Recycling Study in ES 1 and 2:

An Evaluation of Contamination and Litter Problems
Final Report
by ERS 285 students: Craig Fisher, Kent Keeler, Cheralynne Kennedy, Melissa Kovacs, Rebecca Pollock and David White


Table of Contents

 Abstract

 Vision of Sustainability: Turn of the Century Transition

1.0 Introduction to Recycling Issues
           1.0.1 Problem Identification
           1.0.2 Study Rationale
         1.0.3 Evaluation Criteria
    1.1 Our Project's Background
          Why Not Paper?
             1.1.1 Preliminary Study
    1.2 Project Definition: a two-dimensional examination of recycling

2.0 Project Goals

3.0 Background to the Study of Recycling: related ERS 285 projects
    3.1 Recycling at the Physical Activities Complex
    3.2 Recycling at Columbia Lake Townhouses
    3.3 Education and Awareness about Recycling
    3.4 Waste Management Study of the Davis Centre Library

4.0 ES 1 & 2 Waste System Description
    4.1  What Makes Up a Recycling System? 

5.0 Research Questions and Study Design

6.0 Methodology
    6.1 Contamination Data Collection
    6.2 Litter Data Collection
     6.3 Survey Method
        6.3.1 Sampling Design
        6.3.2 Randomization of Sample Design
        6.3.3 Selection of Staff, Students and Faculty
    6.4 Survey of Attitudes and Behaviours towards Recycling
          6.4.1  Selection of Survey Questions
        6.4.2  Limitations of the Survey

7.0 Analysis of Results
    7.1  Survey Population
     7.2  Survey Results

8.0 Conclusions

9.0 Recommendations
     9.1  Increasing the Convenience of Recycling and Reducing Contamination
    9.2  Educating about Recycling
 
10.0 Summary

11.0 Key Contacts

12.0 Glossary of Terms

13.0 Appendix 1



Abstract
 
    Problems of contamination and litter undermine sustainability because, associated with each scenario there are greater amounts of landfill waste and greater costs to the University of Waterloo. Until recycling facilities are properly used and problems are reduced, there is value in identifying the roots of such problems.  Examining the attitudes behind improper recycling behaviour may provide reasons for the two problems, while pointing to some possible solutions.

    The study of recycling contamination (wrong materials in the recycling bins) and litter (recyclable materials left around and thrown in the garbage) in Environmental Studies buildings 1 and 2 examined how severe each of these problems were.  Based on three levels of analysis, (through data collection for both contamination and litter, and a survey) the study concluded that litter is a significant problem and that contamination, although present at low levels does not threaten the sustainability of the system.  A survey, designed to measure patterns of behaviour and common attitudes of ES 1 and 2 students, staff and faculty, reported the following: the most common reason for contamination or litter was the inconvenience of recycling, while more than half the respondents desired a greater number of recycling locations. Overall the majority stated their willingness to change poor recycling behaviours when made aware of recycling problems.

    This type of shift in the operation of UW’s waste system, could allow for the achievement of Watgreen/Federation of Students Environmental Commission’s main goals: improving the quality of our environment, while decreasing the overall operating cost of the University.  Improved recycling and awareness also move people towards a broader conciousness that paves the way to realizing visions of sustainability.  The study of contamination and  litter in Environmental Studies 1 and 2 provides people with information about the current operation of the system as well as makes recommendations for improving the system.

 
Return to the Table of Contents.
 


 Vision of Sustainability: Turn of the Century Transition

    It is the early years of the new millennium. For the past four decades environmental issues have risen and fallen in the minds and media of Canada. Our greener campus reflects both societal consciousness and revolutionary technology and policy.  The University of Waterloo is a microcosm of broader Canadian society: one that upholds environmental and social justice values as the norm; one that implements strategies for living more lightly on the land; and one that simultaneously reduces resource use, reduces waste and deepens an institutional  environmental ethic.  Recognizing that all members of the community are interconnected, living and non-living, there is an emphasis on interdependence and personal accountability.  For this reason, individuals have begun to live more simply and more efficiently, effectively abandoning the values of material wealth from the past.  A new consciousness has developed in small pockets of committed individuals and spread persistently over the years to influence and redirect the majority of departments within the University.  Awareness has manifest itself in action: people make choices in areas such as transportation, lifestyle, and community structure to maximize sustainability.

Campus Transportation
    A new approach to single-drivers and carpooling has been implemented, whereby discount parking is available for regular car-poolers of 3-4 people.  With a partial car ban on Ring Road, the University road network is made far more "cyclist friendly" and has designated bike lanes on all roads surrounding the campus.  Provision of safe walkways distinguished from bike paths makes for a more comfortable transportation system that accommodates both pedestrians and cyclists, while discouraging driving to or around campus.  Bicycle racks as well as storage sheds and shower facilities are a common sight and mandatory for each building.  Recycle Cycles, a working group on campus, facilitates the pick up of old bicycles in the K-W community for donation to students at a reduced rate.  Bicycles are further made available in a rack and deposit system, where people can rent a bike for short distances and recuperate their deposit upon return at any rental site.  The cycling club on campus has acted as both facilitators for change and as a lobby group to municipal planners who agreed to retrofit major bike paths and roads with solar powered coils that melt snow and ice, clearing paths without the use of salt or sand.  Pedestrians enjoy the use of underground tunnels in harsh winter weather that connect residences to all campus buildings.  Even service vehicles, which are sometimes necessary, have largely been replaced by bicycle couriers and bicycle security, while larger deliveries and services have been combined wherever possible for greater efficiency. These vehicles are no longer gasoline run, but have switched to alternative sources of fuel.  All in all transportation on campus has been transformed -  from a once dangerous, noisy and polluting system - to one that relies on sustainable energy sources and integrates walkers, bikers and drivers in a non-competitive way.

Wholistic Living
    Good examples of sustainable living can be found in the way residences and other campus buildings operate.  The changes to water consumption, recycling and food systems alone have been far exceeded by the recent demand for a wholistic approach to living. Living waste systems, using organic purification of waste water, are an inherent part of new buildings and are currently being designed for existing structures.  Gray water is used for irrigation of organic gardens, while produce  is harvested for campus food services.  What cannot be grown on campus directly is purchased from local sources that share the environmental ethic of the University.  The use of turf grass is considered aesthetically unpleasant and labour-intensive; people choose to landscape and naturalize campus green space in a way that uses native plant species, creates habitat, stabilizes creek banks and is safe and pleasing to the members of the University community.  Not only are outside areas made "greener" but indoor gardens, fountains, aquariums and terrariums add to a life-giving atmosphere.  As increasing numbers of people were shown to be adversely affected by artificial lighting (opposed to sunlight) and darkness in winter, a shift was made to maximize windows in new buildings and renovate existing buildings to have skylights.  With increased solar exposure comes passive solar heating.  This would be one form of many renewable sources to provide energy to campus.  The tops of buildings have been equipped with windmills and solar panels, while natural gas use is minimal.
 
