GW VISIBLE LITTER AUDIT - Sustainability at GW · GW Visible Litter Audit . ... Recycling Coordinator – Lead Author and Project Manager . ... landscapes the firsttwo hours of the

GW VISIBLE LITTER AUDIT FALL 2015

The George Washington University GW 2015 Litter Audit Page | 2

GW Visible Litter Audit Fall 2015 The George Washington University Facilities Services Zero Waste & Logistics Kris Ferguson Recycling Coordinator – Lead Author and Project Manager Facilities Services Phone: 202-994-3185 [email protected] Andres Harris Zero Waste Associate Director Facilities Services Phone: 202-994-5134 [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The Zero Waste Team would like to thank and acknowledge the following individuals for their involvement and contributions to the completion of the 2015 Visible Litter Audit:

Zero Waste and Logistics James Bondi (Re-use/Zero Waste Intern) – 2015 Field Assistant. Allison Gartrell (Re-use/Zero Waste Intern) – 2015 Field Assistant. Miles Miliken (Zero Waste Intern) – 2014 Field Assistant.

DISCLAIMER No part of this Report (photographs, forms or data) may be used or reproduced without the explicit written consent of the Zero Waste Team.


TABLE OF CONTENTS


INTRODUCTION

The George Washington University (GW), consisting of the Foggy Bottom and Mount Vernon Campuses in Washington DC, and the Virginia Science and Technology Campus (VSTC) in Ashburn, Virginia, is committed to maintaining a litter-free campus. However, this is an extremely difficult task given the large number of students and the transient population utilizing our Foggy Bottom Campus.

In order to understand the extent of our litter problem, the Office of Zero Waste, led by the Campus Recycling Coordinator, Kris Ferguson, developed and tested a survey methodology in 2014 to sample litter on the Foggy Bottom Campus1. This methodology entailed conducting a visible audit on 29 blocks out of 43 total blocks on campus, then extrapolating the results campus-wide. The visual sampling of litter was conducted by three Interns in the Division of Operations during the period of October 23rd through November 4th, 2015. Table 1 below shows the total number of blocks sampled and the number of items found, with extrapolation, in the 2015 Audit at the Foggy Bottom Campus.

Table 1 – Area Surveyed

Unit of Measurement

Total Surveyed Number Extrapolated Percent Extrapolated

Blocks 43 29 14 34% Feet 15,358 10,189 5,169 34% Items Found 12,906 8,404 4,502 35% The results of the 2015 Visible Litter Audit will be used as a benchmark of initial data for comparison of future litter audits. While a 2014 Visible Litter Audit provided some meaningful data, it was more of a “trial” to determine the extent of what could be accomplished logistically, as well as what material components (item and types of litter) could be sampled. Moving forward into 2016 and beyond, the university now has a standard Field Form, Tables, and sampling Methodology to use during the annual audits. Lastly, the resulting data gathered from the Litter Audits will be analyzed and shared with relevant departments (i.e. Grounds, Housekeeping and Division of Student Affairs) to develop litter abatement strategies intended to (1) target clean-up efforts; (2) understand the rate, extent and composition of litter on our campus, (3) help reduce the incidence of litter and (4) educate the student populace.

1 It should be noted that subsequent Litter Audits will include sampling Mount Vernon Campus. There are no plans to conduct an Audit on our VSTC campus, given the secluded nature of the campus, and the lack of student activity.


I. METHODOLOGY

SITE SELECTION

The Foggy Bottom campus was divided into an alpha numeric grid, numbered 1 to 5 (west to east), and A through E (north to south). Site numbers were limited to one side of one of the grid squares. Each site therefore had a two-part ID.

The first part is the alphanumeric reference; the second part is the city street number or letter with the cardinal direction. For example the north side of F St between 20th and 21st is: 4D, FN. Appendix A contains a map of “Geographic Data” to include the alpha numeric grid, sites surveyed, and the length of each site in linear feet for areas sampled on Foggy Bottom.

SAMPLING METHODOLOGY

A Field Team consisting of two persons was responsible for surveying litter at the pre-determined locations. Litter was divided into two categories; large and small. Litter less than 2 inches was considered small, litter greater than 2 inches was considered large.

One of the two Field Team members was responsible for calling out all items of litter visually observed. The second Field Team member was responsible for noting the litter on the Field Form (or tally sheet). In order to allow for greater efficiency and accuracy, one Field Team member was always responsible for counting the litter and the second Field Team member would always note the litter count on the Field Form.

Litter was counted from the vertical boundary along the inside edge of the sidewalk to eight inches off the curb until the nearest barrier. When a site was surveyed the date and initials of surveyors were noted on the tally sheet (see Appendix B).

Due to the large preponderance of cigarette butts and the time it would have taken to count them, cigarette butts were only counted the first 30 to 50 feet2 of the sample site and then extrapolated at a later date for the sample length as a whole. Gum spots were not counted at all.

