Carmen Wright

ABSTRACT

Colleges and universities display their sustainability most prominently through their recycling programs, yet a 2014 EPA survey found that individual recycling rates have not improved in the US in the last ten years.¹ University recycling programs seek to increase recycling overall, increase the diversity of recyclables collected, and find effective ways to measure these goals. Several studies have looked at bin placement, design of openings, and addition of educational components to improve recycling rates, but few have combined these elements with studies on circulation, overall bin design, and human response to affordances and environmental graphics. Using a 3D model to test placement and frequency of bins in the primary circulation corridors of an academic building, this study hopes to discover if using well-designed, uniform receptacles at well-spaced intervals that correspond to circulation patterns will increase recycling rates.

INTRODUCTION

Per the EPA’s 2014 Materials Management Fact Sheet, Americans produced 258.5 million tons of waste in 2013 and recycled or composted 87 million tons of this waste, roughly 34%. Of the waste sent to landfills, 26% consisted of paper and paperboard, 12.9% of plastics, 4.4% of glass, and 9% of metal. Of the waste recycled, 50% consisted of paper and paperboard, 3.5% of plastics, 3.3% of glass, and 8.8% of metal. These figures represent 1.15 pounds recycled or composted of 4.4 pounds daily generated waste by one person. Recycling 89 million tons is comparable to saving the same amount of energy needed to power 25 million homes ².

Universities in the United States have supported sustainable practices such as recycling since the 1980s when they began responding to the energy crisis of the late 1970s. Today, recycling is a key criteria and most visible element of a sustainable campus.³ As micro societies, universities can impact their community through recycling efforts by reducing the amount of waste they send to landfills.⁴ As educational institutions, they have the power to prepare students to become more environmentally-aware citizens by shaping behaviors and perspectives.⁵

Recycling helps divert waste from landfills, which act more as “mummifyers”⁶ of trash than decomposers. Less trash in landfill means fewer greenhouse gas emissions and leachates and therefore better air and water quality. Moreover, recycling reduces energy because, at least for some materials like aluminum, less energy is consumed using recycled content than creating something from virgin material.⁷ Research supported by Waste and Resources Action Program (WRAP) and conducted by the Technical University of Denmark and The Danish Topic Center on Waste found that in 200 scenarios, 83% of scenarios that included recycling were better for the environment.⁸ Finally, recycling can lead to other sustainable practices and more respect for the environment.

BACKGROUND

The literature on recycling is broad, coming from sources on behavioral and social psychology, waste management, sustainability, design, and higher education. This study has examined existing research on bin design and placement as well as information on behavioral and environmental psychology in regards to visual cues in the built environment. A study conducted by Macy and Thompson (2003) and published in the Journal of Interior Design examined the design implications of incorporating recycling in residential kitchens and users’ outlook on environmental altruism and convenience of recycling in the home. Macy and Thompson found that convenience was a primary motivator for recycling for highly altruistic homeowners, and users were most likely to recycle if recycling bins were near or in the kitchen.⁹ Thanks to new technology that separates materials using spectroscopy,¹⁰ many universities have adopted single stream systems, which tends to increase participation because it makes recycling simpler by allowing diverse recyclables to be collected in one bin.¹¹ O-Connor et al. examined whether receptacle location without the use of posted signs would increase recycling, and found that placing more bins in classrooms increased recycling, supporting earlier studies that found that placing bins at the point of consumption would affect recycling behavior.¹²