    Other forms of waste have been reduced or eliminated, for example, each member of the community has a personal kit of dish ware which has removed the need for any disposables.  Cafeterias requested new waste management systems that made composting, reuse of leftovers and recycling part of daily life.  Excess food is regularly provided to soup kitchens and other outreach groups in the community.  As the Green Guide's vision for college campuses in Canada states: "The trash bins and recycling containers so common in the twentieth century have nearly disappeared.  Recycling is a standard part of [university] life, but much more work has been done on reducing wastes at source" (National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, 1992).
 
    Computer labs, in the same vein as the cafeterias, made active decisions to drastically reduce the waste they produced.  By removing computer printers from labs, and implementing a disk-assignment policy across the University, paper has become virtually unnecessary.  Inter-departmental memos and mail, as well as off campus messages have become primarily electronic, further reducing the need for paper.  The student newspaper, formerly called the Imprint, is now published exclusively on the Web as "the Footprint."  Each department has followed steps to reduce waste to a bare minimum, while the old recycling system has been dismantled.  Reducing and reusing dominate: recycling is now  initiated by production companies that are obliged to consider the life-cycle of their goods.  Society does not produce the excessive quantities of waste that it once did due to a widespread consciousness that recognizes our bioregion's limits and curtails consumption only to one's needs.

 Intentional Community: thinking globally, acting locally
   In the new millennium campus, more than advanced technology and lifestyle changes reign.  It seems that Canadian culture has embraced a global perspective that encourages "developed" nations to model sustainability for poorer countries.  Through greater education of citizens at all levels (not only educational institutions but workplaces and community groups) awareness about sustainable resource use and the impact of ecological footprints became common knowledge.  As people became more aware of their individual impact, they strove to build healthy communities that would support each other in the transition to greener living.  Within these communities, cooperative housing became popular as families and students could share resources and responsibilities.  Instead of individual ownership of materials, tools and appliances, people recognize the value of communalism.  Sharing maintenance, chores and childcare equitably distribute the workload among many.  University staff, faculty and students share this common ethic, which extends outside their living and working environment.

    Being aware of the immense power imbalances that contribute to social and economic disparity are part of the solution for sustainability. The University of Waterloo is an important player in supporting fair trade initiatives, community cooperatives and gender equity. Reducing poverty, disease and population growth are three factors which in the twentieth century were major blocks to achieving global stability.  By this generation population has stabilized and food sources, due largely to vegetarianism, are secured. With this global sense of security and recognition of limits, the competition for depleting resources has dwindled.  The 2000s are an age of wholistic living rooted in the respect for nature and all life.  In such a setting, personal and spiritual growth are encouraged, while the value of healthy living  is high. The world is harmonious and  self-sufficient, for all people recognize the value of life on an inter-dependent planet.

    Our project, grounded in the reality of 1998, draws on this vision for inspiration.  By imagining a sustainable campus system, waste becomes an important area to examine and change.  The problems at the center of our study (contamination of recycling and litter left for garbage) undermine sustainability, effectively blocking the University of Waterloo from achieving parts of this vision.  Unless recycling is properly managed and behaviours reflect a responsible environmental ethic, then the integrity of the entire waste system is threatened.  The motivation for our project is one shared by Watgreen, the campus environmental voice, and the entire Environment and Resource Studies program that promotes a systems approach to analysis and encourages transition to a sustainable community. The starting point of this community is our campus.

Return to the Table of Contents.
 
 


 1.0  Introduction

    We studied the recycling of glass, cans and PET plastic bottles in Environmental Studies buildings 1 and 2 (here after referred to as ES 1 & 2). This study occurred within the context of a particular course, Environment and Resource Studies 285 "Greening the Campus." This course fit well into Watgreen's vision ( WATgreen) as explained in the following paragraph.

    "We envision UW transforming itself into a showcase of sustainability, a true ecosystem in harmony with its environment. We refer to this process as ‘Greening the Campus’. This undertaking presents an opportunity for students, staff, and faculty to improve the quality of their environment, while decreasing the overall operating cost of the University. This project offers significant new directions and opportunities for education and research. It is promoting an environmentally-aware campus community. ‘Greening the Campus’ represents an opportunity for UW to act as a model and a catalyst for other campuses and institutions. UW students will take with them into society the knowledge and motivation necessary to foster the transformation to a sustainable society. In short, UW in the 21st century could do for the environment what it did for computers in the 20th century."  To view the WATgreen home page Click Here.

1.0.1 Problem Identification
    Our study examined  two main issues: contamination and litter. Contamination in the recycling carts was defined as improper materials or garbage in the recycling bins.  The problem of litter can best be described as recyclables (cans/glass/PET) left around the buildings that were generally put in the garbage.  Until recycling facilities are properly used and problems are reduced, there is value in identifying the roots of such problems.  Examining the attitudes behind improper recycling behaviour may provide reasons for the two problems, while pointing to some possible solutions.

1.0.2 Study Rationale
    Problems of contamination and litter undermine sustainability because, associated with each scenario there are greater amounts of landfill waste and greater costs to the university. Recycling is a concrete initiative that contributes to sustainability.  A recycling program effectively diverts "waste" from the waste stream into a reclamation process.  This cycle recovers and reuses materials, decreasing both the need for raw natural resources as well as the need for landfills.  In theory, recycling is one of the best ways to reduce our ecological impact.

1.0.3 Evaluation Criteria
    In order to contribute to making Environmental Studies and the University of Waterloo’s campus more sustainable, our study evaluated the problems and recommended improvements based on the idea that the less waste generated, the better.  Our main objective was to increase sustainability in ES 1 and 2 by having less waste from recycling contamination and litter going to landfills. This will bring us one step closer to achieving a greener, sustainable campus.

    The criteria we used in determining the severity of each problem was different.  For the contamination of recycling carts, we based our assessment on what the recycling company said was acceptable: anything less than the entire top layer of a recycling cart covered with contamination. In other words, if there was sufficient contamination on the top of a recycling cart to be rejected for pickup, then the problem of contamination was treated as severe. (It is important to note here that some people use a zero-tolerance approach to the evaluation of contamination.  Instead of using this, which does not prevent the cart's contents from being recycled, we decided to use the company's criteria since the problem was first identified by them).