Before sampling, an initial visual rating of the site, based on Keep America Beautiful standards (see detailed description below), was recorded on a 1-4 scale. Any observed acts of littering were also denoted.

2 Depending on the length of the site.


KAB VISUAL LITTER INDEX

The Keep America Beautiful Litter Index was developed to be a quick and simple tool volunteers can utilize to determine which areas in their communities are in need of improved litter removal. While not identifying the types of litter present, it instead helps measure the amount of litter seen in a given area. Volunteers visually survey an area and provide a “score” based on the amount of litter witnessed, without performing an actual count. Scores can range from “1” (virtually no litter”) to a “4” (extremely littered).

During the Foggy Bottom Litter Survey, the KAB Litter Index was performed on all 29 sample sights at the beginning of the survey, before the actual count was performed. The average number recorded was 1.6 out of 4. Because it is difficult to see items less than two inches (small litter), it was not surprising that the lower index numbers were observed on campus. In addition, on Foggy Bottom Campus, there are a large number of barriers (such as vehicles, fixed objects, plants, etc.) that can obscure items from sight. Therefore, the more accurate measurement of litter on a campus comes from the physical count. The KAB Litter Index should only be used as a supplemental tool in the overall litter assessment project.

LIMITATIONS

Each survey took approximately one hour with two surveyors. Fifty-eight sites were originally identified making it difficult to survey them all. Therefor 29 sites were identified that represented the campus as a whole.

Leaves in the gutters made counting that area difficult. Future surveys should be done when there are no/less leaves in the gutters. In addition, it is recommended that a seasonal sampling occur in the spring and the summer to accurately capture the different types of materials likely to be generated based on temperature variations and other variables.

This Campus Litter Audit, for the most part, sampled only the pedestrian sidewalks on City-blocks. There are a number of interior areas and public spaces that were not sampled due to a lack of time and resources. In addition, there is no universal metric to extrapolate to (i.e. we don’t know the total square footage of all internal public areas, as we do for city blocks).

Lastly, the GW Grounds crews are the main entity responsible for the maintenance of litter around Foggy Bottom Campus. Members of the Grounds crews collect litter from the campus landscapes the first two hours of the day. They also have a street sweeper that cleans campus streets and parking lots on a daily basis, early in the morning. In the afternoon there is another shift that collects litter from high traffic areas of campus until early evening. It was not possible to work around their schedule. Therefore our Litter Audit should be considered a snap shot in time. It should also be noted that there is likely much more litter on our campus than counted. Much of it is cleaned up by Grounds crew before ever being counted by the Field Audit Team, or missed by the Field Agents due to the aforementioned barriers.


II. RESULTS - ITEM DATA BY SIZE

OVERVIEW

A total of 8,404 pieces of litter (both large and small) were counted during the 2015 Visible Litter Audit. This included 810 pieces of large litter and 7,594 pieces of small litter. See Figure 1 below.

Figure 1 – Percent of Litter by Size

LARGE LITTER

There were 33 total categories of large litter sampled. The number one most littered item of large litter found on GW Campus was napkins. This may be due to the large preponderance of both stationary and mobile food establishments throughout Foggy Bottom. Aside from the eight to ten food trucks on campus, there are a number of local eating establishments on or near campus. Table 2 below shows the top ten most littered items found during the 2015 Audit. As can be seen, the top

ten items found comprised 69 percent of the total large litter.

A complete list of all large items of litter can be found in the Appendices.

90.4%

9.6% Percent of Litter by Size

small large


Table 2 – Top Ten Large Items of Litter Found

Size Item # % Large Napkins 172 21.2% Large Receipts (Business, Transfers) 122 15.1% Large Tobacco Packaging (Packs, Matches, etc.) 47 5.8% Large Home or School Items 40 4.9% Large Utensils (Plastic or Metal, Chopsticks) 33 4.1% Large Straws 32 4.0% Large Cardboard 31 3.8% Large Plastic Wrap (Retail Food/Non-Food) 31 3.8% Large Paper Pieces, Flyers, Advertisements 29 3.6% Large Water Containers 21 2.6% Sub Total 558 68.9%

SMALL LITTER

There were 13 total categories of small litter sampled. Similar to every other Litter Audit ever conducted, the number one most littered item of small litter found on GW Campus were cigarette butts. Foggy Bottom is a smoke-free campus, and therefore, all the cigarette butt urns have been removed. There are also no enforcement mechanisms in place for violators. In addition, many people who would not consider littering larger item such as a beverage container, have no problem disposing of their cigarette butts on the street.

Table 3 below shows the top five most littered items counted during the 2015 Audit. As can be seen, these items comprised 96 percent of the total small litter.

A complete list of all small items of litter can be found in the Appendices.

