Improvement of Electronic Waste Recycling by Cynthia Chong

Improvement of Electronic Waste Recycling Final Report June 10, 2019

Kelsey Listrom Luz Gonzalez Cynthia Chong Ryan Nader

Table of Contents I.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................................................................... 3

II.

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 4

III.

METHODS ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 5

OBSERVATIONS ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 10 1. Search ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 10 2. Exploration ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 11 3. Selection ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 11 B. INTERVIEWS ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 14 1.0 Obstacles .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 14 2.0 Research ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 15 3.0 Motivations ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 16 C. SURVEY .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 17 1. Hypothesis Testing ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ 18 2. Tools used when searching for electronic recycling information ................................................................................................................. 19 3. Filter features for implementations of our design .............................................................................................................................................. 20 4. Importance of display transparency from the electronic recycling company ........................................................................................ 21 5. Motivations of electronic recycling ............................................................................................................................................................................ 21 D. PERSONAS ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 23 E. FEATURES MATRIX ................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 26 F. USER SCENARIOS ................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 27 1. Rene ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 27 2. David ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 27 3. Experience Maps ................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 28 V. DISCUSSION .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 29 A. LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE WORK ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 30 VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 31 VII. APPENDIX ........................................................................................................................................................................................................... 32 A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H.

OBSERVATION INFORMED CONSENT ................................................................................................................................................................................. 32 OBSERVATION PROTOCOL .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 34 AFFINITY DIAGRAM ............................................................................................................................................................................................................... 36 INTERVIEW INFORMED CONSENT ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 37 INTERVIEW PROTOCOL ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 39 AFFINITY DIAGRAM ............................................................................................................................................................................................................... 42 INTERVIEWEE SPECTRUM .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 43 SURVEY PROTOCOL ............................................................................................................................................................................................................... 45

Executive Summary

In 2016, the United States produced 6.3 million metric tons of electronic waste, or e-waste [2]. Due to a likely increase this will make e-waste recycling in education more important. In this project, we aimed to investigate how people practice e-waste recycling with the goal of developing a technology-based tool to help people increase its practice of e-waste in the U.S. In April 2019, we started this project with a scenario-based observation. We asked five participants to demonstrate how they would research ways to recycle electronic devices. All five participants chose a laptop. Each participant owned and used at least one electronic device at the time of the observation. In May 2019, we conducted seven interviews with participants who owned and used at least one electronic device. We asked how they researched e-waste recycling and what are the difficulties they face. We recorded each interview and transcribed them. We collected the transcribed interviews and inductively coded each interview to identify common themes. In June 2019, we created a survey based on our findings from the observations and interviews. We collected twenty-five survey responses and used them to evaluate the themes we observed throughout the rest of the research process. All participants have recycled an electronic item one or more times in the last year. The survey asked about general e-waste recycling, research process, decision factors, and filter options on the implementation of our design. In our observations, we explored: (1) resources and tools they used for assistance, (2) difficulties they encountered, and (3) their ideas on how to improve the research experience of e-waste recycling. We learned that participants took three distinct steps when recycling electronics: (1) Search, (2) Exploration, and (3) Selection. Scenario-based observations allowed us to understand how people gathered information about e-waste recycling; however, this method had limitations. It was difficult to address how experience and knowledge had an impact on the participants' actions. Therefore, we conducted interviews that addresses the shortcomings. The results provided design implications for our potential product that will assist people in planning e-waste recycling. In our interviews, we identified three themes: (1) obstacles, (2) research, and (3) motivations. Our findings revealed several design implications. Usersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; comments on hidden fees implied a need for a recycling criteria filter (e.g. cost, location, pick-up, item type, etc.). A filter would make it easier to narrow down options based on personal preferences. Participants remarked that transparency and ethical recycling were important to them in several instances. The design would need to show what occurs to the device after it is recycled. Furthermore, the design must dispose of secure information when the item is handed over. Lastly, participants explored up to six different pages to find necessary information. This suggested the design needed a centralized information flow so the users donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t click around to achieve their goals.

In our surveys, we concluded four themes: (1) Tools used when searching for electronic recycling information, (2) filter features for implementations of our design, (3) importance of transparency from the electronic recycling companies, and (4) motivations for electronic recycling. The data we collected helped us further define our personas and understanding user goals and experience. The findings within these themes implied that a technology-based tool could help participants increase the practice of e-waste recycling. A future design should include the following filters: locations, accepted device type, cost/fees, ability to resell, and locations that offer pick-up services. Other features would be tracked what the company does with your item (i.e. re-sell, recycle, or re-use the parts), educational materials, and company/facility ratings and reviews.

II. Introduction Electronic waste (e-waste) is defined as any electronic device regarded as obsolete and ready for disposal [1]. Items include televisions, cell phones, computers, music players, printers, and tablets. The U.N estimated that in 2016 the world generated 44.7 million metric tons(Mt) of ewaste [2]. The United States produced 6.3 Mt of e-waste that same year, with most of it ending up in landfills [1, 2]. Landfills with e-waste are shown to leach toxic materials into the environment, which is problematic. Studies have linked e-waste deterioration to human health risks such as thyroid hormone disruption, reduced lung function and adverse pregnancy outcomes. E-waste is a problem because of contamination and a lack of federal regulations from the United States. Recycling e-waste can solve this issue [1]. A recent study reported that Generation Y had positive attitudes towards recycling e-waste but admitted they lacked knowledge in recycling e-waste [3]. We expect that this finding generalizes to all generations and as such any generation that uses electronic devices is our target audience. For that reason, we are asking, â&#x20AC;&#x153;How can a technology-based product help make ewaste recycling efficient and increase the practice in the US?â&#x20AC;? While several different companies recycle e-waste, we found it difficult to assess what products they will accept. We have also encountered barriers associated with transporting large items to recycling sites (e.g., TV). Some businesses will pick-up e-waste but this can lead to costly charges. EcoATM gives users money for old electronic cell phones, MP3 players and tablets. Once its deposited into the ATM machine the device is either recycled or refurbished. While EcoATM provides a cash incentive, they are not common. They are located primarily in major cities. For example, a search around Chicago resulted in 17 locations. Furthermore, it fails to address big items such as televisions and computers.

