Texas CityLab Zero Waste Project CityLab Zero Waste... · Texas CityLab Zero Waste Project ... Center, and the Facilities Services Zero ... the Facilities Services Recycling and Solid

Texas CityLab Zero Waste Project

High-Use Outdoor Area Recycling Behavior and Zero Waste

Commencement Ceremonies

Warner Cook, Katherine Eastman, Kayla Fenton, Lauren Ko, Brent Perdue, and Tom Rowlinson

Table of ContentsExecutive Summary

Introduction Sustainability at UT: An Overview

Defining Zero Waste

High-Use Outdoor Area Recycling Behavior

Zero Waste Commencement Ceremonies

Conclusion

References

Appendix

3

5

7

9

11

21

31

32

36

The University of Texas at Austin - School of Architecture - UTSoA

Executive SummaryWaste is a mindset. Leadership, education, and planning can change one’s mindset from perceiving waste as invisible, implicitly accepting landfill solutions, to one which sees waste as part of a cycle, operating with other products and processes.

The University of Texas at Austin is in a unique position to educate thousands of students, faculty, staff, and visitors every year about zero waste practices. To that end, Texas CityLab commissioned the Community and Regional Planning Resource Management and Recycling graduate seminar to study public, visible waste management programs. The seminar focused on two study areas—outdoor eating areas and commencement events. While these activities produce a smaller percentage of waste than other university operations, improvements in these activities have educational demonstration value to influence other areas of operations.

Summary of Key Findings:

• Over 70 percent of landfilled waste at outdoor eatery areas compostable;• compost disposal options may achieve higher landfill diversion rates;• variable recyclability and compostability of food and beverage vendor products;• little interest in improving zero waste practices at commencement events.

Summary of Policy Recommendations:

• Coordinate with food and beverage vendors to increase recyclability and compostability of products;

• invest in innovative education campaigns, such as the Texas Union’s Love your Leftovers Composting Program and Texas Athletics’ Bleed Orange, Live Green campaign (University of Texas GivePulse, n.d.);

• create uniformity of disposal bins university-wide through coordination with purchasing office;

• provide single stream recycling options university-wide, including outdoor recycling stations;

• decrease the number of landfill bins university-wide;• phase in university-wide composting program after sustained education campaign;• improve zero waste practices at commencement events with improved coordination

and best management practices guide;• create volunteer opportunities at commencement that include zero waste ambassadors

to assist with proper disposal, similar to Texas Athletics Sustainability Squad and the Office of Sustainability Longhorn Recycling Roundup;

• create university-wide Green Team to coordinate between other facility and departmental Green Teams, and report to the President’s Sustainability Steering Committee;

• create Zero Waste Management Director position under the Associate Vice President – Utilities, Energy & Facilities Management.

The President’s Sustainability Steering Committee estimates that reaching the UT Campus Master Plan’s goal of 90 percent landfill diversion will reduce UT Austin’s “carbon footprint by 600 metric tons of CO2 equivalent and save at least $5,000 annually” (President’s Sustainability Steering Committee, 2012; University of Texas Facilities Services, n.d.). Reaching this goal will require significant investments of human and financial resources, especially in educational campaigns. Peer institutions prove zero waste is achievable. The following report outlines a path towards doing so. After all, “what starts here changes the world.”


2


3

IntroductionIn Spring 2015, the University of Texas at Austin (known as UT Austin, or simply UT) Texas CityLab1 approached Dr. Robert Young’s Resource Management and Recycling graduate seminar with an opportunity to assist the university’s Facilities Services by analyzing the effectiveness of recycling and composting programs and recommending actionable improvements based on such analysis.

In the 2013-2104 fiscal year, UT Austin produced a total of 3,876 tons of waste destined for landfill (Hobson, 2015). This equals 149 pounds of landfilled waste per student enrolled. The University’s Master Plan calls for the campus to become zero waste by 2020 (Texas CityLab, n.d.), and has established a zero waste program (University of Texas Facilities Services, n.d.) to meet that goal. UT Austin’s zero waste goal is to “divert 90% of the total waste stream from landfills using a variety of methods including reuse and recycling” (University of Texas at Austin Natural Resource Conservation Plan, 2012). At present, that diversion rate is 33 percent (University of Texas Facilities Services, n.d.).

As one of the largest and best-ranked universities in the U.S. (Times Higher Education, 2015), UT Austin must consider effective and comprehensive processes to implement its zero waste goals that leverage its size and capacity for innovation. This report investigates the campus’ material systems to help progress zero waste goals. It begins by providing an overview of sustainability at UT and defining the concept of zero waste, then uses a synthesized definition that addresses systems thinking to analyze two critical questions:

• How can UT Austin encourage increased use and improved sorting at recycling and composting receptacles campus-wide? This analysis will specifically focus on outdoor eating areas.

• How can UT Austin design its commencements, some of the largest events outside Athletics held on the university’s campus, to be zero waste?

This report uses various methodologies, including researching best practices, online interviews with departmental management, field observations of waste disposal behavior, and waste sorting.

1 Texas CityLab is a service-learning program that brings together students from diverse academic backgrounds to provide sustainability consulting services to a municipality in Texas. During the 2014-15 school year, the University of Texas at Austin is the Texas CityLab’s community partner (Texas CityLab, n.d.).


4


5

Sustainability at UT: An OverviewSustainability initiatives on campus originate from four key stakeholders: The Office of Sustainability, the Center for Sustainable Development, the Campus Environmental Center, and the Facilities Services Zero Waste Program. Similarly, there are four areas of operations that manage waste: Facilities Services, the Division of Housing and Food Services, Athletics, and the University Unions, all who promote their own sustainability initiatives, including zero waste programs. Facilities Services manages the Zero Waste Program, which employs a Zero Waste Coordinator. At the time of writing, this Program is developing a Zero Waste Strategic Plan that partners with both the Office of Sustainability and Campus Environmental Center, and coordinates with the Facilities Services Recycling and Solid Waste team (University of Texas Facilities Services, n.d.). The Facilities Services Recycling and Solid Waste team picks up recycling and solid waste, provides recycling bins, and picks up recycling and solid waste from special events (University of Texas Facilities Services: Recycling, n.d.). The Division of Housing and Food Services (DHFS) manages compost disposal options at four retail dining locations and all dormitory cafeterias. Using to-go compostable plastic, DHFS diverted 40 percent of its waste from landfill to composting operations in the 2013-2014 fiscal year (Hobson, 2015). Athletics is gaining traction with its Sustainability Squad, Longhorn Recycling Roundup program, and Bleed Orange, Live Green campaign. Lastly, the Texas Union is currently operating a composting pilot and Love Your Leftovers Composting Program educational campaign. Despite these initiatives, UT campus still generates substantial refuse; Facilities Services generated 63 percent of waste from all four areas of operations, and achieved a 35 percent landfill diversion rate in fiscal year 2013-2014. The Division of Housing and Food Services generated 23 percent of all waste from all four areas of operations, and achieved a 40 percent landfill diversion rate in the same year. Athletics generated 10 percent of waste from all four areas of operations, and achieved a 21 percent landfill diversion rate. The University Unions generated 201 tons of landfill waste. Recycling and compost data were not available (Hobson, 2015).

Figure 1. Diversion rates at the University of Texas at Austin during the 2013-2014 fiscal year, left. Total tonnage of waste generated, 2013-2014 fiscal year, right (Hobson, 2015)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40Facilities:

35%

Athletics: 21%

DHFS: 40%

Unions: no data

Facilities: 3,712 tons

DHFS: 1,336 tons

Athletics: 611 tons

Unions: 201 tons


6


7

Defining Zero WasteAt present, UT Austin’s zero waste program defines zero waste as “reducing the generation of wasted materials at the source, and maximizing diversion methods to avoid landfills” and creating a “paradigm shift,” with the defining metric being 90 percent diversion from landfill (University of Texas Facilities Services, n.d.). Though 90 percent diversion is an appropriate goal, consistent with industry and academy definitions (Lombardi, 2001; U.S. Zero Waste Business Council, n.d.; Zero Waste International Alliance, 2009), it nevertheless lacks the systems-based approach that has been equally fundamental in developing the concept and practice (Zero Waste International Alliance, 2009).

The core of zero waste calls into question the very existence of waste—that is, the principle that no material should ever be lost, rendered into refuse (Zero Waste Institute, n.d.). Rather, all materials compose a system of reuse, with particular reuses more highly valued because they maintain the integrity and embodied energy that went into a given material object, as opposed to material destruction for energy, as is the case with incineration (Lombardi, 2011). This requires not only an effective, systematic approach to materials systems within UT Austin, but also a cultural change and corresponding behavior regarding those systems. As such, two of the fundamental places to begin investigating zero waste involve behavior—in daily uses of outdoor space and major event design.