Table 3 – Top Five Small Items of Litter Found

Size Item # % Small Cigarette Butts 5,840 76.9% Small Small Pieces of Miscellaneous Paper 461 6.1% Small Small Pieces of Miscellaneous Plastic 442 5.8% Small Candy Wrapper Pieces 282 3.7% Small Gum Wrappers 242 3.2% Sub Total 7,267 95.7%


III. MATERIAL COMPOSITION

OVERVIEW

Once the Litter Audit was complete and the materials found counted, the items were rolled into their material composition type. A total of 17 categories were recorded. Table 4 displays the percent that each of the categories comprised for both small and large items of litter. As shown, cigarette butts, and tobacco packing comprised 70 percent of the material composition of all items of litter combined.

A detailed table showing the breakdown of all items within a material composition category can be found in the Appendix.

Table 4 – Material Composition by Percent of Total (Large and Small)

Category % of Total 2015

TOBACCO ITEMS AND PACKAGING 70.1% PAPER AND PAPER PIECES 7.7% SNACK FOOD ITEMS 6.7% PLASTIC PIECES AND WRAP 5.6% TAKE OUT FOOD PACKAGING 3.6% BEVERERAGE CONTAINERS 2.3% CUPS AND CUP LIDS 0.9% GLASS PIECES 0.6% HOME AND PERSONAL CARE PRODUCTS 0.5% ALUMINUM PIECES 0.4% RUBBER PIECES 0.3% METAL PIECES 0.3% OTHER ITEMS 0.2% FOOD ITEMS 0.2% PLASTIC BAGS 0.2% POLYSTYRENE PIECES 0.2% CLOTHING AND TEXTILES 0.2%

TOTAL: 100.0%


LARGE ITEMS

Large items of litter were rolled up into 12 material composition categories. Take-out Food Packaging (to include napkins) was the largest category of litter, comprising almost 32 percent of all large litter. Figure 2 displays the composition of the large litter breakout.

Figure 2 – Composition of Large Litter by Material Category

Considering the large number of sub-categories that fits into each type of material composition, a detailed analysis was performed on three types of large litter abundantly found throughout campus. These included cups, beverage containers, and take-out food packaging. Figures 3 through 5 details this breakout by sub-category.

0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0%

TAKE OUT

PAPER

CUPS

BEVER

TOBAC

HOME

SNACK

PLASTC

OTHER

FOOD

PLA BAGS

CLOTH

Composition of Large Litter


Figure 3 – Breakdown by Cup Types

As Figure 3 shows, Cup Lids were the number one most prevalent item while Paper (cold beverage) Cups and Plastic Cups comprised 53 percent of all cups found during the litter audit. Styrofoam cups were found to comprise 18 percent of all cups and lids. A ban on Styrofoam containers is scheduled to take effect in January of 2016; therefore it is anticipated that future Litter Audits will show a decrease in this type of litter.

29.2%

26.4% 26.4%

18.1%

Breakdown by Cup Type

Cup Lids with and without Straws Cups (Plastic)Paper Cups Cups (Polystyrene)


Figure 4 – Breakdown by Beverage Containers

Figure 4 shows that of all the beverage containers found on campus, plastic water bottles comprised the highest percent, at almost one third of all beverage litter. In second place were beer containers at 22 percent. Paper beverage cases came in last at just under 2 percent.

31.3%

22.4% 17.9%

16.4%

4.5% 3.0% 3.0% 1.5%

Breakdown by Beverage Container Type

Water Containers Beer ContainersSoft Drink Containers Sport Drink ContainersAseptic Drink Boxes Milk/Juice ContainersWine/ Liquor Containers Paper Beverage Cases


Figure 5 – Breakdown by Take-out Food Packaging

Figure 5 shows that of all the take-out food items found on campus, napkins comprised the highest percent, at over two-thirds of all litter. In second place were utensils, such as forks, spoons and knives. Paper/Compostable plates and polystyrene clamshells were the most infrequently found items in this product category.

SMALL ITEMS

Small items of litter were rolled up into 10 material composition categories. Table 5 displays a breakout of these categories as a percent of the total rolled up categories.

67.2%

12.9%

12.5%

3.5% 2.0% 2.0% Breakdown by Takeout Food Packaging

Napkins UtensilsStraws & Straw Wrappers etc. Paper Bags - Fast FoodPlates (Paper/Compostable) Polystyrene Clamshells


Table 5 – Material Composition by Percent of Total (Small Items)

Composition % of Total 2015 TOBACCO ITEMS 77.0% SNACK FOOD ITEMS 7.6% PAPER PIECES 6.1% PLASTC PIECES 5.8% BOTTLE CAPS 1.7% GLASS PIECES 0.7% ALUMINUM PIECES 0.4% RUBBER PIECES 0.3% METAL PIECES 0.3% SYTROFOAM PEANUTS 0.2%

TOTAL: 100.0%

As shown, cigarette butts were the largest composition of small litter, comprising 77 percent of all litter. Snack food items such as candy and gum wrappers were second. Very few metal pieces and Styrofoam peanuts were found.