Many researchers have examined problems associated with e-waste. Zhang and Wakkary [3] found that convenience and access were top priorities for participants to recycle e-waste. The researchers discussed the importance of an emotional connection to motivate e-waste recycling; i.e., the stronger the emotional connection, the more reluctant the owner was to recycle the item. Similarly, Kochan et al. [4] studied behaviors of those who “e-cycle,” with the goal of growing the e-waste recycling movement. The researcher utilized the Theory of Reasoned Action model to determine the behavioral traits of those who eCycle. They found a positive correlation between recycling knowledge and involvement. Furthermore, they found convenience, attitudes, awareness and norms were the most important factors in determining the likelihood of erecycling. Using a creative solution for the e-waste problems, Bridgens et al. [5] examined how to create a circular economy in which materials from cell phones were recaptured and recycled. The solution focused on creating a cell phone product system where the internal parts of the phone could be recycled and upgraded while the external features would remain the same. Furthermore, a consumer could create a bond with the outward aesthetics of the phone. Wang et al. [6] focused on public information and e-waste recycling in China. The objective of this paper was to evaluate how public information can affect citizens behavior in participating in e-waste recycling. The researchers found that public information can only influence citizens indirectly and affect their behavior through personal norms and recycling attitudes. They also determined that public information needed improvement if e-waste recycling were to grow. In this project, we are building on this research to explore behaviors, attitudes and prior knowledge of recycling e-waste. In the next sections we describe our methods, findings and discuss the implications of the design on a technology-based product/service.

III. Methods In this section, we resent our participants, data collection and analysis methods.

A. Observations 1. Participants Our five participants were 18 years or older who owned at least one electronic device. Four out of the five participants lived in Chicago, Illinois and one participant lived in Los Angeles, California. Three participants were recruited through the DePaul University Participant Pool, one was a friend and another was recruited through a friend’s co-worker. Table 1: Information of Observed Participants

No.

Pseudonym

Sex

Occupation

Location

Owned Electronic Devices

Knowledge about Ewaste

Vanessa

Retail

California

Moderate

Mia

Student

Chicago

Moderate

Wendy

Student

Chicago

None

Alejandra

Student

Chicago

None

Tala

Student

Chicago

None

2. Data Collection We observed the five participants individually; participants used our personal computers and phones to conduct the activity. Four participants were observed in Chicago, Illinois and one was observed in the participantâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s home in Los Angeles, California. We began by introducing ourselves, our project and provided the consent form (see the Observation Informed Consent Form in the Appendix). After the participants signed the consent form, we asked questions that focused on the number of electronics the participants owned, activities completed on the electronics, and past methods of disposal. We audio recorded the conversations. Next, we asked participants to demonstrate their process of disposing three hypothetical electronic devices: an LCD TV, a cell phone and a laptop computer. In this scenario the participants were told they do not have access to a car to explore how this could affect their ability to recycle. They were given the option of using either a computer or phone for the research. During the activity we sat near the participants to observe them and took notes. We also recorded the steps taken during the task using screen capture technology. We refrained from speaking unless the participant prompted us with a question. On average the activity took eight minutes to complete.

After the activity we asked clarifying questions regarding their choices. We also asked about their experiences, challenges and prior knowledge of recycling e-waste. Finally, we asked for additional comments, questions or ways for us to improve the study.

3. Analysis Methods We utilized AEIOU for our observations. We noted the (1) Activities, (2) Environment, (3) Interaction, (4) Objects and (5) Users. Next, we reviewed and discussed the notes together as a team. We added our notes to Stormboard, an online affinity diagram tool. As a team, we looked for common themes.

B. Interview 1. Participants Our seven participants were 18 years or older who owned at least one electronic device. Six out of the seven participants lived in Chicago, Illinois and one participant lived in Redlands, California. Six participants were recruited through the DePaul University Participant Pool, one was recruited through a siblingsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; co-worker. Table 2: Information of Interviewed Participants No.

Pseudonym

Sex

Occupation

Location

Owned Electronic Devices

Knowledge about Ewaste

Jonathon

Student/ Retail

Illinois

9 or 10

Limited

Mohammed

Student

Illinois

None

Alexander

Editor

Illinois

5 or 6

Limited

Rittam

Student

Illinois

None

Apoorva

Student

Illinois

Limited

Rija

Student

Derrick

Program Coordinator

Illinois

California

Limited

6-10

None

2. Data Collection We interviewed the seven participants individually. Six participants were interviewed in person in Chicago, Illinois. One was interviewed in the participant’s home in Redlands, California. We began by introducing ourselves, our project and provided the consent form (see the Interview Informed Consent Form in the Appendix). We began the interview after the participants signed the consent form. The conversations were audio recorded. We started with warm up questions regarding their experiences with electronic devices; followed by their purchasing patterns, activities with the devices and overall quantity of devices owned. Next, we focused on their experiences with general recycling and understanding of e-waste. Afterwards, we explored participant’s interactions with e-waste in four categories: (1) experience, (2) research, (3) decision making, and (4) tools and resources. At the end, we asked demographic questions, additional comments and suggestions for us to improve the study.

3. Analysis Methods We compiled our transcribed interviews into a shared folder and individually coded the interviews using Atlas.ti. We open-coded the transcripts using an inductive framework. We added all of the codes to Stormboard, an online affinity diagram tool, to discover salient themes.

C. Survey 1. Participants We recruited most of our participants through the DePaul University CDM participant pool. We also shared the survey through friends and family members. In order to participant in the study, participants are requested to meet the following requirements: ● ● ●

Must be 18 years of age or older Must own and use at least one electronic device Have recycled an electronic item one or more times in the last year

There were a total of twenty-five participants who completed the survey, ten females and fifteen males. They are aged between twenty-two to forty-seven.

We also asked the participants to rate their knowledge of electronic waste recycling practices on a scale of novice to expert. Eight participants rated themselves below the middle (1 or 2), eight participants rated themselves in the middle (3), and nine participants rated themselves above the middle (4). No participants rated themselves as experts.

2. Data Collection We used Survey Monkey to host the survey, and the survey was available between May 30 June 6, 2019. Prior to completing the survey, participants were informed that their participation was voluntary and their responses were confidential. Participants indicated the consent by clicking to the next page to begin the survey. Our survey questions (see Appendix I for survey protocol) focused on the following areas: ● ● ● ●

Warm up: To see if frequent upgrading correlates to device disposal practices. General Electronic Recycling: To see how informed people feel about electronic recycling. Research/Tools & Resources: To know what people prefer and if people prefer word of mouth in regard to design implications, and to determine which device we should design our tool for. Decision Factors: To discover how transparency influences handling electronic disposal, to ensure the IA of the product meets the expectations of the user and helps us to gage where to place ratings and reviews in our product.

● ● ●

Motivations: To determine motivation/ decision factors for electronic recycling. Retrospective: Centralized information option for the tool and to determine convenience factor. Demographics: To compare age and knowledge of electronics recycling and to see if profession/ major influences knowledge of electronic waste.

