RECYCLING REPORT 2015 Ruskin Ong
Recycling Portfolio Chandani Devi D/O Ramrup Lim Yi Yong
Education Portfolio Chang Chia Chien Li Jia Yu Ngiam Li Yi
Joint report by Recycling and Education portfolios (AY2014/15)
i
Table of Contents
1. Abstract ................................................................................................................................. 1 2. Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 2 2.1 Background ...................................................................................................................... 2 2.2 Objectives ......................................................................................................................... 2
PART A: EXPERIMENT
3. Methodology .................................................................................................................... 3 - 6 4. Results and Discussion ..................................................................................................7 - 13 4.1 Recycling Habits .........................................................................................................7 - 8 4.2 Recycling Knowledge ............................................................................................... 9 - 13 5. Difficulties Faced and Limitations of Experiment .......................................................... 14 5.1 Fluctuation of Data Collected ........................................................................................ 14 5.2 Location of Sample Points ............................................................................................. 14 5.3 Communication Issues With Earthlink Representative and Cleaners ............................ 14
---------- END OF PART A: EXPERIMENT ----------
PART B: SURVEY
6. Methodology ...................................................................................................................... 15 7. Results and Discussion ............................................................................................... 16 - 35 7.1 Demographics of Respondents ....................................................................................... 16 7.2 Frequency of Recycling ................................................................................................. 17 7.2.1 Factors discouraging respondents from recycling. ............................................. 18 7.2.2 Recycling rate for different recyclables. ...................................................... 19 - 21 7.3 Knowledge on What is Recyclable in NTU ............................................................ 22 - 23 i
7.4 Knowledge on Contamination in Recycling ........................................................... 24 - 25 7.5 Recommended Improvements to Encourage Recycling ......................................... 26 - 30 7.5.1 Recommendations for infrastructural improvements...................................26 - 28 7.5.2 Recommendations for non-infrastructural improvements. .......................... 29 - 30 7.6 Design of Recycling Bins ........................................................................................ 31 - 35 7.6.1 Aesthetics of recycling bins. ........................................................................31 - 32 7.6.2 Commingled recycling bins versus segregated recycling bins. ................... 33 - 35 8. Limitations of Survey and Recommendations for Future Research ..................... 36 - 37 8.1 Limitations of Survey and Recommendations ............................................................... 36 8.1.1 Sample size. ........................................................................................................ 36 8.1.2 Focus group discussions. .................................................................................... 36 8.1.3 Survey for staff. .................................................................................................. 36 8.2 Additional Recommendations for Future Research ....................................................... 37 8.2.1 Metal recycling. .................................................................................................. 37 8.2.2 Environmental and social costs of recycling materials. ...................................... 37 8.2.3 Aesthetics of recycling bins. ............................................................................... 37
---------- END OF PART B: SURVEY ----------
9. Recommendations ......................................................................................................38 - 39 9.1 Provide Recycling Guides Near Bins ............................................................................. 38 9.2 Re-evaluation of Locations of Recycling Bins .............................................................. 39 10. Conclusion ....................................................................................................................... 40 10.1 Conclusion for Experiment .......................................................................................... 40 10.2 Conclusion for Survey .................................................................................................. 40 11. Appendix .................................................................................................................... 41 - 64 11.1 Raw Data from Experiment................................................................................... 41 - 60 11.2 Survey Results Not Included in Report .................................................................61 - 64 ii
11.2.1 Course of study. ................................................................................................ 61 11.2.2 Most economically valuable recyclables. ........................................................ 61 11.2.3 Ranking of most economically valuable recyclables. ................................ 62 - 63 11.2.4 Rating of convenience of recycling at NTU. ............................................. 63 - 64 References ............................................................................................................................... 65 Contact Information ............................................................................................................. 66
iii
1. Abstract To study NTU population’s behaviour and knowledge on recycling, an experiment and a survey was conducted in early 2015. Recycling and general waste bins were placed at ten sample points around NTU academic spines, their content sorted and recorded. Variables such as contamination rate and number of recyclables found in general waste bins were considered in this report. Contamination rate of recycling bins were discovered to be relatively high especially for paper and plastic recycling bins. The number of recyclables found in general waste bins were high too. It was noted from the survey that many respondents do not recycle frequently, and while most respondents seem to have an understanding of commonly known facts, there are still some misunderstandings. The top factors that respondents think will improve their recycling experience and encourage recycling are the increased number of recycling bins, friends and/or colleagues’ participation in recycling and recycling knowledge.
1
2. Introduction 2.1 Background After consulting the Office of Development and Facilities Management (ODFM) in Nanyang Technological University (NTU) in August 2014, it was discovered that the recycling system on campus has an informal structure, with minimal involvement from recycling contractors. It was understood that waste collection (waste and recycle bins clearance) in NTU are taken care of by several different cleaning contractors. Moreover, it was also discovered that the cleaning staff of NTU would collect recyclables and sell them to private recyclers. This has made the implementation of a new recycling system challenging at the moment. Furthermore, NTU is not part of the national recycling programme - an initiative of National Environment Agency, as this programme is only meant for HDB estates and private landed properties. Hence, in order to push for a new systematic and efficient recycling practice on campus, it is essential to find out more about the current recycling practices of NTU students and staff.
2.2 Objectives The objectives of this report are to learn more about the recycling habits and the recycling knowledge of the NTU population. In order to meet these objectives, we conducted a recycling survey and an experiment.
