1

Evaluation of Signage and Increased Recycling Rates: A Residential Hall Case Study

Darion Porter

Office of Sustainability, Temple University, 1938 Liacouras Walk, Philadelphia, PA, USA Keywords Waste Minimization, Recycling, Recycling Rates, Recycling Signage, Residence Halls Abstract Temple University is located in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, with an on-campus student residential population of 5,495 students as of 2015. This number is only expected to grow as the university continues to expand. Implementing successful and efficient recycling plans for university buildings, including residential buildings, is an important step toward waste minimization. This case study looks at the effect of signage on recycling rates within one residential hall on Main Campus, Johnson and Hardwick Hall. Data was collected on the weights of trash and recyclables generated using Hardwick as a control building and Johnson as a variable building. The results were examined to see if signage had any measurable impact on recycling rates. This report also recommends future studies and strategies aimed at making the existing recycling program more successful. Introduction With ever increasing environmental challenges faced by society, universities are in a position to provide a positive example of recycling practices for the general community to follow. University recycling programs expose a large number of people to recycling practices, making it important that programs be as effective and efficient as possible. Because many universities have already implemented recycling programs as a way to reduce their waste generation, focusing efforts on evaluating and improving existing recycling programs will be the best way for continued waste minimization (Kaplowitz, Yeboah, Thorp, & Wilson, 2009).

The biggest challenge that universities face regarding their recycling programs is a lack of participation among students, staff, and faculty, resulting in a low recycling rate. Participation can be affected by general attitude toward recycling, bin placement, and signage. In order to increase participation in a recycling program, it is important to understand the many factors that go into making a particular recycling program effective. This paper examines one university residential hall and evaluates the effectiveness of signage on recycling rates. This paper also gives recommendations for future research opportunities. Literature Review In order to increase recycling rates, it is important to look at the factors that influence these rates, such as the positions of bins, the composition of waste, and signage (Armijo de Vega, Ojeda Benitez, & Ramirez Barreto, 2008). Within the limited literature regarding waste minimization on university campuses, one of the main issues with recycling was that it was simply inconvenient for people to recycle waste; either because of poorly placed bins and/or the lack of effective signage on the recycling bins. An inconvenient recycling program was more of an influence on recycling behavior than “attitudes about the long-term importance of recycling behaviors” (Kelly, Mason, Leiss, & Ganesh, 2006, p. 43). Therefore, in order to garner positive

2

support for a recycling program, it was paramount to make the system as a whole more convenient. Placement of bins and composition of waste The easiest and most cost effective way to increase the recycling rate was to put the recycling bins closer to where they are needed (O'Connor, Lerman, Fritz, & Hodge, 2010). When bins were closer to where people consume products, it made it easier to recycle the product. Another way to increase the recycling rate was to use co-mingled recycling bins, where all dry recyclable material was placed in one collection bin. Co-mingled collection made recycling more convenient for students and faculty which has shown to increase recycling rates (Zhang, Williams, Kemp, & Smith, 2011). An advantage of comingled bins was that it reduced the amount of manpower needed to empty and recover the materials in the bins and reduced the cost of recycling. Students may also be more receptive to comingled bins since they increase the convenience of recycling (Werner, Stoll, Birch, & White, 2002; Kelly et al., 2006).