3. Analysis Methods Based on our observations and interview data, we developed two hypotheses that we tested using SPSS: ●

People below thirty years old has limited knowledge about electronic waste recycling ○ Statistic Test: Mann-Whitney U ○ D.V: Ages below thirty and Ages above thirty ○ I.V: Three groups: Expertise, Neutral, and Novice

●

People who recycle general items more frequently tend to recycle electronic devices more frequently ○ Statistic Test: Spearman’s Correlation ○ D.V: Frequency of Recycling of General Items ○ I.V.: Frequency of e-waste recycling

IV. Findings In this section, we present our findings from observations, interviews, and surveys.

A. Observations In the following section, we will present our findings for our scenario-based observation. We identified three consistent themes: ●

Search: How participants searched for methods of e-waste disposal

●

Exploration: How search results were explored based on individual preferences

●

Selection: How decisions about e-waste were made

1. Search The participants started the study with a Google search. However, each of the five participants had unique search criterion. Mia searched for “electronics trade-ins,” because she “wanted to make money back on her previous purchases.” Vanessa searched for “mail-in electronic recycling” because she had sent her phone through the mail in the past. Tala started with the LCD TV and searched for “where to recycle old tv’s in Chicago.” Wendy, who said she had

never tried to recycle electronics before, searched for “how to recycle electronic devices.” Lastly, Alejandra searched for “recycle e-waste 60625,” to find nearby e-recycling options. Searching was not limited to the beginning of the observation and was essential for completing the task. Three participants performed 1-2 additional Google searches. After the activity we asked about their e-recycling knowledge before they began the observation task and what they would improve about electronics recycling. Three of the five participants said they were not aware of any e-recycling facilities before this study. As a result, they needed to make multiple searches to complete the task. Two of the five participants had some prior knowledge of e-recycling practices. However, the scope was limited to cell phone trade in programs offered through their provider. Two of the five participants recommended that manufacturers should be more clear about where to recycle their products, and thus limit the need for extensive searching.

2. Exploration All five participants explored the search results and evaluated the options based on their individual preferences. Afterwards, the participants either continued to search and explore the options or advanced to the selection stage of the recycling process. We noticed some important sub-themes about how and why participants explored this part of the task. The first subtheme was the number of websites visited in order to complete the task. Mia and Alejandra visited four different websites, Vanessa and Wendy visited five websites and Tala visited six websites. We also identified two distinct types of sites: (1) they provided information about recycling electronics or (2) offered disposal options for electronics. Mia, Wendy, Tala and Vanessa explored sites that were the former (strictly informational) at points during the observation. Participants explored electronics disposal sites using different approaches. Eventually, all the participants explored e-waste recycling sites during their search. Two participants, Vanessa and Tala, explored donation options. One participant, Mia, explored trade in options for all the items before checking the recycling options.

3. Selection Once participants felt they had gathered enough information, they selected an option based on personal preferences. Only three of the five participants selected disposal methods/service. The plethora of options were confusing for Wendy and Alejandra because they were unable to select a recycling service. Vanessa almost opted to send her phone by mail. However, she decided to recycle all the items in one location for convenience. In order to get to the facility of her choice, she said that she would ask a friend for a ride.

Mia opted to sell the laptop and cell phone because she “wanted to make money back on her previous purchases.” She attempted to find sale options for the LCD TV but was unsuccessful and chose to recycle it instead. She avoided small recycling sites and chose to recycle through Best Buy because she had a positive experience using them in the past and wanted to avoid the hidden fees on smaller sites. Lastly, Tala selected the recycling service, JUNK Relief, to recycle her items. JUNK Relief picked up items, was easy to use for gathering information and book appointments. Additionally, they had positive reviews on Yelp. Tala mentioned she didn’t recycle electronics. Since she was an international student, she would ideally try to give the items to another member of the international student community. If not, she preferred donating the item to a charity before recycling. We created a combined flow diagram (see Figure 1: E-Waste Recycling Flow Diagram) that diagrams our findings discussed.

Figure 1: E-Waste Recycling Flow Diagram

B. Interviews After we analyzed our interviews, we categorized our interview findings into three themes: (1) obstacles, (2) research and (3) motivations. We learned that participants had different definitions of recycling. For example, some perceived recycling as handing down old devices to their siblings, while others viewed it as fixing an obsolete device. We broke these themes down into sub-themes as it relates to our research question.

1.0 Obstacles We found that participants faced several obstacles when handling electronic materials. These obstacles influenced participants’ ability and/or desire to recycle. After analyzing our interviews, we narrowed down these obstacles: (1.1) lack of awareness, (1.2) fear of the misuse of personal information, (1.3) inconvenience and (1.4) money/cost. 1.1 Lack of Awareness The first obstacle we encountered was a lack of awareness concerning e-waste recycling. Three of the seven participants had no previous knowledge of e-waste, while the rest had limited knowledge. When asked why this was the case, Derrick said: ●

“I’m not sure I'm I think yeah maybe I'm not sure it's a lot recycling like plastic and that those type of materials is very common and very prevalent everywhere you go. But I'm not sure why like electronic waste or electronic recycling isn't as popular given the amount that we consume”

Rija also discussed this issue. When asked about the difficulties she faced when searching for information, she said: ●

“Probably not getting the right place because of do not know how they are recycling. Having not enough information, and do not know the process of recycling”

1.2 Fear of the Misuse of Personal Information All seven participants were concerned about the misuse of private information stored on electronic devices. When asked about the phrase “electronic waste,” Apoorva said: ●

“To be honest, like if I say two - three years back, I was not much aware of this thing, when I was in India. So till that time…my parents used to say like there was a myth like even if you delete everything from your phone, there are ways people can extract your information, photos, everything. So my mom always used to keep everything… even we had a tablet and phone old phones. She always used to keep it in a drawer site and she always like if even if you buy a new one, I don't care but give me the old one. Just don't throw it [away].”

Alexander shared a similar approach to personal information security, and said:

●

“If I feel like whatever there is information that can somehow be gotten off the device then I will just keep it [the device] even if I never intend to use it again.”

1.3 Inconvenience All seven participants discussed the inconvenience of recycling electronics as an issue, or as a reason for keeping an item even if they never used it again. When asked about how he disposed of an old device after purchasing a new one, Rittam said: ●

“Oh I didn't actually replace it because I find it a little bit time consuming to go over there. Actually go to the place and talk to them and wait for a few down a few days to a reply back of a response.”

Additionally, when asked about difficulties when finding information on recycling electronics, Derrick said: ●

“I think the main difficulty for me is the Accessibility…since it's not in my in my face it's something that I don't know about so I think that's the biggest thing for me.”

1.4 Money/Cost Four of the seven participants mentioned paying for recycling as an obstacle. When asked if he would pay for recycling services, Derrick said: ●

“I think that if I ever had to pay for recycling I probably just wouldn't do it as terrible as that sounds I probably just wouldn't wouldn't do it”

Rija was against paying for recycling: ●

“In terms of fee, I don’t think there should be a handling fee involved in that. We are spending on our own devices, and they can make profit from the part of the devices."