In defining zero waste, we propose a hybrid of UT’s zero waste goals and the more systems-oriented definitions mentioned: Zero waste at UT is a system where all parts of the campus’ materials flows complete a lifecycle, where nothing is wasted, but rather captured for different uses that make effective, non-destructive use of the materials. Diversion must be 90 percent (or higher) by 2020, but not just from landfills; rather, UT is to employ thorough accountability as to how that material is being diverted. To achieve this goal, one of the first objectives is for UT to have a 100 percent compliant recycle, compost, and landfill separation system. As such, material discards can be effectively reused without contamination or resorting to energy-intensive destruction (Zero Waste Institute, n.d.). It is here that the report’s research into waste sorts may be most helpful. The second objective is to address the culture of waste at UT through its high-profile events: Create waste-free events occurring at UT. Here the report’s research into best practices and current conditions for waste-free commencements may provide ideas and templates for UT to redesign its own.


8


9

High-Use Outdoor Area Recycling BehaviorProblem Definition

During the 2013-14 fiscal year, approximately 30 percent of the waste generated on the UT Austin campus was diverted away from the landfill towards either composting or recycling (Hobson, 2015). While classrooms and offices compose the largest portion of the overall waste mix by ton, DHFS is the next largest category of waste. Incidentally, DHFS also has the highest diversion rate at 40 percent (Hobson, 2015). Considerable progress has been made towards diverting waste destined for landfills; nevertheless, a substantial gap remains between current rates and the 90 percent goal. Facilities Services (Facilities) has identified recycling behavior at high-use outdoor eating areas as a key obstacle to achieving higher diversion rates (R. Moddrell, personal communication, April 2015). In these spaces, outdoor garbage, recycling, and, in some cases, composting bins are available for use by diners using outdoor seating areas or people passing through. Facility staff have noticed limited use of recycling facilities in these areas, and high occurrences of incorrect bin use when recycling or composting is attempted. While these spaces do not constitute the largest quantity of undiverted waste on campus, their use is centralized, with a deficit of adequate provisions. Interpreting recycling behavior in these focused areas can inform improved strategies for campus-wide recycling and composting efforts. For this reason, this report analyzes the effectiveness of waste diversion programs in high-use, outdoor eating areas. The key questions of this analysis are:

• How do users interact with existing landfill, recycling, and composting bins? • Are there correlations between using recycling or composting bins and spatial

influences, like convenience to bins? • Are there correlations between the type of material being disposed and the use of

recycling or composting bins?• When used, are materials being place in recycling and composting bins properly

sorted?

Methodology

The methods used to inform this study generally fall into three categories: literature review, on-site behavior observations, and targeted waste sorts.

Literature ReviewThe authors of this report reviewed available literature on recycling behavior to inform the overall approach to assessing waste sort success and potential areas for improvement. The authors placed emphasis on studies that analyzed behavioral reactions to recycling programs. Our observation parameters and overall recommendations employed these particular precedents for theoretical and pragmatic relevance.

On-Site Behavior ObservationsThe authors conducted two on-site observations at outdoor dining areas with high lunchtime traffic to document customer interaction with waste facilities. The authors used specific data points for the purpose of uncovering general trends in recycling and composting use. Those data points include:

• Origin of user, specifically whether passing through or sitting at outdoor tables;• whether user is in a group or alone; • source of disposed material (including restaurant when noticeable);• whether the user subdivided their materials;• disposal bin used;• whether the bin used was closest to a table or walking path.


10


11

The authors selected two outdoor eating areas for observation based on their disposal options and location on campus. The first location is the newly constructed Student Activity Center (SAC) on the pedestrian mall near E. 23rd Street. Completed in 2009, the SAC was the first LEED Gold certified building on campus (Centers for Student Life: University Unions, n.d.). There are four fast food eating options in the SAC, including Zen, Chick-Fil-A, Taco Cabana, and Starbucks. There are three outdoor seating areas around the building; observations were conducted at two of these locations. The first (Location A, see Appendix A) is along the north side of the building and has approximately 20 tables and eight separate disposal stations. The seond (Location B, see Appendix B) is along the south side of the building and has approximately 15 tables and seven separate disposal stations. Each of the locations offer recycling options that include aluminum, mixed paper, and plastic. None of them offer composting. The authors observed Location A between 11am and 1pm on April 9, 2015. The authors observed Location B between 1 and 2pm on the same day. The Littlefield Patio Café (see Appendix C) served as our second case. Located at W. Dean Keaton and University Avenue, the Café offers cafeteria-style food service ranging from pre-made sandwiches and salads to rotating hot dishes. The Café uses compostable plates and plasticware offered at the Café, and offers reusable silverware. For discard, the location employs composting, as well as aluminum-, mixed paper-, and plastic-separated recycling. There are over 20 tables and four separate bin disposal stations. The authors observed our second case from 11am to 2pm on May 1, 2015.

Waste SortAfter each behavioral observation the authors hand-sorted the waste, recycling, and compost at each location to determine the total weight of diverted material, as well as the weight of material placed in garbage bins that could be recycled or composted. The categories used to sort the material were: food, food-soiled paper, mixed plastics, foam, mixed paper, and aluminum. To ensure the disposed material corresponded with the behavior of the users documented in the field observation, the project team worked with facility staff to ensure fresh bags were placed in all bins before the observation period. The project team then directly pulled the bags for sorting at the end of the observation period.

Literature Review Findings

The authors conducted a literature review relevant to waste sorts to gauge the overall theme of current research into recycling behavior. The articles selected for summary here reiterated common themes for crafting recycling programs that react to common human behaviors.

Sussman, et. al. (2013) conducted field studies to observe waste diversion behavior in a cafeteria setting, with a specific focus on composting. Their findings were numerous, but included two key points worth summarizing. First, psychology research suggests people are more likely to participate in an activity if they believe or know that others are doing so as well (Sussman, et al., 2013:24). This point led us to incorporate a metric into the observation guidelines as to whether a waste disposal user was alone or in a group. This tendency explains why signs are commonly used as visual cues in promoting recycling behavior, as they show that someone else might be using recycling as well (Sussman, et al., 2013:25). This leads to the second important finding in the Sussman study: Repetitive communication improves recycling outcomes (Sussman, et al., 2013:31). For example, placing signage not just on the recycling and landfill bins themselves, but also on tables and at checkout counters, reinforces the will to choose landfill-diversion when ultimately faced with the decision of whether to recycle or not. In addition, temporary in-person coaching on correct sorting methods was found to have a lasting effect on stream quality for composting even many weeks after the coaching concluded (Sussman, et al., 2013:31-32). Overall, they found that removing the unfamiliarity and uncertainty from the act of recycling and composting is important (Sussman, et al., 2013).

In a different observational study, Wu, DiGiacomo, & Kingstone (2013) evaluated whether the type of building a person is in influenced their recycling behavior. Wu, et al. (2013) specifically assessed whether people were more likely to recycle in newer buildings that the tenants perceived as modern and sustainable than they were in older, more traditional style buildings. This was relevant to our analysis because the two locations selected for site observations fell into each

of these categories. Wu, et al. (2013) found that in a building where the perceived environmental consciousness was higher, proper waste disposal was also proportionally higher than in spaces where a low environmental awareness was reported (Wu, et al., 2013).

In a 2013 report by Alex Cooley in Resource Recycling (2013), Cooley summarizes the particular challenges for implementing recycling programs in public spaces. This has relevance to UT Austin, given that the campus is frequented by public visitors, students, and staff alike. According to Cooley, “[r]esearch in recent decades has documented two primary barriers to recycling: lack of convenience [Humphrey, Bord, Hammond & Mann, 1977] and confusion about how to recycle” (Cooley, 2013:25). This finding informed the survey design for this study, and helped connect final conclusions and recommendations to broader observed trends in the recycling industry. Cooley also suggests bin attendants at large-scale events as a strategy for improving recycling outcomes, and also recommends inside changes like reducing waste generation to begin with and capturing recyclable material before it leaves a building (Cooley, 2013:26).

The Cooley article points to a flyer produced by Keep America Beautiful called Ten Steps for Effective Recycling Design (2013). This is a useful tool for any recycling program designer, including elaborations on how to place recycling directly next to trash, being consistent with bin type and instructions throughout an area, and being open to adapting and improving strategies over time (Keep America Beautiful, 2013).

Behavior Observation and Waste Sort Findings

Student Activity Center During the 11am to 2pm observation period, we observed 73 people using the disposal facilities available in the outdoor eating areas to the west and south of the building.2 50 of these individuals were alone and 23 were in a group of two or more. The most common restaurant source of the materials being disposed was Chick-Fil-A, at 28 of the 73 users. 20 users had Zen materials, one had Taco Cabana, and three had Starbucks. 19 users had other or indistinguishable sources of materials. Chick-Fil-A materials most commonly consisted of a paper bag in which all items were placed, a sandwich sleeve made up of a combination plastic and aluminum material, and plastic sauce packets with an aluminum peel-off lid. Paper cartons for chicken nuggets were also common, as were Styrofoam beverage cups. The Zen serving container consisted mostly of paper carton with a waxed coating. Plastic trays (for holding sushi) and chopsticks were also common.