2
PART A: EXPERIMENT
3. Methodology The recycling study was conducted at 10 locations along the two academic spines (5 at North Spine, 5 at South Spine) in NTU over a period of two weeks (19 to 30 January 2015). th
th
The aim was to identify the contamination rate of the general waste and recycling bins (aluminium cans, paper and plastic bottles), in NTU. This would help determine the behavioural pattern of the students and staff regarding waste recycling. In each location, a set of recycling bins was provided: the set included cans, paper and plastic with a general waste bin. The quantity of the recyclable and non-recyclable waste items in the bins were counted and proportioned to determine the contamination rate. The formula used was
đ??śđ?‘œđ?‘›đ?‘Ąđ?‘Žđ?‘šđ?‘–đ?‘›đ?‘Žđ?‘Ąđ?‘–đ?‘œđ?‘› đ?‘&#x;đ?‘Žđ?‘Ąđ?‘’ đ?‘œđ?‘“ đ?‘&#x;đ?‘’đ?‘?đ?‘Śđ?‘?đ?‘™đ?‘’ đ?‘?đ?‘–đ?‘› (đ?‘’đ?‘Žđ?‘?â„Ž đ?‘Ąđ?‘Śđ?‘?đ?‘’) =
đ??śđ?‘œđ?‘˘đ?‘›đ?‘Ą đ?‘œđ?‘“ đ?‘›đ?‘œđ?‘› − đ?‘&#x;đ?‘’đ?‘?đ?‘Śđ?‘?đ?‘™đ?‘Žđ?‘?đ?‘™đ?‘’đ?‘ đ?‘“đ?‘œđ?‘˘đ?‘›đ?‘‘ đ?‘–đ?‘› đ?‘&#x;đ?‘’đ?‘?đ?‘Śđ?‘?đ?‘™đ?‘’ đ?‘?đ?‘–đ?‘› đ?‘‡đ?‘œđ?‘Ąđ?‘Žđ?‘™ đ?‘?đ?‘œđ?‘˘đ?‘›đ?‘Ą đ?‘œđ?‘“ đ?‘&#x;đ?‘’đ?‘?đ?‘Śđ?‘?đ?‘™đ?‘Žđ?‘?đ?‘™đ?‘’đ?‘
Details: 
Date: 19/1/15 to 30/1/15 (weekdays only)

Data collection time: 0300PM of every weekday (Mon to Fri)

Samples taken from: 10 sets of bins
North Spine (Level 1): MCD
South Spine (Basement 3):
Below the staircase between
EEE
Beside entrance of general office
McDonald’s and LT1A
office
of School of Electrical and Electronics Engineering
LT19A Outside of LT19A
EEE
Beside entrance of general office
IGS
of School of Electrical and
office
Electronics Engineering Outside of SS3 lift lobby
CEE
Beside entrance of general office
SS3 lift
office
of School of Civil and
lobby
Environmental Engineering.
3
MAE
Beside entrance of general office
SS4 lift
office
of School of Mechanical and
lobby
Outside of SS4 lift lobby
Aerospace Engineering. CE
Beside entrance of general office
office
of School of Computer
Can B
Below the staircase just outside of Concourse @ can B
Engineering.
Location of sample points:
Figure 1: Map of NTU
4
Data collection by helpers NTU Recycling Rate Baseline Study in collaboration with NEA Date: 19/1/15
* styrofoam / plastic
1 1 2 3 4 5 6
2
Recycle bins Items (sorting) Plastic bottle Metal can Tetra pak Paper Glass Others (non-recyclables) Plastic bag take away lunch box * Disposable cup ** Food packaging ** Tissue paper Before sorting Total
41 2 3 4 5
Can Count
LT 19A
Paper Count
Plastic Can Paper Count Count Count 1 1
CEE office Plastic Can Count Count 9
4
Paper Count 1
MAE office CE office N3 Plastic Can Paper Plastic Can Paper Count Count Count Count Count Count 4 4 1 3 2 2
2 8
3
15 6
6 5
0
6 3 1 1 1
0
0.175 0.525
0.315
0.3
0.07 0.17 0 0.45455 Weight
0.065
0.28
3
5 10
13 5
3
7
24
1 3
Plastic Count 15
3
1
3
47 6
4 2 7 1 1 12 2 1 21 4 4 2 1 6 8 2 16 8 1 1 6 2 4 1 4 Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight 0.27 0.6
0.265
0.035
0.09 0.39 Contamination rate (count) 0.42857 0.8 General waste bin Weight Before sorting Total 2.54 Items (sorting) Count Plastic bottle 1 Metal can Tetra pak Paper Glass Total no. of recyclables 1
0.24
0.035
After sorting Non-recyclables
3
**plastic / paper
MCD
Location (NS)
0.065
0.06
0.9375
0.4
1.505 Count 1 2
0.27 1.145
0.575
0.25
0.115 0.205 0.6 0 0.66667 0.76471 Weight
0.205
0.19 0.93
0.49
0.345
0.43 2.455
1.68
0.065 0.4 0.3 0.095 1.065 0.67 1.46 0.5 0.77778 0.85714 0.42857 0.5 0.74603 Weight Weight
4.03 Count 1 1
0.55 Count
0.2 Count
1
3
2
0
1
Figure 2: Sample of the data sheet
Procedure 1. Ensure sets of bags are arranged according to the five different locations.
Location Bins
MCD
LT19A
CEE Office
MAE office
CE office
General
General
General
General
General
Waste
Waste
Waste
Waste
Waste
Can
Can
Can
Can
Can
Paper
Paper
Paper
Paper
Paper
Plastic
Plastic
Plastic
Plastic
Plastic
Table 1: Arranging the sets of bags in North Spine
5
Location
EEE office
Bins
General
EEE IGS
SS3 lift
SS4 lift
office
lobby
lobby
General Waste
General
General
General
Waste
Waste
Waste
Waste
Can B
Can
Can
Can
Can
Can
Paper
Paper
Paper
Paper
Paper
Plastic
Plastic
Plastic
Plastic
Plastic
Table 2: Arranging the sets of bags in South Spine
2. Identify the total weight of recyclables bag and record under part 2 total. 3. Count the number of recyclables inside each bag and record under the various categories part 1 no. 1-4. 4. Count the number of non-recyclables remaining and record under part 1 no. 5. 5. Weigh the non-recyclables that were left inside the bag, and record under part 2 nonrecyclables. 6. Identify the total weight of general waste bag and record under part 3 total. 7. Count the number of recyclables found and record under part 4 1-4. 8. Weigh the number of non-recyclables left and record under part 3 non-recyclables. 9. Repeat steps 2-8 for the other four sets of bags. 10. Consolidate the information gathered into a master spreadsheet.
Materials needed: (provided by cleaners in charge) -
4 brown boxes
-
Plastic bags
-
1 digital scale
-
2 tongs
-
Masking tape & marker pens (to label each bags during collection)
6
4. Results and Discussion
4.1 Recycling Habits
Total counts of recycling bins' content from day 1 to day 10 25
Count (pcs)
20 15 10 5 0 MCD
LT19A CEE office
MAE office
CE office
Can B EEE office IGS office SS3 lift lobby
Sample point locations
Figure 3: Total count of recycling bins’ content
Figure 4: Total weight of general waste bins’ content
7
SS4 lift lobby
From figure 3, the three locations with the highest frequency of usage of the recycling bins were Can B, MCD and EEE office, whereas the three locations with the highest amount of waste collected, as shown in figure 4, were SS3 lift lobby, SS4 lift lobby and CEE office.