2.0 Research Participants discussed how the disposal of their e-waste was influenced by their research techniques. The most important and frequently mentioned methods were: (2.1) reading ratings & reviews and (2.2) searching with location keywords. We also found that participants were in favor of (2.3) new tools that are not widely available. 2.1 Reading Ratings & Reviews All seven participants discussed the importance of reading company reviews when researching the disposal of electronic items for several reasons. Rittam said: ●

“Companies ratings and reviews is very important because it shows that a reliability in a sense. So whether a company is good or bad depends on the rating and review.”

Similarly, Rija shared a personal experience on reliability: ●

“Once I know that the tradeoff program of Samsung is negative on the website, I decided not to trade in because I am losing money in either way. I am not comfortable to give away my phone to them and not sure what is going to happen in the future.”

2.2 Searching with Location Keywords When asked how they would gather information about recycling electronic waste, five of the seven participants said they would use location keywords such as “near me” or “in my area.” Apoorva said: ●

“First will be like, I look for any place which is nearby to me so that I don't have to travel far just to recycle it.”

Furthermore, she elaborated on the importance of location when researching: ●

“these days like we are looking for everything with just a phrase. With “near me,” even if I look like I have to look for fires near me or a pizza near me we will not look for any specific shop these days like where are we are we just look for convenience? So convenience is always important, like if it's near me and I don't have to travel much for that.”

2.3 New Research Tools. All seven participants agreed a filter tool for criteria (e.g. cost, location/distance, electronic item type, etc.) would be helpful. Johnathan, said: ●

“Yea I think that would be extremely useful especially for people who don’t want to drive too far. It’d be a lot easier with prices too.”

Rittam made a similar comment about a possible filter: ●

“A price filter would be an important factor. And then like what type of devices do you have, if it's a very costly device then it should also show me like how much I can get back for the product.”

3.0 Motivations We found that an individual’s motivations for or against recycling electronics influenced how they handled their electronic items. We analyzed these motivations and broke them down into: (3.1) protecting the environment and (3.2) making or saving money. 3.1 Protecting the Environment.

Five of the seven participants considered protecting the environment an important factor. When asked why he recycled, Jonathan said: ●

“It’s just like, keeping the earth clean is our part too. We can’t just throw stuff on the street and expect it to disappear; we have to do something with it”

When asked about other factors he considered, Jonathan re-emphasized the environment, and said: ●

“Yeah it’s mostly like the environment. Future generations they need a place to live too, and same thing with animals. We all share this earth.”

The environment was also Apoorva’s primary motivation: ●

“I feel that I'm contributing towards healthy environment. So that is the main motivation for me to be conscious about. I’m doing the right thing.”

3.2 Making or Saving Money Four of the seven participants stated that making or saving money influenced how they decided to dispose of their old devices. Apoorva discussed how her mother used to collect all her family’s old devices: ●

“I'm becoming more aware of all these things so I think that yeah, this is not right like, uh necessarily keeping it at your home or like not utilizing it for a better good....when my brother told me he can get me $70 - $100 out of this waste laptop also, so that I agreed.”

Rija and Mohammad gave their electronic devices to their siblings because they felt it would save their family money. They considered this “recycling.” When asked if Mohammad had sold or recycled old devices, he said: ●

“Sometimes I wouldn’t recycle it for myself, I would recycle it for my youngest brothers who need it.”

C. Survey We recruited participants through the DePaul University participant pool.Twenty-five participants completed the survey. We arranged responses into themes to arrive at informed solutions for our technology-based product. The themes we identified were: ● ● ●

Tools used when searching for electronic recycling information Filter features for implementations of our design Importance of transparency from the electronic recycling companies

â&#x2014;?

Motivations for electronic recycling

1. Hypothesis Testing We tested two hypotheses: (1) People below thirty have limited knowledge about electronic waste recycling, and (2) People who recycle general items more frequently tend to recycle electronic devices more frequently.

Figure 2: Mann-Whitney U Test result from SPSS We conducted a Mann Whitney U test to compare e-waste level of expertise among participants 30 and over, and below 30. There was no significant difference in the medians between e-waste level of expertise at alpha level .05 (U(25)= 98, z = 1.21, p = .26). The mean ranks for ages 30 and over and below 30 were 14.91 and 11.50.

Figure 3: SPSS output for Spearmanâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Correlation Test A Spearman's rank-order correlation was run to determine the relationship between those who often recycle consumer waste and the ability to recycle electronic devices often. There was a weak correlation (r = .278) and it was statistically insignificant (p = .178 > .05). Therefore, we retained the null hypothesis and rejected our original hypothesis.

2. Tools used when searching for electronic recycling information To inform the design of our technologically based product we sought to see what devices people utilized when researching recycling options. Our results proved that the majority, 56%, of our participants preferred mobile devices for their searching.

Figure 4: Devices respondent reported they had used

3. Filter features for implementations of our design This question sought to direct what features we did and did not include in our tool. Based off of the survey over 80% of our participants believed that location and accepted devices were “very important features” to include. Cost and option to resell the items were “very important to 5060% of the participants.

Figure 5: Importance of possible filter options respondents reported

4. Importance of display transparency from the electronic recycling company We sought to determine if our tool should include information such as company reviews or how companies handle their recycled electronics. The participants had mixed feelings regarding reviews with only 40% feeling it was “somewhat important”. Furthermore, less than 50% of participants felt that it was “very important” to understand what the company did with recycled devices.

Figure 6: Importance of decision factors on E-waste recycling respondents reported

5. Motivations of electronic recycling To insure our tool would be used we decided to measure motivation as a way of determining what we need to consider when designing the device. About 60-70% of participants felt that it was “very important” to help save the environment and have recycling centers in a convenient location. However, the results for low cost and potential to make money were rather mixed.

Roughly 30% of participants found those motivation factors to be “very important” with the next highest response being “neutral.”

Figure 7: Importance of motivations for E-waste recycling respondents reported

Open-ended question: Q6 What tools and resources have you used to research e-waste recycling options?

Figure 8: Tools and resources used to research e-waste recycling respondents reported Most participants reported using Google, 50%, or the internet in general, an additional 11.54%, as a tool to research e-waste recycling. Google provides various websites that inform participants how and where to recycle, while also providing an overwhelming amount of information.

D. Personas In this section, we present personas based on our findings.

E. Features Matrix Based on the data from our observations, interviews, and surveys, we identified potential features that could help people increase the practice of electronic recycling. Table 3: Features matrix No.

Feature

Priority

Impact

Feasibility

User Type

Mobile interface

Medium

High

Knowledgeable, Unaware

Filter by location

High

Knowledgeable, Unaware

Filter by accepted device type

High

Medium

Knowledgeable, Unaware

Filter by cost/fees

Medium

Low

Medium

Knowledgeable, Unaware

Filter by ability to resell

High

Knowledgeable, Unaware

Filter for locations that offer pick-up services

Medium

High

Knowledgeable, Unaware

Track what the company does with your item (i.e. re-sell, recycle, or re-use the parts)

High

Low

Knowledgeable, Unaware

Educational Materials

High

Knowledgeable, Unaware

Company/Facility Ratings and Reviews

High

Knowledgeable, Unaware

F. User Scenarios Based on the features matrixâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s result above, we identified two possible scenarios where technology-based features could meet the needs of our personas.

