UC Berkeley Recycling Survey Results

Student awareness and opinions on the UC Berkeley recycling program Graduate Assembly - Environmental Sustainability Committee June 2009 Summary

(UCB) should not only be a leader in sustainabilityrelated research, but also act as a model by reducing its own environmental footprint.

Increasing waste diversion through recycling and composting will be a major challenge for UCB in the next few years. While the campus diversion rate (proportion of waste recycled or composted by weight) almost doubled between 1996 and 2000, it has remained stagnant around 34% until 2006.2 In 2005, the Campus Sustainability Assessment report established a goal of 50% waste diversion by 2008.

The campus achieved a 57% diversion rate in 2007 alone, but this was due to a large amount of demolition and construction waste (8,867 tons were diverted in 2007 compared to a nearly base level of 3,200 tons in the 2000-2006 period). The landfill waste per capita was 0,136 tons in 2007, equal to its 2005 value. Without this exceptional number of construction projects, it is safe to say that UCB would not have met its 2008 target. It is likewise clear that a major effort will be needed to reach the 2012 target of 75% diverted waste.

From discussions with Lisa Bauer, the manager of Campus Recycling and Resource Services (CRRS), we learned that over 90 recycling stations were located outside buildings on campus, with existing plans to add 50 more if funding were available.

Different bin designs include the “silver bullets”, the multimaterial concrete Doty bins (trash/mixed paper/beverage containers), and newer compartimented black bins on Sproul Plaza. Inside buildings, blue paper bins are collected by local custodians and put into outside containers. There is also a voluntary program for beverage containers recycling inside buildings, where the user needs to call to get the bins emptied.

In the Spring 2009 semester, members of the GAESC successfully applied for a grant from The

From a survey of nearly 500 UC Berkeley students at the end of the Spring 2009 semester, we found that over 70% supported additional bins to make recycling more available both outside and inside buildings. Furthermore, as only 16% of respondents judged that the materials that can be recycled on campus are well-defined, there is a need to improve the labelling of recycling bins, in addition to other outreach efforts to raise awareness about UCB’s recycling program. We compiled a list of commonly suggested, relatively straightforward improvements to recycling bin design - such as colorcoding and pictures to better identify the materials to be put in each bin. Finally, survey responses suggest that the factors limiting the amount of recycling on campus - lack of availability and lack of awareness - also apply to UCB’s composting program.

Context of the survey In the Fall 2008 semester, the Graduate Assembly’s Environmental Sustainability Committee1 (GAESC) chose the improvement of recycling on campus as one of its priority goals for the following year. This project stemmed from the feedback of many of our graduate student members, who were concerned by the lack of recycling in or around the buildings where they worked. It is also based on our belief that the University of California, Berkeley 1

Survey and report prepared by the following members of the GAESC: Daniel Kramer, Boalt School of Law (Chair) Philippe Marchand, Environmental Science, Policy and Management (ESPM) Michal Shuldman, Integrative Biology Karen Weinbaum, ESPM Jordan Zacharitz, ESPM

2 Numbers in this paragraph are based on the Campus Sustainability Assessment reports of 2005 and 2008.

1

Green Initiative Fund (TGIF) with a project to increase recycling on campus. The $55,000 grant will allow the development of a new multi-material bin design and the installation of 50 new outside bins on campus. As part of the evaluation and outreach components of this project, we committed to survey student opinions and awareness of the campus recycling services, both before and after the placement of the new bins. Although our project focuses on outside recycling bins, our survey also included questions about recycling inside buildings and composting on campus.

Respondents profile The online survey was open for a period of three weeks (April 17 to May 9), during which it registered a total of 458 responses, or around 13% of the Figure 1: Respondents by year of study UCB student population. About 40 responses were collected on paper on April 23, when the GAESC set up a table on Sproul Plaza for the Earth Week environmental club fair. All other respondents filled the online survey directly. To encourage participation in the survey, we awarded a prize (iPod shuffle) to one respondent drawn at random.