From the results, it can be deduced that the general waste collected at the areas where students normally have their meals or study resulted in a much higher mass of waste collected, as compared to other areas.
8
4.2 Recycling Knowledge
Figure 5: Contamination rate of each type of recycling bins
Figure 5 was created by taking the average of contamination rate of each types of recycle bins, and summing up the contamination rate for all ten days. The relative proportion of types of recyclables was shown in the pie chart above. From figure 6, 7 and 8, it can be seen that the content of the correct items thrown into can, paper and plastic recycling bins are 65%, 54% and 26% respectively. Generally, can recycling bins were the ones with the least contamination rate among the three types of bins, followed by paper and plastic.
9
Figure 6: Content of can recycling bins in all locations throughout the 10 days
From Figure 6, contamination in can recycling bins included disposable cups (13%), tissue paper (8%), food packaging (5%), plastic bags (3%) and plastic bottles (3%). Contamination by the various types of incorrect items was relatively low and it is believed that the NTU population is mostly clear about the types of recyclables accepted for can recycling bins.
Figure 7: Content of paper recycling bins in all locations throughout the 10 days
As seen from Figure 7, most of the contamination came from tissue paper (22%). Other incorrect examples of disposal included the throwing of food packaging (13%), disposable cup 10
(4%), plastic bag (2%), glass (2%) and take-away lunch box (1%). The high contamination of recycling bin by tissue paper could be attributed to the misconception by many who do not realize that tissue papers are not recyclable. Food packaging and disposable cups made from paper material were also believed to have been misunderstood to be recyclables too. Glass items found in these bins were probably due to the lack of recycling bins dedicated for them.
Figure 8: Content of plastic recycle bins in all locations throughout the 10 days
From Figure 8, it was observed that the amount of incorrect recyclable items which was largely made up of disposable cups (32%) was more than the intended type of recyclables – plastic bottles (26%). Other plastic items that were frequently thrown into plastic recycle bins included food packaging (18%), plastic bags (16%) and take-away lunch boxes (3%). There is a possibility of misconception that such disposables were treated as recyclables. This clearly suggests the possibility of a lack of knowledge on plastic recycling on campus.
11
Figure 9: Recyclables found in general waste bins
Day
Day
Day
Day
Day
Day
Day
Day
Day
Day
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
3
5
11
5
3
3
4
3
6
3
46
5
9
9
4
2
8
10
4
2
4
57
2
10
2
3
1
4
5
0
2
5
34
Paper
6
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
Glass
1
0
0
43
0
0
0
0
2
0
46
Total
17
25
24
55
6
15
19
7
12
11
191
Plastic
Total
bottles Metal can Tetra Pak
Table 3: Count of recyclables collected
12
The most commonly found recyclable materials in the general waste bins were metal cans, followed by plastic bottles and glass items, having the same proportion found, and Tetra Pak being the next. Fairly little paper items were found in general waste bins.
The high contamination rate suggests that the NTU population has relatively little knowledge on what can and cannot be recycled.
13
5. Difficulties Faced and Limitations of Experiment 5.1 Fluctuation of Data Collected From the data, no trends were spotted throughout the ten days regarding students’ behaviour. Due to the uncertainty in the data collected, it is difficult to draw concrete conclusions from the baseline study that was conducted.
5.2 Location of Sample Points Usage of bins and waste collected throughout the ten days for recycle bins and general waste bins do not tally and thus it is difficult to find out which location is more strategic with higher traffic. Some area chosen are not as strategic such as the ones at School of MAE as there was construction going on and the pathways are blocked on certain days. Furthermore, the area near MCD reported lower count for waste as there is plenty more general waste bins around the eateries area. Bins sets at some area are located far at the corner and they should be pushed to be nearer to the walkways.
5.3 Communication Issues with Earthlink representative and cleaners There was language barrier between some of the cleaners assigned to conduct this experiment with us. This proved to be a concern which increased the challenge to effectively carry out the experiment.
----------END OF PART A: EXPERIMENT ----------
14
PART B: SURVEY
6. Methodology The survey was conducted by the Education portfolio (AY14/15) of Earthlink NTU in February 2015. Respondents were asked about the following topics: recycling habits in NTU, recycling knowledge, recommendations to improve recycling culture on campus and opinions on the design of recycling bins. The responses for the survey were collected over 3 days. This was done via a distribution of the survey URL through a network of friends. For 2 out of 3 days, surveyors also walked around campus to ask staff and students to complete the survey either by using their own electronic devices or those provided by the team. Out of 165 people who attempted the survey, a total of 157 completed it.
15
7. Results and Discussion 7.1 Demographics of Respondents Gender Of the 165 respondents who attempted the survey, 96 (58%) are female, and 69 (42%) are male. Roles in NTU 154 students and 3 staff members completed the survey. College / School of student respondents
Figure 10: College/ School of student respondents
16
7.2 Frequency of Recycling
Figure 11: Results for "How often do you recycle at NTU (specifically by using the recycling bin)?” As seen in Figure 11, more than half of the 164 respondents claimed that they recycle ‘sometimes’. Slightly under 30% reported that they ‘never recycled’, and respondents who recycle ‘often’ and ‘all the time’ were in the minority, at 13% combined. While it is uplifting to see that an overwhelming majority of more than 70% make some effort to recycle, recycling does not seem to be a common phenomenon in NTU, and this is a cause for concern. Due to the possibility of ‘perceived recycling’, where some respondents might unknowingly practise incorrect recycling habits that are negating their efforts, these numbers might not be an accurate representation of the state of recycling in NTU and should not be taken as definitive.
17
7.2.1 Factors discouraging respondents from recycling. For the 141 respondents who reported that they ‘never recycle’ or only do so ‘sometimes’ (see Section 7.2), they were asked to identify factors that discouraged them from recycling at NTU. They were allowed to select more than 1 factor.
Figure 12: Results for "What factors discourage you from recycling at NTU? (Select all that apply.)” Most selected factor: Too few recycling bins at NTU More than half of the respondents felt that the low number of recycling bins at NTU discourages them from recycling. 2nd most selected factor: Troublesome to sort my waste Nearly 40% saw the trouble of sorting their waste as a discouraging factor. 3rd most selected factor: Troublesome to clean my food / drink container before recycling Nearly 40% saw this factor as a deterrent for recycling. Recycling Rate for Different Recyclables. Respondents who reported that they recycle “Sometimes”, “Often” or “All the time” for “How often do you recycle at NTU?” (see Section 7.2) were asked how often they recycle paper, plastic, metal and electronic waste (e-waste) when they have these wastes.
