Final Recylcing Presentation

RecyclingAliyah Bryant, Brittany Franklin, Katie Payne, Stephanie Smith, Kayla Spenard

Did you know?Americans produce 251.3 million tons of waste per year (Fritz et. al, 2009)

The average person in the U.S. produces 3.4 pounds of solid waste each day (Goernert et. al, 1995)

Approximately 90% of waste generated in the U.S. could be recycled, but only 30% is recycled (Johnston et. al, 2013)

Research on Campus RecyclingThe location of recycling bins is a critical factor in recycling receptacle usage (Fritz et. al, 2009)

Recycling increased dramatically when bins were placed in classrooms and in high traffic areas

Introducing recycling facilities and behaviors may promote more positive attitudes about recycling (DiGiacomo et. al, 2016)

Information v. incentives – recyclable weight increased by 4% at the information site, compared to 28.5% at the incentive site (Iyer et. al, 2007)

Internal and external factors related to recycling

Increasing external factors (number of bins, social norms related to pro-environmental behavior etc.) increases recycling

Materials and Participants

Participants: Reinhardt University, Waleska campus (1,373 students; 51% male, 49% female)

Materials: 15 blue recycling bins were placed throughout Lawson and Tarpley

Multi-colored flyers (orange, yellow, and green) were taped above the recycling bins.

The ones intended for recycling paper, plastic, glass, and aluminum featured the words “Reduce, reuse, and recycle” and pictured an animated Earth on a bicycle.

The ones designed for the paper towel recycling encouraged recycling and had an animated paper towel claiming how awesome it is because it is recyclable. Both flyers were approved by Dr. Walter May before posting.

We also utilized a scale to measure our bins and recycling materials in pounds.

Methods

Bins were placed throughout Lawson and Tarpley, 15 in total

One by each staircase in Lawson (6), one by the staircase in Tarpley (3), one in each of the men’s and women’s bathrooms on each floor (6)

We placed informational flyers above each bin detailing what materials could be recycled.

We weighed our bins initially (1.5lbs.) and used a scale to measure the weights. Kayla stood on the scale and subtracted her weight (112.2lbs.) and the bin weight (1.5lbs.) from the total to find the total weight of the recyclables.

We set our bins out on Tuesday, April 5 and collected the weights of the materials on Thursday, April 14.

ResultsTotal weight for Tarpley: 2.7lbs. (M: 0.9, SD:1.1)

Total weight for Lawson: 8.1lbs.

1st floor: 2.5lbs. (M: 0.8, SD: 0.1)

2nd floor: 2.5lbs. (M: 0.5, SD: 0.5)

3rd floor: 3.1lbs. (M: 0.8, SD: 0.6)

Total weight for 1st floor: 3.0lbs. (M: 0.7, SD: 0.2)

Total weight for 2nd floor: 4.6lbs. (M: 0.8, SD: 0.8)

Total weight for 3rd floor: 3.2lbs. (M: 0.6, SD: 0.6)

Results

Men’s Bathroom: 1.6lbs.

M: 0.5, SD: 0.5

Women’s Bathroom: 2.3lbs.

M: 0.8, SD: 0.1

Staircase 1: 3.3lbs.

M: 1.1, SD: 0.3

Staircase 2: 0.9lbs.

M: 0.5, SD: 0.6

DiscussionIt is clear that the total weight for Lawson far exceeded the total weight for Tarpley, but solely because there were more recycling bins located in Lawson.

Also, the second floor reported larger weights for recyclable materials (4.6lbs.)

There were two significant weights recorded in two bins

2nd floor Tarpley: 2.1lbs

3rd floor Staircase 1, Lawson: 1.5lbs.

Limitations and Future Research

Time was a huge constraint in executing this experiment properly.

We could have had more recycling bins, as it seems that 15 were not enough to have the impact that we truly wanted. These could have been in areas like the commuter’s lounge, inside classrooms, and other well-frequented areas of Lawson/Tarpley.

The measurement in pounds may not have been the best to use in order to capture a significant change in recycling behavior. Future studies may include measures of volume instead.

ReferencesDiGiacomo, A., Kingstone, A., Lenkic, P. J., Wong, V. K., & Wu, D. W.-L. (2016). Being in a

“green” building elicits “greener” recycling, but not necessarily “better” recycling. PLoS

ONE, 11, 1-13. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0145737

Fritz, J. N., Lerman, D. C., & O’Connor, R. T. (2009). Effects of number and location of bins on

plastic recycling at a university. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 43, 711-715. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2010.43-711

Goernert, P. N., Houlihan, D., & Larson, M. E. (1995). Brief report: Effects of informational

feedback on aluminum can recycling. Behavioral Interventions, 10, 111-117. doi: 10.1002/bin.2360100207

Iyer, E. S. & Kashyap, R. K. (2007). Consumer recycling: Role of incentives, information, and

social class. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 6, 32-47. doi: 10.1002/cb.206

Johnston, D. D., Largo-Wight, E., & Wight, J. (2013). The efficacy of a theory-based,

participatory recycling intervention on a college campus. Journal of Environmental Health, 76, 26-31. doi:

10.1108/02632771211270595