Graduate students, who represent nearly 30% of the UCB student population, accounted for 43% of survey respondents (Figure 1). We divided the 391 respondents who indicated their field of study in seven categories: Life Sciences (includes College of Natural Resources and the Biology departments of the College of Letters and Science); other departments within Letters and Science; Engineering; Law; Business; College of Environmental Design; Other (with respondents from Public Policy, Public Health, Social Welfare, Information Sciences, Education, Energy and Resources Group). Figure 2 shows that the graduate respondents are much more concentrated in the Life Sciences (41%, with only 12% in other L&S) than the undergraduates (23%, with 42% in other L&S). Note that all Law students are counted as graduates.

These distributions reflect in part the different channels used to promote and distribute the survey.

We sent the link and description of the survey to all active GA delegates, requesting that they forward it to graduate students in their respective departFigure 2: Undergraduate (top) and graduate (botments. However, it is possible that many delegates tom) respondents by field of study were either unwilling or unable to do so. This might explain the fact that most graduate responses orig2

inated from a few academic units: Environmental Science, Policy and Management; Integrative Biology; Law and Engineering (the two former being the departments most involved in the recycling project in the first place). On this basis, we would expect the graduate student sample to have relatively high expectations, and a high level of awareness, about recycling. The survey results (below) confirm this to some extent.

Since the undergraduate student association (ASUC) does not have representation by department, we reached most undergraduate respondents either when tabling on Sproul Plaza, or through an e-mail sent to all student clubs from the campus diFigure 3: Overall rating of recycling at UCB rectory. We believe this would make the undergraduate sample less clustered by department. However, with an online survey of this type, the respondents Some of the specific comments repeat many of the will always be self-selected to some degree. bin design suggestions (see later section of this report). Other students mention the availability of recycling inside classrooms, or the availability of Availability of recycling metal/plastic/glass recycling inside offices and labs How would you rate the recycling service at as their preferred aspects of other schools’ recycling UC Berkeley on a scale of 1 (completely inprograms. adequate) to 5 (your ideal recycling service)?

The results from the next two questions of our survey show that 75% of graduate students and Even though many more undergraduate (41%) than 66% of undergraduates would support an investment graduate (29%) students gave a rating of 4 or 5 to from the university to place more outside recycling the UCB recycling service (Figure 3), in both cases bins on campus, while 85% of graduate students and the average rating approches the middle value (3.26 73% of undergraduate would support an investment for undergraduates, 2.92 for graduates). Among for more inside recycling bins. In the open comgraduate students, 43% said Yes to the followup ments section, some respondents complained that question: there is only paper recycling (blue bins) inside buildings, and that those bins were sometimes emptied Have you been to a campus with better recyin the trash. Also, the fact that some buildings with cling services, either with respect to availabilindoor recycling bins (like VLSB) were indicated as ity, visibility, or range of materials recycled? lacking suggests a problem in either the placement If yes, please indicate the college/university or visibility of the bins. and what made its recycling services better. which is much higher than the undergraduate figure (16%). This had to be expected on the basis that more graduate students have studied in another campus before. Nearly fifty colleges and universities in the US and abroad (including six of the other UC campuses) have been suggested as examples of better recycling programs.3 more College, Loyola Marymount, Colby College, SFSU, Mount Holyoke College, UT Austin, Johns Hopkins, Yale, Oberlin, Oregon, Sonoma State, Virginia Tech, Santa Monica, Cal Poly SLO, Mills Waners.

Outside US: Porto (Portugal), Ottawa, British Columbia and McGill (Canada), Canterbury (NZ), Lund (Sweden).

3

Minnesota, Colorado, Stanford, Marywood, Duke, Brown, MIT, UCSC, UCD, UCSD, UCLA, UCSB, UCI, Washington, Columbia, Puget Sound, Kalamazoo, SUNY, North Carolina, Ohio, Dickinson College, Princeton, Oklahoma State, Harvard, Darthmouth, Pennsylvania, Swarth-

3

Figure 4: Can these materials be recycled in the outside recycling bins on campus? (Asterisks mark the correct answers) Figure 5: Do you think the recycling bins on campus are well identified? (top) Do you think the materials To verify knowledge of the recyclable materials on that can be recycled in each bin are well defined? campus, we asked the following question: (bottom)

Recycling awareness

Based on your current knowledge, can these materials be recycled in the outside recycling bins on campus?

thought they were not (23% of undergraduates).