Users in these spaces most commonly chose the closest bin when disposing of their materials. Only 13 users did not use the closest bin to the table where they were seated or the path on which they were walking. Several of these users were closest to the recycling option, but chose to travel further to use the garbage disposal option. Only five users subdivided their materials; all did so while recycling.

50 people sat alone

60 people used the closest

bin

5 people subdivided their

materials

13 people did not use

the closest bin

68 people did not subdivide

their materials

23 people sat in a group

Figure 2. Observed users at SAC (Locations A and B)

2 This does not represent all of the users of these spaces during the observation period. The west location was observed for two hours and the south location was observed for one hour.


12


13

At both locations, six users used the available recycling, 8 percent of the total. Characteristics between recyclers and non-recyclers did not vary greatly. Of those who recycled, 50 percent disposed of Chick-Fil-A, 33 percent of other materials, and 17 percent Zen. Nearly all subdivided their materials (5 out of 6), and only 33 percent used the closest bin to the table where they were seated. Alternatively, those who did not recycle were not patrons of any one particular establishment. Around 38 percent had materials from Chick-Fil-A, 29 percent from Zen, 26 percent from a different source, and less than 5 percent each from Starbucks and Taco Cabana. Unsurprisingly, no users subdivided their material, and 87 percent used the bin closest to where they were seated.

Data uncovered during the waste sort provides additional context on recycling behavior at the SAC. Garbage and recycling bags from the observation locations were individually sorted to identify the makeup of the material plus a total overall diversion rate. With 20 lbs. of material disposed in landfill bins and 1.46 lbs. of material placed in recycling, the total diversion rate across both sites was 6.7 percent. Of the 20 lbs. of material that ended up in landfill bins, 40 percent at Location A consisted of food waste, 35 percent consisted of food-soiled paper, 13 percent consisted of mixed plastics, and 3 percent consisted of foam. Location B waste had a similar makeup, with 36 percent food waste, 39 percent food-soiled paper, 12 percent mixed plastics, and 4 percent foam. Both locations also had approximately 9 percent residual material, primarily liquids and small materials. Overall, 80 percent of landfill waste was compostable material. Around 15 percent of the material was recyclable, mainly plastics and foam3. The meager 1.46 lbs. of recycling was predominantly aluminium cans, with a small amount of mixed plastics and paper.

Littlefield Patio Café There were 67 users observed using disposal services at this location during the 11am – 2pm observation period. Of these, 42 users were alone and 25 were in a group of two or more. Since Littlefield Patio Café is a cafeteria, material source was not tracked by resturaunt but rather by primary material type. The Café serves meals on compostable plates, in compostable plastic to-go containers, and in plastic wrap. Single use beverage containers in glass, plastic, and aluminium are also sold. The predominant material type discarded during the observation period were the compostable plastic to-go containers, followed by compostable paper plates. Seven single-use beverage containers were disposed, and five items were either indistinguishable or did not fit into one of the core categories. Ten users disposed of multiple items in these categories.

Figure 4. Observed users at Littlefield Patio Café

55 people used the closest

bin

9 people did not use

the closest bin

7 N/A

42 people sat alone

25 people satin a group 32 people

subdivided theirmaterials

39 people did not subdivide

their materials

Figure 3. Breakdown of landfill waste at SAC (Location A and B)

80%Compostable

15%Recyclable

5%Landfill

A majority of users disposed of their materials in the bins closest to where they were sitting, at 52 out of the total 67. Nine users did not use the closest bin, and the data point was not observed for six users. A larger portion of users subdivided their materials at this location, with 15 out of 67 attempting to use multiple bins. However, the most significant difference between the two locations can be seen in the recycling and composting rates. 52 out of 81 observed items were recycled or composted, with only 29 going directly into landfill bins. This amounts to a total user-initiated diversion rate of 64 percent. Recyclers and composters most often used the closest bin to their table (81 percent) and typically did not subdivide (55 percent). Non-recycler behavior did not vary dramatically; 75 percent used the bin closest to their table, and 67 percent subdivided their materials.

Data uncovered during the waste sort provides additional context on recycling behavior at the Café; garbage and recycling bags from the observation area were individually sorted to identify the makeup of the material and a total overall diversion rate. Of the 25 lbs. of items disposed during the observation period, 11.28 lbs. were placed in landfill bins, while 14.15 lbs. were placed in either recycling or compost bins. This amounts to a total diversion rate of 56 percent. The items placed in the landfill bin were 41 percent compostable materials, 47 percent recyclable materials, and 12 percent legitimate landfill waste based on current technologies and markets. Thus, a total of 88 percent of the material disposed in the landfill bins could have been diverted. The materials diverted by Café patrons were primarily compost, at 90 percent of the non-landfill total.

Figure 5. Breakdown of landfill waste at Littlefield Patio Café

41%Compostable

47%Recyclable

12%Landfill

3 Though recyclable, expanded polystyrene is often not accepted by recycling operations (CIty of Austin, n.d.).


14


15

Key Conclusions

Collectively, conclusions can be drawn from this analysis to help inform improved waste diversion strategies campus wide. First-hand observations at multiple locations with differing layouts and waste disposal options allows for a general comparison of user response to specific zero waste strategies used on the UT campus. The following conclusions capture the most significant influences and outcomes in recycling and composting behavior, drawing connections to other research where appropriate.

Divergent Diversion Rates: Recycling and composting practices at the SAC and Littlefield Patio Café varied dramatically. The SAC’s meager 8 percent user-initiated landfill diversion rate suggests that the facility could emulate practices at the Café, which had a rate of 64 percent, and likely realize better results. Beyond these two locations, other UT facilities can refer to the diversion rate findings for each of these locations as examples of how to (and how not to) design effective recycling and composting systems.

Proximity and Proportions: Both locations had several common trends, but the most significant was the proximity metric. 87 percent of users at the SAC used the bins closest to their seat or the path they were walking on, and 78 percent did so at the Littlefield Patio Café. When coupled with a more equitable distribution of landfill, recycling and composting bins at the Littlefield Patio Café, the number of users in close proximity to recycling options increased, resulting in substantially higher diversion rates.

The Compost Difference: A primary difference between the two observations was the availability of composting. Since much of the waste generated in these particular areas is food waste and/or food-soiled paper materials, the availability of composting drastically increases the diversion rate. Since 70 percent of the material uncovered in the waste sort at SAC was compostable materials, increasing recycling access may not result in a substantial change in the overall diversion rate. Solutions must include a compost option to truly make progress towards UT Austin’s zero waste goals.

Appearance Matters: During the SAC observation, several users approached the recycling bin but ultimately rerouted to a garbage bin instead of actually recycling. The visual appearance of these bins, which do not resemble traditional garbage cans, may have been an influencing factor. The effectiveness of the system at the Littlefield Patio Café supports this hypothesis. There, the composting bins are nearly identical to landfill bins except for large and prominent labeling. Composting was the most significant landfill diversion source at that location. While creating bins that resemble the landfill bins could be a useful zero waste strategy, further analysis on the impact of this resemblance on stream quality would need to be conducted.

Discarded Value: General estimates of commodity value, recycling, and composting costs in relation to the waste sort results at both locations indicate that the discarded materials have an economic value, a value that could be leveraged by either UT Austin or the broader Austin economy. The potential value of the waste discarded in landfill bins at the SAC and Littlefield Café was approximate $2.30 and $2 per pound, respectively. While the expenses involved in collecting and transporting these materials to market may diminish value, in some cases to the point of a deficit, there is no doubt that, given the total volume of waste across the UT Austin campus, significant value is lost when recycling and composting is not fully utilized.

Other Research Supports Most Findings: In most cases, the literature on recycling and composting behavior supported the findings in the observational analysis. Specifically, convenience played a key role in recycling decisions, further supported by the academic work of Sussman, et al., Cooley, and Keep American Beautiful. As Cooley (2013) suggest, confusion about how to recycle likely played a role in decision making at the SAC. However, Wu’s theory regarding behavior in sustainable buildings did not hold in our observations; recycling at the LEED Gold SAC was significantly lower than then at the older building which houses the Littlefield Patio Café. Suggested solutions in all of the literature reviewed can inform future zero waste strategies at UT Austin.

Recommendations

Facilities can take a variety of actions to improve landfill diversion outcomes on campus. While systematic, long-term strategies may be required to reach the ultimate 90 percent diversion rate, simple bridge solutions can be employed to improve outcomes in the short term as well.