    For the problem of litter, we based our evaluation on a zero-tolerance philosophy, using the argument that litter, because it does not generally get recycled is a less sustainable activity than contamination. We further decided to evaluate the severity of each problem based on a collection of quantitative data. In order to determine attitudes, behaviours and opinions about recycling, we developed a broad survey to explore the reasons for contamination and litter. The survey results were used as a guideline and an indication of behaviour patterns rather than a definitive report on the causes of these two problems.

    Such a shift in the operation of UW’s waste system, could allow for the achievement of Watgreen/Federation of Students Environmental Commission’s main goals: improving the quality of our environment, while decreasing the overall operating cost of the University.  Improved recycling and awareness also move people towards a broader conciousness that paves the way to realizing visions of sustainability.  The study of contamination and  litter in Environmental Studies 1 and 2 provides people with information about the current operation of the system as well as makes recommendations for improving the system.

 
1.1  Our Project's Background

    Our group studied the recycling of glass, cans and P.E.T in Environmental Studies 1 and 2.  Due to some complaints from Capital Environmental recycling company about "contamination" problems in ES 1 (among other buildings on campus), the University of Waterloo’s Waste Management Officer, Patti Cook, put forth the recommendation of further study into the problem.  "Contamination" as described in Cook’s Gazette article involves two types of problems: "Garbage in the recycling…and mixing cans with the glass or vice versa" (UW Gazette, December 17, 1997).


WHY NOT PAPER?
The recycling of paper (fine white, coloured, or newsprint) has not been identified as presently being a problem.  The prices paid for different types of recycled paper are comparable, and Cook indicates that, for this reason, different papers can be combined with little economic cost.  Reporting on the problem of contamination in the recycling, Cook states that, "…it is taking 3 hours plus, to sort out the problem at the recycling plant, and this is costing the university" (UW Gazette, December 17, 1997).  She concludes her article with an appeal to the university community: "What can we do about it? Would signs help? Where exactly are the problem areas within the buildings?"


 
1.1.1 Preliminary Study

    With these questions in mind, our group decided to examine the entire Environmental Studies complex, buildings 1 and 2, to better determine the problem areas in each building and any differences between the two buildings.  After two weeks of data collection on the amount of contamination in each recycling bin, it was determined that there had been a significant shift in the problem. The contamination of glass and cans/P.E.T recycling in ES 1 and 2 was far less severe than supposed, but other problems regarding recycling behaviour were identified.  In order to reach such a conclusion, our group combined the following information and observations over a two week period:

Findings listed above indicated that contamination is not as severe a problem as once supposed; however, contamination is still an issue which needs to be addressed.  Our casual observations of recyclables left as litter around the Environmental Studies buildings supported our hypothesis that other problems regarding recycling behaviour exist; contamination may simply be a symptom of a deeper attitude problem.  This preliminary data and research into the anticipated problem revealed that perhaps general recycling behaviours were at fault for a number of problems.  At this point our group decided to broaden our focus to include contamination, litter and attitude problems.

1.2 Project Definition: a two-dimensional examination of recycling

      Our group observed other problems besides contamination.  Both recyclables appearing in garbage cans and recyclable litter left around the building suggest that people are not as "green" as one would expect.  Instead of limiting ourselves to the examination of contamination, we decided to broaden our study to encompass both the issues of contamination in recycling and litter of recyclables (Recyclable materials in garbages were excluded from our project in order to maintain a manageable scope.)  The following observations led to our group’s shift in focus from the contamination problem to broader issues dealing with people’s recycling/littering behaviour:

Based on these two problems (contamination and litter), we questioned not only the potential problems involved with recycling (i.e. not enough recycling bins in the buildings or the lack of garbage near recycling), but also the possible negative or indifferent attitudes behind improper behaviour.  If recycling is being
done improperly or not at all, we reasoned, then what are the reasons behind it?  Our study was designed in such a way that we could assign quantitative figures to the amounts of contamination and litter, while surveying the population of ES 1 and 2 to explore their attitudes and behaviours with the intent of
determining the reasons for the problems.  Beyond the immediate purpose of the project is an over-arching goal: to promote sustainability on campus.
 
Return to the Table of Contents.


2.0  Project Goals
 
    In the past there has been little study of recycling done on ES 1 & 2.  However, according to Patti Cook, Capital Environmental has identified ES 1 & 2 as one of the four worst buildings on campus for recycling contamination.  The problem that had been discovered was that people were putting materials into the wrong bins (i.e. glass in the cans bin, garbage in the recycling, cans in the newspaper bin).  The reasons for this were unclear, so our task was to evaluate the operation of recycling currently (contamination and litter issues), perform formal and informal surveys, and conduct a test on recycling behaviours.
 
    The main objective of this project wass to evaluate the severity of contamination (i.e. the wrong materials) in the recycling bins of Environmental Studies 1 & 2 and litter left throughout the buildings, as well as the reasons for this occurring. The broader goals included:


3.0  Background to the Study of Recycling: related 285 projects

     There have been other projects that relate to "Recycling Contamination in ES 1 & 2". In past years, four of the most relevant projects studied recycling at athletic events in April 1997, recycling at Columbia Lake Townhouses in April 1997, recycling education at the University of Waterloo in July 1996 and a 1994 Waste Management Study of the Davis Centre Library. These previous projects suggest problems relevant to our project and some solutions applicable to recycling at large.
 

3.1  Recycling at the Physical Activities Complex

    The Recycling at Athletic Events project wanted to ensure that recycling containers were available at all athletic events. The problem was that some cross-contamination in recycling containers was occurring and a lot of recyclables were left in the stands after events. Some of the containers were also found to be in inconvenient locations. After speaking to staff and Plant Operations it was determined that there would be no physical or cost factor prohibiting the placement of more containers around the building. One of the problems was actually resolving the responsibility of handling these new containers. Some of the existing ones are looked after by students and the custodial contract does not specify exactly what their recycling duties are. At the same time any and all waste picked up in the stands is put directly in the garbage. The significant points that came out of this project were: to place recycling bins in more convenient locations, to create educational programs such as signs for patrons of the PAC, and campus-wide recycling policies should be designed as there are no such written plans of action.

                          To View This Project, Click Here

 The Recycling at Athletic Events project was useful to our project because they also had a recycling contamination and litter problem. It was found that cross-contamination was occurring during events and a large amount of recyclable litter was being left in the stands. The custodial staff look after some of the bins and students attend to others. This may cause somewhat of a continuity situation with student turnover and thus be part of the problem. Also, since the custodians do not have a strong mandate to recycle it would be difficult to rely on their participation. It was decided to add more bins in convenient locations and design an education campaign. These findings were helpful to our group because they were derived from a very similar situation.
 