1. Rene Rene is a full-time student studying Marketing at Redlands University. Per the university requirement, she is taking Environmental Science. In this class, she learns about issues with throwing out electronic items and the damage it causes to the environment. Rene's professor offers the class an extra credit paper about the dangers of improper disposal of electronic waste. Part of the assignment requires recycling a minimum of one electronic device. The professor suggests an application, E-Ways, to help students get started. Rene decides that she needs the extra credit, so she downloads E-Ways on her phone. The application further explains the dangers of improper disposal of electronic devices. That prompts her to realizes she has a few electronic devices piling up at her apartment. However, while she needs the extra credit, she doesn't want to drive out of her way to recycle. She uses to NAME to search for nearby electronic recycling facilities. The results yield various facilities in her area; looking at her devices that need recycling, Rene realizes she doesn't want to pay to recycle. She then uses the filter option to filter results based on cost. Rene finds an electronic waste facility in her area that offers to recycle at no cost. She makes the short drive and recycles the electronic items.

2. David David is a training developer and a full-time graduate student at DePaul University. He is a part of a new student organization aimed at helping students recycle their electronic waste. Students drop-off a wide range of electronic items, including old laptops, cellphones, TVâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s, and earbuds. Disposing of the items requires that David and the rest of the members do extensive Google searches for proper e-waste recycling. Some recycling facilities don't accept every electronic item; this makes the process of disposing of a difficult and time-consuming task. Due to the lengthy process, the organization often has to stop accepting electronic devices for a short period. While searching for a more efficient way to dispose of the electronic items, one of the members informs David of E-Ways. David and the team decide to use E-Ways to recycle the next batch of electronic items. At the next drive, David and the team receives three old, heavy TVs along with

the usual selection of phones, batteries, and laptops. At first they are worried about how they will be able to transport them, until David realizes he can use E-Ways to filter for companies that offer a pick-up option. He also uses the app to filter recycling facilities based on the types of devices accepted to save them multiple trips to different facilities. He finds three nearby ewaste facilities that dispose of laptops, phones, and TVâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s. David uses E-Ways to compare ratings and reviews for each facility before choosing an option for drop off and pick up. He schedules the pick up for the next day and then goes to drop off the small electronics at the chosen facility.

3. Experience Maps

V. Discussion In this project, we examined the need for a technology-based product to help increase responsible e-waste practice. Participants presented a diverse approach to e-waste, providing a range of interpretations of issues with e-waste recycling. Our observation revealed three consistent themes: (1) Search: How participants searched for methods of e-waste disposal, (2) Exploration: How search results were explored based on individual preferences, and (3) Selection: How decisions about e-waste were made. In the second phase of our project, we conducted interviews to examine participantsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; experiences, processes, concerns and behaviors regarding e-waste recycling. These interviews revealed three themes: (1) obstacles, (2) research and (3) motivations. These methods revealed the following implications for design: 1. Evangelization/Education: Our findings suggested a lack of knowledge regarding e-waste. Most participants were unaware of e-waste facilities prior to the study. Therefore, our design would require centralized information regarding e-waste recycling. Our findings were consistent with Xiao Zhang and Ron Wakkary [3] in which researchers reported that people in Generation Y did not know how to recycle e-waste. Participants remarked that being knowledgeable on ewaste would make recycling a better experience.

2. Security: Our findings implied that security was a crucial determinant for recycling electronics. Most participants expressed concerns with recycling electronics that contained data. Therefore, the design must include a security feature that confirms data deletion. 3. Transparency: Additionally, transparency was meaningful among participants. They expressed if companies revealed how their process worked, they would feel more comfortable recycling; including guaranteed data security. Our product should provide users with a breakdown of the process facilities and companies undergo to recycle electronics. 4. Convenience: Our findings affirmed that e-waste recycling was often an inconvenient experience. Participants reported time commitment and ease of access negatively impacted their decision to recycle. Thus, the information architecture of the design must effectively display e-waste recycling information; avoiding a timely search. It is also important to add a feature of where to recycle, such as a “facility locator” or “pick-up” service. 5. Partner with programs: Some participants had prior knowledge of trade-in programs but were unaware of recycling facilities. This implied our design should partner with trade in facilities to encourage recycling when trading-in is not an option. While trade-in programs provide access to e-waste recycling, there may be limitations on types of devices. These same participants suggested that stores and product manufacturers should provide information on how to properly recycle their items. 6. Filter: Participants told us that paying for e-waste recycling services is an obstacle. One participant mentioned getting paid for recycling electronic devices. Additionally, several participants referred to recycling e-waste as selling the item. Our product should allow users to filter services by price and the option to resell. 7.Centralized Information Center: As participants utilize Google for the majority of their searching, this platform displays all of the options and requires one to sort through the results on their own. By centralizing the information in our tool we would reduce the need to sort through the searches on Google and make the process efficient.

A. Limitations and Future Work Limitations in our study included location, age range and e-waste recycling experience. Six participants lived in Chicago, Illinois and one participant lived in Redlands, California. E-waste recycling practice may vary depending on the state; therefore, our sample only represented Chicago and California. Most participants were from Chicago because we used the DePaul University participation pool. In future research, we will consider different methods of recruitment to obtain a diverse sample. Our sample was limited to age range; most of our participants consisted of Generation Y. Our sample did not represent the total population. We can attribute this issue to recruiting primarily through the DePaul University participation pool; we can improve this issue using different recruitment methods in the future. Our study was limited to participants with little to no experience with e-waste recycling. While it was necessary to examine participants with no experience in e-waste recycling, we did not have

the opportunity to study the process of someone with e-waste recycling experience. We sought to include those experienced in e-waste recycling in the survey portion of our research. Yet due to the nature of surveys we could not confirm that our participants were in fact experienced in ewaste recycling. Now that we have completed these three research steps, in the future we will move onto the designing of the information architecture and a low-fidelity prototype of the product. We will create and perform a card sort to inform the information architecture and design of a low-fidelity prototype for user testing.