EXTRAPOLATION ANALYSIS

OVERVIEW

As described in the Introduction and detailed in Table 1, the GW Field Auditors sampled litter on 29 of the 43 blocks on the Foggy Bottom Campus. A total of 8,404 items were recorded. In order to determine the estimated total number of items throughout campus, an extrapolation analysis was performed. This analysis determined that there are approximately 12,900 total pieces of litter on GW’s campus walkways at any given time. This number can be considered “conservative” given that leaves and other debris cover some items, the interior of the campus was not sampled3, and the Grounds crews are actively cleaning

litter from the streets.

A detailed table displaying these calculations, by item and material composition type, can be found in the Appendices.

TRASH VS. RECYCLING

After the extrapolation analysis was performed, it was important to determine what percent of items could have been properly recycled had they not been littered. Therefore, we identified 18 product categories whose contents, in theory, are recyclable. It was found that about 1,400 items, comprising 11 percent of the total litter stream, could have been recovered for recycling. The remaining 89 percent would be considered trash.

Table 6 displays this breakout by item type. Table 6 – Trash vs. Recyclables in the Litter Stream

Item Extrapolated T or R Misc. Paper Pieces 708 R Bottle Caps 198 R Receipts & Ticket Stubs 187 R Cardboard/Corrugated Boxes 48 R Aluminum Foil Pieces 46 R Paper Pieces and Newspapers/Flyers 45 R Water Containers 32 R Cups (Plastic) 29 R Paper Cups 29 R Beer Containers 23 R Soft Drink Containers 18 R Sport Drink Containers 17 R

3 As there is no “universe” to round up to for extrapolation purposes, like there is for the length of city blocks.


Paper Bags - Fast Food 14 R Plates (Paper/Compostable) 8 R Aseptic Drink Boxes 5 R Milk/Juice Containers 3 R Wine/ Liquor Containers 3 R Paper Beverage Cases 2 R

SUB TOTAL 1,415 11% Cigarette Butts 8,969 T Misc. Plastic Pieces 679 T Candy Wrapper Pieces 433 T Gum Wrappers 372 T Napkins 264 T Glass Pieces 77 T Condiment Packaging 77 T Tobacco Packaging (Packs, Matches ) 72 T Home Articles 61 T Utensils 51 T Straws & Straw Wrappers etc. 49 T Plastic Wrap/Film 48 T Rubber Pieces 38 T Metal and Metal Pieces 35 T Cup Lids with and without Straws 32 T Other (Large + Small) 32 T Snack Food Packaging (i.e. Doritos) 31 T Food Items 29 T Sweet Snack Wraps (Candy Bars, Cakes, etc.) 26 T Clothing and Clothing Pieces 22 T Plastic Retail Bags 22 T Poly Foam - Peanuts 22 T Cups (Polystyrene) 20 T Hygiene Items 9 T Cigar Butts 9 T Polystyrene Clamshells 8 T Zipper Bags/ Sandwich 6 T Foil Drink Pouches 0 T

SUB TOTAL 11,493 89% TOTAL: 12,908


IV. CIGARETTE BUTTS

OVERVIEW

Cigarette Butts tend to be the number one most littered item found in visible litter surveys conducted throughout North America. This is for two reasons. The first is many people who would otherwise not litter have no problem disposing of cigarette butts on the street. The second is during clean-up efforts, small items such as cigarette butts may not be picked up, as larger items are usually the focus.

Because George Washington is a smoke-free campus, and therefore there are no cigarette urns on campus, it’s important to understand the extent of this problem, and where the most number of cigarette butt litter is occurring on campus. This will help target clean-up efforts by the Grounds team and may allow the use of promotional or education material on high-volume sites reminding people not to litter their cigarette butts.

Figure 6 below4 details which sites had the highest incidence of cigarette butts on the blocks that were sampled. The top five sites include:

• F Street between 22nd and 21st Street; • G Street between 21st and 20th Street; • 23rd Street between I and H Street; • I (Eye) St between 24th and 23rd (South Side); and • 22nd Street between F and G Street.

4 The physical location of the map quadrants listed in Figure 6 can be found in the Appendices.


Figure 6 – Estimated Number of Cigarette Butts by Site

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550

3E FS4D GS

1B 23W1B I

3D 22E4D 21E5E EN

5E 19W2C HS

1B H3C KOGAN

4D 20W3C 22E

5E FS3C HS3D GS3D FN

3D SQ 805E 20E3C GN

2C 23B3C 21W

4D FN3D 21W

5D FN3C MCQ5D 20E4C GN


COMPARISON WITHOUT CIGARETTE BUTTS

As noted in Table 4, Cigarette Butts and Tobacco products encompass 70 percent of all material (large and small) found during the Foggy Bottom Litter Audit. If cigarette butts were to be removed in entirety from the sampling, the dynamics of the material composition changes dramatically. As Figure 7 shows, the top five material components without cigarette butts included would be paper products, snack wrappers, plastic film and pieces, take-out food packaging and beverage containers.

