Increasing Recycling on Penn State’s University Park

CampusPrepared by:

Jessica MoldofskyLisa Boudeman

April 17, 2102The Pennsylvania State University

English 202 C

Prepared for:Erik Foley-DeFiore

Manager, Sustainability ProgramsPenn State Campus Sustainability Office

(Source: Penn State Office of Physical Plant)

This report evaluates possible solutions to improve recycling participation on Penn State University’s University Park Campus. The report includes research from Penn State’s Office of Physical Plant Sustainability website to establish Penn State’s current recycling trends, as well as research from previous recycling behavioral studies to evaluate an effective solution to improve current recycling participation. We evaluated each option against five criteria: cost, long-term improvement in recycling habits, public acceptance, increased ease of recycling, and rapidness of implementation. Based on our research, we recommend increasing the number and location of recycling bins across Penn State’s University Park campus and accompanying each bin with a visible recycling sign.

Executive Summary

Recycling is a main topic in the forefront of Penn State University’s program to adopt sustainable practices and “go green.” Penn State’s Office of Physical Plant and the newly established Center for Sustainability have designed and implemented recycling programs on campus to encourage environmental responsibility and to increase recycling participation. In 2010, the Penn State University Park campus generated 15,034 tons of waste. On average, each faculty member, staff member, and student at the University Park campus contributed 460 pounds to this waste stream, the equivalent weight of 92 Macbook computers or 75 Dell laptops. Students at University Park also generate more than 3,200 pounds of newspaper waste (The Daily Collegian, New York Times, USA Today and Centre Daily Times) daily. Of the produced waste, although 67% could be recycled, only 59% was actually recycled (“What We’re Doing,” 2011).

Despite improvement in recycling rates from 39% in 2004 to 59% in 2010, the University and community will realize significant benefits by further improving recycling rates. First, recycling materials diverts recyclables from the landfilled waste stream, saving valuable landfill space for waste with no recycling potential. Landfills pose numerous problems including: local pollution of the atmosphere, land and water, noise emissions, dust emissions, reduction of habitat for wildlife, human health issues, and methane release. Waste in landfills may contaminate groundwater and/or aquifers by leakage, and may also contaminate soil during landfill usage and even after landfill closure (“Municipal Solid Waste,” 2012).

Second, recycling saves the University money on tipping fees. When Penn State generates landfilled waste, it pays the Center County Transfer Center $70 per ton to take the trash. Once the trash is hauled off campus, trucks—which get 3.5 miles per gallon of fuel—transport the trash over 102 miles to a landfill in Central City located in Somerset County. In contrast, Penn State pays $20 per ton of recycled material generated on campus; whereas trash must be hauled away for processing, all recyclables are processed locally before distribution to secondary markets (“What We’re Doing,” 2011). Without fulfilling the University’s full recycling potential, the University population contributes unnecessary, environmentally harmful waste to the landfill, while the University must pay large fees for unnecessary excess waste. More has to be done.

In order to improve recycling participation, we investigated solutions that would target behavioral habits. Our list of possible solutions include increasing the number of bins on campus, changing the color of the current recycling bins, increasing the signs around waste bins, and providing monetary incentives to recycling. We then evaluated each solution with five criteria in descending order of importance: (1) long term improvement in recycling habitats, (2) cost, (3) increased ease of recycling, (4) public acceptance, and (5) rapidness of implementation.

To establish unbiased recommendation, we researched the effectiveness of each option in previous behavioral studies to appropriately weight and value each option against each criterion in a decision matrix. After completing the analysis, we recommend increasing the number of recycling bins in highly trafficked areas on Penn State’s University Park campus and accompanying each bin with an easily visible sign.