VI. Bibliography [1] Jessica Seeberger, Radhika Grandhi, Stephani S. Kim, William A. Mase, Tiina Reponen, Shuk-mei Ho, and Aimin Chen. 2016. E-Waste management in the united states and public health implications. Journal of Environmental Health 79, 3 (Oct 2016), 8-16. [2] BaldĂŠ, C.P., Forti V., Gray, V., Kuehr, R., Stegmann,P. The Global E-waste Monitor. 2017. United Nations University (UNU), International Telecommunication Union (ITU) & International Solid Waste Association (ISWA), Bonn/Geneva/Vienna. [3] Xiao Zhang and Ron Wakkary. 2011. Design analysis: understanding e-waste recycling by Generation Y. In Proceedings of the 2011 Conference on Designing Pleasurable Products and Interfaces (DPPI '11). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article 6, 8 pages. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/2347504.2347511 [4] Cigdem Gonul Kochan, Saba Pourreza, Huguette Tran, and Victor R. Prybutok. 2016. Determinants and logistics of e-waste recycling. The International Journal of Logistics Management 27, 1 (Jan. 2016), 52-70. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLM-02-2014-0021 [5] Ben Bridgens, Kersty Hobson, Debra Lilley, Jacquetta Lee, Janet L. Scott,and Garrath T. Wilson. 2017. Closing the loop on e-waste a multidisciplinary perspective. Journal of Industrial Ecology 23, 1 (August 2017). 169-181. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12645

[6] Zhaohua Wang, Dongxue Guo, Xiaomeng Wang, Bin Zhang, Bo Wang. 2018. How does information publicity influence residentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; behavior intentions around e-waste recycling? Resources, Conservation & Recycling 113 (Feb 2018), 1-9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.01.014

VII. Appendix A. Observation Informed Consent ADULT CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE IN RESEARCH Understanding the Process of Recycling Electronic Waste Principal Investigators: Kelsey Listrom, Luz Gonzalez, Cynthia Chong, Ryan Nader (graduate students). Institution: DePaul University, Chicago, Illinois, USA Department (School, College): Computing and Digital Media (“CDM”) Faculty Advisor: Cynthia Putnam, Ph.D. - CDM, DePaul University What is the purpose of this research? We are trying to discover how technology helps people research the handling and recycling of electronic and thus improve the problems of electronic waste. This study is being conducted by Kelsey Listrom, Luz Gonzalez, Cynthia Chong, and Ryan Nader, graduate students at DePaul University as a requirement to obtain their Master’s degree. This research is being supervised by their faculty advisor, Cynthia Putnam. We hope to include 4 people in the research. Why are you being asked to be in the research? You are invited to participate in this study because you own and use at least one electronic device. You are also over 18 years of age. What is involved in being in the research study? This study consists of a short interview about the kinds of electronic devices you own and use, then a 15 to 20 minute interactive task where you will be asked to collect information about the disposal of various electronics. This will be followed by a short wrapup interview about the observation. The interview may be voice/audio/video recorded. Your computer screen will be recorded during the observation. We’ll transcribe our interview questions and responses into written notes to get an accurate record of what you said. This study will take about 30 minutes of your time. Are there any risks involved in participating in this study?

Being in this study does not involve any risks other than what you would encounter in daily life. You may feel uncomfortable or embarrassed about answering certain questions. You do not have to answer any questions you do not want to. Are there any benefits to participating in this study? You will not personally benefit from being in this study. Can you decide not to participate? Your participation is voluntary, which means you can choose not to participate. There will be no negative consequences, penalties, or loss of benefits if you decide not to participate or change your mind later and withdraw from the research after you begin participating. Who will see my study information and how will the confidentiality of the information collected for the research be protected? The research records will be kept and stored securely. Your information will be combined with information from other people taking part in the study. When we write about the study or publish a paper to share the research with other researchers, we will write about the combined information we have gathered. We will not include your name or any information that will directly identify you. We will make every effort to prevent anyone who is not on the research team from knowing that you gave us information, or what that information is. However, some people might review or copy our records that may identify you in order to make sure we are following the required rules, laws, and regulations. For example, the DePaul University Institutional Review Board. If they look at our records, they will keep your information confidential. Who should be contacted for more information about the research? Before you decide whether to accept this invitation to take part in the study, please ask any questions that might come to mind now. Later, if you have questions, suggestions, concerns, or complaints about the study or you want to get additional information or provide input about this research, you can contact the researchers: Kelsey Listrom kelseylusch@gmail.com 586.850.3511 Luz Gonzalez luzmgonzalez99@gmail.com 909.222.7090 Cynthia Chong cynthiacchong@gmail.com 408.650.2459 Ryan Nader rnader@mail.depaul.edu

702.340.5886 You can also contact the faculty advisor: Cynthia Putnam cputnam@cdm.depaul.edu

You will be given a copy of this information to keep for your records. Statement of Consent from the Subject: I have read the above information. I have had all my questions and concerns answered. By signing below, I indicate my consent to be in the research. Signature:_______________________________________________

B. Observation Protocol STEP 1: INTRODUCTION Introduce yourself and the project: My name is ---_______. Thank you for meeting with me today. Iâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;m working on a school research project where I would like to know more about the steps you would take when researching the disposal practices of electronic waste. Explain the purpose of the project: The research conducted today will be used for our school project and only our team will know your identity. Outside of our team, your identity will remain confidential. The purpose of this study is to discover the steps people take when recycling electronic waste. The observations we gather from this study will be used to support our larger research question: How can a technology-based product help to make e-waste recycling efficient and increase the practice in the US?

Explain what will happen: There are no right or wrong answers to my questions or right or wrong ways to carry out an activity; I just want to watch what you do and hear what you have to say. As you perform the activity, your actions and comments will be noted and you may be asked to describe what you are doing. You may be asked questions before, during, or after performing the activity. This meeting should last about 30 minutes. Informed consent: This activity is voluntary. You have the right to not demonstrate any activity or answer any question, and to stop the inquiry at any time or for any reason. Your actions and responses will

be confidential and used only in connection with this class assignment. Only your first name will be used to identify you. If you wish, you can use a pseudonym rather than your real name. [Give the participant the informed consent form.] Please read over the informed consent form and ask me any questions. STEP 2: WARM-UP Establish a rapport with the participant: [Start by having a small conversation about electronics with the participant. Go off-script as needed to make the participant comfortable. Record audio] I would just like to ask you a couple of questions before we get started on the observation. Questions: ● How many electronic devices do you own? An estimation is ok ● What sort of activities do you like to use electronic devices for? (e.g. video games, watching Netflix, designing things, etc.) ● Have you bought/upgraded to any new electronic devices recently? ○ If YES ■ What did you get? ■ What did you do with the item you replaced? ○ If NO, do you plan to soon?

STEP 3: OBSERVATION Let’s move on to our activity. This is the prompt [Read the prompt to them but also give them a copy of it printed out to read and reference] You have three items, an LCD TV, a cell phone, and a laptop computer that you need to recycle, and you do not have access to a car. Using this computer or this phone, demonstrate how you would find a way to dispose of these items. There is no need to tell me what you are doing. I will just observe and take notes. Whichever device you decide to use, please allow me to start the screen recording before you start. Do you have any questions before we begin? [Observe the participant: Record the activity using a screen-recording tool. Only interrupt if absolutely necessary. Make note of questions to ask during the wrap-up] STEP 4: WRAP-UP Follow-up Questions: ● What about recycling electronic devices do you/would you find most difficult?* ● How would you make recycling electronic devices a better experience? * ● Why they chose the sequence of actions that they did? ● Why did you choose the tool(s) that you did?