Successful recycling programs implemented in certain buildings may not be as effective in other buildings with different uses. Therefore, it was important to look at the composition of waste to determine which method would be most effective at increasing recycling rates (Armijo de Vega et al., 2008). In one study, representative waste samples were taken from the following university functions: “(1) academic and administrative buildings (including laboratories), (2) gardens and corridors, and (3) the community center (store, dining room and cafeteria areas)” (Armijo de Vega et al., 2008, pg. S22). Keeping a record of where the waste was generated made it easier to categorize and easier to compare the waste streams of buildings with different purposes around a college campus. Signage on bins The research conducted has shown that signage had a profound impact on the success rate of the recycling program. One of the main inconveniences people named in regard to recycling was that the signage was either unclear or non-existent. The advantage of using co-mingled recycling bins was that the signage on these bins could be more direct, since items do not have to be user separated. The size of the existing signage on bins was another inconvenience that many people reported, and an increase in the size of signage seemed to have a positive correlation to recycling rates (Kelly et al., 2006). According to a study conducted by Werner et al. (2002), signs with a persuasive message were more effective at increasing recycling rates than signs that simply make a request. Signs with a message like “it may be inconvenient but it is important” resulted in a recycling rate of 80 percent (Werner et al., 2002, pg. 189).

Another study noted that signage focused on instruction and persuasion could impact recycling rates; this study also suggested that signage used as part of a larger educational system could influence a positive behavior change toward recycling practices (Werner, Rhodes, & Partain, 1998). Methodology This study evaluated the effects of signage on recycling rates using a residence hall as a case study. Temple University’s Johnson and Hardwick Hall, located on Main Campus, was selected because it consists of two identical towers. One tower, Hardwick Hall, was used as the control

3

for the audit. The other tower, Johnson Hall, was used as the variable where recycling signage was introduced. The audit was conducted in four stages:

1. Baseline waste audit: February 2 – February 17, 2015; 2. Phase 1 signage: February 18 – March 9, 2015; 3. Phase 2 signage: March 10 – March 23, 2015; 4. Phase 4 signage: March 24 – April 6, 2015.

A full audit schedule is included in the Appendix. Existing Bin Layout Johnson and Hardwick Hall each have 10 residential floors with between 486 and 491 residents. The buildings are laid out in a grid-like pattern with two main resident halls that run parallel to each other (Figure 1). There are approximately seven to nine trash-only bins located throughout the main halls (generally three to four per hallway).

Figure 1: Main Resident Hall.

There are two smaller connector halls that join the longer halls together. One connector hall is located at one end of the floor (Figure 2) and the other provides access to the elevators (Figure 3). The recycling bins for each floor are located near the elevators in the central connector hall. Each recycling station consists of one trash container, one container for paper and two containers for co-mingled recycling of glass, cans and plastics (Figure 4).

4

Figure 2: End Connector Hall.

Figure 3: Central Connector Hall.

5

Figure 4: Typical Recycling Station Located Near Elevators. Johnson & Hardwick Hall Waste Audit Baseline Waste Audit: February 2 – February 17, 2015 This audit was the first of its kind conducted at Temple University and the baseline audits were necessary to acquire accurate data on the composition and amount of trash generated. Prior to conducting baseline audits, a walk-through of the building was conducted to make sure that all of the trash and recycling bins were in the same location to help ensure the data was consistent and reliable. A data collection spreadsheet was prepared and represented materials that Temple University was able to recycle (Table 1). Table 1: Sample Data Collection Spreadsheet

Location Paper (oz.)

Cardboard (oz.)

Comingled (oz.)

Waste (oz.)

Improperly Sorted (oz.)

Johnson 2 Johnson 11 Hardwick 2 Hardwick 11

These audits were conducted using a shipping scale to measure the weight of the trash and recycling generated on each residential floor of Johnson and Hardwick Hall (floors two through eleven). The spreadsheet included data points for paper, cardboard, comingled recyclables, waste, and improperly sorted materials. Student workers and student volunteers were recruited to measure weights and collect data through the duration of the waste audit study.

6

Phase One Signage: February 18 – March 9, 2015 After the two week baseline audit was complete, a comprehensive recycling list was distributed to all residents of Johnson and Hardwick Hall (Figure 5).

Figure 5: Comprehensive Recycling List (distributed to all residents and displayed at Johnson and Hardwick Hall during the duration of the audit).

In addition to the recycling list, Johnson Hall residents also received a flyer with a statistic about recycling (Figure 6). Flyers were distributed to all residence hall rooms and posted at the elevators near the recycling bins.