18
7.2.2 Recycling rate for different recyclables. Respondents who reported that they recycle “Sometimes”, “Often” or “All the time” for “How often do you recycle at NTU?” (see Section 7.2) were asked how often they recycle paper, plastic, metal and electronic waste (ewaste) when they have these wastes. The criteria of what counts as recyclable e-waste was derived from the information on e-waste recycling bins at the campus.
Figure 13: Photographs of an e-waste recycling bin at NTU
19
Do Recycle These Answering
Cables and
Machines
Wires
Car Stereos
Computer
Docking
VCD and
Mice
Stations
DVD Players
Hard Drives
Keyboards
Laptops
Lithium
Headphones
Ion
Mobile Phones
Batteries Modems
Music
Printed
Remote
Players
Circuit
Controls
Telephones
Video Cassette
Boards
Players
Do NOT Recycle These Hazardous
Food or
Printer or
Materials or
Drinks
Liquids
Saws
Household
Alkaline
Ink
Appliances (e.g.
Batteries
Cartridges
Hairdryers)
Table 4: Information on what can and cannot be recycled in the e-waste bin from the information printed on the bin Based on the information provided on the e-waste bin, e-waste was explained in the survey as “e.g. Wires and cables, used electronics; Does not include household appliances, printer/ ink cartridges and alkaline batteries�. It was realised that lithium ion batteries was not mentioned in our explanation, however, this mistake should not have any significant impact on the results as the example was meant to give respondents an idea of what e-waste are and not intended to be exhaustive.
20
Figure 14: Results for "When you have the following recyclable trash, how often do you recycle each of them at NTU?"
Significant observations: a.)
More than half (56%) of the respondents never recycle metal. This result is surprising
since recycling bins for metal cans are easily available around the campus. A possible reason for this may be that respondents did not associate ‘metal’ with ‘metal cans’ immediately whilst doing the survey. b.)
76% never recycle e-waste. Possible reasons might include a lack of knowledge on how
to recycle e-waste or what e-waste to recycle, the small number of e-waste recycling bins in NTU and the inconvenience of bringing e-waste to the designated recycling bins. c.)
For all types of recyclables, respondents who recycle them often and all the time are in
the minority.
21
7.3 Knowledge on What Is Recyclable in NTU Respondents were shown captioned pictures of items they may encounter regularly in NTU, and were tasked to identify the items that are recyclable on campus. The graph below shows the number of respondents who identified the various items as recyclable. Significant observations will be discussed.
Figure 15: Results for "Which of the following can be recycled at NTU?" For paint cans, according to NEA, emptied paint cans are recyclable. However, as the paint can shown in the survey (see Figure 15) clearly depicts the presence of paint, it was regarded as non-recyclable.
22
Figure 16: Photo of paint can shown in survey For chemical containers, we did not specify if it was empty or not, and hence we regarded it as a non-recyclable.
Significant observations: 1.
Less than half (46%) of the respondents knew that Tetra Pak can be recycled in NTU. A
possible reason for this result may be the lack of knowledge that Tetra Pak can be recycled in the Paper recycling bin. 2.
67% of the respondents mistook rinsed paper cup as a recyclable. Paper cups cannot be
recycled even if they are clean as most of them are lined with a thin layer of plastic which could be a contaminant in the recycling process (Frater, 2014; Stanford University, n.d.). 3.
More than 30% of the respondents thought that the plastic bottle with leftover coffee and
the plastic takeaway box with leftover food are recyclable, suggesting that a significant number of people do not know that leftover food or liquid are contaminants in the recycling process.
23
7.4 Knowledge on Contamination in Recycling Contamination of recyclables is a cause for concern as huge amounts of recyclables could end up being rejected and sent for incineration instead (Boh, 2015, para. 22). Respondents were asked to identify which items from a list would cause contamination in recycling.
Figure 17: Results for "Which of the following will cause contamination in recycling? (Select all that apply.)" 1.)
It was stated by NEA in their clarification with us that “if collection is segregated, the
contamination (from plain water) would be lesser as compared to commingled system�. As such, though the extent of contamination which plain water could cause might differ according to circumstances, it is still preferable to keep the recyclables dry. Only 6% of the respondents recognised that plain water could be a contaminating factor. It is understandable that the number of respondents who knew about this is low as plain water is not an obvious contaminant. The results suggest that more could be done to educate the NTU population on such lesserknown facts. 2.)
Less than 70% of the respondents knew that leftover beverage is a contaminant.
24
3.)
Less than 70% of the respondents regarded paint as a contaminant. This is surprising
since paint is considered a type of chemical, and nearly 90% of the respondents recognised that chemicals are contaminants. 4.)
For wrongly placed recyclables, the example we gave in the survey to clarify the
definition was “clean plastic bottle in paper recycling bin�. As such, it was assumed that respondents understood that no food or liquid contaminant was involved, and the wrongly placed recyclable is clean. According to NEA’s clarifications, wrongly placed recyclables that are clean are not contaminating factors, but sorting will be needed to extract them. Therefore, it is still best for users to ensure that their recyclables are sorted correctly.
25
7.5 Recommended Improvements to Encourage Recycling In this section, respondents’ opinions on what could be improved to encourage recycling on campus and other possible improvements will be discussed.
7.5.1 Recommendations for infrastructural improvements. Respondents were asked what improvements they thought NTU could make to help them recycle better or even start recycling.
Figure 18: Results for "What improvements can NTU make to help you recycle better / encourage you to start recycling? (Select all that apply.)" Significant Observations: Most selected improvement: Increase the number of recycling bins This was selected by an overwhelming 85% of the respondents, suggesting that further investigation may be needed to ascertain if the number of recycling bins is indeed insufficient in NTU. 2nd most selected improvement: Place recycling information near / on recycling bins This improvement was selected by 71% of the respondents. Further discussion on this will be made in Section 9.1. 26
3rd most selected improvement: Have recycling bins with more attractive designs Although this is the 3rd most popular suggestion, only 29% of the respondents selected this, a number that was significantly lower than the 71% that selected the 2 improvement. nd
Further discussions on this improvement will be made in Section 7.6.1. Online guide on recycling bins’ location This choice was included to gauge the demand for a guide on recycling bins’ locations, as special recycling bins, such as those for e-waste, are not so common and might be hard to find. The low number of respondents who selected this choice suggests that a location guide might not be necessary. Nevertheless, the idea of setting up a list of all or particular recycling bins in NTU could be considered. Additional recommendations: Recycling bins with bigger openings In a later question, one respondent commented that it would be good to have recycling bins with bigger openings to make the recycling of bulky items such as a huge stack of newspapers easier. However, the large opening might introduce more contamination instead. The usual recycling bins around school with small openings, or openings that are specially designed to fit specific types of recyclables, such as the bins at the School of Humanities and Social Sciences (HSS) building (see Figure 19), should be retained.