i

Table of Contents

Executive Summary…………………………………………………………………i

List of Visuals……………………………………………………………………..iii

Introduction………………………………………………………………………...1

Research and Results……………………………………………………………...3

1. Investigating the Extent of the Problem………………………………………..3

2. Identifying Recycling Options………………………………………………..4

3. Identifying Main Criteria…………………………………………………….5

4. Evaluating Each Option Based On Previous Studies……………………………5

Increase the Number of Bins and Locations………………………………...5

Change the Color of Existing Bins….………………………………………6

Place Large Signs with Recycling and Trash Bins…………………………...6

Provide Monetary Incentive………………………………………………6

Hand Out Flyers Promoting Recycling……………………………………..7

5. Connecting Results from Previous Studies with Penn State……………………...7

6. Evaluating Each Option Against Our Criteria ………………………………….8

Conclusion………………………………………………………………………...10

Recommendation………………………………………………………………….11

References………………………………………………………………………...12

ii

List of Visuals

Table 1: Penn State Recycling Information…………………..………………..2

Table 2: Decision Matrix………………………………………….....................8

iii

Introduction

Penn State has extensively increased recycling participation over the past decade, marking a huge accomplishment for the Office of the Physical Plant and the new Office of Sustainability. Increased recycling is in effect all over campus, from classrooms to dining halls, and even to dormitories. For example, Penn State recently adopted the Eco-Rep student ambassador program, a program in which select students promote responsible energy use and recycling in the East Hall dormitories. In this program, Penn State took advantage of a golden opportunity to divert potentially thousands of pounds of waste from the landfilled waste stream by increasing recycling awareness and participation in freshmen dormitories (beginning at just 6% in 2010) (“What We are Doing,” 2011).

While Penn State has made great strides in developing innovative programs, the University Park campus continues to generate and send excess waste to landfills instead of the recycling plant. Although students, faculty members, and staff have, in fact, increased their recycling participation, Penn State is not yet meeting its potential recycling capacities. Lack of participation may be due to recycling apathy, lack of recycling incentives, lack of recycling education, and/or inadequate distribution of recycling bins. If Penn State can divert more of the waste stream from the land fill through increased recycling involvement, it will not only “green” the University through environmentally sound practices, but it will also save the University hundreds of thousands of dollars each year.

In order to evaluate the current recycling trends and compare it to the potential recycling possibilities, we reviewed data and statistics from the Office of the Physical Plant’s (OPP’s) website. We also researched relevant information regarding past and current recycling information on green.psu.edu to allow us to back up our claim that increased recycling is necessary, feasible and cost effective. As indicated on the Office of Physical Plant’s website, Penn State’s total waste stream continues to grow by about 500 tons every year (11,409 generated tons in 2004 and 15,043 generated tons in 2010); sending all of this waste directly to the landfill will increase waste management costs markedly in the near future. However, Penn State can now potentially divert about 10,000 tons of waste from the landfill annually, preserving valuable landfill space, and potentially saving the University over $700,000 dollars annually (Penn State Office of Physical Plant, 2010).

In this report, we discuss five possible solutions to increase recycling rates on Penn State’s University Park Campus. First, we evaluate the current recycling and waste management data from Penn State’s Office of Physical Plant and Center for Sustainability websites. Next, we list the five recycling solutions evaluated in this report: increasing the number/locations of recycling bins, changing the color of the existing bins, placing large signs with recycling and trash bins, providing monetary incentives for recycling, and handing out flyers to promote recycling. We then cover the five desired criteria that each option will be evaluated against (in descending order of importance): (1) long term improvement in recycling habitats, (2) cost, (3) increased ease of recycling, (4) public acceptance, and (5) rapidness of implementation.

After establishing the possible solutions and criteria, we discuss our investigation into previous behavioral recycling research and our own conducted research on Penn State’s campus. Finally,

1

we use our research from the OPP website, previous studies, and our personal investigations to develop a decision matrix which assesses each of the potential options and weighs all criteria in this decision. After completing the matrix, we recommend increasing the number and location of recycling bins and accompanying each waste receptacle with a clearly labeled sign.

2

Research and Results

In this section, we present the results of our research. We cover Penn State’s waste stream and recycling participation trends, previous recycling behavioral studies that analyzed the effectiveness of each of the various recycling options, the applicability of the findings from previous studies to Penn State’s campus, and an evaluation of our options meeting our criteria.

1. Investigating the Extent of the Problem We investigated the extent of the problem by visiting Penn State’s Office of Physical Plant website. We used data that measured Penn State’s landfill and recycling waste trends and the associated disposal costs over the past five years as well as estimates for potential recyclable materials in the waste stream (See Table 1). While some of these trends show an increase in recycling, there is still room and potential for improvement.