Improve proximity: The research presented in this report suggests that users are significantly influenced by proximity when selecting a bin for disposing materials. Thus, by increasing user proximity to recycling and composting options and decreasing access to landfill bins, users will likely revert to the most convenient option. The most cost effective way to achieve this would be to remove some of the landfill bins from a particular space without repurposing or purchasing new bins for recycling or compost. Then, the resulting option is no longer the minority, inconvenient option. It is recognized, however, that diminishing service quality is not an ideal method even if the outcome is higher diversion rates. Thus, bin removal should only be seen as a temporary solution to either evaluate user reaction to a decreased quantity of bins or allow for increased diversion until funding is available to expand the quantity of recycling bins. When additional investment is made, new bins should strive to achieve a similar look and feel as traditional garbage bins to increase user comfort level. It is important to stress that this recommendation does not merely call for more recycling and compost bins. For the strategy to be effective, landfill bins must be replaced altogether. Thus, the total volume of bins on campus could conceivably remain stable, thus minimizing additional staff time needed to manage new recycling infrastructure (see Figure 6, next page).

Expand Composting: Compost availability at the Littlefield Patio Café has a substantial impact on the relatively high diversion rate at that facility. Coupling this with the data that shows food waste and food-soiled paper products are the predominate materials being discarded at both locations suggests that an expansion of composting would improve overall diversion rates. UT Austin has already taken steps to introduce and expand composting at select facilities. While this strategy has faced early obstacles in the form of stream quality, this report validates the need to explore innovative solutions to improving composting outcomes in areas where the service has been introduced (R. Moddrell, personal communication, April 2015). In addition, as the composting program is perfected, campus-wide expansions should be a top priority. This will further bolster diversion rates by increasing the standardization of recycling and compost facilities campus wide, thus improving overall comfort with waste disposal options at any given building on the UT Austin campus.

Minimize Waste: Working with fast-food restaurants to minimize waste should be pursued alongside strategies for improving options for users to recycle or compost once waste is created. Once again, Littlefield Patio Café provides a successful case study. Using compostable plates and regular silverware for meals eaten in the building means less waste is generated at the source. Cafeteria-style facilities throughout UT Austin should adopt similar waste minimization techniques. In addition, working with campus vendors to curb waste generation within their ability is necessary. If, for example, Chick-Fil-A did not provide a paper bag for small orders, users would have less waste to discard at the end of their meal, and would be less inclined to bundle and pitch their materials into a single landfill bin. Alternatively, UT could require vendors to use compostable material for all their packaging, so that users would not need to subdivide. Voluntary measures and contractual agreements should be explored. The Texas Union has had success working with Wendy’s on food packaging (R. Moddrell, personal communication, April 2015). The restaurant now offers food containers that are compostable, complementing the facilities’ recent execution of indoor composting bins. Overall, UT must minimize waste creation on the front end with a specific focus on hard-to-recycle items like paper and aluminum sandwich bags.

Filling the Gap—Training: Altering the space where recycling and composting should occur can have a big impact on landfill diversion rates; however, effective usage of zero waste facilities will remain a significant gap. UT Austin is in a unique position in that a large majority of students, teachers, faculty, and administration experience some level of training or orientation regarding campus navigation before joining the Longhorn community. These centralized events create a natural and efficient venue for communicating how to use UT Austin’s recycling and composting facilities, and as to why the campus is striving to achieve zero waste. Leveraging existing trainings in a templated, standardized way


16


17

throughout the year could be effective at improving stream quality as waste diversion strategies expand throughout the campus. In addition, targeted recycling and composting coaching should be used early in the semester and at large events to increase overall awareness, and, as research suggests, further improve user comfort with waste disposal options.

<insert photos of each location?>Potential Graphic - Quick Stats on each location: <Potential data point to add here - distance from furthest table to recycling and closest trash can.>SAC Location A - ~20 tables, 6 garbage cans and 1 each of aluminum, mixed paper, plastic (in one module). SAC Location B - ~15 Tables, <need map for can #s>LPC - ~25 tables, 3 trash cans, 3 compost bins, 1 each of aluminum, mixed paper, plastic

0

2

4

6

8

10

<insert photos of each location?>Potential Graphic - Quick Stats on each location: <Potential data point to add here - distance from furthest table to recycling and closest trash can.>SAC Location A - ~20 tables, 6 garbage cans and 1 each of aluminum, mixed paper, plastic (in one module). SAC Location B - ~15 Tables, <need map for can #s>LPC - ~25 tables, 3 trash cans, 3 compost bins, 1 each of aluminum, mixed paper, plastic

0

2

4

6

8

10

Plastic Bin

Paper Bin

Aluminum Bin

Compost Bin

Garbage Bin

Figure 6. Number and types of bins at all three observation locations

SAC (Location A) SAC (Location B) Littlefield Patio Café


18


19

Zero Waste Commencement CeremoniesBuilding upon the conclusions from the last chapter, this portion of the report elaborates on how UT may achieve the large events necessary to inspire a zero waste framework and culture on campus. Here the authors focus on one of the largest sets of events: Commencement. The spring commencement ceremonies and convocations are large-scale in comparison to other events hosted throughout the year by the university and its academic schools, departments, and programs. Commencement events also attract many attendees from outside the UT Austin community to celebrate the achievements of students as they are conferred degrees. Highly attended events in which a large percentage of attendees come from outside the immediate university community provide a valuable opportunity to showcase innovation and UT Austin’s commitment to sustainability and zero waste, fostering a culture necessary to achieve its stated goals. At this time, UT does not currently host a university-wide zero waste commencement or smaller zero waste convocations.

The wide-ranging nature of convocation events, from those that provide only ceremony programs to attendees, to those that host a reception with both food and beverage components, requires that all convocation events have their own mixture of zero waste strategies to help the program or department best reach a goal of 90 percent waste diversion. The university will host one university-wide commencement ceremony in addition to 32 other college, school, and department convocation events between May 22nd and May 23rd, 2015 (University of Texas at Austin, 2015a). The convocation ceremonies are held before the larger, university-wide event at various locations across campus. Venues for 2015 include the Frank Erwin Center, Gregory Gym, Bass Concert Hall, Hogg Auditorium, the Student Activity Center Auditorium, Bates Recital Hall, the Lady Bird Johnson Auditorium, and the AT&T Executive Education and Conference Center Amphitheatre (University of Texas at Austin, 2015a). Each convocation is organized separately by the college, school, or department hosting the event; the waste management operations at each of these venues are overseen by various work crews and building managers.

Some convocations choose to include within their ceremony a food or beverage component as part of a reception, either for faculty and staff that attend as part of the event, or for students and visitors of UT Austin celebrating their achievements. Depending on the nature and scope of each commencement, different strategies may be implemented to best create a portfolio of zero waste strategies to choose from in future event planning. There is an inherent difficulty in coordinating across multiple venues and departments for a series of 33 events; however, the university would benefit in creating a zero waste commencement weekend through help from central offices that have the ability to coordinate across multiple institutional organizations, such as the Office of Sustainability.

This section of the report presents options to move towards a zero waste commencement weekend at the University of Texas at Austin, based on precedent successes at other institutions, and the feedback gathered from commencement coordinators on current availability of resources and opportunities for such programming.

Methodology

Two primary methods were used in considering a UT zero waste commencement: A review of best practices and precedent projects from other universities, and an online questionnaire sent to convocation and commencement coordinators across campus. The best practices section includes a review of strategies undertaken by other universities to minimize waste and increase diversion at commencements and other large events on their campuses. Essential to this research were methods for diversion rooted first in minimization and secondarily in proper recycling and composting behavior, as well as resources that suggested procedures and protocols to aid departments and event coordinators in planning zero waste events.

The second method employed was the questionnaire sent to campus commencement planning staff, attached in Appendix D, focusing on questions of event budgeting, priorities, attendance, scope, current waste practices and willingness to alter practices in the future. The survey was distributed by an email link to each convocation coordinator listed on UT


20

Subject heading of presentation (DIN OT 8 regular)

21

Austin’s main commencement website as contacts for each smaller ceremony (University of Texas at Austin, 2015b). Respondents had two weeks to complete the survey, and partial responses were also recorded for those that did not complete the survey. The authors of this report recorded two full and five partial questionnaire responses.

Best Practices

Below are some of the strongest examples of zero waste events occurring on campuses across the U.S. The authors included events specific to zero waste commencements, as well as event practices that may be adapted to commencements. Each example concludes with takeaways most applicable to UT.