Robert Gifford (2001) concluded that the key steps to increase recycling is to 1) educate 2) prompt and 3) reward. He writes, “the same arsenal of techniques should be used to sell recycling as to sell commercial products.”¹³ Werner et al. (2002) found that in settings where convenience of recycling could not be provided, persuasive signs increased recycling more. The message on the sign tested and found to be effective read, "It's important!"¹⁴ Pike et al. (2003) took the educational approach by offering a problem-based course in which the three students in the class conducted a study on recycling for thirteen apartment blocks. By providing both education for recycling (in the form of flyers) and opportunities to recycle (in the form of bins in the dorms), the student study showed that students in the dorms could reduce their waste stream significantly¹⁵ A Virginia university study by Witmer and Geller (1976) showed that when a competition between two dorms promised a monetary prize to the winner, students recycled ten times more than when they had just been given flyers.¹⁶ Recycle Mania, an annual competition among American and Canadian universities, takes advantage of this very idea by ranking schools in the following categories: Who recycles the most on a per capita basis; Who has the best recycling rate as a percentage of total waste; Who generates the least amount of trash and recycling?¹⁷ However, the Virginia university study found that when the reward system was not sustained, recycling levels returned to their baseline levels.¹⁸

Mozo-Reyes et al. (2016) conducted a study at a Michigan university that found that providing students feedback on the amount they recycled monthly increased their recycling levels significantly. Providing such feedback helps reinforce recycling as a normative practice.¹⁹ Mozo-Reyes et al. coupled the idea of feedback with technology by designing a smart bin that used digital readout of how many recycled materials were in the bin at the time an item was deposited with audio feedback (a clip of the school fight song) to reinforce recycling behavior.²⁰ While the quantity of recyclables collected during the test period attested to the success of the smart bin, the research team also recorded seeing students smile and celebrate when someone recycled.²¹ In another phase of the study, Mozo-Reyes et al. used the smart bin at a popular football game of 100,000 fans. Although the attendance at the game with regular bins was higher, the game with the smart bin had a higher overall recycling weight.²² A study by Duffy and Verges (2009), which concluded that bins with a specialized lid for bottles increased recycling by 34%, may indicate the role of affordances as behavioral prompts.²³

The role of recycling as an altruistic and social behavior cannot be underestimated. A study conducted by Hopper and Nielsen (1991) found that while prompts increased recycling in an urban neighborhood, they did not have as much of an impact as the influence of “block leaders” whose role it was to encourage their neighbors to recycle. ²⁴ Nolan (2015) conducted a study to try to understand recycling behavior by using Jackson’s Return Potential Model to examine the “normativeness” of recycling by comparing responses of an online survey completed by 54 recycling experts (people with a personal or professional interest in recycling) and 210 college students. The survey measured personal involvement, perceived convenience, recycling levels, approval of recycling, self-reported recycling, and the climate of opinion surrounding recycling. Nolan found that experts were significantly more involved and reported higher levels of recycling than students.²⁵ With regards to the moral behavior behind recycling, this same study found that the levels of approval increased with the levels of recycling. Both experts and students disapproved of “anti-recyclers” and approved of “full-recycler.”²⁶ Largo-Wright et al. (2012) used the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) to study determinants of recycling intention on a college campus. This study found that moral obligation was the strongest predictor for recycling behavior for the population tested on the campus.²⁷ Although morality and attitudes play a large part in motivating individuals to recycle, there is also a “widespread out-of-sight-out-of-mind attitude” that impedes participation.²⁸ Even when people say they recycle, studies have found that people don’t recycle as much as they say they do.²⁹