●

Were you aware of recycling facilities for e-waste prior to this study? If so how did you come to know about these facilities?

Ask any specific questions written down during observation now: Examples: ● Can you clarify this? ● I noticed you did [blank], why? Participant’s questions: ● Do you have any questions for me at this time? ● Is there anything we as observers could do to improve this experience? This concludes the activity. Thank you for your time.

C. Affinity Diagram Link: https://stormboard.com/invite/762234/pop44413

D. Interview Informed Consent ADULT CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE IN RESEARCH Understanding the Process and Planning of Recycling Electronic Waste Principal Investigators: Kelsey Listrom, Luz Gonzalez, Cynthia Chong, Ryan Nader (graduate students). Institution: DePaul University, Chicago, Illinois, USA Department (School, College): Computing and Digital Media (“CDM”) Faculty Advisor: Cynthia Putnam, Ph.D. - CDM, DePaul University What is the purpose of this research? We are trying to discover how technology helps people research the handling and recycling of electronic and thus improve the problems of electronic waste. This study is being conducted by Kelsey Listrom, Luz Gonzalez, Cynthia Chong, and Ryan Nader, graduate students at DePaul University as a requirement to obtain their Master’s degree. This research is being supervised by their faculty advisor, Cynthia Putnam. We hope to include 4 people in the research. Why are you being asked to be in the research? You are invited to participate in this study because you own and use at least one electronic device. You are also over 18 years of age. What is involved in being in the research study? This study consists of a 30-minute interview in which we ask you about your experiences with electronic waste recycling. The questions will be broken down into research and decision making questions. The interview will be audio recorded. We will transcribe our interview questions and responses into written notes to get an accurate record of what you said. This study will take about 30 minutes of your time. Are there any risks involved in participating in this study? Being in this study does not involve any risks other than what you would encounter in daily life. You may feel uncomfortable or embarrassed about answering certain questions. You do not have to answer any questions you do not want to. Are there any benefits to participating in this study? You will not personally benefit from being in this study. Can you decide not to participate? Your participation is voluntary, which means you can choose not to participate. There will be no negative consequences, penalties, or loss of benefits if you decide not to participate or change your mind later and withdraw from the research after you begin participating.

Who will see my study information and how will the confidentiality of the information collected for the research be protected? The research records will be kept and stored securely. Your information will be combined with information from other people taking part in the study. When we write about the study or publish a paper to share the research with other researchers, we will write about the combined information we have gathered. We will not include your name or any information that will directly identify you. We will make every effort to prevent anyone who is not on the research team from knowing that you gave us information, or what that information is. However, some people might review or copy our records that may identify you in order to make sure we are following the required rules, laws, and regulations. For example, the DePaul University Institutional Review Board. If they look at our records, they will keep your information confidential. Who should be contacted for more information about the research? Before you decide whether to accept this invitation to take part in the study, please ask any questions that might come to mind now. Later, if you have questions, suggestions, concerns, or complaints about the study or you want to get additional information or provide input about this research, you can contact the researchers: Kelsey Listrom kelseylusch@gmail.com 586.850.3511 Luz Gonzalez luzmgonzalez99@gmail.com 909.222.7090 Cynthia Chong cynthiacchong@gmail.com 408.650.2459 Ryan Nader rnader@mail.depaul.edu 702.340.5886 You can also contact the faculty advisor: Cynthia Putnam cputnam@cdm.depaul.edu[MOU1] You will be given a copy of this information to keep for your records. Statement of Consent from the Subject: I have read the above information. I have had all my questions and concerns answered. By signing below, I indicate my consent to be in the research. Signature:_______________________________________________

E. Interview Protocol Our Research Question: How can a technology-based product help make e-waste recycling efficient and increase the practice in the US? (How can the process of gathering information about E-Waste recycling be improved?) Screener Questions - Asked before scheduling the interview: • Are you over 18 years of age? • Do you own and use at least one electronic device? Introduction Hello, my name is ______, and I am a graduate student at DePaul University. Thank you for agreeing to participate in this interview. I am working in a group to conduct research in order to better understand how people dispose of electronic devices. Some examples of electronic waste are cell phones, tvs, iPad, and batteries. These electronic devices are sometimes referred to as electronic waste or e-waste. There are no right or wrong answers. Your answers will be kept confidential. Today’s interview session should take approximately 30 minutes, without interruptions. Please refrain from using your cell phone during the interview. Before we begin, would you please read and sign this informed consent form? Great, thank you. Do you have any questions before we start?

Warm-Up Questions Tell me about your electronic devices. •

How many electronic devices do you own? An estimation is ok

•

What sort of activities do you like to use electronic devices for? (e.g. video games, watching Netflix, designing things, etc.)

•

In the past, did you buy the latest types [pick one they have] within six months of its release? Why or why not -

•

What has been your latest device purchase?

•

When did you purchase it ◦

(If the last six months) ▪

What did you get?

▪ ◦

What did you do with the item you replaced?

If not in the last six months, do you plan to purchase a new device soon?

General e-waste recycling questions: • What is your experience with recycling? (In general) ◦

Why do you recycle? Or why don’t you recycle? ▪

•

If not answered in the question above: What factors are important to you in deciding to recycle?

What do you think of when you hear the phrase “electronic waste?” •

Can you tell me about e-waste? (Describe your knowledge about electronic waste recycling)

Deep Focus Questions Now I would like to ask about e-waste recycling. Experience: • Are you aware of any electronic recycling programs?

•

◦

If YES, Can you name some of those companies/programs for me?

◦

How did you become aware of these companies/programs?

◦

Do you trust these companies/programs? ▪

If YES, why?

▪

If NO, why not?

Do you have any experiences with electronic waste recycling that you can share? (In specific) If not answered in the question above: ◦ When and where was the last time you recycled electronic devices? ◦

Can you walk through the steps of you took the last time you recycled electronic devices?

Now I would like to ask your researching process for e-waste recycling. Researching: *Assuming they did or would recycle today?

•

If you decided to recycle electronics today, how would you research about e-waste recycling? If not answered in the question above: ◦ What phrases would you use to search for e-waste recycling? ◦

When searching for information on recycling electronics what difficulties could you/do you face?

◦

What are the most important factors when you’re planning e-waste recycling?

Now I would like to ask your decision-making process on e-waste recycling. Decision-making: • What concerns do you have about recycling electronic devices? •

How does security play into your decision-making process, if at all?

•

How does transparency play into your willingness to recycle electronics? (transparency= the company's willingness to reveal its recycling process or repurposing process.) ◦

If not answered in the question above: ▪

What ethical factors do you consider when recycling or donating items?

•

What are your thoughts on paying for electronic waste recycling? (e.g. general handling)

•

How would you make recycling a more convenient experience?