Ohio State Zero Waste CommencementIn 2012, Ohio State was able to achieve a zero waste commencement, with 90 percent of the event’s materials diverted from the waste stream (Environmental Sciences Network at Ohio State, 2012). The success of this event can be attributed to Ohio State’s highly effective zero waste program for their stadium, where their commencement is held (Ohio State University, 2015). The achievements reached by the commencement and the stadium alike result from the efficiencies gained by working with the vendors in the stadium; almost exclusively using recyclable and compostable products; appropriate infrastructure, namely bins for compost, recyclables, and landfill; and monitoring and education, where staff and volunteers ensure proper disposal by both attendees and stadium vendor workforce (Ohio State University, 2015). The biggest takeaway for UT in looking at the Ohio State model is having control over the environment within which commencement takes place. Ohio State’s commencement gains from having their event held in a venue committed to zero waste. This may prove problematic for UT, as many of the commencements are held in venues that do not have such commitment. Likewise, it is difficult to assert control over vendors. For UT to take on a model like Ohio State, it would require a thorough commitment to zero waste on behalf of all the venues and their respective caterers, staff, and volunteers. Finally, this approach focuses primarily on minimization and efficiencies, not necessarily on material systems and cultural perceptions of waste. That said, the programs in place with the Zero Waste Stadium ensure the compost is delivered to local farms; the Southeastern Correctional Complex, a prison with security levels 1 through 3, handles recycling (sorting and management) (Ohio State University, 2015; Southeastern Correctional Complex, 2015).

Millersville University Zero Waste CommencementMillersville University, in Pennsylvania, opted for a public-private partnership with Waste Management, Inc., one of the largest corporate operations in the industry (Education Solutions Team, n.d.; Waste Management, Inc., n.d.). In 2012, the liberal arts university was able to attain 100 percent diversion from the landfill using a number of strategies, including high visibility signage; appropriate receptacles for recycling, organics, and trash; frequent bag replacements throughout the event; and students serving as guides and monitors to ensure cups were being reused (Exchange: Millersville University, 2012).

Millersville worked closely with Waste Management, Inc. to optimize locations and numbers of receptacles, including a strong communications and education plan to ensure the awareness of students and guests. Both parties developed a contingency plan to handle contamination and provide adequate measures and assessment of compliance (Education Solutions Team, n.d.). Indeed, the Millersville model gives a clear cycle of operations from establishing goals, developing a plan, measurements, and evaluation. Millersville University also investigated the Environmental Protection Agency’s guidelines for zero waste (Education Solutions Team, n.d.).

As with Ohio State, Millersville University’s commencement occurs in a stadium, a relatively controlled environment for a university (Millersville University, 2015). This expectation proves difficult for UT given its sheer size and constellation of commencements. One suggestion would be to streamline commencement operations substantially, though such a solution may seriously disrupt the flow and event designs that have become standard at UT. It is worth noting that working with an industry leader may prove fruitful, gaining professional help and management throughout the process as used in the Millersville model. Waste Management, Inc. sends the refuse material to its Material Recovery Facility (MRF) and

an affiliated composting operation (Education Solutions Team, n.d.). Using a single stream method of separation for the recycling and a corresponding MRF is not necessarily zero waste, as described in the Defining Zero Waste section of this report; indeed, single stream MRFs may lose substantial energy that had gone into the refuse materials (Zero Waste Institute, n.d.). It is interesting to note that Millersville has been able to target specific products that lead to cross-contamination, such as dairy creamers (Education Solutions Team, n.d.). UT would do well in identifying those particular products in audits, as elucidated in this report’s previous sections. Finally, the rigorous separation zero waste demands to ensure materials are effectively reused may not be realistic in a major event setting. The question, then, becomes how to minimize the production of recycled materials? One suggestion would be to provide attendees with products they are likely to keep, or else use dishware and other catering operations that do not rely on disposable products, both recyclable and nonrecyclable.

University of Texas Zero Waste Athletics EventsUT has successfully executed a number of zero waste athletic events in 2014 (Texas Sports, 2015). Like with the previous two cases, a strong volunteer group to assist in monitoring, education, promotion, and collection is a central component to the zero waste strategy. For UT Athletics, it is the Sustainability Squad. At this time, however, the events successful in achieving the 90 percent target are the exception; indeed, UT Athletics’ Bleed Orange, Live Green website makes no mention of larger sports events like football, though there does exist recycling and a volunteer group for tailgating (Texas Sports, 2015).

Universities with Zero Waste Event Guidelines A number of schools in the U.S. employ zero waste event guidelines and services on a voluntary basis. Many of them stress common strategies, such as volunteers to inform and manage proper sorting as to avoid cross-contamination (University of Michigan Plant Building & Grounds Services, 2013; University of Arkansas Office of Sustainability and Academic Programs, n.d.; University of Oregon Zero Waste Events Services, n.d.; Sustainability at Boston University, n.d.; University of Pennsylvania Green Campus Partnership, 2014; University of Virginia Sustainability, 2014). Likewise, all the schools investigated emphasized education about zero waste both to caterers, staff, and event attendees alike. This certainly advances the creation of a zero waste culture in addition to ensuring compliance in appropriate sorting. Some schools gave specific outlines for catering and material provisions, including the use of bulk (as opposed to individual packet) condiments, china and silverware instead of disposable equivalents, buffet-style provisions, and providing agendas and event material online and projected, not printed (University of Michigan Plant Building & Grounds Services, 2013; University of Arkansas Office of Sustainability and Academic Programs, n.d.; University of Pennsylvania Green Campus Partnership, 2014; University of Virginia Sustainability, 2014 ). Others ensure zero waste by simply providing the additional composting service (University of Oregon Zero Waste Events Services, n.d.; Sustainability at Boston University, n.d.). Only University of Arkansas (Office of Sustainability and Academic Programs, n.d.) makes any elaboration in quantifying, measuring, and assessing whether goals have been met post-event.

What UT can take away from these guidelines and strategies is to ensure that commencements are dedicated to fostering a culture of zero waste—this means proper training, education, and promotion. UT must work with organizations who are equally dedicated to zero waste gains, efficiencies, and knowledge; this could mean caterers, third party waste management services hired for events, student organizations, and event organizers. UT must provide, at minimum, single stream recycling and composting, with clear, attractive signage. Finally, UT ought to consider forgoing disposable material entirely, such as flyers and handouts, as well as disposable dishware, cutlery, and packaged condiments. Providing china, silverware, bulk condiments, and buffet style catering would prove successful in reducing all waste.

Coordinator QuestionnaireThe questionnaire sent to convocation coordinators consisted of 27 questions ranging from specific questions such as whether their department’s convocation included a food and/or beverage component, to open-ended questions such as as how willing the department was to consider several zero waste implementation strategies (see Appendix D). While the seven responses do not constitute a full sample of each convocation at the University of Texas at Austin, they do


22


23

provide a snapshot of current commencement practices within the university that can be the starting point for future research and implementation of zero waste commencements.Though the questionnaire responses remain anonymous, responders were asked to provide the name of the department, school, or college with which they were associated. Responses were gathered from the College of Pharmacy, the School of Social Work, the College of Natural Sciences, the College of Fine Arts, and the Master of Science in Finance, Bachelor of Business Administration, and Business Analytics Programs in the Red McCombs School of Business.

Respondents were also asked to provide their job title, in hopes of better understanding who across the university is the primary planner of each convocation ceremony. Administrative Managers, Administrative Assistants, Assistants to the Dean, Senior Program Coordinators, Program Coordinators, Directors, and Graduate Program Administrators all have a hand in planning commencement ceremonies. It is likely that many other roles within UT plan and coordinate commencement events in addition to the titles listed above. The nature of this exploratory questionnaire does not fully represent the wide spectrum of employees that participate in the planning of these events; however, it is crucial to note the differences among departments and roles. To successfully coordinate a campus-wide zero waste commencement across all 33 events will require that many people who do not typically interact in the workplace be called on to simultaneously apply zero waste strategies. While their differing perspectives and past experiences planning convocation events would undoubtedly result in a more robust and holistic set of events, the coordination between departments may pose a substantial issue.

All respondents surveyed indicated that their department, college, or program held its own separate convocation event. Venues included Bass Concert Hall, the SAC Auditorium, the Frank Erwin Center, and Gregory Gymnasium. One respondent noted that while their department typically hosts its spring commencement ceremony in the Frank Erwin Center, the fall commencement ceremony is instead held in Bass Concert Hall. This may be a hurdle in the creation of a zero waste commencement weekend campus-wide, as some convocation coordinators would need to switch from one venue to another between the spring and fall semesters, which could be frustrating or time-consuming.

ScopeBetween 45 and 1,500 students attend the events described by coordinators in their questionnaire responses. The College of Natural Sciences had the largest estimated number of students participating in the ceremony, while smaller programs such as the event hosted by Business Analytics and Finance only have approximately 50 students participating. The students are not the only participants in a commencement ceremony; staff, faculty, and guests all attend these events to celebrate the hard work and success of students. The scope of some events is quite large, with respondents reporting that anywhere between 175 to 3,000 estimated total people are involved in their events. With some events having several thousand attendees, this could be a coordination issue for beginning a zero waste commencement. As mentioned above, large-scale events at UT, such as football tailgating events organized by the Department of Athletics, have been preliminarily successful at diverting waste from landfills, reporting 90 percent diversion rates (Texas Sports, 2015).