Table 1: Overview of the Amount of Materials Collected by Penn State's Recycling Program (Source: Penn State Office of Physical Plant)

Waste FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010

Total Waste Generated (tons)

11,409 11,502 12,502 12,359 13,071 13,271 15,034

Total Recycling collected (tons)

4,494 4,869 6,070 6,288 7,001 7,567 8,851

Percentage recycled 39% 44% 49% 51% 54% 57% 58.9%

Tip Fees Savings realized through recycling

$210,000 $272,324 $400,648 $414,981 $462,085 $469,000 $619,570

Potential Recycling Percentage

67% 67% 67% 67% 67% 67% 67%

Potential Total Savings

$317,000 $414,675 $529,467 $544,000 $578,000 $578,00 $578,000

Mixed Office Paper 826 795 772 790 875 831 780

Cardboard 579 576 630 648 666 665 662

Newspaper 339 322 272 533 295 244 228

Compost 743 1,955 2,507 2,523 3,062 4,311 4,105

Glass 48 81 78 115 203 93 96

Plastic bottles 92 107 125 167 207 183 204

Metal Cans 63 64 113 69 73 76 70

Used Oil 24 29 22 61 43 34 36

Toner Cartridges 4 5 3 8 7 7.3 8

3

Over the past eight years, Penn State’s recycling participation has increased significantly from 39% to nearly 59% of the total waste stream (Table 1). In fact, the increase in the weight of recycling waste (4,357 tons) has actually exceeded the increase the total increase in waste generated on Penn State’s University Park campus from 2004 to 2010 (3,635 tons). Whereas Penn State pays $70 per landfilled ton of waste, one ton of recyclables merely costs $20 per ton—that’s less than one-third the cost! Therefore, as a result of increasing recycling participation by just 20% over the 2004 levels, the diversion of recyclables from landfill disposal saved Penn State an additional $400,000 annually in reduced landfill tipping fees (Table 1).

Despite the large increase in recycling rates, however, Penn State can still divert an additional 8% of the entire waste stream to be recycled (Penn State currently recycles 59% of its waste stream, yet can potentially recycle 67%) (Table 1). If Penn State successfully diverts this waste from landfill disposal and into appropriate recycling containers, the University will gain an additional $200,000 annual savings in landfill tipping fees (“What We’re Doing,” 2011). With recent state funding cuts, rising fuel costs, and potential for increased landfill tipping fees, recycling will become an increasingly important budgeting tool for Penn State in the near future.

2. Identifying Recycling OptionsWe investigated previous recycling studies to identify possible options to improve recycling participation. In order to accommodate Penn State’s large and rapidly changing population, the literature suggested adopting solutions that would use external cues to modify recycling behavior:

Increase the Number of Bins and Locations. Increasing the number of recycling bins on campus will reduce the time and energy (inconvenience costs) required to recycle by reducing the distance taken to recycle materials.

Change the Color of Existing Bins. Changing the color of recycling bins to a bright color (which correspond with appropriate waste material) may increase visibility of the recycling bins, reminding students to recycle.

Place Large Signs with Recycling and Trash Bins. Similar to brightening the recycling bins, signs will remind students to recycle their waste. Signs also provide visual education about proper items to dispose in the trash and recycle bins.

Provide Monetary Incentive. Offering an immediate reward for recycling may encourage recycling participation because individuals often respond better to immediate consequences than long-term consequences. Because the recycling program aims to alter behavior throughout campus (targeting over 40,000 individuals), monetary rewards could not be rewarded to all recyclers, but would be randomly rewarded to recyclers by undercover recycling advocates.

Hand Out Flyers Promoting Recycling. Providing an informative brochure about how to recycle and the benefits of recycling will provide an additional proactive reminder to recycle.

4

3. Identifying Main CriteriaIn order to effectively enhance Penn State’s recycling program, we established criteria that balanced cost, environmental impacts, and overall feasibility of implementation. After investigating previous studies and conducting first-hand observations on Penn State’s campus, we identified five main criteria, listed from highest to lowest importance, against which we would evaluate the overall effectiveness and feasibility for the five different recycling solutions:

Long term improvement in recycling participation. To create an effective recycling program worth the time and expenditures, the program must be able to influence behavior of Penn State’s large and rapidly changing population.

Cost. We need to work within a moderate budget, ideally seeking to regain any expenditure from reduced landfill tipping fees.

Increase the ease of recycling. To meet the needs of the students who generally have little extra time and/or are unwilling to go out of their way to recycle, the recycling solution should increase recycling access and availability.

Public acceptance. In order to effectively gain participation, a new tool should promote recycling in a manner that is neither offensive nor radical.

