ANALYSIS

OF WASTE AT STOCKTON UNIVERSITY 1

Analysis of Waste at Stockton University

Gerard D’Alessio, Brian Hasty, Mike Heine, and Lauren Mayer

Environmental Issues

Stockton University
ANALYSIS OF WASTE AT STOCKTON UNIVERSITY 2

Introduction
Waste management is an important component of daily life. Individuals must exercise
considerable effort to correctly sort and prepare their recyclables for collection. There are several factors
that go into a person’s willingness to participate in recycling activities. People’s past experiences as well
as their moral beliefs surrounding participation must be considered. A person’s socioeconomic status
must also be considered; people from lower socioeconomic standings may be less likely to know how to
properly recycle, and recycling service in less affluent areas can be unreliable or non-existent, which can
be significant barriers to participation (Martin et al, 2006) (Tonglet et al, 2004). However, waste on a
university campus differs from household refuse. Students’ garbage ends up in whichever container is
most convenient as they move about the campus, usually the closest one. A lack of recycling collection at
Stockton University is not a problem, but a lack of knowledge could still be a barrier to recycling
participation. While this study determines that the Stockton University community makes a valiant effort
to recycle, as there were little to no recyclable materials in the trash, there were issues with recycling
different items properly. Results in other studies have shown that the most effective strategies to increase
proper recycling have included a combination of increasing convenience as well as raising awareness
through education and communication (Largo-Wright, 2013). On Stockton’s campus, the convenience
factor already exists, so there should be a greater emphasis on proper recycling techniques. This would
raise awareness about waste management, help the environment, and save the university money by
ultimately reducing the amount of waste generated on campus.

Methods
To analyze waste on Stockton University’s campus, trash and recycling bags were collected from
four separate locations. Locations will be referred to as “Location X”, with X corresponding to a number
assigned to each location. The locations are detailed in a map which can be seen in Figure 4.

Trash and recycling bags were weighed using a hand scale before being emptied and sorted. Each
recycling bag was analyzed by dumping the contents onto a tarp and sorting them into three categories.
Recycling bags were sorted into trash, improperly recycled items, and properly recycled items. Examples
of trash include food waste, paper and plastic coffee cups, food packaging, and paper products. Examples
of improperly recycled items include bottles, cans, and cartons containing food or liquid residue as well as
bottles with caps on them. Examples of properly recycled items include clean bottles, cans, and cartons
without caps. Individual items were also counted to create an itemized list of each recycling bag to see
exactly how many items were properly or improperly recycled. The total recyclables and total trash for
each bag were also weighed to determine the percentage of each.
 ANALYSIS OF WASTE AT STOCKTON UNIVERSITY 3

Each trash bag was then analyzed by dumping the contents onto a tarp and sorting them into three
categories. The contents were separated into food waste, non-food trash, and recyclables. Food waste is
self-explanatory. Examples of non-food trash include coffee cups, food packaging, and paper products.
For every bag, the separated categories were individually weighed to determine the percentage of each.

Results

Figure 1: Breakdown for all locations of trash and recyclables in each

recycling bin by weight

Figure 2: Breakdown of all recyclable items collected Figure 3: The amount of properly and improperly
showing how many were recycled properly and recycled plastic bottles at each location.
improperly.
ANALYSIS OF WASTE AT STOCKTON UNIVERSITY 4

Figure 4: Map detailing the locations where trash

and recycling bags were collected.
ANALYSIS OF WASTE AT STOCKTON UNIVERSITY 5

Figure 7: Breakdown of all trash bags collected showing percentages of

trash, recyclables, and compostable materials by weight.

Discussion
After a thorough analysis of the contents of the recycling bins that were collected, it is evident
that there is a significant lack of knowledge regarding recycling at Stockton University. Every recycling
bag contained trash items. The percentage of trash in a given bag ranged from 15.6% of the total weight at
Location 3 to 62.1% of the total weight at Location 2 (Figure 1). Most of the trash in the recycling bins
was plastic coffee cups and plastic food packaging. Certain plastic products are recyclable, but these
specific plastics are not, which suggests a lack of knowledge. Itemizing the recyclables further supports
this notion. Recyclables were sorted based on whether or not they were recycled properly, meaning that
the item was free of food and liquid residue and did not have a cap or lid. Figure 2 shows that improperly
recycled plastic bottles are a major problem at Stockton University, with over 50 individual bottles in the
four recycling bins surveyed. The contents of four trash bags were also analyzed and combined into one
graph to show the total percentages of each category by weight (Figure 7). The largest category was “true
trash”, or food packaging, paper products, and cups. Food waste, or compost, made up a smaller
percentage and a tiny fraction consisted of recyclables. The small number of recyclables in the trash cans
show that Stockton students intend to recycle, but do not know how to. Many plastic bottles were
recycled improperly, but they were still in the recycling bin. It is also likely that students believe that
coffee cups and food packaging are recyclable because these items are plastic, when these items belong in
the trash. Based on these results, students need a different approach to improve how they handle their
ANALYSIS OF WASTE AT STOCKTON UNIVERSITY 6

waste. We propose that recycling awareness and education is the best way to promote proper recycling on
campus.

Educating students is one of the best ways to make them more conscious of their waste
accumulation. The current system on campus is not working effectively, as shown in Figure 1.
Explaining the importance of proper waste management to students requires an initiative to implement
better practices. In a study to project a program to help solve the problem of poor recycling habits, it is
mentioned that paying more attention to the impacts on the environment from improper waste disposal
will encourage students to become more motivated to improve waste management practices at their
university (Armijo de Vega et al, 2003). Recycling should not be viewed as the only solution for waste
management; instead, it should be viewed as a stepping stone to better practices. If people become more
interested in recycling, they are more likely to realize that reducing waste is a better solution. Education
would also mitigate the socioeconomic issue discussed by Martin et al (2006). Stockton students come
from a variety of backgrounds and educational programs hosted by the school would help to close this
knowledge gap. Stockton could hold an event during Welcome Week to bring all students up to speed on
the school’s recycling practices. If such an approach were taken at Stockton, we would see greater
recycling rates among the student body and less single-use items in the recycling bins and would instead
see more reusable coffee cups and water bottles being carried.