•

What are some general attitudes or emotions that you associate with electronic- waste recycling?

In the last section of this part, I would like to ask you about the tools and resources you have used when planning for e-waste recycling. Tools and Resources: • Before - when we were discussing how you researched …you said…. If not answered in the question above: ◦ What type of resources do you use?

•

◦

Any websites/apps that you find helpful?

◦

Would you consider asking family/friends/colleagues?

In a perfect world, how could technology assist people to participate in electronic recycling? What kinds of features should that technology include?

Great. Thank you for that feedback. I would like to bounce a few ideas we had off you. [Ask about any features they did not come up with previously] •

Would a filter functionality be beneficial (e.g. price, distance, type of electronic)

•

How important is it to know what the company does with your recycled goods?

•

How long are you willing to search before giving up on a website?

•

How important are companies’ ratings and reviews to you?

Demographics •

How old are you?

•

What gender do you identify as?

•

What is your occupation?

Closing These are all the questions we have for you today. Do you have any thoughts that you want to share or any questions that you would like to ask? [Await participant’s response and answer all the questions. If not, move along.] Once again, Thank you so much for your time to answers all our questions. Your responses have provided valuable insights for us. If you have any questions in the future, feel free to contact us.

F. Affinity Diagram Link: https://stormboard.com/invite/772488/cook9508

G. Interviewee Spectrum

H. Survey Protocol Research Question: ●

How can a technology-based product help make e-waste recycling efficient and increase the practice in the US?

Guiding Questions: ● ● ●

What information is important for the user to know before the recycling process? What are the major challenges during the recycling process? What tools and resources did the user use to find a recycling location?

Intro We are asking you to participate in this survey because we would like to better understand people’s experiences with the disposal of electronic waste. This study is being conducted by Kelsey Listrom, Luz Gonzalez, Cynthia Chong, and Ryan Nader of DePaul University. This research is being supervised by their instructor and faculty advisor, Cynthia Putnam. The survey will take about 20 minutes of your time. All of your responses will be kept confidential and no personal information will be collected that can identify you. The survey is voluntary. You may end the survey at any time. If you have any further questions please contact us: Kelsey Listrom kelseylusch@gmail.com Luz Gonzalez luzmgonzalez99@gmail.com Cynthia Chong cynthiacchong@gmail.com Ryan Nader rnader@mail.depaul.edu

To participate in this study, you must meet the following requirements: 1. You must be 18 years of age or older. 2. You must own and use at least one electronic device. 3. You have recycled an electronic item one or more times in the last year. Recycled is defined as: traded-in device, sent item to and/or drop off at facility, reselling, or donated Device is defined as: batteries, TVs, computers (including laptops), tablets, hard drives, phones, printers, etc.

By clicking next, you are agreeing to those requirements.

Warm Up Question

Answer Options

Reason

Have you ever bought a device within six months of it’s release?

Yes No

To see if frequent upgrading correlates to device disposal practices

If branch –> yes Describe the device(s) you bought within six months of it’s release

Text Entry

In the last year, about how often did you recycle your consumer waste (includes paper, newspapers, plastics, cans and/or bottles) at a collection area (includes apartment building bins, weekly home recycling pick up, and/or school recycling bins)?

Instructions

(Branch)

Select one option below.

Never Once a year Once every six months Once every three months Once a month Once a week I don’t know

To see how recycling is used in their lives.

General Electronic Recycling Question

Instructions

Answer Options

Reason

How knowledgeable are you about electronic waste recycling?

Select one option below.

1.Novice 2. 3. 4. 5.Expert 6.I don’t know

To see how informed people feel about electronic recycling

In the last year, about how often did you recycle electronic waste (including cell phones, computers (including laptops), tablets, hard drives, TVs, and /or batteries)?

Select one option below.

Never Once a year Once every six months Once every three months Once a month Once a week I donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t know

To see how recycling is used in their lives

Research/Tools & Resources Question

Instructions

Answer Options

Reason

What tools and resources have you used to research ewaste recycling options?

Select one option below.

Short answer response

To know what people prefer and if people prefer word of mouth in regards to design implications

Which device have you used most often when researching electronic recycling information online?

Choose One

Mobile phone Tablet Laptop Desktop computer

To determine which device we should design our tool for

Rate your level of satisfaction with the number of e-waste facilities offered near you

Select one option below.

1 - Very dissatisfied 2345 - Very satisfied I donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t know

This demonstrates if our product could expand their access to facilities and provides convenience

In this project, we hope to create a technology that will make it easier access to electronic recycling information. Please rate the importance of each of these possible filter options being included in our technology. 1 -Very 2 Unimportant

5 Very Important

I do not know

Location

to E-waste Facility Accepted Device types Costs Option to Re-sell Device

Decision Factors Question

Instructions

Answer Options

Reason

How important are the following when making a decision on E-waste recycling decision factors?

Matrix of answers

1 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Not at all important 2345 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Very important I do not not have an opinion

To discover how transparency influences handling electronic disposal

Short Answer text response

Helps us to gage where to place ratings and reviews in our product. And to help us understand the desire to have more company transparency.

Answer Options

Reason

Understanding what the company does with your recycled goods Good E-waste company reviews Why were those factors important or not important?

Motivations Question

Instructions

Rate the importance of each of the following motivations for E-waste recycling

Select one option per row.

Matrix of answers (see below)

To determine motivation/ decision factors

Rate the importance of each of the following motivations for E-waste recycling 1 Very 2 Unimport ant

5 Very Important

6I donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t know

Helping to save the Environment Low Cost Potential for Making Money (getting paid for my items) Convenience to location

Retrospective Question

Instructions

Answer Options

Reason

What was the last electronic-based item you recycled?

Text Entry

See what types of devices are most frequently recycled.

How did you recycle the item?

Text Entry

Learn how people recycle their unwanted electronic items.

What was your reason for how and why you recycled the item?

Please describe in detail

Short answer response

To know their motivation for their choices

About how long did it take you to recycle

Please describe in detail

Text Entry

Centralized information option for the tool and to

your electronic items last time

determine convenience factor

How easy or difficult was it to recycle the last electronic-based item

1 - Very Easy 2345 - Very Difficult I donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t know

Determine level of frustration or ease with how people currently recycle electronics

Thinking about the Please describe in last electronic item detail you recycled, what was the most time consuming part of the electronic recycling process

Short answer response

Identify pain points in the process of recycling electronics

In a perfect world, how would you deposit/recycle your E-waste?

Short answer response

Gather participant feedback on how to improve electronic waste recycling.

Answer Options

Reason

Text Entry

To compare age and knowledge of electronics recycling

Demographics Question How old are you?

Instructions

What gender do you identify as?

What is your occupation? If youâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;re a student, what are you studying?

To compare knowledge of electronics recycling and gender Text Entry

To see if profession/major influences knowledge of electronic waste