Figure 7 – Top Five Material Compositions without Cigarette Butts

25.1%

21.9%

18.4%

11.9% 7.6%

Material Composition of Litter (Top 5 without Cig. Butts)

PAPER SNACK PLASTIC TAKE OUT BEVERAGE


V. CAMPUS HOT SPOTS

Figure 8 below shows, in reverse numerical order, the sites with the highest number of littered items found on them. The top five sites were:

• F Street between 22nd and 21st Street; • 23rd Street between I and H Street; • G Street between 21st and 20th Street; • 19th Street between F and E Street; and • I (Eye) St between 24th and 23rd (South Side)

It is recommended that for the time being, Grounds focus additional resources and efforts on the sites with high concentration of littered items. Future surveys will be able to determine if these areas are considered litter “hot spots” or if the amount of litter by site fluctuates based on number of other variables.


Figure 8 – Sites with the Highest Concentration of Observed Litter5

5 The physical location of the map quadrants listed in Figure 8 can be found in the Appendices.

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700

3E FS1B 23W

4D GS5E 19W

1B I3D 22E5E EN3D FN

4D 21E3C GN2C HS

4D 20W5E FS

1B H3D GS

3C 22E3C KOGAN

3D SQ 804D FN

5E 20E3C HS

2C 23B3D 21W

5D FN3C 21W5D 20E4C GN

3C MCQ


VI. APPENDICIES

APPENDIX A: Map of Survey Sites

APPENDIX B: Tally Sheet Field Form

APPENDIX C: Item Data by Size

APPENDIX D: Item Data by Composition

APPENDIX E: Extrapolation Analysis

APPENDIX F: Total Litter by Site

APPENDIX G: Cigarette Litter by Site

The George Washington University GW 2015 Litter Audit Page | 24 Appendix A: Map of Survey Sites

A

B

C

E

D

1 2 3 4 5 312

433

300

410

375

385

312 580 452 363

Total Surveyed Extrapolated

Blocks 43 29 15 34% Feet 15,358 10,189 5,169 34%

Surveyed Extrapolated


Appendix B: Tally Sheet Field Form Site Location: 1BH Date: |Team: KAB Index Number (1-4) ______ Tally Total

LARGE ITEMS - BEVERAGE CONTAINERS Aseptic Drink Boxes (Rectangular Box) Beer Containers Foil Drink Pouches (Capri Sun) Milk/Juice Containers Soft Drink Containers Sport and Energy Drink Containers Water Containers Wine/ Liquor Containers

LARGE ITEMS - TAKE OUT FOOD PACKAGING Cup Lids with and without Straws Napkins Paper Beverage Cases (6/12/24-pack box) Paper Cups Paper or Compostable Fast Food Plates Plastic Drink Cups Polystyrene Clamshells Polystyrene Cups (Foam) Straws Utensils (Plastic or Metal, Chopsticks)

LARGE ITEMS - PAPER PRODUCTS (other) Cardboard Paper Pieces, Flyers, Advertisements Receipts

LARGE ITEMS - PAPER AND PLASTIC BAGS Paper Bags - Fast Food Plastic Retail Bags Plastic Wrap (Retail Food/Non-Food) Zipper Bags/ Sandwich Bags

LARGE ITEMS - CANDY AND SNACK FOOD PACKAGING Sweet Snack Wraps (Candy Bars, Cake) Food Items (Apple Core, Banana Peel, Fries) Snack Food Wrappers (i.e. Doritos)

SMALL ITEMS - COMMON Aluminum Foil Pieces Bottle Caps (plastic or metal) Candy Wrapper Pieces Cigarette Butts (1st 30-50 Feet Only)


Cigars: Butts and Tips (partially smoked) Condiment Packaging (Salt, Ketchup) Glass Pieces Gum Wrappers Polystyrene Peanuts Rubber Pieces Small Pieces of Miscellaneous Paper Small Pieces of Miscellaneous Plastic

LARGE OR SMALL ITEMS - OTHER ITEMS Clothing or Clothing Pieces (large) Home or School Items (large) Hygiene Items (large) Tobacco Packaging (Packs, Matches - large) Metal Pieces (small)

OTHER PRODUCTS (LIST)