7

Figure 6: Phase One Signage (distributed and displayed at Johnson Hall only).

It should be noted that the signage had been removed from the elevator corridor by February 23, 2015. This was the only time throughout the study that the signage was taken down for any prolonged period of time. The university was closed during the week of March 1, 2015 due to spring break and data was not collected during that time. Phase Two Signage: March 10 – March 23, 2015 During the second phase of the audit, residents in Johnson Hall received a new flyer with environmental impact data (Figure 7). The environmental impact flyer along with the existing recycling list was also displayed near the elevators on each floor of Johnson Hall. Residents in Hardwick Hall did not receive the environmental impact flyer, but the recycling list continued to be displayed near the elevators.

8

Figure 7: Phase Two Signage (distributed and displayed at Johnson Hall only). Phase Three Signage: March 24 – April 6, 2015 During the third phase of the audit, residents in Johnson Hall received a new flyer regarding the cost impact of recycling (Figure 8). The cost impact flyer along with the existing recycling list was also displayed near the elevators on each floor of Johnson Hall. Residents in Hardwick Hall did not receive the cost impact flyer, but the recycling list continued to be displayed near the elevators.

9

Figure 8: Phase Three Signage (distributed and displayed at Johnson Hall only). Results The objective of this study was to find what impact signage had on the amounts of recycled materials and the recycling rate in two nearly identical residential buildings. Based on the research reviewed, it seemed reasonable to theorize that the building with the environmental impact and cost impact signage would have better and/or increased recycling rates. It was also reasonable to expect lower ratios of improperly sorted materials to waste in the building with the signage. The data collected from the waste audit, however, did not appear to be in support of this hypothesis. In fact, it seemed that the signage did not have any effect on the waste generated or impact the amount of improperly recycled materials. Hardwick Hall, the control building without signage, did considerably better in almost all categories throughout most of the audit. The changes in signage in Johnson Hall did not appear to have any positive effect on the numbers generated in that building (Figures 9 and 10).

10

Figure 9: Results by Test Period.

11

Figure 10: Results by Week.

12

This study has shown that signage does not have an impact on the rate at which people recycle in one representative residential hall on Temple’s Main Campus. Though it is likely that not all residents of Johnson Hall kept the signage that was distributed, it was reasonable to believe that since the signage was placed under the doors of each resident room that the occupants came into contact with the signage at some point. If exposure to the signage was the sole force behind changing recycling habits, there would have been some measurable changes throughout the course of the study. However, this study demonstrated that signage alone was not an effective means of changing behavior. Discussion and Recommendations There were a few possible reasons as to why the signage did not have the desired impact on recycling rates. One possible explanation that drove recycling participation was the building layout. Both Johnson and Hardwick Hall are laid out with two long parallel halls connected by two shorter halls. Each floor is served by elevators located in the middle connector hallway and two stairwells (one on each end). There was only one recycling station on each floor which was located in the middle connector hallway. In contrast to the one recycling station on each floor, there were anywhere between six and eight trash bins on each floor, not including the bins in the bathrooms and the bin near the elevators. These bins were spread out in in an even pattern on each floor. This made it much more convenient for students to use the trash bins than it did for them to use the recycling bins. On lower floors in the buildings (generally floors two through four), people do not use the elevators as frequently. This means that if they lived closer to one of the stairwells in the building, they may not have come into contact with the recycling bins that were located near the elevators on each floor. However, they were almost certain to come into contact with at least one of the trash bins in the building while walking down the hall. Research on this this topic stated that persuasive signage generally tended to have more of an impact on behavior than making the placement of bins more convenient alone (Werner et al., 2002). The study done here does not uphold that research. In fact, it seemed that the convenience of the bins in these buildings would have had more of an impact on the recycling rates than the signage alone. Therefore, it is recommended that future research take bin placement into account. Since the layout of these buildings lends itself to the trash bin placement, it would be useful to create a study in which there are more recycling bins placed on the floors of one building. Placing a recycling bin next to each of the garbage bins would eliminate any sort of inconvenience that makes people only use the trash bins because there would also be the option to recycle. Making the recycling program more conveneient is one of the many factors that tend to make the program as a whole more successful (Kelly et al., 2006; Werner et al., 2002). The use of comingled bins would also help increase recycling rates. Residents would not have to separate recyclable materials before disposal. This makes it easier for residents to participate in the recycling program, and easier for the maintenance staff to collect. It should be noted that overall trash and recycling amounts in this study were impacted by the time of day that the audit was conducted. Collection of trash and recycling by housekeeping staff in Johnson & Hardwick Hall typically occurred between 6:30am and 8:00am and the audit was typically conducted between 2:00pm and 5:00pm. Therefore, trash and recycling amounts were expected to be lower than actual amounts because resident population was probably less during daytime class hours. Future research should take into account collection times to have the most reliable data.