3.2  Recycling at Columbia Lake Townhouses

     The Recycling at Columbia Lake Townhouses project examined recycling and composting through surveys and waste audits. A survey was performed, showing some perplexing results. It was found that the vast majority of the students thought that recycling was important, however, almost half still had recyclables in their garbage.  Also, more than three quarters of the students who thought that they were clear about recycling practices were incorrect in identifying recyclable items. Even though information sheets were available they were not widely distributed and in the units where the sheets were posted recycling procedures were still not adhered to. During the project a waste audit was performed which determined that 50% of the garbage was recyclable or compostable. Students did however indicate that they would be willing to participate in a composting program. The significant points that came out of this project were that perhaps a waste audit should be performed every two years to confirm that recyclables were not still being simply thrown out, and that large information stickers should be attached to recycling containers to cut down on contamination.
 
                        To View This Project, Click Here
 
The Townhouses project was beneficial to our group for a couple of reasons. The project used surveys and audits in order to determine the levels of recycling awareness and the levels of recycling compliance. The results were remarkably similar to ours in that most students were found to agree that recycling is important, however they were not always willing to participate or were unclear as to which items were involved. The audits revealed that 50% of the garbage was recyclable or compostable. Our group also used a survey to find the attitudes and behaviour patterns of students, faculty and staff regarding recycling. We only performed a visual audit of the recycling bins as it was considered to be adequate for our purposes. It was interesting to see how another group carried out a survey, also.
 
3.3  Education and Awareness about Recycling

    The Recycling Education at the University of Waterloo project dealt with recycling in the Villages. It was found that the majority of students wanted blue boxes in their rooms. In order to facilitate this the Region was contacted to provide the boxes and an information kit was designed to be handed out to the Village dons. These kits included brochures that the dons could give each resident along with posters. It was thought that the best placement of these information items would be the back of entrance doors to the residences. A sign up list was made for the students who wanted a blue box and it was hoped that friends would encourage each other to participate. Since there was a possibility that the boxes might disappear at the end of term they were added to the room inventory and in that way students would be charged a fee if they went missing. The significant points that came out of this project were: that blue boxes should be distributed to those students who wanted them (or in our case offices), and that future progress should be checked by another group.

                        To View This Project, Click Here

 The relevance of this project to ours is in the fact that a survey was sent to all the student rooms in the Villages in order to judge their willingness to participate in the recycling program. It was found that the majority of students wanted Blue Boxes so they were distributed along with information packages. This situation is transferable to our project considering that we interviewed staff and faculty in order to evaluate their behaviours and patterns plus examine how they recycled in their offices. The student rooms and the ES offices are both a more private area where the individual has a measure of personal control.

3.4  Waste Management Study of the Davis Centre Library

 The 1994 Waste Management Study of the Davis Centre Library was composed of studies in five different areas:

    1. The effect of adding and removing office desktop paper recycling containers
    2. The effect of adding extra white paper recycling containers with primer signs
    3. The effect of removing white paper recycling containers with primer signs
    4. The effect of adding informal recycling depots with primer signs
    5. The effect of adding official recycling depots with primer signs

In addition to the above, waste audits were performed over periods of six weeks between June 1994 and December 1994.  Only the last two points have any real significance to our study.  It was thought that a blind study would prove to be the most indicative of students’ actual attitudes towards recycling.  For this reason, no announcement or education was given prior to conducting the studies.  Only the library staff and custodians were aware of the experiment.  Appropriate signs were put up in areas that were lacking them.  It was found that paper recycling increased with the use of proper signs.  However, since our study is not dealing with paper it is more helpful to look at the recycling of glass and cans / PET.  At the time of the library study, these recyclables were not being collected at that location.  The next step was to install official recycling containers for glass and cans / PET with proper signage.  This doubled glass recycling and increased metal recycling by two thirds.  The study concluded that recycling in the Davis Centre Library could be increased by up to 65%.

Additionally, the study concluded that the use of signs did not result in higher participation rates for glass and cans / PET recycling.  Based on this information, our study, which originally included a study on the effect of signs on recycling habits, has been altered.  We now feel that conducting such a test would be pedantic in light of these result.  Unfortunately, this project is not available for viewing on the web.

            To view a copy of the study contact  James Kay or Patti Cook

This library study looked at paper, glass, cans and PET recycling. The most relevant part of the study to our project was in whether placing signs about recycling in the proper areas was beneficial or not. Since we did not investigate paper we ignored any reference to this section. It was found that generic informational signs stating the type of material to be placed in each bin did not improve compliance. The actual placement of the proper bins in convenient locations was found to increase collection figures enormously. We were considering signs for our project and the library study was very helpful in determining their validity.

 Return to the Table of Contents.


4.0 System Description

    The recycling system in Environmental Studies 1 & 2 is a subsystem of the larger campus waste system. This subsystem is directly impacted by the behaviours of the faculty, staff and students. The effects of contamination impact the rest of the campus waste system.  The result of misuse is a less sustainable, less "green" campus.  The success of this program is directly dependent on people’s attitudes about and participation in recycling. When contamination occurs in the ES 1 & 2 recycling bins and carts, it degrades the entire system.

            To View the System Flow Chart, Click Here

4.1  System Operation

        The main flows of the system above involve pop cans, P.E.T and glass bottles arriving on campus; being delivered to ES 1 & 2 (specifically the coffeeshop, pop machines); and being purchased and consumed by students, staff, faculty and visitors. The actors who consume these products include numerous actors, from individual students to the entire custodial staff.  The students are those who belong to the faculty of Environmental Studies in one of four departments: Architecture, Environment & Resource Studies, Geography or Urban & Regional Planning. They are either undergraduates or graduates and either part- or full-time. The faculty and administrative staff of each department as well as the staff of resource centers, labs and the Dean's office make up part of the entire ES population. Actors such as the custodial staff and recycling companies deal with the consequences of recycling behaviours. Finally visitors, outside the faculty or from off-campus are also accounted for as actors.

    Following consumption of a beverage, one has the option of recycling correctly or incorrectly: placing the item in the proper recycling bin or contaminating the recycling by placing it in the wrong bin. Each recycling area includes three labeled bins, one for glass, one for cans and P.E.T and one for newspaper. The following six recycling locations are accessible in ES 1 & 2.

1) coffeeshop
2) courtyard
3) top of third floor stairs
4) ES 2 entrance off Ring Road
5) outside the copy shop in ES 2
6) outdoors between both buildings.