One aim of this approach would be to reduce the amount of “wish-cycling” at Stockton, defined
as throwing something in a recycling bin and hoping that it is recyclable (Demitroff, personal
communication, Sept 17, 2019). Based on the amount of plastic trash in the recycling bins, it can be
assumed that wish-cycling is a problem. The best way to reduce this problem is through education and
outreach; Demitroff mentions that the ACUA recycling facility offers numerous tours and events for
public outreach (personal communication, Sept 17, 2019). Reducing waste through recycling awareness
would also save money. Stockton hauls approximately 1000 tons of trash per year to the ACUA
Environmental Park. At $55 per ton, that adds up to around $55,000 per year (Wood, personal
communication, Sept. 17, 2019). If students generated less waste in the form of single-use plastics,
Stockton could cut its waste management costs. Utilizing a technique like this at Stockton could
potentially improve the level of awareness of students to promote better habits of reducing the campus
footprint.

Encouraging Stockton students to recycle properly may be as simple as changing the presentation
of the receptacles. Currently, some of the receptacles have instructions on how to recycle and what to
recycle, but these signs are not located at eye level. Making a sign to place above the receptacles may lead
to students making better decisions about their waste disposal. In a case study regarding the behavior of
ANALYSIS OF WASTE AT STOCKTON UNIVERSITY 7

people using recycling receptacles, they discovered that better instructional signs and locating the signs at
eye level caused an increase in proper recycling habits (Werner et al, 1998). Additionally, applying other
information such as how much waste Stockton accumulates a year on a sign could promote a different
perspective on the campus as a whole.

Currently, Stockton sends its kitchen food waste to Leipe Farms in nearby Cologne, New Jersey
where it is used for animal feed (Wood, Personal communication, Sept 17, 2019) (Leipe, Personal
communication, Sept 18, 2019). However, the food waste from regular trash cans is still sent to the
ACUA landfill. If Stockton provided designated trash cans for students’ food waste, they could collect
and compost this waste. Similar programs have been tested at other universities, including Oregon State.
Compost bins for food waste were set up in the library and trash audits showed that the program could
work. Oregon State’s program struggled due to a combination of poor collaboration from custodians and
contamination from unknowing students, but better education and outreach could make such a program
viable at Stockton (Hussong-Christian, 2016). The compost could be used as an educational opportunity
for Environmental Science and Sustainability students. It could also be used to grow crops on the
Stockton farm. Collecting this food waste for composting is another way to save the school money;
eliminating food waste from the regular trash cans would save money on the school’s annual trash costs.
From educating students about proper recycling techniques to collecting compost, there are many ways
that Stockton can better manage its waste. Based on the findings from our trash collection and our
research, we can conclude that education via deliberate programming and better signage is the best way to
improve recycling and waste management practices at Stockton.
 ANALYSIS OF WASTE AT STOCKTON UNIVERSITY 8

References
Armijo de Vega, C., Ojeda-Benı&Amp;Amp, #X0301, Tez, S., Ramı&Amp;Amp, & Rez-Barreto, M. (2003).
Mexican educational institutions and waste management programmes: a University case study.
Resources, Conservation & Recycling, 39(3), 283–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-3449(03)00033-8
Chase, N.L., Dominick, G.M., Trepal, A., Bailey, L.S., & Friedman, D.B. (2009). "This Is Public Health:
Recycling Counts!" description of a pilot health communications campaign. International Journal of
Environmental Research and Public Health, 6(12), 2980-2991.
Demitroff, A. (2019, September 17). Personal interview.
Hussong-Christian, U. (2016). If you build it, will they sort it? compost collection in the academic library learning
commons. Library Management, 37(6), 340-351. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/LM-04-2016-0026
Kelly, T., Mason, I., Leiss, M., & Ganesh, S. (2006). University community responses to on-campus resource
recycling. Resources, Conservation & Recycling, 47(1), 42–55.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2005.10.002
Largo-Wight, E., Johnston, D. D., M.A., & Wight, J., PhD. (2013). The efficacy of a theory-based, participatory
recycling intervention on a college campus. Journal of Environmental Health, 76(4), 26-31. Retrieved
from
https://login.ezproxy.stockton.edu/login?url=https://search.proquest.com/docview/1449819455?accountid
=29054
Leipe, J. (2019, September 18). Personal interview.
Martin, M., Williams, I. D., & Clark, M. (2006). Social, cultural and structural influences on household waste
recycling: A case study. Resources, conservation and recycling, 48(4), 357-395.
Schultz, P., Oskamp, S., & Mainieri, T. (1995). Who recycles and when? A review of personal and situational
factors. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15(2), 105–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/0272-
4944(95)90019-5
Tonglet, M., Phillips, P. S., & Read, A. D. (2004). Using the Theory of Planned Behaviour to investigate the
determinants of recycling behaviour: a case study from Brixworth, UK. Resources, conservation and
recycling, 41(3), 191-214.
Werner, C. M., Rhodes, M. U., & Partain, K. K. (1998). Designing Effective Instructional Signs With Schema
Theory: Case Studies of Polystyrene Recycling. Environment and Behavior, 30(5), 709–735.
https://doi.org/10.1177/001391659803000506
Wood, D. (2019, September 17). Personal interview.