APPLICABLE THEORIES

There are several theories of environmental psychology that form the basis for the design of interior spaces. Of these, four seem applicable to this study. The first is Gibson’s Ecological Perception Theory which states that “instead of perceiving individual components of an environment, we organize all of those components into recognizable patterns.”³⁰ Thus grouping waste and recycling together and making receptacles more uniform throughout a space may help people establish patterns and associate appropriate behaviors with those receptacles. The second is Integration Theory which states that elements of an environment work together to prompt certain behaviors.³¹ Again, the idea of uniformity of receptacles in terms of size, color, and design could create a more harmonious environment for recycling. The third is the Behavior Setting Theory which states that public spaces will evoke certain behavioral patterns.³² Literature has established that recycling is a social activity, which means that people tend to consider how their environmental behavior is regarded by their peers. The fourth is the Theory of Affordances which states that an object’s and space’s characteristics can help users understand the functional properties of that space or object.³³ This theory applies directly to the design of the receptacles, particularly the types of openings in lids that communicate the acceptable types of recyclables.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The literature reviewed indicates that increasing convenience, providing feedback or prompts, and understanding recycling as a social norm and altruistic activity can help encourage recycling behaviors among students. Testing these ideas on a college campus has been successful because students, faculty, and staff interact with recycling bins daily, and it is easy to alter factors by changing bins or moving them to a new location. For this reason, this study has chosen an academic building in a southern university of nearly 27,000 students. The building serves mostly engineering students and faculty and is characterized by a horseshoe-shaped primary circulation path that exits onto the rest of campus at every point on the building axis. The building’s large corridors are wide enough for benches where students tend to congregate before and after classes to eat or meet informally. Currently, the building has 16 total receptacles; of these, 9 are for waste, and the remaining 7 are for recycling. Among the total number of receptacles, there are 5 different styles: 2 of these for waste and 3 for recycling (figure 1).

Figure 1 Existing conditions and types of receptacles

The next step consisted of etic observations done in the space at regular intervals over an extended period of time to calculate the number of people circulating in the space at peak times and to determine what receptacles are used most. Observations made Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday of three different weeks from 11:30AM to 12:30PM showed that the curved portion of the hallway and the area outside of the classrooms on the east side of the buildings had significant traffic, mainly because several classes let out about that time (Figures 2 and 3). Observations of the contents of the bin showed that the ones used the most were those near exits and right outside classroom doors, especially those near the east entrance of the building.

Figure 2: Typical day around lunch time

Figure 3: Circulation study

Interviews with campus maintenance personnel confirmed that the recycling receptacles used the most were those outside the classrooms on the east side of the building. Observations of the contents of the waste and showed that most recycling consisted of plastic bottles and cans, but on some occasions these were thrown in waste receptacles rather than recycling receptacles. Waste consisted mostly of food containers and packaging.

Figure 4: Contents of waste (left) and recycling (right) receptacles.

The next step consisted of modeling the space in 3d using Autodesk Revit, SketchUp and Unity. The end goal was to have a model of the existing environment act as the control group. A second model would use existing receptacles in new placements based on circulation patterns and high traffic areas, and a third model would use new receptacles selected for their clean, visible, and effective design in the new placements used in the second model. Subjects would walk through each model and answer the same questions concerning the ease of locating receptacles, the ease of identifying waste and recycling receptacles, and the likelihood of recycling. Due to restrictions on time, the result was one model in which the east side of the building contained new receptacles in new placements and the west side of the building model contained the old receptacles in the existing locations.

New receptacles were designed based on materials and finishes preferred by the university’s facilities, sustainability, and custodial directors. These consist of two 50-gallon receptacles ganged together or used separately, depending on available wall space. The waste receptacle has a black and white trash icon with the word “trash” on all sides to allow for maximum flexibility of placement and to increase visibility from all exposed sides. The body of the receptacle was modeled as silver metal, while the top was a powder-coated black metal with a large rectangular opening. The lid is hinged to discourage breaking or denting, which tends to happen when removed for emptying. The recycling receptacle has a blue and white recycling icon and the word “recycling” on all sides, a silver metal body, and a blue powder-coated metal lid with a co-mingled shaped opening (figure 5). The co-mingled top combines a round opening with a slotted opening to indicate that bottles, cans, paper, and small cardboard pieces are all acceptable objects for recycling.

Figure 5: Design for new recycling receptacles.

Because of the size of the receptacles, there was not always space to place them side by side without restricting door clearances (figure 6), but where able, they were positioned side by side (figure 7).

Figure 6: New receptacles positioned separately.

Figure 7: New receptacles positioned together.