Rapidness of implementation. In order to maximize waste stream reduction and to recover our expended costs, we wanted the new recycling plan to be implemented within the fiscal year.

4. Evaluating Each Option Based On Previous StudiesTo evaluate the effectiveness of each of our options, we researched the effectiveness of these options in previous recycling behavior studies.

Increase the Number of Bins and Locations

To improve recycling participation on Penn State’s campus, we investigated studies testing our first hypothesis in which increasing the number of accessible recycling bins would make recycling more convenient and, in turn, increase recycling rates. In the first study which observed plastic recycling behavior on a university campus, contrary to our hypothesis, Ryan O’Connor observed that simply increasing the number of recycling bins will not significantly increase plastic recycling rates (O’Connor et al., 2010). However, this study concluded that moving recycling bins from the hallway to the classroom (where the items were consumed) significantly increased recycling rates. In Timothy Ludwig’s study of two college departments, he also observed that when bins are more proximal to consumption, recycling rates increased. In this study, Ludwig concluded that recycling behavior is directed by the convenience to discard items in a closer location because this reduces the time and energy spent to dispose of waste. When recycling bins were moved closer to employees from a central location, recycling rates increased from 28% to 88%. Recycling increased from 40% to 63% when recycling bins were moved from the hallway into the classroom (Ludwig et al., 1998). Based on this data, increasing the

5

proximity (and number) of recycling bins closer to areas with high levels of discarded waste may be an effective means to increase recycling rates on Penn State’s campus.

Change the Color of Existing Bins

In addition to increasing the accessibility of recycling bins, we researched increasing recycling rates by increasing recycling bin visibility with bright colors. In O’Connor’s university study, recycling rates did not increase when the bins were changed from a dull gray to a bright green, suggesting that this technique may not be an effective solution to increase Penn State’s recycling participation (O’Connor et al., 2010).

Place Large Signs with Recycling and Trash Bins

Currently, Penn State clearly labels many of the recycling and trash receptacles on campus and we wanted to know if visual cues (such as signs and labels) affect recycling participation. In our third hypothesis, we questioned: “Do external reminders posted near recycling and trash bins, such as signs, improve recycling awareness and participation?” According to Ludwig’s university study, placing signs over trash bins and recycling bins increased recycling from 54% to 81% (Ludwig et al., 1998). Similarly, John Austin concluded that installing recycling and trash signs in two college departments increased recycling participation by faculty, staff, and graduate students, especially when the signs were located in close proximity to recycling bins (Austin et al., 1993). Due to the similarities between Penn State and the studies’ participants, visual reminders would likely increase recycling participation on Penn State’s campus.

Provide Monetary Incentive

In our fourth hypothesis, we asked, “Will an immediate reward for recycling increase recycling participation?” In Joseph Hopper and Joyce Nielsen’s study of a curbside recycling program, they determined that contests, prizes, and raffles can increase recycling rates (Hopper and Nielsen, 1991). According to Jacob Hornik’s analysis of previous behavioral recycling studies, extrinsic incentives (such as money) are effective at increasing recycling, but will generally only last as long as the reward is available (Hornik, 1995). In another study of two resident halls on a large university campus, Easwar Iyer and Rajiv Kashyap provided incentives for recycling to one residence hall and provided recycling information to a second residence hall. In this study, after monetary incentives were removed, recycling rates dropped significantly more than when the recycling information was removed, yet still exceeded baseline participation rates (Iyer and Hashyap, 2007). Hence, although monetary incentives may improve Penn State’s recycling rates in the short term, the impermanence of this solution compounded with Penn State’s large and rapidly changing population most likely make the long-term impacts of this solution relatively marginal.

Hand Out Flyers Promoting Recycling

6

In addition to providing reminders and/or rewards at the disposal site, we wanted to determine if regular reminders away from the disposal site would also improve recycling participation. According to Hopper, door-to-door brochures have been demonstrated to marginally increase recycling participation (increase by 6%); the minor recycling improvement, the additional waste created, and the impermanence make handing out flyers a weak solution to improve recycling participation on Penn State’s campus (Hopper and Nielsen, 1991).