Those that chose to respond reported event budgets to be several thousand dollars, ranging between $6,000 and $14,000. Most commencement coordinators were unclear what portion of that budget went towards waste disposal services, consisting of landfilling, recycling, and composting, though one respondent estimated that the cost for waste disposal was somewhere around $2,000.

PreparationAn informative section of respondents’ answers referred to the general planning of their events, and the distribution of responsibility among members of their departments. The text of the full question posed can be seen in Appendix D. Several responses are:

“I am in charge of preparations. I follow a “to do” list with a timeline to make sure all aspects of the ceremony are taken care of. I begin preparation in January. Final approval is necessary from the deans group, and ultimately the dean himself.”“I am the primary organizer for the commencement ceremony with assistance from staff in the Dean’s Office and the Office of Academic Affairs.”“Program staff work throughout the year, especially the spring semester.”

“I am the main organizer. I am assisted by members of the Student Affairs division. Planning begins in January. Any major changes to the program would require approval from the dean. the financial coordinator of the college would also need to approve any major changes that increased our expenses.”

“I’m in charge of planning our commencement ceremony. I update our graduation website each semester. The advisors let students know the deadline to rsvp to participate. Speakers are selected through a committee of sorts. No final approval is needed.”

Preparation for commencement clearly begins early in most programs, several months before the event occurs. From these responses it is clear several events are organized in cooperation with other staff members, especially those from Dean’s Offices. While communication about the events to students is most likely a responsibility of advisors, planning may fall primarily upon administrators. The response indicating that significant alterations to the budget may need to be approved by a department or college’s financial coordinator is especially pertinent to the implementation of zero waste commencement ceremonies, as some strategies outlined from best practices of other institutions require additional purchases to be made, or rentals to be paid for reusable china to serve food to attendees.

ProgramsA clear priority among departments and colleges in commencement events is the printing and distribution of paper programs to students and other guests, outlining the order of speakers and commemorating the students graduating; several respondents even ranked it as their top priority in budget allocation. Most of these programs ranged from 6 to 8 pages in length, though smaller programs with fewer student names are only 3 pages in length. The largest event in the scope of this survey prints a 15 page document. The convocation organizers who responded to the questionnaire all use on-campus resources to print, specifically UT Document Solutions. One respondent noted that they use a template provided by UT Document Solutions to format and compile their program. Several thousand copies of these programs are typically printed; responses ranged from 250 to 2,500 copies printed. Assuming a median number of copies and pages from these responses, a typical department’s paper usage for programs alone is approximately 12,000 pages for events that last only a few hours. Even the lowest estimates would require somewhere around 750 pages to be printed for the programs. If each of the 32 convocation events across the campus printed programs of the average length for the average number of attendees, the university would use over 375,000 pages just for these booklets!

When asked what the biggest concern or obstacle in attempting to implement a zero waste commencement ceremony would be for their department, the responses were resounding in their concern of the elimination or curtailing of program printing and distribution.

“We will continue to print programs, so there will be paper involved.”

“We have only a small number of students, and the programs are considered souvenirs for them.”

“Parents and families of graduates would be very upset by lack of programs.”


24


25

The issue of program printing is clearly a contentious one among the commencement coordinators surveyed; recommendations for a zero waste commencement must take these concerns into account when suggesting changes to event planning. While the implementation of a fully zero waste commencement event would aim to minimize waste generated, especially from single-use and event-specific items, the authors of this report do not expect every convocation event do away completely with programs. The potential sentimental significance of the program to graduates and their families and guests is not surprising. Strategies that would reduce the number of pages in the programs, as well as provide recycling of the programs could be beneficial in helping achieve a waste diversion goal of 90 percent similar to other peer institutions.

Food and BeverageRespondents were split between whether they offered a food or beverage component as part of their commencement event, with several departments and colleges choosing to host receptions that preceded or followed their events. Of the seven respondents, four indicated that they provided food of some type in conjunction with their convocation. More explanation of the scope of this food component was provided by three of the respondents that indicated food was served.

“Breakfast foods are provided for faculty before the ceremony. There is enough for abour 50 people. we use paper plates and napkins and plastic utensils [sic].”

“Catered reception for 250 served by a caterer on china (reusable).”

“We did not have a Spring Commencement reception until last year when the Alumni Center discontinued holding their reception on the Friday of Commencement. Last year we had a college-wide reception: 80 dozen cookies, 25 gallons of tea, 20 gallons of lemonade, 20 gallons of water. Texas Union Catering brought all serving utensils, napkins, and disposable plates. This year the three departments of the college will be hosting their own receptions and I am unsure if the scope of their events [sic].”

Food components appear to fall into one of two scopes of commencement ceremonies based on questionnaire responses: The first, departments or programs with relatively small numbers of students graduating and total guests that offer catered meals; the second, large-scale receptions featuring light refreshments hosted by an entire college within the University of Texas at Austin and serving multiple departments, such as the College of Fine Arts. This tendency may be due in part to the feasibility of coordinating a catered event and the differences in scale between catering an event for 250 people and serving light refreshments to several thousand attendees. Catered receptions that use reusable china, like the one mentioned above, may already divert a significant amount of waste from landfills when compared to the alternative of throwing away disposable plates and silverware. A commencement that chooses to serve light refreshments may have greater obstacles in diverting food and food-serving waste as these types of receptions tend to provide disposable napkins, plates and silverware in addition to single-use cups.

Beverage components were included as part of 3 commencement ceremonies surveyed; responses to this question are given below.

“We provide bottled water to the faculty during the ceremony.”

“At reception last year: 25 gallons of tea, 20 gallons of lemonade, 20 gallons of water. We also have approximately 50 bottles of water available to our faculty members prior to the ceremony.

“Drinks served by caterer. materials unknown.”

An area of impact for zero waste strategies may be the water bottles provided to faculty either before or during the ceremony itself. While these most likely do not represent a large portion of the waste stream generated during a commencement event, providing an alternative to single-use plastic water bottles could be relatively simple to realize.

DisposalA series of questions asked respondents to indicate what types of disposal services (landfilling, recycling, or composting) were provided to attendees. None of the convocation events surveyed had composting services available to attendees, and recycling and landfilling services were split between two ceremonies providing recycling and landfilling services and two ceremonies providing solely landfilling services.

A related line of questioning asked respondents to estimate the number of each type of bin present at their ceremony. This series of questions went largely unanswered, with only two respondents choosing to estimate the number and type of waste bins provided for their ceremonies. The tendency among those that did answer was to indicate that there were slightly more bins dedicated to collecting waste meant to be landfilled than those dedicated to recycling; one respondent suggested 30 landfill bins and 20 recycling bins, while the other indicated approximately 20 landfill bins and 10 recycling bins. Without firsthand knowledge of the convocation events, it is difficult to determine if these are accurate estimates, yet a conclusion can be drawn that most likely more landfill bins are provided at these events than recycling or composting bins. That conclusion is also is supported by the observational information that was obtained and discussed in the previous section on the number of each type of bin in outdoor high traffic areas. It is clear, however, that respondents did not appear to have a strong knowledge of the waste disposal systems in place during their commencement events.

The lack of knowledge surrounding waste disposal at events from respondents may be informed by another set of survey questions, those relating to perceived level of input in questions of waste management at convocation events. Because convocation events are often held at venues outside of a department, school, or college’s home building, most decisions regarding the number of bins, type of bins, and signage on bins may be difficult for a commencement coordinator to control. When asked specifically about the type of signage present on disposal bins at events, the following responses were given:

“Controlled by the building” “UT provided waste/recycling bins (we do not provide additional)”

“General signage, controlled by Bass Concert Hall”

One respondent also noted that he or she did not know the answer to this question. Most respondents had little intimate knowledge of the waste disposal systems in place at their commencement events, and several noted that signage for waste bins was not under their control at all. The average score from respondents when asked to rate their level of input in decision-making on waste practices was 1.75 out of a possible 5 points. No respondent rated their level of input higher than a 3, which corresponds to a moderate level input. Increasing the level of input and communication between building management staff and commencement coordinators may alleviate this issue. This would help lead to a clearer understanding of the needs of the events held during commencement weekend and the needs of building managers that oversee other events in the spaces during the remainder of the year.

Zero Waste PerceptionsOne slightly disheartening discovery from the questionnaire was that those who responded indicated that there was no interest in their department, school, or college in attempting a zero waste commencement. Further, no respondent indicated that their program had considered zero waste strategies before. This aversion to the idea of a zero waste event could be attributed to several reasons, including a perception that a zero waste event means not using materials


26


27

to begin with, a preference to continue with the same convocation model already in use from years past, or any number of other reasons. Negative perceptions of zero waste, as well as increased campus-wide understanding of its meaning and importance, must be confronted and overcome before a zero waste commencement weekend may be possible at the University of Texas at Austin.