Figure 19: Bins at HSS with specially designed openings
27
A small number of bins with larger openings could be stationed in strategic locations, such as residential hall areas, either at all times or during the end of semesters for recycling of large items when residents move out. Such bins could also be placed in the School of Art, Design and Media building to encourage recycling of large materials left over from students’ assignments and projects.
Figure 20: Example of a commingled recycling bin with large opening
28
7.5.2 Recommendations for non-infrastructural improvements.
Figure 21: Results for “What would encourage you to start recycling / recycle more? (Select all that apply.)”
Most selected factor: Friends’/ Colleagues’ participation in recycling Slightly more than half of the respondents regard peer influence as a factor that would encourage them to start recycling or recycle more. Such a result suggests that cultivating a recycling culture on campus can be key to increasing the recycling rate. This is a vital factor to take into account when designing campaigns or measures in the future.
2nd and 3rd most selected factors: Knowledge on the recycling process and benefits of recycling For these two factors to emerge second and third suggests that knowledge can help change behaviours, and this is a point to keep in mind. If the recommendation for recycling guides to be placed near recycling bins that will be discussed in Section 9.1 is implemented, perhaps information on the recycling process and benefits of recycling could be included in the guide as well. A study or literature review could be done to collect facts on the benefits of recycling in the local context. These facts could be 29
used to promote recycling. The benefits of recycling could be looked at from all aspects, in terms of environmental, social and economic benefits. Showing that the benefits of recycling outweigh any inconveniences could contribute to changing the attitude of individuals who see trouble as deterring them from recycling or recycling more (see Section 7.2.1) as well. Additional recommendations: Recycling drives In an earlier question, one respondent suggested a periodic recycling drive at NTU halls. Currently, Earthlink’s recycling drives are usually conducted once at the end of each semester, a time when many residents are in the process of moving out of halls. For these drives to have a greater impact, their modus operandi needs to be reconsidered. It is possible for the recycling drive to be conducted more frequently or during semester time. However, that is not possible due to certain restrictions. Nevertheless, this is a viable measure that could be considered and pushed for. A survey could also be done to ascertain the demand for this service.
30
7.6 Design of Recycling Bins 7.6.1 Aesthetics of recycling bins. Out of 158 respondents who answered “What improvements can NTU make to help you recycle better / encourage you to start recycling? (Select all that apply.)”, 46 respondents (>30%) selected “Have recycling bins with more attractive designs” (see Section 7.5.1). The low percentage of respondents who selected this option suggests that the aesthetics of a bin’s design might not be a major factor in influencing behaviour. For these 46 respondents, they were asked to choose the recycling bin which they found more attractive from the 2 photos we provided. Photo 1 features a common recycling bin with simple icons depicting plastic, paper, cans and general waste (see Figure 22), while Photo 2 features a set of bins designed to resemble a plastic bottle, a drink can and newspaper (see Figure 23). Respondents could also select “None of the above”.
Figure 22: Photo 1 - the more simply designed recycling bins
Figure 23: Photo 2 - the more creatively designed recycling bins (Photo Credit: ProjectManhattan, 2013) 31
Nearly 60%, or 27 respondents, chose the more simply designed bin in Photo 1, suggesting that a simple but effective design might be considered ‘attractive’. 35%, or 16 respondents, selected Photo 2. 7%, or 3 respondents, selected “None of the above”. However, this cannot be a definitive conclusion as the choices presented were too limited. This small number of respondents may also be unrepresentative of the general sentiment on campus. As such, further conclusions could not be drawn from this.
32
7.6.2 Commingled recycling bins versus segregated recycling bins. Respondents were asked if they prefer commingled or segregated recycling bins. Images of the different bins were shown in the survey. “Commingled bin” was explained to the respondents as a “single bin for different types of recyclables”.
Figure 24: Photo shown for “Separate bins for different types of recyclables”
Figure 25: Image shown for “Commingled bin (single bin for different type of recyclables)” (Image credit: Loo Deliang, unknown)
33
Figure 26: Results for “Which of the following bins will help you to recycle better?”
As evident from the graph above, nearly 60% of 157 respondents prefer segregated bins (separate bins for different types of recyclables), and this number exceeds those who chose commingled bins (25%). This result was slightly surprising, as one would have thought that the commingled bin, being perceived as much more convenient, would be preferred, especially since nearly 40% of the respondents who never recycle or do so sometimes are discouraged from recycling because of the perceived trouble of sorting their waste (see Section 7.2.1). NEA’s rationale for having segregated bins in public areas provide further support for segregated bins. In the Frequently Asked Questions section on the NEA website, it was stated: The recycling bins in public areas are segregated because in such areas, the types of recyclables thrown into the bins by passers-by tend to be small, e.g. single items such as plastic cups and packet drinks. These can be easily bagged and collected using only one collection vehicle. The types of recyclables thrown by households tend to be a mix of waste types in one bag and a commingled system of collection is therefore more convenient for residential estates (NEA, n.d., question 8). Based on the results and NEA’s rationale, retaining segregated bins instead of replacing them with commingled bins at the non-residential buildings in NTU is recommended. Around the non-residential buildings, such as the schools and colleges, recyclables that are being 34
disposed of tend to be small, like those disposed of in public areas. As such, segregated bins might be more suitable in the non-residential buildings. For the Halls of Residence in NTU, further investigation would be needed to determine whether segregated or commingled bins are more suitable.
35
8. Limitations of Survey and Recommendations for Future Research 8.1 Limitations of Survey and Recommendations In this section, we shall discuss the limitations of the survey conducted and recommendations for mitigating such problems in the future. 8.1.1 Sample size. As this was not a large-scale survey, the results collected may not be representative of the entire campus population. Nevertheless, it is hoped that the results can provide some useful insights and ideas for future research and improvements. 8.1.2 Focus group discussions. For our study, we did not conduct any interviews or focus group discussions that might have given us greater insights into the reasons behind respondents’ choices. Many of the possible reasons are our own conjectures, which may or may not be reflective of the respondents’ sentiments. For future studies, it would be good to consider conducting focus group discussions to see if fresh insights can be gleaned. 8.1.3 Survey for staff. As we surveyed only 3 staff members, the results are most likely unrepresentative of the NTU staff population’s perspective on recycling. For future research, a survey for staff only or the appropriate number of staff members in relation to the number of student respondents can be considered. This would allow comparisons, if any, to be drawn between staff and students in recycling matters.
