Recycling in Apartment Complexes Assessing Student Recycling Behavior

and Response to Audience-Specific Displays

Alanna Smith Alena Hall

Arima Rose Claypool Hannah Goodwin

Tom Fang

1

• OCSWMD – Waste monitoring

– Target low-performing multi-family apartment complexes

– Outreach representatives

– Literature in multiple languages

• Spring 2011 Capstone – Waste audits

– Increased signage

– Recycling Ambassadors through PSS

– Distribute recycling totes

2

Goal

Coordinate with OCSWMD to increase the quantity and improve the quality of recycled materials, and reduce waste in

Chapel Hill student-dominated apartment complexes

3

Literature Review

• Contaminated Waste

• Targeted Signage

• Social Behavior Change

4

Project Strategies

Educational Outreach

Educational Visuals 5

Project Strategies

Data Collection

Resident Surveys

6

Methods

• Target Audience: College Students

• Selected apartment complexes

7

Methods Quality Attributes

Management Configuration A single manager or management office is preferred. The

management already organizes events for their residents,

and there is a central meeting location for all residents

such as a clubhouse or leasing office.

Number of Units Chapel View has 224 units, housing 358 people. Chapel

Ridge has 180 units, housing 544 people. Granville

Towers houses 1,278 students in both single and double

rooms.

Recycling Programs Some signage exists, and the property houses an

appropriate number of easily accessible recycling carts.

Pick Up Date Each location receives collection services Wednesday.

Ease of Access All properties are located along several bus lines, so

ambassadors who do not have cars can easily access

their assigned complex.

Management Communication Management already has active communication lines

with their residents through email and granted us access

to these lines of communication.

Apartment Demographics While no preference existed, almost all residents read

and speak English so multilingual materials are not

necessary.

Current Yields Chapel View and Chapel Ridge are considered medium-

yield complexes that show room and promise for

improvement. Granville Towers reveals historically poor

recycling rates, so our initiatives will aim to significantly

improve the data collected at this location.

8

Baseline and Follow-Up Recycling Waste Audits

9

Selecting Signage Materials

10

Recycling Contamination Displays

11

Organizing Recycling Outreach Efforts

• Promotion of Recycling Ambassador pick-up service

• Sign-ups for the pick-up service

• Distribution of educational recycling information

12

Survey Design and Administration

• Online survey measuring

– Students’ current recycling habits

– Perceptions of recycling programs

13

Week-by-Week Recycling Collection

Pre-Intervention, 10/3-10/4 Pre-Intervention, 10/10-10/11 Post-Intervention, 11/7-11/8 Post-Intervention, 11/14-15

Total Sum (kg) 528.70 468.64 464.60 582.20

Total Paper Sum (kg) 191.50 148.70 106.10 195.80

Total Can Sum (kg) 337.20 319.94 322.60 386.40

On average, the weekly total base recycling increased from 498.67 kg to 523.40 kg, the weekly paper recycling decreased from 170.10 kg to 150.95 kg, and the weekly can and bottle recycling increased from 328.57 kg to 354.50 kg.

14

Week-by-Week Recycling Collection

0.00

100.00

200.00

300.00

400.00

500.00

600.00

700.00

10/3-10/4 10/10-10/11 11/7-11/8 11/14-11/15

Re

cycl

ing

Co

llect

ed

(kg

)

Pre- and Post-Intervention Waste Audits

15

Total Recycling Collection

0.00 200.00 400.00 600.00 800.00 1000.00 1200.00

Total (kg)

Paper (kg)

Can(kg)

Total Pre-Intervention and Post Intervention Recycling Yields

Post-Intervention

Pre-Intervention

16

Contamination Data & Results

Four contamination categories:

• presence of plastic bags

• un-rinsed recyclables

• garbage items

• improperly sorted recyclable items.

17

Contamination Results

• Total contaminants: decrease of 340 total items, representing a 37.28% decrease.

• The audits revealed a decrease in plastic bags, un-rinsed or non-emptied recyclables, and misplaced bottle and can recyclables.

• However, the amounts of non-recyclable items and misplaced paper recyclables increased.

Plastic Bags

Non-

Recyclable Items

Un-rinsed

or non-

emptied

Recyclables

Paper in

Bottles/Cans Bin

Bottles/Can in Paper Bin

Total Pre-Intervention 117 130 430 116 119

Total Post-Intervention 75 177 162 133 25

Percent Change -35.90% 36.15% -62.33% 14.66% -78.99%

18

Survey Results

• Role of demographic and behavioral profiles of residents

• Evidence of strong traditional recycling habits

• Need for increased education regarding county convenience center

• Consider potential response bias • Educational outreach v. education

visuals • Moving forward: Connect outreach

message to resident reasons for recycling

19

Limitations

• Outreach difficulties

• Limited data

• Confounding factors, weekly recycling collection – Weather

– Holidays

– Population fluctuation

• Contamination study, bias and systematic error – Only looked at top foot of recycling

– Night, reduced visibility 20

Recommendations

• Weekly recycling audits

• Continue outreach efforts

• Expand recycling program

21

Conclusions

• Collection of baseline audit data • Success pilot of UNC Recycling

Ambassadors program • Established relationships with

apartment complex managers • Gathered insights into reasons for

existing student recycling behaviors

22

Acknowledgements

• Dr. Elizabeth Shay

• Briana Steele

• UNC Institute for the Environment

• OCSWMD

– Blair Pollock

– Muriel Williman

• Our partners at the apartment complexes

• The Odum Institute

– Teresa Edwards 23

QUESTIONS?

24