Appendix C: ITEM DATA BY SIZE Size Item # %

Small Cigarette Butts 5,840 76.9% Small Small Pieces of Miscellaneous Paper 461 6.1% Small Small Pieces of Miscellaneous Plastic 442 5.8% Small Candy Wrappers Pieces 282 3.7% Small Gum Wrappers 242 3.2% Small Bottle Caps (plastic or metal) 129 1.7% Small Condiment Packaging 50 0.7% Small Glass Pieces 50 0.7% Small Aluminum Pieces 30 0.4% Small Rubber Pieces 25 0.3% Small Metal Pieces (small) 23 0.3% Small Polystyrene Pieces 14 0.2% Small Cigar Butts/Tips 6 0.1% Sub Total 7,594 100.0%

Size Item # %

Large Napkins 172 21.2% Large Receipts (Business, Transfers) 122 15.1% Large Tobacco Packaging (Packs, Matches - large) 47 5.8% Large Home or School Items (large) 40 4.9% Large Utensils (Plastic or Metal, Chopsticks) 33 4.1% Large Straws 32 4.0% Large Cardboard 31 3.8% Large Plastic Wrap (Retail Food/Non-Food) 31 3.8% Large Paper Pieces, Flyers, Advertisements 29 3.6% Large Water Containers 21 2.6% Large Cup Lids with and without Straws 21 2.6% Large Other Items (large) 21 2.6% Large Snack Food Wrappers (i.e. Doritos) 20 2.5% Large Paper Cups 19 2.3% Large Plastic Drink Cups 19 2.3% Large Food Items (Apple Core, Banana Peel, Fries) 19 2.3% Large Sweet Snack Wraps (Candy Bars, Cake) 17 2.1% Large Beer Containers 15 1.9% Large Clothing or Clothing Pieces (large) 14 1.7% Large Plastic Retail Bags 14 1.7% Large Polystyrene Cups (Foam) 13 1.6% Large Soft Drink Containers 12 1.5% Large Sports and Energy Drink Containers 11 1.4% Large Paper Bags - Fast Food 9 1.1%

The George Washington University GW 2015 Litter Audit Page | 28 Large Hygiene Items (large) 6 0.7% Large Paper or Compostable Fast Food Plates 5 0.6% Large Polystyrene Clamshells 5 0.6% Large Zipper Bags/ Sandwich 4 0.5% Large Aseptic Drink Boxes (Rectangular Box) 3 0.4% Large Milk/Juice Containers 2 0.2% Large Wine/Liquor Containers 2 0.2% Large Paper Beverage Cases (6/12/24 pack box) 1 0.1% Large Foil Drink Pouches (Capri Sun) 0 0.0% Sub Total 810 100.0%


Appendix D: ITEM DATA BY COMPOSITION

Size Comp Item # % of

Comp Small ALUMN Aluminum Foil Pieces 30 100.0% Sub Total: 30 100.0% Percent of Total: 0.4% Small BEVER Bottle Caps 129 65.8% Large BEVER Water Containers 21 10.7% Large BEVER Beer Containers 15 7.7% Large BEVER Soft Drink Containers 12 6.1% Large BEVER Sport Drink Containers 11 5.6% Large BEVER Aseptic Drink Boxes 3 1.5% Large BEVER Milk/Juice Containers 2 1.0% Large BEVER Wine/ Liquor Containers 2 1.0% Large BEVER Paper Beverage Cases 1 0.5% Large BEVER Foil Drink Pouches 0 0.0% Sub Total: 196 100.0% Percent of Total: 2.3% Large CUPS Cup Lids with and without Straws 21 29.2% Large CUPS Cups (Plastic) 19 26.4% Large CUPS Paper Cups 19 26.4% Large CUPS Cups (Polystyrene) 13 18.1% Sub Total: 72 100.0% Percent of Total: 0.9% Large FOOD Food Items 19 100.0% Sub Total: 19 100.0% Percent of Total: 0.2% Small GLASS Glass Pieces 50 100.0% Sub Total: 50 100.0% Percent of Total: 0.6% COM OTHER Other (Large + Small) 21 100.0% Sub Total: 21 100.0% Percent of Total: 0.2% Large CLOTH Clothing and Clothing Pieces 14 100.0% Sub Total: 14 100.0% Percent of Total: 0.2% Small METAL Metal and Metal Pieces 23 100.0% Sub Total: 23 100.0% Percent of Total: 0.3% Large HOME Home Articles 40 87.0% Large HOME Hygiene Items 6 13.0% Sub Total: 46 100.0% Percent of Total: 0.5%