Overall, previous studies identify recycling as a costly endeavor to individuals because it requires time and energy to save, sort, and deliver recyclables; hence, many individuals negatively perceive recycling as an inconvenience (Hopper and Nielsen, 1991, Iyer and Hashyap, 2007). Additionally, because recycling is a relatively new action and not yet a habitual process across society, even individuals who support environmental preservation must be regularly prompted to recycle, especially at the most critical point—the waste delivery site. Research shows that prompts, such as signs, will be effective if they make a specific request, are in close proximity to the area in which the individuals are expected to respond, and request responses that are convenient to those who must respond. In general, individuals who do recycle are better informed about which material can be recycled, know where these materials can be recycled, and are better informed about the benefits of recycling on the environment than non-recyclers (Austin, 1993).

5. Connecting Results from Previous Studies with Penn State In addition to conducting research on previous behavioral studies, we interviewed two students and conducted our own observations to confirm that previous research pertains to Penn State’s campus. In the first situation (located outside of Penn State’s Berkey Creamery), Spencer, an undergraduate student, mentioned that he did not know where to recycle his plastic bottle; in this scenario, non-recyclable trash bins were the only outdoors waste receptacle available. When we questioned him further, he stated that he understands the importance of recycling, yet he becomes discouraged when he cannot find a recycling bin. Without an accessible recycling option, therefore, he disposes his recyclables into the trash. In a different situation (located inside of a classroom), we witnessed another student, Cameron, dispose a plastic bottle in the trash bin as he was leaving a classroom although an accessible recycling container was located in the hallway just a few feet outside the doorway. When we asked him why he did not recycle the bottle, he stated: “I forget to recycle when easily accessible recycling bins are absent when I throw my trash away.” Here, we confirmed O’Connor’s research, indicating that easily accessible recycling bins influence recycling participation on Penn State’s campus (O’Connor, 2010).

In addition to interviewing students, we observed behavioral patterns on Penn State’s campus to ensure the research findings applied to Penn State. In areas with recycling bins adjacent to trash bins, we found few plastic bottles/recyclable papers disposed in the trash bin and also observed students throwing waste containers into the appropriate receptacles. In contrast, in areas where the only accessible disposal bin was a trash bin, we frequently observed plastic bottles and other recyclable materials in the trash bin. We

7

also regularly observed students toss waste containers into the trash bin as they exited classrooms or walked around campus, even when recycling facilities were available but located further away in a central location.

6. Evaluating Each Option Against Our Criteria To evaluate our options objectively, we created a decision matrix (See Table 2). To develop the decision matrix, we first gave each criterion a weighting factor, a value which indicates the relative importance of each criterion. The weighting factor values range from 1(lowest importance) to 5 (highest importance) and were assigned to each criterion based on the research results from Penn State’s OPP website, previous behavioral studies, and first-hand observations on campus.

Next, we ranked the performance of each option in each criterion category with a raw ranking value. Each option could receive a score of 1 (poorest performance in that category relative to the other options) to 5 (best performance in that category relative to the other options); we ranked the options’ performance for each criterion based on the research results from Penn State’s OPP website, previous behavioral studies, and first-hand observations on campus.

Finally, we determined each option’s value for each criterion by multiplying the weighting factor by the raw ranking value. After establishing the weighted value of each option in each criterion, we summed the weighted values from each criterion to create a final summed weighted value for each option. Increasing the Number of Bins and Locations and Posting Signs with Recycling and Trash bins scored highest with summed weighted values of 73 and 73 respectively, suggesting that these options most closely fulfill the project’s valued criteria and, therefore, will best accomplish the project’s desired outcomes to increase recycling participation.

8

Conclusion

9

Reco

mmen

datio

n Op

tion

Raw

Rank

ing

Weig

htFa

ctor

Final

Valu

eRa

w Ra

nkin

gW

eight

Facto

rFin

alVa

lue

Raw

Rank

ing

Weig

htFa

ctor

Final

Valu

eRa

w Ra

nkin

gW

eight

Facto

rFin

alVa

lue

Raw

Rank

ing

Weig

htFa

ctor

Final

Valu

e

Sum

of We

ighted

Value

sIn

crea

se Nu

mber

of

Bins

and L

ocati

ons

34

125

525

43

125

420

22

473

Chan

ge Co

lor

of Ex

istin

g Bin

s2

48

35

152

36

34

121

22

43Po

st Sig

ns w

ith

Recy

cling

and

Tras

h Bin

s5

420

45

203

39

44

164

28

73Mo

netar

y In

cent

ive1

44

25

105

315

24

83

26

43Fly

ers P

romo

ting

Recy

cling

44

161

55

13

31

44

52

1038

Crite

ria

Decis

ion M

atrix

Cost

Long

-Ter

m Im

prov

emen

tPu

blic

Acce

ptan

ceIn

crea

seEa

se of

Recy

cling

Rapi

d Imp

lemen

tatio

n

Increasing the number of recycling bins and locations on Penn State’s campus and posting signs with trash and recycling bins ranked highest on the decision matrix. Despite moderate upfront implementation costs, increasing recycling bins and locations on campus ranked highest in increasing the ease of recycling and long-term improvement. With these results, the upfront costs will be paid for relatively quickly through the reduction in landfill tipping fees.