When asked about specific zero waste strategies mentioned in this report, respondents were less than enthusiastic about their adoption; however, prioritization of needs can be gleaned from the responses. “Willingness to change materials used at the ceremony (food or beverage serving implements, program/booklet material, etc.)” was the highest rated zero waste strategy suggested to respondents, with an average score of 3.0 out of 5.0. One respondent even scored this possibility at 4.0, meaning that their department or college was either willing to change the materials used in commencement or had already seriously considered implementing this strategy. The next most highly rated strategy by respondents was “willingness to coordinate volunteers to assist with zero-waste strategies” with an average rating of 2.67 out of 5.0. Respondents were less interested in increasing their budget in order to implement zero waste strategies, or to shift budget priorities to accomplish a zero waste ceremony—an average score of 2.33 out of 5.0 was calculated for this strategy. Finally, the least well-received zero waste strategy suggested in the questionnaire was “willingness to eliminate programs/booklets from the ceremony,” which only received an average score of 1.33 out of 5.0. Two respondents marked this strategy with a score of 1.0, meaning that they are not at all willing to eliminate programs from the commencement ceremony.

The above scores show positive next steps in the implementation of zero waste commencements at UT, as well as several concerns that must be accounted for if such events were to occur. Programs surveyed appear to be moderately willing to change materials and formats that they use in their ceremonies as well as what provisions they use to serve food and beverages at their receptions. As discussed in the best practices analysis above, the coordination of volunteers to assist in such an event is key to its success. There is a decent level of interest in coordinating volunteers at events; this would be critical to the proper separation of recycling, composting, and landfilling waste generated by commencement events. On another positive note, the respondents did suggest several strategies that they considered would be easy to implement starting next year in their events, such as using biodegradable serving utensils and providing brochure recycling as attendees were departing their event. These strategies alone will not reach the 90 percent diversion goal, but can add to a portfolio of options for departments and colleges to choose from to increase their waste diversion during commencement and move towards a completely zero waste commencement weekend across UT.

Key Findings

We are happy to report a number of U.S. universities have begun hosting zero waste commencements, or at the very least providing green commencements and/or zero waste event services; in addition to those addressed above, there is also Harvard Divinity School, University of California Santa Cruz, Humboldt State University, John Hopkins University, University of Florida, Yale University, College of the Atlantic, Carnegie Mellon University, and others. All initiatives used similar tactics to reach the near unanimous goal of 90 percent diversion from the landfill. They include:

• Using caterers that are knowledgeable and capable in composting, using either biodegradable or reusable (preferred) china and dishware;

• active use of volunteer groups and promotion to ensure attendees are aware and compliant;

• proper sorting systems with, at minimum, separation of recycling and compost; • working with material systems management groups that are competent and capable in

providing the recyclable and composting materials to their proper end uses, whether that be for farming or MRFs;

• providing attendees with possessions that they will keep; otherwise, provide information that would normally be used in printouts through projection and online;

• working with UT Documents Solutions to minimize paper usage in convocation programs.

We would like to stress that in providing a zero waste commencement, UT must ensure accountability and measure results accordingly; many of the initiatives mentioned here failed to discuss if/how they measured and assessed their results. Waste sorts are critical in understanding the impacts a zero waste commencement may have, as well as providing an understanding of successes and failure going forward. Finally, zero waste commencements require championing on the behalf of organizers, staff, and volunteers. Most of the events mentioned the use of volunteers and educators to ensure awareness and compliance. Without that enthusiasm, results may be difficult to achieve, not to mention increase the potential for pushback from attendees and administration.


28


29


ConclusionBased on the investigations presented here, there are a number of key implementation opportunities that may have the most substantial effects in reaching UT’s zero waste goal. First and foremost is the coordination of all eating establishments in providing a recycling, compost, and landfill separation system, with receptacles and signage designed to convey a clear understanding of the system to users. As mentioned in the waste sort section, there is a large gain to be made in providing compost, given so much of the waste produced may be defined as so. Indeed, the gains made at the Littlefield Patio Café evidence this. However, the operational differences between cafeteria and fast food eateries affects composting rates. Therefore, a second recommendation would be to work with food franchises across campus in providing packaging that can be compostable and easily, properly discarded, or preferably even offering dishware that could be reused by the franchises. Likewise, providing bulk condiment dispensers instead of packets would be effective. If UT were to consider zero waste strategies used in this report, namely of creating a zero waste mentality that preserves materials’ integrity, we suggest using silverware and dishware whenever possible, or alternatively encouraging students to bring their own containers through discounts or other incentives, similar to the DHFS’ Eco2Go program (University of Texas at Austin Division of Housing and Food Services, n.d.). With respect to the zero waste commencements, we recommend likewise to consider caterers that reuse dishware, provide food and beverage options that can be easily composted and recycled, and minimize waste by providing more buffet-style fare. It must be noted that users may be confused by the distinction between compostable and recyclable plastics. Therefore, emphasis should be placed on user education, such as the Love Your Leftovers composting program (University of Texas at Austin GivePulse, n.d.). Though it was mentioned in our questionnaire answers that most commencement operators and administrators are uninterested in removing pamphlets, schedules, and other printed material, these materials may still be made of post-consumer material and coordinators should ensure that they are recycled or composted properly at the end of the events.

Both chapters rely on the establishment of a zero waste culture, something the authors noted time and again in the literature and best practices. In order for UT to become zero waste, it requires a student body, faculty, and staff excited to do so. Using volunteers to promote and educate zero waste and proper waste sorting can help in fostering that culture. In terms of administration, encouraging a higher level of inter-departmental coordination and discussion may help in having the various commencement events learn and organize together. Likewise, bringing facilities from across campus into conversation will be necessary if UT is to provide composting on a broad scale. Finally, there is the hurdle of zero waste being perceived as unnecessarily burdensome. Should some of these programs be integrated, UT may actually earn revenue and avoid environmental costs from selling composting and high grade recycled material generated by these recommendations. UT could gain from the positive image portrayed by maintaining its zero waste goals. What is needed is a change in perception about priorities on campus, and that is something which requires a broad conversation across the multiple stakeholders involved.


30


31

Subject heading of presentation (DIN OT 8 regular)

30

Sussman, R., Greeno, M., Scannell, L., & Gifford, R. (2013). The effectiveness of models and prompts on waste di-version: a field experiment on composting by cafeteria patrons. Journal of Applied Psychology. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2012.00978.x. 23-34.

Sustainability at Boston University. (n.d.). Going Zero Waste. Retrieved from http://www.bu.edu/sustainability/what-were-doing/food/zero-waste-events/

Texas CityLab. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://soa.utexas.edu/libraries-centers/center-sustainable-development/texas-citylab

Texas Sports. (2015). Bleed Orange. Live Green. Retrieved from http://texassports.com/sports/2013/7/23/spon-sor_0723131600.aspx?path=general

Times Higher Education. (2015). World university rankings: University of Texas at Austin. Retrieved from http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2014-15/world-ranking/institution/university-of-texas-at-austin

University of Arkansas Office of Sustainability and Academic Programs. (n.d.). Hosting your zero waste event. Re-trieved from http://sustainability.uark.edu/zerowaste/zero-waste-events/host.php

University of Michigan Plant Building & Grounds Services. (2013, February). Zero waste events at the University of Michigan. Retrieved from http://www.plantops.umich.edu/grounds/recycle/PDF/Zero_Waste_Event_Guide.pdf

University of Oregon Zero Waste Events Services. (n.d.). Zero Waste services for University of Oregon catered events. Retrieved from http://zerowaste.uoregon.edu/event.htm

University of Pennsylvania Green Campus Partnership. (2014). Zero waste event how-to guide. Retrieved from http://www.upenn.edu/sustainability/sites/default/files/Zero-Waste%20Event%20Guide%202014.pdf

University of Texas at Austin. (2015a). College, school and department convocation schedule. Retrieved from http://www.events.utexas.edu/commencement/spring/convocation-schedule

University of Texas at Austin. (2015b). College, school and department convocation contacts. Retrieved from http://www.events.utexas.edu/commencement/spring/csucontacts

University of Texas at Austin. (2015c). Green fee committee. Retrieved from https://www.utexas.edu/sustainability/greenfee.php

University of Texas at Austin Division of Housing and Food Services (n.d.). Eco2Go program. Retrieved from https://www.utexas.edu/student/housing/pdfs/eco2go_booklet.pdf

University of Texas at Austin Facilities Services: Recycling. (n.d.). About recycling & solid waste on campus. Retrieved from https://www.utexas.edu/facilities/divisions/support/recycling-waste.php

University of Texas at Austin GivePulse. (n.d.). Love Your Leftovers composting program. Retrieved from https://utexas.givepulse.com/group/6451-Love-Your-Leftovers-Composting-Program

University of Virginia Sustainability. (2014). Zero waste event guide. Retrieved from http://www.virginia.edu/sustain-ability/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/ZeroWasteEventGuide-9-9-14_withsigns.pdf

ReferencesCollege of the Atlantic. (2005, June 4). Zero waste commencement: COA creates first-known ceremonies without waste. Retrieved from http://www.coa.edu/press-release-archives_pg80_5.htm May 13, 2015.