The George Washington University GW 2015 Litter Audit Page | 30 Small PAPER Misc. Paper Pieces 461 71.7% Large PAPER Receipts & Ticket Stubs 122 19.0% Large PAPER Cardboard/Corrugated Boxes 31 4.8% Large PAPER Paper Pieces and Newspapers/Flyers 29 4.5% Sub Total: 643 100.0% Percent of Total: 7.7% Large PLA BAGS Plastic Retail Bags 14 77.8% Large PLA BAGS Zipper Bags/ Sandwich 4 22.2% Sub Total: 18 100.0% Percent of Total: 0.2% Small PLASTC Misc. Plastic Pieces 442 93.4% Large PLASTC Plastic Wrap/Film 31 6.6% Sub Total: 473 100.0% Percent of Total: 5.6% Small POLYS Poly Foam - Peanuts 14 100.0% Sub Total: 14 100.0% Percent of Total: 0.2% Small RUBBE Rubber Pieces 25 100.0% Sub Total: 25 100.0% Percent of Total: 0.3% Small SNACK Candy Wrapper Pieces 282 50.3% Small SNACK Gum Wrappers 242 43.1% Large SNACK Snack Food Packaging (i.e. Doritos) 20 3.6% Large SNACK Sweet Snack Wraps (Candy Bars, Cakes) 17 3.0% Sub Total: 561 100.0% Percent of Total: 6.7% Large TAKE OUT Napkins 172 56.2% Small TAKE OUT Condiment Packaging 50 16.3% Large TAKE OUT Utensils 33 10.8% Large TAKE OUT Straws & Straw Wrappers etc. 32 10.5% Large TAKE OUT Paper Bags - Fast Food 9 2.9% Large TAKE OUT Plates (Paper/Compostable) 5 1.6% Large TAKE OUT Polystyrene Clamshells 5 1.6% Sub Total: 306 100.0% Percent of Total: 3.6% Small TOBAC Cigarette Butts 5,840 99.1% Large TOBAC Tobacco Packaging (Packs, Matches ) 47 0.8% Small TOBAC Cigar Butts 6 0.1% Sub Total: 5,893 100.0% Percent of Total: 70.1%

TOTAL ITEMS 8,404

TOTAL PERCENT 100.0%


Appendix E: EXTRAPOLATION ANALYSIS

Size Comp Item # Sampled #

Extrapolated % of Total

Small ALUMN Aluminum Foil Pieces 30 46 100.0% Sub Total: 30 100.0% Percent of Total: 0.4% Small BEVER Bottle Caps 129 198 65.8% Large BEVER Water Containers 21 32 10.7% Large BEVER Beer Containers 15 23 7.7% Large BEVER Soft Drink Containers 12 18 6.1% Large BEVER Sport Drink Containers 11 17 5.6% Large BEVER Aseptic Drink Boxes 3 5 1.5% Large BEVER Milk/Juice Containers 2 3 1.0% Large BEVER Wine/ Liquor Containers 2 3 1.0% Large BEVER Paper Beverage Cases 1 2 0.5% Large BEVER Foil Drink Pouches 0 0 0.0% Sub Total: 196 100.0% Percent of Total: 2.3% Large CUPS Cup Lids with and without Straws 21 32 29.2% Large CUPS Cups (Plastic) 19 29 26.4% Large CUPS Paper Cups 19 29 26.4% Large CUPS Cups (Polystyrene) 13 20 18.1% Sub Total: 72 100.0% Percent of Total: 0.9% Large FOOD Food Items 19 29 100.0% Sub Total: 19 100.0% Percent of Total: 0.2% Small GLASS Glass Pieces 50 77 100.0% Sub Total: 50 100.0% Percent of Total: 0.6% COM OTHER Other (Large + Small) 21 32 100.0% Sub Total: 21 100.0% Percent of Total: 0.2% Large CLOTH Clothing and Clothing Pieces 14 22 100.0% Sub Total: 14 100.0% Percent of Total: 0.2% Small METAL Metal and Metal Pieces 23 35 100.0% Sub Total: 23 100.0% Percent of Total: 0.3% Large HOME Home Articles 40 61 87.0% Large HOME Hygiene Items 6 9 13.0% Sub Total: 46 100.0% Percent of Total: 0.5%

The George Washington University GW 2015 Litter Audit Page | 32 Small PAPER Misc. Paper Pieces 461 708 71.7% Large PAPER Receipts & Ticket Stubs 122 187 19.0% Large PAPER Cardboard/Corrugated Boxes 31 48 4.8% Large PAPER Paper Pieces and Newspapers/Flyers 29 45 4.5% Sub Total: 643 100.0% Percent of Total: 7.7% Large PLA BAGS Plastic Retail Bags 14 22 77.8% Large PLA BAGS Zipper Bags/ Sandwich 4 6 22.2% Sub Total: 18 100.0% Percent of Total: 0.2% Small PLASTC Misc. Plastic Pieces 442 679 93.4% Large PLASTC Plastic Wrap/Film 31 48 6.6% Sub Total: 473 100.0% Percent of Total: 5.6% Small POLYS Poly Foam - Peanuts 14 22 100.0% Sub Total: 14 100.0% Percent of Total: 0.2% Small RUBBE Rubber Pieces 25 38 100.0% Sub Total: 25 100.0% Percent of Total: 0.3% Small SNACK Candy Wrapper Pieces 282 433 50.3% Small SNACK Gum Wrappers 242 372 43.1% Large SNACK Snack Food Packaging (i.e. Doritos) 20 31 3.6% Large SNACK Sweet Snack Wraps (Candy Bars, Cakes) 17 26 3.0% Sub Total: 561 100.0% Percent of Total: 6.7% Large TAKE OUT Napkins 172 264 56.2% Small TAKE OUT Condiment Packaging 50 77 16.3% Large TAKE OUT Utensils 33 51 10.8% Large TAKE OUT Straws & Straw Wrappers etc. 32 49 10.5% Large TAKE OUT Paper Bags - Fast Food 9 14 2.9% Large TAKE OUT Plates (Paper/Compostable) 5 8 1.6% Large TAKE OUT Polystyrene Clamshells 5 8 1.6% Sub Total: 306 100.0% Percent of Total: 3.6% Small TOBAC Cigarette Butts 5,840 8,969 99.1% Large TOBAC Tobacco Packaging (Packs, Matches ) 47 72 0.8% Small TOBAC Cigar Butts 6 9 0.1% Sub Total: 5,893 100.0% Percent of Total: 70.1%