    If one chooses the option to waste the item they will find a garbage can or simply leave it as litter (often assuming that custodial staff will recycle for them, as our survey indicated). Thirty-two areas around ES 1 & 2 were selected for litter audits. (To see a complete list of litter locations Click Here).  Disposal of recyclable materials is the responsibility of custodial staff.  They transport the recycling bins to the recieving area (identified as location #6) for pick up by Capital Environmental Recycling Company.  When recyclable litter is found around the building the custodians are not expected to recycle it, although to do so is at their discretion (two individuals noted that they recycle litter that is in the coffeeshop and along the MAD lab window). Contaminated recycling becomes the problem of the recycling company and sorting costs are billed to the University if the problem is "significant" (as defined by the driver of the recycling pick-up truck).  It is important to note that although it is possible to reject an entire cart of recyclables, this has never happened at ES 1 & 2.  If the carts are severely contaminated, they could be rejected and custodial staff would request garbage pick-up of the carts. Fortunately ES 1 & 2's recyclables are forwarded to a recycling plant in Hamilton.  By contrast, recyclable litter is a lost opportunity once it reaches the garbage.
 
    (It is important to note that a minority of people take their glass and P.E.T bottles home to reuse as a disposal option. Also, the flows in the system follow active distribution of products to consumers and disposal of the products. The flow chart systems diagram excludes the human, labour and economic flows involved with the system, but includes the main actors).
 
    There are two subsystems involved in the system diagram. One path is cyclical and the other is linear.  Uncontaminated bins of recyclable material can be reprocessed, whereas waste ultimately ends in a landfill.  Due to the nature of the waste system, many smaller systems make up the whole.  This allows boundaries to be drawn at many points. In order to analyze contamination of recycling bins and carts in ES 1 and 2, the boundaries are drawn at the delivery of beverages to ES 1 & 2 and the final disposal of the products into the garbage or recycling bins in ES 1 & 2.
 
    The focus of our study brought together flows, components and actors of the recycling system within the buildings of Environmental Studies 1 and 2.  By examining the flow of recyclable materials and the patterns of their disposal (proper or improper recycling bins, or left as litter), we were better able to determine how severe the problems were.  When the actors were surveyed for their attitudes about recycling and actual behaviours, we gained insight into the causes of the problem and then were able to begin to suggest ways to make the system more sustainable.

 Return to the Table of Contents.


5.0  Research Questions and Study Design
 

Q/  How does the recycling system work in ES 1 & 2? When is recycling picked up?
A/  Determined through consultation with:

 To view the recycling system flow chart, Click HereFor more details about the system please see section 4.0.

Q/  Where are the carts and bins for recycling located in ES 1 & 2?
A/  We observed that the carts are located in six locations: the front entrance to ES 2; in between the architecture studios, on the second floor of ES 2; at the top of  the stairs, on the third floor of ES 1; in the courtyard, on the second floor of ES 1; and in the coffee shop, on the first floor of ES 1.

Q/ What is the severity of contamination of recycling (pop cans, P.E.T and glass bottles) in ES 1 & 2?
A/ Through daily visual audits for 4 weeks using data collection sheets to tally the number of pieces of contamination and the statistics listed in the results section.

Q/ Who and what are the causes of contamination and the causes of litter? Where are the worst areas for each of these problems?
A/ Determined  with:

Q/ What is the severity of recyclable litter being left in ES 1 & 2?
A/ Through the daily visual audits for 3 weeks using data collection sheets to tally the number of pieces of litter found in each of the 32 locations studied.

Q/ What are student/staff attitudes towards recycling?   Do people read the signs on the carts before they recycle? How aware are people of which materials can be recycled and where carts are located? Are there sufficient recycling facilities in our two buildings?
A/ Through survey results these questions were answered.

To view Research Questions Chart, Click Here


6.0  Methodology

    Three related studies were combined to make up the methods for a study on the severity of contamination in recycling and the reasons for both contamination and recyclable litter problems identified in ES 1 & 2.   The first study (section 6.1) describes a four week statistical data collection on contamination ; the second (section 6.2) briefly describes the method of research used for collecting data on litter; and the third (sections 6.3-6.4) outlines a survey for students and staff designed to measure attitudes and behaviours as likely causes for the various recycling problems.

6.1 Contamination Data Collection

    Our goal in collecting data for contamination was to measure the amount of contamination in each type of recycling bin to determine how severe the problem was (i.e. how much contamination is there relative to the amount of recyclables). Counting the number of pieces of contamination in each recycling bin on a daily basis was one of the only ways to accurately measure how severe the problem was.  A visual technique of checking each bin daily was chosen over emptying each bin weekly and risking injury, unsanitary spills, and weight based data.  The former method uses exact numbers and identifies the type of contaminant, suiting the study’s purpose easily and efficiently.

    The following six recycling locations were identified in the two buildings:

1) coffeeshop
2) courtyard
3) top of third floor stairs
4) ES 2 entrance off Ring Road
5) outside the copy shop in ES 2
6) outdoors between both buildings.

     To trace the fate of pop cans, glass and P.E.T flows, a  team of group members, equipped with data collection charts, began a week-long cycle by checking each bin beginning on Friday afternoon (the bins are emptied every Thursday night) and continuing until the following Thursday. The following information was recorded: date, location, bin type (glass or cans/P.E.T), number of contaminants, and type of contaminants.  On each successive visit (at approximately 6pm each day), the bin contents were audited visually and applicable data was recorded (i.e. the number of pieces and type of contamination).  This data collection continued for four weeks and the estimated volume of contamination in each recycling bin on an average week was made.

6.2  Litter Data Collection

    Recyclable materials that are not brought to a recycling bin, but are simply left around the building are classified as litter.  The most obvious areas in ES 1 & 2 that had litter problems were outside the Mapping, Analysis and Design (M.A.D) computer lab (along the window sill), randomly left on the tables and floor of the ES Coffeeshop, and widespread throughout the Studio areas of Architecture.  Surprisingly, in both the Coffeeshop and in Architecture, there are recycling bins located not more than a few steps away from lunch and work areas.

    The problem of litter (as well as those materials that are simply thrown in the garbage) can be considered a more serious environmental problem than contamination.  Often, litter is added to the waste stream rather than to recycling, while any contamination in recycling bins (although a problem at source) is eventually recycled.  The impact of litter becoming landfill waste is much more negative than recycling contamination.

    In order to evaluate the problem of litter, the following criteria for acceptability was used: zero tolerance of recyclable litter.  Given that Environmental Studies has the facilities to recycle, and given that Environmental Studies should be considered an appropriate model of waste reduction, it is reasonable to suggest that a single glass, P.E.T bottle, or beverage can left for litter is unacceptable.