Cooley, A. (2013) Going Public. Retrieved from http://americarecyclesday.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/RRarticle-Nov2013.pdf 23-26.

Education Solutions Team. (n.d.). Zero waste commencement ceremony report: Millersville University. Retrieved from http://www.millersville.edu/sustainability/files/zerowastecommencement.pdf

Elliott, Rebecca. “Zero Waste at Harvard Divinity School.” Harvard University Sustainability. March 19, 2012. Retrieved from http://green.harvard.edu/news/zero-waste-harvard-divinity-school

Environmental Sciences Network at Ohio State. (2012). Ohio State’s first zero waste commencement. Retrieved from https://esn.osu.edu/news/ohio-states-first-zero-waste-commencement

Exchange: Millersville University. (2012). Commencement ceremonies let nothing go to waste. Retrieved from http://blogs.millersville.edu/exchange/2012/07/19/commencement-ceremonies-let-nothing-go-to-waste/

Hobson, Jennifer. (2015). University of Texas at Austin Facilities Data. Available upon request.

Keep America Beautiful. (2013). Ten steps to effective recycling program design. Retrieved from http://americare-cyclesday.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Public-Space-Recycling_Overview.pdftern

Lombardi, Eric. (2001). Retrieved from Beyond recycling! Zero waste …or darn near. Grassroots Recycling Network. Retrieved from http://archive.grrn.org/zerowaste/articles/biocycle_zw_commentary.html

Lombardi, Eric. (2011). Commentary: Zero Landfill Is Not Zero Waste. BioCycle. Retrieved from Retrieved from http://www.biocycle.net/2011/07/18/zero-landfill-is-not-zero-waste/

Millersville University. (2015). Commencement. Retrieved from http://www.millersville.edu/commencement/

Ohio State University. (2015). Zero waste at Ohio Stadium. Retrieved from http://footprint.osu.edu/zero-waste-ohio-stadium/

President’s Sustainability Steering Committee. (2012, April 9). University of Texas at Austin natural resources conser-vation plan. Retrieved from https://www.utexas.edu/sustainability/documents/NaturalResourcePlan_Spring2012_fi-nal.pdf

Sinha, A. (2014, November 10). University of Florida aims for ‘zero waste’ football games. USA Today. Retrieved from http://college.usatoday.com/2014/11/10/university-of-florida-aims-for-zero-waste-football-games/

Southeastern Correctional Complex. (2014). Correctional institution inspection committee report on the inspection and evaluation of Southeastern Correctional Complex. Retrieved from http://www.ciic.state.oh.us/docs/Southeast-ern%20Correctional%20Institution%202014.pdf

Centers for Student Life: University Unions. (n.d.). Student Activity Center history. Retrieved from https://www.utexas.edu/universityunions/student-activity-center/info


32


33

Waste Management, Inc. (n.d.). Contact us. Retrieved from https://www.wm.com/contact-us.jsp

Wu, D.W., DiGiacomo, A., Kingstone, A. (2013). A Sustainable building promotes pro-environmental behavior: An ob-servational study on food disposal. PLoS ONE 8(1): e53856. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0053856 http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0053856

Yale Sustainability. (2014, June 20). Yale University hosts green commencement events. Retrieved from http://sustain-ability.yale.edu/news/yale-university-hosts-green-commencement-events

Zero Waste Business Alliance. (n.d.). Zero waste business facility certification. Retrieved from http://www.uszwbc.org/certification/facilities/certification-program

Zero Waste Institute. (n.d.). Principles. Retrieved from http://zerowasteinstitute.org/?page_id=120

Zero Waste International Alliance. (2009). Zero waste definition. Retrieved from http://zwia.org/standards/zw-defini-tion/


34


35

0’

N

20’

60’

10’

Observations from 11:00 am -12:00 pm

Observations from 12:00 pm -1:00 pm

Appendix A

Appendix B

0’

N

20’10’



0’

N

20’10’


Appendix

1

1. Trash2. Trash3. Trash4. Trash5. Trash6. Aluminum7. Paper8. Plastic

2

6 7 8

3

4

5

Observation Map: SAC A

1. Trash2. Trash3. Trash4. Trash5. Trash6. Trash7. Aluminum8. Paper9. Plastic

1 2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Observation Map: SAC B


36


37

Appendix C

0’

N

20’10’




Zero Waste Commencement Questionnaire 1) Please list the name of the department, school, or program you will be answering this survey on behalf of.

2) What is your job title?

3) Does your department, program, or school host its own commencement ceremony, separate from the university-wide ceremony?

4) Where is your department’s commencement ceremony typically located? Please include building name, room type (auditorium, gymnasium, lecture hall, etc.), and room number if possible.

5) Approximately how many students participate in your commencement ceremony each year? (numeric values only please)

6) Approximately how many attendees (total including staff, faculty, students, and guests) participate in your com-mencement ceremony each year? (numeric values only please)

7) Please briefly describe how commencement is planned each year. Is there a committee in charge of the prepara-tion? Is it the responsibility of particular faculty or staff in your department? How far in advance does your department begin making preparations? Is final approval necessary by a person or group of people in the department?

8) Does your department print a paper program/booklet for its commencement ceremony?a. If yes, please explain the program/booklet. Approximately how many pages? How many copies are typically or-dered? Are programs printed by the department, or sent to a separate printer (on or off campus?)?

9) Does your department’s ceremony include a food component, such as refreshments served at a reception follow-ing the ceremony?a. If yes, please estimate the quantity and briefly explain the type of materials used to serve the food component of the ceremony.

10) Does your department’s ceremony include a beverage component, such as refreshments served at a reception fol-lowing the ceremony or water bottles given out to attendees?a. If yes, please estimate the quantity and briefly explain the type of materials used to serve the beverage compo-nent of the ceremony.

11) What is the budgeting priority for this event? (printing, food, etc.)

12) What is the approximate budget for this event? (numeric values only please)

13) What portion or amount of the budget is dedicated for solid waste service, i.e. landfill, recycling, or compost?

14) Does the event provide landfill services for attendees?

15) Does the event provide recycling services for attendees?

16) Does the event provide composting services for attendees?

Appendix D

12

345

67

89

1. Compost2. Trash3. Plastics4. Paper5. Aluminum6. Trash7. Compost8. Trash9. Compost

Observation Map: Littlefield Patio Café


38


39

17) Estimate the number of landfill bins available at the ceremony. (numeric values only please)

18) Estimate the number of recycling and/or composting bins present at the ceremony. (numeric values only please).

19) What type of signage or text is on the collection bins? Is that something that is controlled by the building the cer-emony is hosted in, or by your department?

20) Does your department submit work orders to handle the high volume of waste disposal at the event?a. If yes, please briefly describe the work orders typically created for the ceremony, such as for waste removal, recy-cling removal, bin set-up and take away, etc.

21) Rate the level of input your department has on questions of waste disposal and event coordination in regards to the building the event is held at.

1 star = no input2 stars = low input3 stars = moderate input4 stars = high input5 stars = very high input

• Level of Input in Decision Making

22) Is there interest in your department to attempt a zero waste commencement?

23) Has your department already considered or implemented any zero-waste commencement strategies, such as eliminating programs/booklets or increasing recycling or composting of discarded materials? If so, please explain what the strategies are and whether you believe that they have been effective in minimizing waste. If no consideration has been given to zero-waste strategies, please enter “N/A”.

24) What would be the biggest concern or obstacle in your department in attempting to implement a zero waste commencement next school year (2015-2016)?

25) Rate your department’s willingness in regards to implementing a zero waste commencement through different strategies.

1 star = not willing at all2 stars = low willingness3 stars = somewhat willing4 stars = willing or have seriously considered implementing strategy5 stars = very willing or have already implemented strategy

• Willingness to change materials used at the ceremony (food or beverage serving implements, program/booklet material, etc.)

• Willingness to increase budget in order to implement zero waste strategies, or to shift budget priorities to accomplish a zero-waste ceremony

• Willingness to coordinate volunteers to assist with zero waste strategies• Willingness to eliminate programs/booklets from the ceremony

26) What changes to your department’s current commencement ceremony do you believe would be the most easily implemented next school year (2015-2016) to implement zero waste strategies?

27) If you would like to provide any further information, or feedback on the survey itself, please respond below.


40


41