Student Impact on the University of Arizona Recycling Program

(This was a report of a student "experiment", and the test group was altogether too small to make any serious conclusions. I don't mistake this for Science.)

Abstract

     In this study a test group's trash to recycling ratio is measured to evaluate the current reported efficiency of the University of Arizona's Recycling and Waste Management Program, and to test the estimated potential maximum recycling goal of the program. The experiment ran for one week, and included four students. The data was compared to one month of published waste management figures.

1. Introduction

     According to the University of Arizona's Facilities Management, Recycling and Waste Management Program Coordinator David Munro's published statement, the university is recycling 40% of the total waste generated, and plans on expanding that amount by 10% each year, for five years. The Environmental Protection Agency's report on municipal solid waste states that in 2011 the recycling rate for all Americans was 34.7%, and shows a positive trend over the last 51 years, but only of about 0.4% per year. While being over the national trend is commendable, given that consumers generally have little control over the types of packaging they receive as an unintended consequence of purchasing products, it seems doubtful that any organization could reach a total recycling to waste ratio of 90%. The possibility of reaching that goal is, in part, a testable claim, and we set out to answer the duel questions, how efficient is the recycling program, and what is the maximum efficiency if all student, faculty and employee generated recyclable waste was recycled?

2. Methods

     To test the current efficiency of the recycling program, we identified the potential recyclable materials / total waste that a test group generates in a given time period. That ratio can then be compared to the actual rates to show the efficiency the current program and the maximum potential efficiency. A test group of four students collected their personal trash for one week. The trash was separated into various types that could be recycled by the program, and either directly weighed, or measured by volume and using known density averages the weight was calculated by density * volume = mass (d * v = m).

     The categories used for comparison were “paper”, “metal”, “compost/green waste”, “miscellaneous recyclable”, and “trash”. Miscellaneous recyclables for the test group included mainly plastic containers, but for the program it also included construction waste, baled cardboard, and shipping pallets. The aggregate totals were averaged to create a hypothetical member of the University's community. The averages were then expanded to represent the 55,521 total students, faculty, and employees population's waste for the period of one month (hypothetical totals * population * 4 weeks/month) [“The UA Factbook” (2014)]. Those results were then compared to the University's actual totals. To provide a baseline comparison we took the total population and using 1.995 kg per capita waste generation per day (4.4 lbs.), we calculated the waste if it was in line with the national average [“Municipal Solid Waste Generation” (2013)].

3. Results

     The hypothetical population would produce 1.9 million kg (2,126 tons) of total waste per month. At the national average, the population would produce 3.3 million kg (3,664 tons) of total waste per month. The campus collects 424,408 kg (468 tons) of total waste per month. The actual waste collection is 2.9 million kg (3,197 tons) less than the national average, and 1.5 million kg (1,658 tons) less than the hypothetical community based on the test group.

     The program recycled 169,861 kg (187 tons) of waste, giving them a recycling rate of 40%. The known recycling rate of the US is about 35%. The hypothetical community should be recycling 799,113 kg (881 tons) of waste, or 41% of their total waste. The campus is 5% above the national recycling rate, and 1% lower than the test sample's estimated potential recyclables.

4. Discussion

     With only a 1% potential to increase the recycling ratio, based on the results, it seems unlikely that the University will be able to reach their 10% per year goal, for a total recycling rate of 90%. However, it should be noted that the test sample was limited to only a small number of students that are enrolled in a sustainability class. The tendency to be concerned about environmental issues may translate to a self-selection bias which does not properly reflect the behaviors of the entire student population, much less the faculty and employees. While there was some demographic diversity in our test group, half are students that live full-time in the dorms on campus. Having only 22 dorms with a maximum capacity of approximately 6,500 students, only 16% of the student body resides on campus [“Hall Descriptions” (2014)]. This may explain why the total trash collected is significantly less than any estimate.

     Additionally, the University Recycling program is involved with types of activities that do not reflect an average student's daily experience. It is highly unlikely that a student would ever order an entire pallet's worth of any material, which externalizes waste that is absorbed and recycled by the campus, 3,311 kg of pallets (3.67 tons), and part of the 19,441 kg of baled cardboard (21.43 tons). Students are not likely to be directly responsible for any portion of the 5,824 kg (6.42 tons) of construction and demolitions waste recycled by the campus, or the largest single recycled material, 71,259 kg (78.55 tons) of green waste that mainly includes landscape waste. It would seem that running a major university's waste program has more in common with industrial or commercial endeavors, than the daily habits of the student body.

5. Conclusion

     Given the types of waste reported by the campus, it is not likely that the student body, the faculty, and the employees, will have a major impact on the recycling ratio goal. While it is clear that personal waste habits can have some influence, most of their waste does not appear to be disposed of on campus. The limited amount of estimated potential expansion of personal recycling casts doubts on the ability of the program to even reach this year's goal of 50% recycling, if the program only relies on personal recycling habits.
     As such, if there is chance of improving the recycling ratio, it is likely to come from the more industrial and commercial activities on the campus, than from the student's personal choices. If this is not the case, then the university's reported 40% is a mere 1% away from the maximum potential recycling rate, and is operating nearly as efficiently as it possibly can. However, seeing that it is only 5.3% above the national average, there is likely significant room for improvement.

References

“Hall Descriptions” (2014), Residence Life, University of Arizona, Arizona Board of Regents, Retrieved 02/11/2014.

“Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Recycling and Disposal in the United States: Facts and Figures for 2011” (2013), Environmental Protection Agency, Retrieved 02/11/2014.

Munro, David (2013), “Recycling and Waste Management”, University of Arizona Facilities Management, Retrieved 02/11/2014.

“The UA Factbook” (2014), University of Arizona, Arizona Board of Regents, Retrieved 02/11/2014.

Figure 1
The total amounts of each type of waste collected by the University of Arizona's Waste and Recycling Management Office for September 2013. By far, the two largest categories are Roll Off Trash, which was deposited in campus dumpsters, and Green Waste, which is mainly landscaping waste.

Figure 2
The results of the direct measurements of a test group of four individuals, organized from lowest total amount of waste to greatest. Despite relative demographic similarities, the data shows a wide variety of waste generating and recycling habits within the test group.

Figure 3
This chart shows the averages from Figure 2 expanded to the University's total population and adjusted for one estimated month's worth of collection as compared to the actual collection of waste on campus. The significant disparity between the two likely shows that a large portion of the waste generated is not disposed of on the campus.

Figure 4
The University's current ratio of trash to recycling encircled by the hypothetical maximum potential recycling based on this experiment shows a very narrow margin of improvement is possible. However, this conclusion is a bit misleading, since the test group showed a wide variance in waste generation, and they do not represent any industrial or commercial types of waste. This does suggest that the goal of a 90% recycling rate may not be achievable through efforts directed only at the students, faculty, or employees, but would require rethinking larger scale waste, like bulk shipping, construction, and demolition.