      Above and beyond simple observation of the problem of recyclable litter in ES 1 & 2, an attempt to quantify the amounts of litter left in the building on a daily basis was made through a visual audit method similar to that described above for contamination.  A team of group members followed a week-long cycle by checking each of the areas listed below at approximately 6pm each evening (prior to the custodial shift), several times a week.  The date and the number of cans/P.E.T and glass were recorded for each of thirty-two locations in ES 1 & 2.
To see a complete listing of litter locations, Click Here.
 

6.3 Survey Method

    A survey designed to measure the attitudes and behaviours, opinions and recycling awareness of students and staff of ES 1 & 2 was administered at the end of the collection of contamination data (section 5.1) so as not to alter the context of the study.  The survey attempts to address the complex question of motives for and attitudes behind certain behaviours.  In this case the survey asks, among others, the questions: Why do people contaminate recycling?  Why do people litter? Why do people choose the garbage instead of a recycling bin?
 
6.3.1 Sampling Design
 
    The original sample design for the survey included a confidence level of 95% with a 5% margin of error in the sample size. When determining the number of surveys to distribute for representative results, a text named Enjoying Research? A 'How-To' Manual on Needs Assessment, was used. The population in ES 1&2, including all students (part-time, full-time, co-op, graduates etc.), staff and faculty is approximately 1586 people. As indicated in the text, for a population of 1000 and a margin or error of +/-2.5% a sample size of 278 people would be needed (Abbey-Livingston et al., 1982 p.59). For a population of 2000 people, the sample size rises to 322, and therefore we took the average number between these two figures at 300 surveys to be conducted. Our goal was to in fact administer 320, as some surveys may have been invalid, or have been filled out by people from other faculties etc. Since we are looking at the four departments in the Environmental Studies faculty, being Environment and Resource Studies, Geography, Architecture and Urban and Regional Planning, we needed to stratify the sample, to represent these different areas of study. By figuring out the number of surveys to administer to each sector of students, staff and faculty, a representative number of people would be approached compared to the amount enrolled and working in these departments. To do this, each section of staff/faculty and total students in each department were calculated, and used in an equation to determine the number of people to approach from each area of study/work. During the distribution process of the surveys, it was decided that the survey would be qualitatively representative of the recycling attitudes and behaviours among the population instead of quantatively representative. We decided that the 95% confidence level would not be appropriate for analysis. Although the  information analyzed and presented from the survey will give an effective representation of the population, it should be noted that there is less statistical significance attached to it than what could be ascribed to a 95% level.. However analysis of the results suggests that the information is relevant to the overall awareness, opinions and attitudes/behaviours of many ES students, staff, faculty and visitors to the building.

 6.3.2 Randomization and Sample Design
 
    Randomization in a sample is important when the outcome should be representative of the population. Therefore we chose to conduct a  stratified simple random sample. This means that the research sample represented several sections or sub-groups (staff/faculty and students in the four departments), to cover the entire population. Otherwise, if a simple random sample is carried out, a whole section may be missed (Abbey-Livingston et al., 1982 pg.68). The survey numbers collected  for each department roughly represent the actual population sizes in each of these sections. Since it would be impossible to survey everyone in the faculty given our time constraints, and the problem that not all faculty and staff are here on a regular basis during the time frame in question for the survey, the sample size is very efficient in finding the results we need.

6.3.3 Selection of Staff, Students and Faculty
 
    Due to the time constraints we had because of the late approval of the survey, and time of the semester (end of classes), it was difficult to select the students and staff/faculty members as randomly as possible. As done in the "Cycling at UW" ERS 285 project previously completed in April 1997, they randomly chose the staff and faculty through master lists. Although we did have these lists, due to the end of the semester, many of the staff/faculty were not available. Therefore, our approach was one of accidental sample, in that we knew approximately how many surveys we needed (for each staff/faculty section through the stratified approach), but these people are simply approached depending on if (at the time) they are available. The students were approached in several areas around the ES 1&2 buildings, which is also random accidental sampling. Areas included, the ES Coffeeshop, UMD library, courtyard and front lobby, computer labs, hallways, etc. We were also able to give the surveys in the few remaining classes of the semester at the agreement of the Professor. Similar to the Cycling at UW group, it would have been effective to find larger ES classes, in upper and lower years to achieve our representative sample. Each department has required courses at all levels of study, and thus the section totals could have been met more easily by surveying these groups. Due to the reduced number of surveys completed, our sample size was optimally lowered and thus less people from each department were included in the survey results. However the sample was still random, and the completed surveys contain valuable results to our study.
 

6.4 Survey of Student and Staff Attitudes and Behaviours
 
     Based on the three problems (contamination, littering, and waste) and the goal of identifying their causes, the following survey was drafted and was approved by the Office of Human Resources.

To view survey Click Here.
 
6.4.1 Selection of Survey Questions 
 
    Each question in the survey was created to address specific areas of concern in the identification of recycling contamination and littering in ES 1&2. These areas included attitudes and behaviour, awareness (knowledge) and opinions. An effective analysis of the results could then be achieved using these groupings.
 

Questions 1 a,b,c determined three components of the demographic composition of the survey. 1a, decided if the person was affiliated with the ES faculty or if they were infact apart of another faculty using the ES buildings (eg. other faculty classes meet in these buildings). By asking which department and position at the university they were in, it would be possible at the time of analysis to determine any differences in eg. attitudes, awareness, between the different department's students, staff and faculty.  

Question 1 asked if the person was aware that there are three recycling containers at each recycling location in ES 1&2? This question deals with the awareness of the student, staff, faculty or visitor to the building, about the facilities located here. Or, in other words, if they knew the recycling system of three different recycling bins for newspaper, glass, and P.E.T/Cans.  

In asking the second question: Do you follow the instructions for approporiate materials at each recycling bin?, we were trying to determine if the behaviour of the person in regards to their knowledge or awareness. If they answered "Try to follow", we gave them the opportunity to state beside the answer what the problem is (eg. signs are confusing). This could possibly be a reason for contamination of the recycling bins, as if one is unaware of the differences in the cart system, then their recycling could be placed in anyone of the three.  

Question 3 dealt with the opinion of the student, staff, faculty or visitor to ES 1&2. This question could give us insight regarding the locations of the bins (generally) throughout the building, and can be used in relation to the person's willingness to look for a recycling bin versus simply throwing the item away addressed in question 6.  