13

References

Armijo De Vega, C., Ojeda Benitez, S., & Ramirez Barreto, E. (2008). Solid waste characterization and recycling potential for a university campus. Waste Management, 28, S21-S26. Kaplowitz, M., Yeboah, F., Thorp, L., & Wilson, A. (2009). Garnering input for recycling communication strategies at a Big Ten university. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 53, 612-623. Kelly, T.C., Mason, I.G., Leiss, M.W., & Ganesh, S. (2006). University community responses to on-campus resource recycling. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 47, 42-55. O'Connor, R., Lerman, D., Fritz, J., & Hodge, H. (2010). Effects of number and location of bins on plastic recycling at a university. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 43, 711-715. Werner, C., Rhodes, M., & Partain, K. (1998). Designing effective instructional signs with schema theory: Case studies of polystyrene recycling. Environment and Behavior, 30, 709-735. DOI: 10.1177/001391659803000506 Werner, C., Stoll, R., Birch, P., & White, P. (2002). Clinical validation and cognitive elaboration: Signs that encourage sustained recycling. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 24(3), 185-203. Zhang, N., Williams, I.D., Kemp, S., & Smith, N.F. (2011). Greening academia: Developing sustainable waste management at higher education institutions. Waste Management, 31, 1606-1616.

14

Appendix

Johnson & Hardwick Hall Waste Audit Schedule Control Building (recyclables list only): Hardwick Hall Variable Building (recyclables list, environmental and cost impact signage): Johnson Hall Baseline Waste Audit: February 2 – February 17, 2015

• Trash and recycling data was collected from Johnson & Hardwick floors 2 through 11. • Johnson: No signage was displayed or given. • Hardwick: No signage was displayed or given.

Phase One Signage: February 18 – March 9, 2015

• Trash and recycling data was collected from Johnson & Hardwick floors 2 through 11. • Johnson: Recyclable list and stat displayed at elevator containers and given to residents.

Given and displayed on 2/18. • Hardwick: Recyclable list only displayed at elevator containers and given to residents.

Given and displayed on 2/18.

Notes: • 2/23 noticed that elevator lobby signage had been removed. Decided that only the

recycling list would be put back up in both J&H. The list was hung near the elevators. • Data collection was not completed during spring break (week of March 1st)

Phase Two Signage: March 10 - March 23, 2015

• Trash and recycling data was collected from Johnson & Hardwick floors 2 through 11. • Johnson: Recyclable list continued display at elevator containers. Environmental impact

signage displayed at elevator containers and given to residents. • Hardwick: Recyclable list only continued display at elevator containers.

Phase Three Signage: March 24 – April 6, 2015

• Trash and recycling data was collected from Johnson & Hardwick floors 2 through 11. • Johnson: Recyclable list continued display at elevator containers. Cost impact signage

displayed at elevator containers and given to residents. • Hardwick: Recyclable list only continued display at elevator containers.