36
8.2 Additional Recommendations for Future Research 8.2.1 Metal recycling. More than half of 117 respondents reported that they never recycle metal when they have metal recyclables (see Section 7.2.2). While a possible reason for this result might be that respondents did not associate ‘metal’ with ‘aluminium cans’ immediately, the surprising result still warrants further investigation. A possible follow-up for explaining this result might be to track usage of metal recyclables on campus. 8.2.2 Environmental and social costs of recycling materials. The discussion on the economic value of recyclables that will be included in the appendix (see Sections 11.2.2 and 11.2.3) could be extended to include the perceptions of NTU students and staff members on the environmental and social costs of recycling different materials. 8.2.3 Aesthetics of recycling bins. Although the number of respondents who felt that attractive bin designs encourage recycling is low (see Sections 7.5.1 and 7.6.1), recommendations for future researchers who are keen to look into this area are available. As discussed in Section 7.6.1, the investigation on which types of bin designs are considered more attractive was not comprehensive. For future research, a greater variety of choices with different design concepts could be presented to the respondents to get a better idea of what designs are considered ‘attractive’. An experiment could even be carried out to see if recycling bins with what is considered ‘attractive’ designs influence recycling behaviour.
---------- END OF PART B: SURVEY ----------
37
9. Recommendations Based on the experiment and survey results, we strongly recommend the following measures in the hope that they will improve the state of recycling in NTU.
9.1 Provide Recycling Guides Near Bins The high contamination rate for plastic and paper recycling bins (see Section 4.2) as revealed by the experiment suggests the lack of recycling knowledge amongst NTU staff and students. From the recommendations that are popular with survey respondents (see Section 7.5) knowledge on promoting recycling and decreasing contamination appears to be most important. A way to increase the recycling knowledge of the NTU population is to provide recycling information near the bins. The information would also help allay uncertainties of how and what to recycle, thus encouraging recycling. The main areas we suggest focusing on in the recycling information are: 1.) What can be recycled in NTU 2.) The correct way to recycle (e.g. having to rinse cans before recycling) 3.) The recycling process 4.) Benefits of recycling The recycling information should be clear and detailed, preferably with graphics, to promote understanding. The guide should be specific about the materials that can and cannot be recycled as there might be exceptions the layman is unaware of, for instance, as seen in the results for “Which of the following can be recycled in NTU?” discussed in Section 7.3, more than half of the respondents did not know that paper cups cannot be recycled. For an example of a detailed list, refer to: http://www.zerowastesg.com/can-recycle/. Combined with continuous effort on educational recycling campaigns, the recycling information could possibly help improve NTU’s recycling culture.
38
9.2 Re-evaluation of Locations of Recycling Bins Many respondents felt that the number of recycling bins should be increased (see Section 7.5.1). Perhaps the locations of recycling bins contributed to the perception of there being insufficient bins, as some bins might be placed in inconspicuous or out-of-reach areas. This sentiment was echoed by several survey respondents as well, who commented that more strategic and convenient bin locations would encourage them to start recycling or recycle more. An assessment of the actual situation in NTU should be done to determine the accuracy of this perception, and a re-evaluation of the locations of recycling bins should be conducted. One respondent suggested placing recycling bins around areas where people tend to dispose their wastes. Perhaps recycling bins could be placed at areas where students are more likely to consume their takeaways or linger for a longer period of time, such as the outdoor study areas. Recycling bins could also be placed in the vicinity of dining areas where recyclable products such as plastic cups or aluminium cans tend to be used. To avoid the problem of nonrecyclables being thrown into the recycling bins out of convenience, the recycling bins could be placed beside existing general waste bins. The relationship between the visibility of recycling bins and the recycling rate could also be investigated to determine the best locations for recycling bins.
39
10. Conclusion 10.1 Conclusion for Experiment The results of the experiment highlighted high contamination rate of recycling bins, especially for paper and plastic bins with high amount of tissue paper and disposables, as a major cause for concern. It is recommended that more effort is required to educate students and staff on campus about proper methods of recycling. For instance, the types of recyclables accepted in the various types of recycling bins should be clearly defined in publicity materials promoting correct methods of recycling. Moreover, there should be larger efforts undertaken to educate students and staff on campus on correct recycling habits. 10.2 Conclusion for Survey In terms of recycling habits, our survey results show that a majority of the respondents do not recycle frequently. The results may be indicative of a lack of a recycling culture in NTU at large, which would be a cause for concern that should be addressed. With regards to recycling knowledge, most respondents seem to have an understanding of commonly known facts. However, there are some misunderstandings, such as whether clean paper cups can be recycled, that needs to be addressed. The NTU population’s knowledge on lesser-known facts and recycling practices can be reinforced so that more students and staff are made aware of proper recycling habits. The recommendations that are popular with the respondents should also be taken into account when environmental measures and/or events are being designed. As this is the first time we are conducting a survey to find out more about the recycling habits and knowledge of the NTU population, the survey is imperfect, with much room for improvement. However, we hope that the survey results have provided greater insights and ideas for improving the recycling culture in NTU.