Because of the time constrictions, the study was limited to my fellow classmates, which consisted of five female students. The goal was to have them explore the space using an Oculus Rift, but technical difficulties required them to manually “walk” through the SketchUp model and answer the following questions:

1. How easy is it to find trash and recycling receptacles?

2. How easy is it to distinguish trash from recycling?

3. How likely are you to recycle with these receptacles?

The survey was distributed through Qualtrics using a link. The full format of the survey appears below:

Figure 8: Survey questions

RESULTS

For the existing configuration on the west side of building, 3 people found it moderately easy to find recycling and waste receptacles while 2 people found it not easy at all. For the second question, 2 people found it extremely easy to distinguish waste and recycling, 1 found it slightly easy, and 2 found it not easy at all. For the final question, 1 person found it extremely likely to recycle with these receptacles, 1 person found it very likely, 1 person found it moderately likely, and 2 people found it slightly likely.

For the new receptacles on the east side of the building, 3 people found it extremely easy to find waste and recycling receptacles and 2 found it very easy. For the second question, 2 found it extremely easy to distinguish waste from recycling, 2 found very easy, and 1 found it moderately easy. For the third question, 2 people found it extremely likely that they would recycle using these receptacles, and 3 people found it very likely that they would recycle using these receptacles. A full summary of the results appears in figure 9.

Figure 9: Survey results.

DISCUSSION

While the results show a favorable outcome towards the new receptacles in the new configurations, there are several limitations to the study. First, the sample size was very small and consisted of individuals already familiar with the project. The new and existing receptacles were labeled on the survey, but they should have just been labeled as east and west side to prevent any preconceived biases. For the first subject, there were no instructions on how to walk the space. This resulted in the subject going to the west side first, which made it difficult for her to spot many of the receptacles on the east side because they were on the walls behind her, and the limitations of a SketchUp view do not allow for a realistic simulation of peripheral vision. For the remaining subjects, I instructed them to walk through the east side of the space first and then the west. The survey format could also be improved. The questions appear in very small font compared to the answer choices, and the answer choices are too numerous. It would have been better to limit the responses to 3 or 4 options. Finally, the subjects had to compare two different scenarios within the same space; it would have been more accurate to have them walk two different spaces to allow for an equal comparison.

Despite the limitations of the study, the exercise provided some insight into how individuals view and use recycling and waste receptacles. It is possible that the very different shapes of the receptacles in the existing conditions still make it easy for students to distinguish trash from recycling. In terms of affordances, a large plastic bottle shaped receptacle with a round opening clearly says that it is a receptacle for plastic bottles. However, it shapes does not necessarily imply that other recyclables, such as paper, are also acceptable. Consistency across building receptacles makes it easier to locate recycling and waste receptacles, especially if they are always placed side by side. One happy accident of the 3D modeling exercise was that icons on the new receptacles have a slight glow, making them more visible at a distance, especially in dark areas. While most buildings are well lit and receptacles should be placed within the path of travel rather than dark corners, the accident provides a lesson in the readability of graphics: they should be large enough and provide enough contrast to be visible across the room. It is also preferable to use both icons and wording, as people may respond to one or the other better. One aspect of waste and recycling that was not touched on in this study but that is still applicable to interior design is the use of environmental graphics to not only call attention to placement of receptacles but also as educational tools. While environmental graphics are not appropriate for every space, in a building students frequent, like the student union, it would be a great opportunity for additional education on correct recycling practices.

Since the start of this study, I have formed a small committee at the university to help select a standard recycling receptacle for building interiors. The committee consists of representatives from the facilities, custodial, and sustainability departments. The result has been a lively discussion on the practical needs and aesthetic requirements that are fitting for a Tier 1 university. So far, we have brought in two receptacles from different manufacturers and expect a third in mid-June. The process is long, but this research has taught me to consider each choice critically and carefully and to consider a choice that balances practicality with aesthetics.

