives that have potential to

change the whole culture of recycling within the campus. This project could be among those vital

waste diversion initiatives, which will help achieve sustainable waste management target of

UAlberta. However, the success of this project depends on some factors such as intensive

outreach for awareness of the concept and requirements of zero waste, dedicated volunteer ship,

and improved procurement strategy that would help this program to run in its full strength and

benefits. Through profound observations of users responses, this research project found necessity

of strategic changes in outreach programs for the users and procurement plans to enjoy the

targeted success of this sustainable initiative.

49


References

Anonymous. (2011). Waste Management Research; Research from University of Southampton in

the Area of Waste Management Research Published. Trade Journal, The Business of

Global Warming via NewsRx.com. 8. Retrieved from ABI/INFORM Complete database.

Anonymous. BioCycle. (2014). Massachusetts waste reduction grants. J.G. Press Inc. 55(10). 1-

10. Retrieved from ABI/INFORM Complete database.

Association of University Leaders for a Sustainable Future (ULSF). (2008). About ULSF:

Rational. ULSF 2008. Retrieved from http://www.ulsf.org

Association of University Leaders for a Sustainable Future (ULSF). (2008). Talloires

Declaration: Report and declaration of the presidents’ conference (1990). ULSF 2008.

Retrieved from http://www.ulsf.org

Bonfanti, A. (2013). Towards an approach to signage management quality (SMQ). Journal of

Services Marketing, 27(4). 312 – 321. doi: 10.1108/08876041311330780

Chung, S. & Lo, C. W. H. (2003). Evaluating sustainability in waste management: The case

study of construction and demolition, chemical and clinical wastes in Hong Kong.

(2003). Resources, Conservation and Recycling Journal, 37(2). 119-145. doi:

10.1016/S0921-3449(02)00075-7

Dewey, C. (2014). Aquinas College focuses on zero-waste commitment. Grand Rapid Business

Journal, 32(18). 1-3. Retrieved from ABI/INFORM Complete database.

Environmental management for sustainable universities (EMSU). (2006). Transforming ideas

into action: building sustainable communities beyond university campus. Global

Environmental Management Education Center (GEM), University of Wisconsin, USA.

Retrieved from http://www.uwsp.edu

50


FCM Community Energy Planning Mission. (2007). Innovation pushes Edmonton to the leading

edge of waste management. FCM Centre for Sustainable Community Development.

Retrieved from https://www.fcm.ca

Felder, M. A. J., Petrell, R. J., & Duff, S. J. B. (2001). A solid waste audit and directions for

waste reduction at the University of British Columbia, Canada. Waste Management &

Research Journal, 19(4). 354-365. doi: 10.1177/0734242X0101900412

Giroux, L. (Giroux Environmental Consultants). (2014). State of waste management in Canada:

Prepared for Canadian Council of Ministers of Environment (CCME). PN 1528, CCME.

1-119. Retrieved from www.ccme.ca

Glavic, P., Lukman, R., & Lozano, R. (2008). Engineering education: environmental and

chemical engineering or technology curricula – a European perspective. European

Journal of Engineering Education 34(1), 47–61. doi: 10.1080/03043790802710193

Gomez, F. U., Navarrete, C. S., Lioi, S. R., & Marzuca, V. I. (2014). Adaptable model for

assessing sustainability in higher education. Journal of Cleaner Production, 1(11). 1-2.

doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.07.047

Hawken, P. (2010). The Ecology of Commerce: a declaration of sustainability. New York:

HarperCollins Publishers, 1st ed. 1993.

Jessen, M. (2003). Discarding the idea of waste: The need of a Zero Waste policy. An article

presented in Recycling Council of BC's Annual Waste Reduction Conference and Talkin’

Trash: Community Economic Development and Recycling conference, Smithers, BC

Canada (2000). 1-145. http://www.zerowaste.ca

51


Mason, I. G., Brooking, A. K., Oberender, A., Harford, J. M., & Horsley, P. G. (2003).

Implementation of a zero waste program at a university campus. Resources, Conservation

and Recycling, 38(4). 257-269. doi:10.1016/S0921-3449(02)00147-7

Paul, C. (2006). Zero waste wins. Alternatives Journal, 32(1). Retrieved from CBCA Reference

& Current Events database.

Petts, J. (2001). Evaluating the effectiveness of deliberative processes: Waste management case-

studies. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 44(2), 207-226, doi:

10.1080/09640560120033713

PR Newswire. (2012). Waste Management of Arizona Driving Arizona State University's

Roadmap to Zero Solid Waste. PR Newswire Association LLC [New York]. Retrieved

from ABI/INFORM Complete database.

Schumpert, K., and Dietz, C. (2012). Zero waste for schools. Green Teachers, Spring 2012, 95.

5-7. Retrieved from CBCA Education database.

Scottish Business Insider. (2013). Looking for more information on the new waste? Scotland?

Regulations? Resource Efficient Scotland, 37. MGN Ltd. Retrieved from ABI/INFORM

Complete database.

Seadon, J. K. (2010). Sustainable waste management system. Journal of Cleaner Production,

18(16-17). 1639-1651. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2010.07.009

Sullivan, E. C., O’Riley, M. A., & Shiwprasad, S. (2010). Chemical waste: Professional safety.