40
41
1 2 3 4 5 6
41 2 3 4 5
3
2
1
3
4
2 8 15 6
0
6 5
Paper Can Plastic Count Count Count 1 1
Paper Count
6 3 1 1 1
Can Plastic Count Count 9
0
1
5 10
Paper Count
CEE office
13 5
3
7
2 24
1 3
3
3
47 6
1
CE office MAE office N3 Paper Plastic Can Paper Plastic Can Plastic Count Count Count Count Count Count Count 15 1 4 4 2 3
0.06
0.065
3
0.27 0.6
0.9375
0.24
0.265
0.175 0.525
0.27 1.145
0.575
2 3
0.205 0.115 0.6 0 0.66667 0.76471 Weight
0.28
0.3
4.03 Count 1 1
0.4
0.065
0.315
1.505 Count 1 2
0.07 0.17 0 0.45455 Weight
0.035
0.035
0.19 0.93
0.49
0.345
0.43 2.455
1.68
0
0.55 Count
1
1
0.2 Count
1.065 0.095 0.3 0.4 0.065 1.46 0.67 0.5 0.74603 0.5 0.77778 0.85714 0.42857 Weight Weight 0.205
0.25
21 1 2 12 1 1 7 2 4 16 2 8 6 1 2 4 4 4 1 4 2 6 1 1 8 Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight
Can Count
LT 19A
MCD
**plastic / paper
NTU Recycling Rate Baseline Study in collaboration with NEA
* styrofoam / plastic
0.09 0.39 Contamination rate (count) 0.42857 0.8 Weight General waste bin Before sorting 2.54 Total Count Items (sorting) 1 Plastic bottle Metal can Tetra pak Paper Glass 1 Total no. of recyclables
After sorting Non-recyclables
Before sorting Total
Recycle bins Items (sorting) Plastic bottle Metal can Tetra pak Paper Glass Others (non-recyclables) Plastic bag take away lunch box * Disposable cup ** Food packaging ** Tissue paper
Location (NS)
Date: 19/1/15
11. Appendix
11.1 Raw Data from Experiment
42
1 2 3 4 5 6
4 1 2 3 4 5
3
2
1
24 8 8 6
1
1
1
0.43
After sorting Others
5.61 6.92
0.58
1
1
1
1
2
5 1
41 35 1
1
0
5 6
14 3 3
3
0
8 3 1 3
1 1
1
0
10
1 1
2
Plastic Count 1
SS4 lift lobby
Plastic Can Paper Count Count Count 2 1 20
SS3 lift lobby
Plastic Can Paper Plastic Can Paper Count Count Count Count Count Count 18 7 10 5 1 16
IGS office
1
1
Count
Count
0
0.2
1.67
0.27
0.42
0.68
0.78 1.79
0.41
0.59
1 1
Count
1.27
1 0.6949 0.0833 0 0.6667 Weight Weight
0.24
5.6 7.91
0.53
0.037
0.04
0.64
1.73
5.61 0.33 6.37 0.1 1 0.7273 Weight
0.73
Contamination rate (count) General waste bin Before sorting Total After sorting Non-recyclables Items (sorting) Plastic bottle Metal can Tetra pak Paper Glass Total no. of recyclables
2
EEE office Plastic Can Paper Count Count Count 8 25
1
8
Paper Count
Can B
**plastic / paper
NTU Recycling Rate Baseline Study in collaboration with NEA * styrofoam / plastic
0.375
0.25
0.33
3
1 2
Count
4.64
0 Weight
0.55
0.08 0.78
0.26
0.57
0.8 0.0435
0.3
0.37
0.07
0.08
5
3
2
Count
4.01
0 0.6667 Weight
0.33
0.66 1.31
2 2 1 1 Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight
Can Count
Before sorting Total
Recycle bins Items (sorting) Plastic bottle Metal can Tetra pak Paper Glass Others (non-recyclables) Plastic bag take away lunch box * Disposable cup ** Food packaging ** Tissue paper
Location (SS)
Date: 19/1/15
43
1 2 3 4 5 6
41 2 3 4 5
3
2
1 1 5
Paper Count
MCD
9
3 28 3
1
Plastic Can Count Count 7
0
2
Paper Count
2
2
LT 19A
3
1
Plastic Can Count Count 1
**plastic / paper
0
3
Paper Count
0
1
CEE office
4 1
Plastic Count 2
0
2
0
2 3 1
MAE office N3 Can Paper Plastic Count Count Count
NTU Recycling Rate Baseline Study in collaboration with NEA * styrofoam / plastic
Can Count
2 1
4
Paper Count
3
2
CE office
4
Plastic Count 3 1
0.245
After sorting Non-recyclables
0.525 1.64
0.765
0.18 0.57 0.995 Contamination rate (count) 0.72727 0.75 0.77778 General waste bin Weight Before sorting Total 3.16 After sorting Non-recyclables Items (sorting) Count Plastic bottle Metal can Tetra pak Paper Glass Total no. of recyclables 0
0.35
0.16 0.295
0.03 0.43
11
3 8
Count
Count 2
2
0.3
0.02 0.25 0.32 0 0 0.66667 Weight
0.05
0.1
4.115
0.6
0.06
0.08
2.51
0.035 0.115 0 0.5 Weight
0.02
0.055
0.11 0.315
1
1
Count
0.795
0.02 0.105 0 0 Weight
0.02
0.14
0.06
0.265
0.32 0.965
0
Count
0.6
0.32 0.675 1 0.33333 0.6 Weight
0.065
0.065
0.5
0.295
0.38
4 13 1 3 2 3 3 3 10 2 2 1 2 1 7 6 2 1 Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight
16 2
Can Count
Before sorting Total
Recycle bins Items (sorting) Plastic bottle Metal can Tetra pak Paper Glass Others (non-recyclables) Plastic bag take away lunch box * Disposable cup ** Food packaging ** Tissue paper
Location (NS)
Date: 20/1/15
44
1 2 3 4 5 6
4 1 2 3 4 5
3
2
1
9
2
Contamination rate (count) General waste bin Before sorting Total After sorting Non-recyclables Items (sorting) Plastic bottle Metal can Tetra pak Paper Glass Total no. of recyclables
0.36
After sorting Others
1
1
Plastic Can Count Count 11 1
Paper Count
EEE office Plastic Can Count Count 2 4 1
Paper Count
IGS office Plastic Can Paper Count Count Count 2 1 7
Plastic Count
SS3 lift lobby Can Count 5
Paper Count
Plastic Count 3
SS4 lift lobby
0.12 2.75
2.22
1 2
3
1
2.7
1
2.03
0.06 0.1 0 1 Weight
1.7 1.81 0.13
0.16
0.2 0.63
0.27
0.19
0.68 1.35
0
0.84
1
1
2.77
0.04 0.24 0.07 0.04 0.41 0.11 0.6 0.1667 1 0.5714 0.2222 1 Weight Weight
0.04
0.11
1
0.48
0.38 0.93
0.43
6
1 2 2 1
3.29
0.03 0.33 0.48 0 0 0.7273 Weight
0.12
0.12