Questions 4 and 5 were aimed to test the knowledge/awareness of the person about contamination in recycling bins. If they answered anything but 0% in these two questions, then perhaps a trend could be seen after analysis of the information in regards to people's overall awareness about the consequences of contaminating recycling bins. Although, as we have stated previously, contamination in recycling bins is sorted out eventually by Capital Environmental, any one piece of contamination in recycling bins shows that there is still a problem with the awareness and attitudes/behaviours of these people who contaminate these bins.  

Question 6 deals with the attitudes and behaviours of the population. The question asked the person, if they could not find the proper recycling bin for their item, what would they do? The purpose of this inquiry was to determine the percent of people that for example, throw it in the garbage or place it in any recycling bin. It would then be possible to analyze general behaviour of the population, along with other questions that deal with convenience. In other words, are these behaviours due to awareness of the recycling issue (eg.keeping it until they find the proper recycling bin), or because of the inconvenience of finding a recycling bin.  

Questions 7, 7a and 8 asks the person's awareness about the recycling system and the sorting of contamination materials from the recycling bins. A general sense of their knowledge about where their recycling goes if not placed in a proper recycling bin or left around the building, is beneficial. Recommendations about this awareness could possibly be made from this finding, as to educate the population about the fate of their recycling items (eg. litter is usually thrown out by custodians if it is simply left around the building).  

Questions 9 to 11 and 13 to 14, ask the person's opinion about the recycling facilities provided in the two buildings. Is it easier to find a garbage can or a recycling bin, is an effective question for example, to determine if the amount of garbages to recycling bins is efficient in the different areas used by the students, staff and faculty. Questions 13 and 14 allow the person to give their opinion, as to if there are enough overall recycling bins available in ES 1&2, which can then be calculated to see the general consenus.  

Questions 12 and 12a were created to determine the attitude of the survey subject, in regards to their willingness to carry their recyclable item until they found a recycling bin. In asking 12a (to be answered if the person answered "some of the time"), we hoped to uncover the underlying attitude behind the person's behaviour. For example, it could be that the person believes recycling to be inconvenient or unimportant, which is important to know for recommendations in this project. If many people said, recycling is inconvenient, then perhaps more recycling bins should be placed in heavily used areas around the two buildings.  

In asking question 15, we were testing the person's knowledge about what recyclables can be combined in a recycling bin, similar to question 1 regarding the three recycling containers.  If they are aware there are differences between the three bins, then perhaps they are not contaminating the bins with the wrong recyclable items.  

Question 16 was determining the awareness of recycling bin locations in ES 1&2.  

Question 17 was to address if the contamination found in the recycling bins was generally due to the activity of the people inside the buildings (at the 6 different locations), or if the contamination could be happening outside of the building. Location #6 as described in question 16, is the recycling bins outside the buildings inbetween ES1 and ES2. If the people do not read the labels, then perhaps some of the recyclables found in the wrong bins, are due to people contaminating the bins outside. If we had chosen to do so, we could have used this question to cross reference with question 2.  

Question 18 gave the student, staff or faculty member the opportunity to relay to us any problems they were aware of in regards to recycling. It is possible that some activity is taking place that we are not aware of, therefore this is a effective way of finding out any problems as those who use the buildings see.  

Question 19, our last question on the survey was included because we wanted to see the behaviour of the person as it related to their awareness of the issue. By telling them the possible consequences of poor recycling habits, it would be interesting to see how people would react. This could give us a good indication of how people would react if they knew the outcome of recycling items, in regards to their own behaviour towards recycling.  
  

 

6.4.2 Limitations of the Survey

Demographics
    With an estimation of approximately 1500 people in the Environmental Studies faculty (with data collected from the Registrar's Office and ES Dean's office about student registration, staff and faculty employees) it was impossible to survey every person who uses these buildings. Therefore the sample is not truly representative of the ES population and visitors. Another problem with demographics is that we were unable to survey those students on a co-op term, and every staff and faculty member due to sabbaticals, holidays, their workload etc. Hence, due to our original sample design outlined a stratification of the ES population, in which each department would be equally represented compared to the number of students, staff and faculty in that area of study (eg. Environment and Resource Studies, Geography, Architecture and Urban and Regional Planning). These absences and other problems helped to make this a difficult task. With the change in our design, the demographic split of these people did not occur at the same confidence level as it would have with a 95% level. It must be noted though, that the number of people sampled from each department did conform approximately to the number in the department to get a representative sample of the population. The number of ERS surveys obtained was greater than other departments, reflecting more representative attitudes and behaviours.

Survey Questions
    It was determined during the process of administering and analyzing the survey, that there were some limitations with a few questions. Although the information received from these questions was beneficial, the results could have been skewed due to factors concerning these questions.

Questions 4 and 5 asked the person to approximate what level of garbage in a recycling bin is okay, and what level of recyclables in the wrong recycling bin is okay. These questions were widely open to interpretation, reducing their value for our analysis. Possible interpretations of  "okay" could have been: acceptable for themselves, acceptable for the custodians, acceptable for the recycling company etc.

Questions 9 to 12 had the answers, "most of the time, all of the time and some of the time". Another answer "none of the time" should have also been included as some people may have wanted to answer this. Question 12a stated "If no, is it because:" (in regards to question 12). There was not a "no" answer in question 12, and therefore the responents to this question could have answered any of the three answers to question 12, and then answered 12a.

Questions 13 and 14 asked if there were enough recycling bins available in the buildings. Perhaps a "don't know" category should have been created also, due to some students do not frequently access both buildings and therefore are not aware of the facilities offered.
 



7.0  Analysis of Results

To view the description of our coding procedure Click Here.

7.1 Survey Population
 
    In total, 205 surveys were completed by ES students, staff, faculty and visitors (students from other faculties who use the buildings). The surveys were split up by department, with the fifth section being "other" to represent those who were not from the ES faculty. Urban and Regional Planning had 35 surveys, Geography completed 35 surveys, ERS had 101, Architecture 16, and other had 18.
 
7.2 Survey Results

    The following results from our survey have been highlighted to set the context for our recommendation section. The aggregate results for the survey have been analyzed, and placed into their respective groups (ERS, Geography, Planning, Architecture, Other), and can be viewed in Appendix 1.

    While it is important to compare the five groups, as there are slight differences, we determined that an overall analysis of the whole sample in this section would be substantially more beneficial to show faculty behaviours concerning recycling.