American Society of Safety Engineers, University of Huston, 55(6). 54-58. Retrieved from

ABI/INFORM Complete database.

52


UK Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs: Government Statistical Service. (2014).

Waste and recycling statistics and ENV23 - UK statistics on waste – 2010 to 2012. 1-10.

Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk

United Nations Division for Sustainable Development. (1992). United Nations conference on

environment & development, agenda 21 – chapter 21, para. 21.4-21.6. Retrieved from

http://unhabitat.org

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). (2009). Education

for sustainable development. UNESCO 2009 – 2014. Retrieved from

http://www.unesco.org

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). (1993).

Recommendations on the recognition of studies and qualifications in higher education.

UNESCO, general conference, 27th session, 1993. Retrieved from http://portal.unesco.org

United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). (2013). Guidelines for national waste

management strategies: Moving from challenges to opportunities. International

Environmental Technology Centre (IETC) of UNEP & United Nations Institute for

Training and Research (UNITAR). 1-99. Retrieved from http://www.unep.org

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2014). Municipal solid waste

generation, recycling, and disposal in the United States: Facts and figures for 2012. EPA-

530-F-14-001. Retrieved from www.epa.gov/wastes

University of Alberta Sustainability Plan 2016-2020. (2014). Waste: Selected activities and

accomplishments related to the campus sustainability. Sustainability at UAlberta.

Retrieved from http://sustainability.ualberta.ca

53


University of Alberta. (2002-2015a). About waste diversion: Operations and Maintenance,

buildings and ground services. Facilities and Operations: University of Alberta.

Retrieved from http://www.facilities.ualberta.ca

University of Alberta. (2002-2015a). Campus sustainability initiative. Office of Sustainability:

University of Alberta. Retrieved from http://www.sustainability.ualberta.ca

University of Alberta. (2008). Celebrating a Century of Achievement in Public Education:

University of Alberta Centennial. University of Alberta. Retrieved from

http://www.ualbertacentennial.ca

54


Appendix 1 – Summary of Outreach Initiatives of UAlberta

The Office of Sustainability led three evenings of outreach at Lister Centre (in the dining hall)

between August and December 2014. They essentially would staff the dining hall Zero Waste

station and intercept students as they were using the bins. Key messages included:

- Generally, would explain what the system is (four streams, need to sort accordingly, etc.)

- Focused messaging after we had done some monitoring on "paper towels are organics,

not mixed paper"

- Students can help us reach our Sustainability Plan goal to divert 50% of waste by 2015

- Contamination in the bins can cause the bins to be sent to landfill

Recycle it Right Game was used at the beginning of the term

- Game developed by the OS with input from BGS and EMSO

- Students get bean bags with pictures of waste items and they have to throw them in the

correct bin

- It’s like a carnival game that teaches them to sort according to our system on campus

- Prizes are awarded for getting a certain number correct

One Simple Act on Campus was done early in the term as well (late August) at one of the dinner

buffets with first year students.

- Program adopted in partnership with Government of Alberta

- Ask people to choose an action they are not already doing and commit to it publicly and

in writing (e.g. "I will compost at school" or "I will use reusable dishes for my lunch") for

a certain period of time, to encourage behavior change.

- To participate, they choose an action, write their commitment on a card, have their

picture taken, and then keep the card as a prompt/reminder.

55


Appendix 2 – Sample Bin Monitoring Data Sheet

BIN Monitoring Form

Date:

Station Location:

MP=mixed paper; Re=recyclables; Or=organics; LF=landfill Put √ for ‘Yes’

Was <material> disposed?

Was <bin> used? Observations

User

MP

Re Or LF

MPBin

ReBin

OrBin

LFBin

Pause

(#sec. before toss)

Comments / Notes

(use codes if needed as trends arisee.g. NS=no sign check, S=sight, C=confused,

D=distracted;type of contaminate)0, 2,

…1 y y y 2 Fork and paper plate2 y y 0 Napkins in MP3 y y 0 Fork and plastic plate4 y y 05 y y y y 3 S but C- Plastic in LF & coffee cup in Re6 y y 0 Sandwich wrap in MP7 y y y 5 S but C8 y y y 2 Milk bottle in Or9 y y 0 Napkins in MP10 y y 2 S11 y y 2 S12 y y 2 Pizza plate & napkins in MP13 y y 0 Napkins14 y y 2 Coffee cup in Re15 y y 216 y y y 2 Milk bottle & paper plate in MP17 y y y 0 Napkins & sandwich wrap in Re18 y y 0 Napkins19 y y 0 Napkins20 y y 0 Water bottle21 y y 022 y y y 2 Napkins23 y y 0 Yogurt cup and fork24 y y 2 Pizza plate & napkins in MP25 y y y 0 Sandwich wrap & coffee cup

26 y y y y 3S but C- Plastic tray in Or & napkins in MP

1.0

56


Appendix 3 – Sample Spot Audit Data Sheet

57


Appendix 4 – Data Analysis of Lister and SUB Bin Monitoring

Percentage of Users had Material and Used Correct Bin

58


Appendix 5 – Data Analysis of Lister and SUB Spot Audits

59

Documents

Final Report-tnaz