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