    Our survey results show some interesting conclusions in relation to the attitudes and behaviours, awareness and opinions of the students, staff, faculty and visitors of ES 1&2. Of all the people surveyed, if a recycling bin cannot be readily found then almost half of respondents stated that they would try to find a bin, but 30% said that they would put the item in the garbage. Only 6% said that they would leave the item as litter, so this may show that the litter problem is caused by a very small minority of people. Concerning the question of whether custodians are responsible for recycling litter, almost 80% of those surveyed said that they thought that, or did not know if, the custodians were responsible. However, 75% stated that they would change their behaviour if they did know that a) litter is usually not recycled, and b) contaminated carts are sorted at cost to UW. This tells us that an education program of some sort may be in order. We found that 75% of the respondents who were unwilling to search for a proper recycling bin found it inconvenient perhaps because there are not enough bins available.
 

 Return to the Table of Contents.


8.0  Conclusions

    After conducting our bin audits and collecting data on litter around the Environmental Studies buildings, our group came to some general conclusions. Contrary to information we had at the beginning of the project, we found that contamination of the recycling bins is not a significant problem, in relation to sustainability on campus. The maximum amount of cross-contamination amounted to five pieces of the wrong material per week in a bin.  This amount is not a cause for rejection of the load by Capital Environmental; they simply have to sort the load at an extra cost to the University.  Zero contamination would be ideal; however, time constraints did not allow us to follow up the situation with a remedy.
 
    A more serious problem in our eyes was the litter problem. Some areas in Environmental Studies are problematic in that people have a tendency to leave empty cans and bottles on tables and window sills instead of placing them in recycling bins. This practice removes them from the recycling system because the custodians put them directly in the garbage.

    Taking into account the above observations and those from the survey, the following recommendations have been formulated to address the recycling concerns in ES buildings 1&2.
 
 
Return to the Table of Contents.


9.0  Recommendations

     Based on our data collection from both contamination and litter sources, survey results and informal interviews, our group has the following recommendations for improving the overall sustainability of the recycling of ES 1 & 2 and the University of Waterloo. They are divided into two sections; one section addresses changing the facilities somewhat, and the other deals with making recycling a higher profile activity through education and further study.

9.1 Increasing the convenience of recycling and reducing contamination

9.2 Educating about recycling Return to the Table of Contents.


10.0 Summary

  Our vision for a sustainable university campus included an effective and efficient recycling system to reclaim "waste" and reuse materials. This study reflected the group's vision of a sustainable University of Waterloo campus as part of a larger sustainable community.  Improved recycling and ensured maximum reuse and recycling of materials contributes to a new way of thinking about waste.  We believed that the University of Waterloo and the people who attend and work there have the power to change their attitudes in such a way that makes sustainability an inherent part of their criteria for making decisions in both the personal and the political realms.

    When the problem of contamination in the recycling carts was conveyed to the University of Waterloo's Waste Management Officer, Patti Cook, she suggested a study into the problem.  As a component of the Environment and Resource Studies 285 course, Greening the Campus, our group chose to explore the severity of the contamination problem (the wrong materials in the recycling bins) and examine the previously unidentified litter problem (recylable items left as litter and not recycled). Our group chose to examine the recycling system within Environmental Studies buildings 1 and 2 with the goal of  evaluating both problems and determining their causes in order to improve the recycling system. The project focussed on the recycling of glass, cans and PET (polyethelene tetraphalate) plastic bottles in Environmental Studies buildings 1 and 2 and the two related problems that were identified: contamination and litter. In addition, a survey that attempted to guage 'behaviours and attitudes' towards recycling by students, staff and faculty of ES 1 and 2 was included as part of our research.

    The study of recycling contamination and litter in ES 1 & 2 involved three levels of analysis. It first began by investigating the singular issue of contamination, but after two weeks of preliminary data collection of actual amounts of contamination in each cart in six different locations, it was discovered that the problem was far less severe than supposed.  Second, following this discovery, the study was broadened to evaluate the severity of the litter problem that had been observed. Recyclables were often left around the Environmental Studies buildings as litter so we collected data on the amounts of litter left in each of thirty-two areas in the buildings.  Third, we wanted to explore the attitudes and behaviours of the people that recycle in ES 1 & 2 to see if the cause of improper recycling behaviour was due to personal attitudes or opinions.

    Our findings suggested that the litter problem was more serious than the contamination problem (although both are important issues to address for a truly effective recycling system) because the litter is generally disposed of as garbage rather than recycled, while the contaminated carts are passed on to a recycling company for sorting. The survey revealed some patterns in behaviour (including 30% of respondents place their item in a garbage if a recycling cart is not to be found) and some insight into attitudes (75% of respondents found recycling inconvenient, while none found it unimportant). Additionally, the survey led to, among others, the following recommendations: increase the number of recycling carts in each of the Environmental Studies buildings to improve convenience; ensure that a garbage is placed near each recycling station to reduce contamination of garbage in recycling; and make recycling signs more prominent for greater awareness by all.

Return to the Table of Contents.


11.0 Key Contacts

Campus Contacts

These contacts are used to gather information regarding waste management practices on campus.  We are using them to get information in regards to what company picks up recyclables, where are containers, etc?

University of Waterloo Waste Management Coordinator- Patti Cook: x3245 Rm. 3125 DC   plcook@icr
Director of Plant Operations- Custodial and Grounds- Tom Galloway x5676
Plant Operations:  Les: ext. 4010, Jerry: ext. 2537
Stephen Drew sjdrew@cousteau.uwaterloo.ca

ES 1 &2 Contacts

These contacts are mainly used to determine how each department administers its' recycling program if there is a program at all.  This provides us with information with regards to whether there is an adequate number of carts or bins for each department or whether a lack of available recycling carts and bins is a reason for contamination.

Lynda Connolly (ERS): x2784 Rm. 215A  connall@watserv1
Linda Youngblut (U&R Planning): x5940 RM. 313  lyoungbl@fes
Susan Bartlett (Geography): x2403  sbartlet@cousteau
Heather Dale (Dean of E.S.): x3463 Rm. 325 hmdale@fes
Heritage Resource Centre: x2072 Rm. 356A
Mary Ruehlicke (Mapping, Analysis, & Design): x5805 Rm.: 163F  mary@cousteau
John Debrone (School of Architecture): x3446 Rm. 164C jadebron@fes

Off Campus Contacts

This contact provides us with information regarding a definition of contamination, and the employees decisions on whether or not to reject carts of recyclables.

Capital Environmental:   Kyle Merritt, 745-8080
 
Return to the  Table of Contents.


12.0 Glossary of Terms
 

** Generally this is true, as this decision rests at the discretion of individual custodians. At the time of writing (04/98), the vast majority of litter found was collected as garbage.

Return to the Table of Contents.



13.0 Appendix 1

    Click above to View.



Back to Home Page

To ERS 285 Home Page

To Contact ES 1 & 2 Recycling Group