More respondents chose the intermediate answers (mostly well identified, more or less well defined) for both questions.

Among the 170 students who responded to the open comments part of this question, a number of recurrent suggestions emerged concerning recycling bin design and placement. Those were (in descending order of recurrence):

for eight different materials (Figure 4). These results show definite uncertainty about what can be thrown in “mixed paper” bins. Only 45% of respondents correctly identified cardboard boxes as recyclable. Possibly worse, 50% and 36% of respondents (60% and 49% of undergraduates) erroneously identified paper cups and paper towels, respectively, as recyclable. Part of the confusion might arise from the fact that both items can be composted on campus, although, as we shall see later, awareness about composting is also lacking.

Specify or list which materials can be recycled (49 times) Use color to distinguish trash, recycling, composting (46) Have larger and brighter labels (38) Use pictures on labels (31) Have the opening of the bins match the shape of the objects to be dropped (9) Always have recycling and trash together in “one-stop stations” (8) Consistent design across campus (7) Clarify the use of indoor blue bins (4)

Recycling bin design

The objective of the next two questions (Figure 5) was to receive feedback from students on the effectiveness of the recycling bin designs. Once again, the graduate respondents were more critical: only 12% of graduates (14% of undergraduates) thought bins were always well identified, while 31% (19% of undergraduates) thought they were rarely well The newest recycling bins on Sproul were implicidentified; 9% of graduates (21% of undergradu- itly and explicitly criticized by many commenters, ates) thought the materials where well-defined, 44% who pointed out that recycling and trash are not 4

Conclusion

present at the same location, and that the bins look too much alike. In the words of one respondent: “[I’m] never really sure if it’s worth it recycling on Sproul because I don’t see many people following the labels of the bins.”

To our knowledge, this is the first survey in recent UCB history concerning student opinions on the campus recycling services. We restate some of the main results below:

Composting

70% of all respondents want the university to place more recycling bins outside buildings, 78% want more bins inside buildings.

Surprisingly, only 30% of undergraduates and 14% of graduates answered ’Yes’ to the question: Do you know where composting bins are located on campus?

Only 16% of respondents find that the recyclable materials are well defined.

This is supported by the significant proportion of respondents that were unsure or mislead about which materials fit into the “mixed paper” category.

The higher level of awareness among undergraduates goes against the trend observed in the rest of the survey. This might be due to the fact that composting is most prominent in residence dining halls.

A total of 175 respondents left a comment on the follow-up open-ended question:

A number of suggestions to improve the design of recycling stations were agreed upon by many respondents.

These include more visible and detailed labels, color-coding and pictures.

At which campus location, if any, do you think new composting bins should be added?

As it could have been expected, many suggest composting near every food outlet and dining hall, even though some suggested spaces, such as the Free Speech Movement Cafe, already have composting available. Again, these results suggest a lack of visibility or awareness about composting on campus.

About a quarter of the comments suggest a more widespread availability of composting, beyond food outlets: either in every building (so that people who eat lunch in their office can compost), near every building cluster, paired with all trash/recycling stations, or on every major pedestrian path.

Other suggested locations for composting bins include Sproul Plaza, near the Campanile, on Memorial Glade, near Calvin Hall (to dispose of soil), residence buildings, and bathrooms (to recycle paper towels).

Only 23% of respondents know where composting bins are located on campus.

Student comments on the design of outside recycling stations will certainly be valuable as we plan the design and purchase of new multi-material bins as part of our TGIF project. However, recycling inside buildings and composting organic waste will also be key to achieving UCB’s waste diversion goals. Since indoor recycling falls under the responsibility of individual building managers, improving this system will require the contribution of a large number of people around campus, but it is clear that it constitutes a priority for the students surveyed. Increasing the amount of waste composted is also a longer-term project, and our survey shows that a future pilot project in this direction will require important outreach efforts, as many students are still unaware of the few composting locations already present at UCB. The GAESC wishes to thank CRRS manager Lisa Bauer for her assistance during the planning of this survey as well as the TGIF project.

5