CONCLUSION

Beyond having implications for the university, this study can have implications for the way interior designers approach specification of ancillary objects like recycling and waste receptacles. To maintain the integrity of the design concept, interior designers may tend towards specifying receptacles that blend into the environment. However, if the goal is to call attention to waste and recycling behavior, interior designers need to place greater consideration on their choices of receptacles. In defining interior design, Tiiu Poldma writes, “...the social construction of space and place—at least in part—create the social roles and relations that govern how we live, work, and play.” As a point of connection between the human, design, and sustainable components of space, interior designers can influence recycling behavior. They can do this by striking a balance between aesthetic compatibility, functionality, and practicality. In doing so, interior designers can contribute to creating better sustainable campuses and built environments.

REFERENCES

About. Retrieved September 30, 2016, from http://recyclemaniacs.org/about

Ching, R., & Gogan, R. (1992). Campus recycling: Everyone plays a part. New Directions for

Higher Education, 1992(77), 113–125.

Duffy, S., & Verges, M. (2008). It matters a hole lot: Perceptual Affordances of waste containers

influence recycling compliance. Environment and Behavior, 41(5), 741–749.

Gifford, R. (2014). Environmental psychology: Principles and practice (5th ed.). Optimal Books.

Hopper, J. R., & Nielsen, J. M. (1991). Recycling as altruistic behavior: Normative and

behavioral strategies to expand participation in a community recycling program. Environment and Behavior, 23(2), 195–220.

Jensen, M., & Sartain, A. (2014). How healthy is your recycling program? Performing a garbage

audit at a Major University. Sustainability: The Journal of Record, 7(3), 154–159.

Largo-Wight, E., Bian, H., & Lange, L. (2012). An empirical test of an expanded version

of the theory of planned behavior in predicting recycling behavior on campus. American Journal of Health Education, 43(2), 66–73.

Macy, S., & Thompson, J. A. A. (2003). Residential design implications of consumers’ recycling

behaviors. Journal of Interior Design, 29(1-2), 17–31.

Mozo-Reyes, E., Jambeck, J. R., Reeves, P., & Johnsen, K. (2016). Will they recycle?

Design and implementation of eco-feedback technology to promote on-the-go recycling in a university environment. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 114, 72–79.

Nolan, J. M. (2014). Using Jackson’s return potential model to explore the

Normativeness of recycling. Environment and Behavior, 47(8), 835–855.

Norman, D. A. (2013). The design of everyday things: Revised and expanded edition. New

York: Basic Books.

O’Connor, R. T., Lerman, D. C., Fritz, J. N., & Hodde, H. B. (2010). Effects of number and

location of bins on plastic recycling at a university. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 43(4), 711–715.

Oskamp, S., Zelezny, L., Schultz, P. W., Hurin, S., & Burkhardt, R. (1996). Commingled versus

separated curbside recycling: Does sorting matter? Environment and Behavior, 28(1), 73–91.

Pike, L., Shannon, T., Lawrimore, K., McGee, A., Taylor, M., & Lamoreaux, G. (2003). Science

education and sustainability initiatives. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 4(3), 218–229.

Poldma, T. (2008). Interior design at a crossroads: Embracing specificity through process,

research, and Knowledge*. Journal of Interior Design, 33(3), vi–xvi.

Solid Waste Disposal and Recycling. (2015b). The Great Courses.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Materials Conservation and Recycling Branch, Resource

Conservation and Sustainability Division, EPA Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery. (2016). Advancing sustainable materials management: 2014 fact sheet assessing trends in material generation, recycling, composting, combustion with energy recovery.

Werner, C. M., Stoll, R., Birch, P., & White, P. H. (2002). Clinical validation and cognitive

elaboration: Signs that encourage sustained recycling. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 24(3), 185–203.

Witmer, J. F., & Geller, E. S. (1976). Facilitating paper recycling: Effects of prompts, raffles,

and contests1. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 9(3), 315–322.