Posting signs with trash and recycling bins ranked highest in the cost and second highest in the long-term improvement, increase ease of recycling, and rapidness of implementation categories. Therefore, posting signs that identify recycling and trash bins and clearly describe recyclable items is a cost-effective solution to increase recycling participation. Although signs do not physically increase the ease of recycling, clearly labeling bins reduces the mental effort required to (A) choose to recycle and (B) what items to recycle. Hence, this matrix indicates that Penn State’s current recycling and waste bin labeling positively impact recycling rates.

Monetary incentives, handing out flyers promoting recycling, and changing the color of existing bins ranked significantly lower than the top two categories. Although publicly accepted, monetary incentives are costly and tend to have marginal success once the incentive ceases. Also, monetary incentives do not increase the ease of recycling; if recycling bins and/or recycling information is not present, habitual patterns may continue to persist. Flyers promoting recycling have had little success in past studies, rank poorly on public acceptance, and often have lasting impact long enough for the flyer to enter the trash bin. Although changing the color of existing bins may increase the visibility of recycling bins, this option ranked poorly in the rapidness of implementation and cost categories; replacing existing bins with brightly colored bins will not only take time and cost money, but this option has also not proven to effectively increase recycling rates (i.e. reduce landfill tipping fees) in previous studies.

Recommendation

10

In order to increase recycling participation across Penn State’s University Park campus, we suggest the following actions:

1. Monitor areas across campus to determine where recyclable items are most likely to be consumed (and the corresponding containers will be discarded), such as in classrooms, at bus stops, and highly trafficked sidewalks.

2. Evaluate the location of current recycling receptacles. Consider redistributing current recycling bins to areas with higher recyclable disposal rates.

3. Purchase recycling bins to supplement existing bins and strategically distribute them in the areas throughout campus identified in recommendation 1.

4. For maximum effectiveness, we also recommend labeling all currently unlabeled bins and newly purchased bins with clear, informative signs that indicate the proper items to dispose in each bin.

5. We recommend monitoring the waste stream of the new recycling bins to evaluate the mass of waste and tipping fees deferred from landfill disposal. After developing a cost-benefit analysis, we suggest evaluating for the potential implementation of additional recycling bins.

References

11

Austin, John, et al. (1993). “Increasing recycling in office environments: The effects of specific, informative cues.” Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 26, 247-253.

Hopper, Joseph . R., and Nielsen, Joyce. M. (1991). “Recycling as altruistic behavior: Normative and behavioral strategies to expand participation in a community recycling program.” Environment and Behavior. 23, 195-220.

Hornik, Jacob, et al. (1995). “Determinants of recycling behavior: A synthesis of research results.” Journal of Socio-Economics, 24, 105-127.

Iyer, Easwar S., and Hashyap, Rajiv K, (2007). “Consumer recycling: Role of incentives, information, and social class.” Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 6, 32-47.

Ludwig, Timothy . D., Gray, T. W., and Rowell, A. (1998) “Increasing recycling in academic buildings: A systematic replication.” Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 31, 683-686.

"Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) in the United States: Facts and Figures." Municipal Solid Wastes. Environmental Protection Agency, 19 Mar. 2012. Web. 15 Apr. 2012. <http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/municipal/msw99.htm>.

O’Connor, Ryan et al. (12/01/2010). “Effects of Number and Location of Bins on Plastic Recycling at a University.” Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis (0021-8855), 43 (4): 711.

Penn State Office of Physical Plant. The Pennsylvania State University. 12 April 2010. Web. 14 April 2012. <http://www.opp.psu.edu/photos/PSU-RecyclingLogo-FULLSIZE.jpg/view>.

"What We're Doing." Recycling & Waste Management. Penn State University, 2011. Web. 15 Apr. 2012. <http://www.green.psu.edu/recycling/>.

12