TOTAL ITEMS 8,404 12,908

TOTAL PERCENT 100.0%


Appendix F: TOTAL LITTER BY SITE Site ID Items Location

3E FS 649 F St between 22nd and 21st (South Side) 1B 23W 647 23rd between H and I Street (West Side) 4D GS 604 G St between 20th and 21st (South Side) 5E 19W 450 19th St between E St and F St (West Side) 1B I 439 I (Eye) St between 24th and 23rd (South Side) 3D 22E 435 22nd St between F St and G St (East Side) 5E EN 413 E St between 20th and 19th (North Side) 3D FN 392 F St between 22nd and 21st (North Side) 4D 21E 374 21st St between F St and G St (East Side) 3C GN 313 G St between 20th and 21st (North Side) 2C HS 294 H St between 23rd and 22th (South Side) 4D 20W 290 20th St between F St and G St (West Side) 5E FS 284 F St between 20th and 19th (South Side) 1B H 276 H St between 24th and 23rd (North Side) 3D GS 256 G St between 22nd and 21st (South Side) 3C 22E 254 22nd St between G St and H St (East Side) 3C KOGAN 245 Kogan Plaza 3D SQ 80 230 Square 80 4D FN 230 F St between 21st and 20th (North Side) 5E 20E 221 20th St between E St and F St (East Side) 3C HS 210 H St between 22nd and 21st (South Side) 2C 23B 207 23rd between H and I Street (East Side) 3D 21W 187 21st St between F St and G St (West Side) 5D FN 127 F St between 20th and 19th (North Side) 3C 21W 117 21st St between G St and H St (West Side) 5D 20E 101 20th St between F St and G St (East Side) 4C GN 97 G St between 21st and 20th ((North Side) 3C MCQ 62 Entering from 21st St and going towards Kogan

Total: 8,404 Avg. 300


Appendix G: CIGARETTE LITTER BY SITE

Site ID Cigarette

Butts Location 3E FS 520 F St between 22nd and 21st (South Side) 4D GS 500 G St between 20th and 21st (South Side) 1B 23W 440 23rd between H and I Street (West Side) 1B I 350 I (Eye) St between 24th and 23rd (South Side) 3D 22E 310 22nd St between F St and G St (East Side) 4D 21E 310 21st St between F St and G St (East Side) 5E EN 290 E St between 20th and 19th (North Side) 5E 19W 250 19th St between E St and F St (West Side) 2C HS 240 H St between 23rd and 22th (South Side) 1B H 220 H St between 24th and 23rd (North Side) 3C KOGAN 220 Kogan Plaza 4D 20W 220 20th St between F St and G St (West Side) 3C 22E 200 22nd St between G St and H St (East Side) 5E FS 200 F St between 20th and 19th (South Side) 3C HS 190 H St between 22nd and 21st (South Side) 3D GS 170 G St between 22nd and 21st (South Side) 3D FN 170 F St between 22nd and 21st (North Side) 3D SQ 80 160 Square 80 5E 20E 150 20th St between E St and F St (East Side) 3C GN 140 G St between 20th and 21st (North Side) 2C 23B 120 23rd between H and I Street (West Side) 3C 21W 100 21st St between G St and H St (West Side) 4D FN 100 F St between 21st and 20th (North Side) 3D 21W 80 21st St between F St and G St (West Side) 5D FN 80 F St between 20th and 19th (North Side) 3C MCQ 40 Entering from 21st St and going towards Kogan 5D 20E 40 20th St between F St and G St (East Side) 4C GN 30 G St between 21st and 20th ((North Side)

Total: 5,840

Documents

GW VISIBLE LITTER AUDIT - Sustainability at GW · GW Visible Litter Audit . ... Recycling Coordinator – Lead Author and Project Manager . ... landscapes the firsttwo hours of the