31 0 2 3 1 2 4 2 1 18 0 0 8 10 1 1 2 9 1 2 1 8 4 8 1 2 2 1 1 8 4 1 3 2 1 Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight
Paper Count
Can B
**plastic / paper
NTU Recycling Rate Baseline Study in collaboration with NEA * styrofoam / plastic
0.04 1.67 2.07 0.8182 1 0.7045 Weight
0.41
1 1 7 Weight
Can Count
Before sorting Total
Recycle bins Items (sorting) Plastic bottle Metal can Tetra pak Paper Glass Others (non-recyclables) Plastic bag take away lunch box * Disposable cup ** Food packaging ** Tissue paper
Location (SS)
Date: 20/1/15
45
1 2 3 4 5 6
4 1 2 3 4 5
3
2
1
0.48
After sorting Others
Contamination rate (count) General waste bin Before sorting Total After sorting Non-recyclables Items (sorting) Plastic bottle Metal can Tetra pak Paper Glass Total no. of recyclables
2
6 17 8
Plastic Can Count Count 5
0.36 2.96
1.89
0
2
Paper Count
0
EEE office
6 1 1 2 2
Plastic Can Count Count 3
1
3
Paper Count
0
5
IGS office
4 1 1
Plastic Can Count Count 3
1
7
Paper Count
3
3 7
2 1 1
6
Paper Count
0
5 0
Plastic Count 1 1
SS4 lift lobby
Plastic Can Count Count 3
SS3 lift lobby
0.3
0.52
0.33
0
13.62
0.39 1.67
10.17
0.08 0.5 0.125 0.5 Weight
0.18
0.41
4
0
0.31 1.1
0.06 0.18 0.6 0.25 0 0.5714 Weight
0.36
0.46
4
3.61
0 0.6667 Weight
0.38
0.66
2 2
0
0.08
0.14
1 3
4.79
0.15 1.55 2.18 0.1429 0.25 0.7727 Weight
0.71
1
1
1 4 1
Paper Count
Can B
**plastic / paper
NTU Recycling Rate Baseline Study in collaboration with NEA * styrofoam / plastic
0.7
0.24
0.87
0.61 1.51
5
3 1 1
6.05
0.06 0.7 0.25 0 Weight
0.31
0.54
0
0.33
0.36
5 1 2 1 4 2 1 5 1 3 Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight
Can Count
Before sorting Total
Recycle bins Items (sorting) Plastic bottle Metal can Tetra pak Paper Glass Others (non-recyclables) Plastic bag take away lunch box * Disposable cup ** Food packaging ** Tissue paper
Location (SS)
Date: 21/1/15
46
1 2 3 4 5 6
41 2 3 4 5
3
2
1 6
39 10
Plastic Can Count Count 2
0.065
After sorting Non-recyclables
1.14 2.43
0.83
2 1
3
Paper Count
1
4
LT 19A
0.165 0.49
1.585
Count 2 2
4
Count
0
0 0.185 0.4 0.2 Weight
0.15
0.195
1.415
0.14 0.77 0.975 0.625 0.63636 0.95122 Weight
0.46
Contamination rate (count) General waste bin Before sorting Total After sorting Non-recyclables Items (sorting) Plastic bottle Metal can Tetra pak Paper Glass Total no. of recyclables
8 14
Paper Count
MCD
2 2
Plastic Can Count Count 2
**plastic / paper
0
3
3
16
Paper Count
CEE office
9 6
Plastic Count 4 1
0
0
0
MAE office N3 Can Paper Plastic Count Count Count
NTU Recycling Rate Baseline Study in collaboration with NEA * styrofoam / plastic
Can Count
0
Paper Count
0
CE office
0
Plastic Count
0.5
0.035
0.13
1.185 1.565
0.29
4
1
Count 3
2.455
0.05 0.185 0.235 0 0.15789 0.64286 Weight
0
0.09
0
3
2
1
Count
0 Weight
0
0
0
0
Count
0 Weight
0
0
5 1 22 1 3 2 2 4 1 3 11 3 1 2 Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight
10
Can Count
Before sorting Total
Recycle bins Items (sorting) Plastic bottle Metal can Tetra pak Paper Glass Others (non-recyclables) Plastic bag take away lunch box * Disposable cup ** Food packaging ** Tissue paper
Location (NS)
Date: 21/1/15
47
1 2 3 4 5 6
41 2 3 4 5
3
2
1
Contamination rate (count) General waste bin Before sorting Total After sorting Non-recyclables Items (sorting) Plastic bottle Metal can Tetra pak Paper Glass Total no. of recyclables
After sorting Non-recyclables
Before sorting Total
Recycle bins Items (sorting) Plastic bottle Metal can Tetra pak Paper Glass Others (non-recyclables) Plastic bag take away lunch box * Disposable cup ** Food packaging ** Tissue paper
Location (NS)
Date: 22/1/15
0
3
Paper Count
2
2
1
1
2
Plastic Can Count Count 5
0
2
Paper Count
0
LT 19A
0.42 0.78
0.29 1.26
0
1.62
Count 2
2
Count
0
0 0.12 0 #DIV/0! Weight
0
0.7
1.34
0.03 0.17 0.2 0 0.33333 0.28571 Weight
0
0.07
7
4
Paper Count
1
2
0.21
0.04 1.29
1
1
Count
2.57
0 0.4 0.63636 0.33333 Weight
0.12
0.56
2
2
Plastic Can Count Count 3
CEE office
10
Plastic Count 6
0
1
1
MAE office N3 Can Paper Plastic Count Count Count Can Count
1
2
Paper Count
4
0
CE office
2
Plastic Count
0
0
0.625 #DIV/0!
1.04
0
0
0
Count
0.48
1 Weight
0.06
0.06 0.12
0.16
0.22 0.52
0
Count
0.14
0.22 0.48 1 0.33333 1 Weight
0.06
0.06
1
0.14
0.14
2 9 1 4 2 3 1 1 2 1 1 Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight
Can Count
MCD
**plastic / paper
NTU Recycling Rate Baseline Study in collaboration with NEA * styrofoam / plastic
48
1 2 3 4 5 6
4 1 2 3 4 5
3
2
1
0.06
After sorting Others
Contamination rate (count) General waste bin Before sorting Total After sorting Non-recyclables Items (sorting) Plastic bottle Metal can Tetra pak Paper Disposable food container Total no. of recyclables
0
14
0.58 1.17
1 4
6
4
Plastic Can Count Count 2
1
1
4
Paper Count
2
2
EEE office
1 2
3
Plastic Can Count Count 1
0
2
Paper Count
3
2
IGS office
1 3
4
Plastic Count
Can Count
2
2
Paper Count
3 2
8 10
1 1
5
Paper Count
6
6 3
Plastic Count 2
SS4 lift lobby
Plastic Can Count Count 4
SS3 lift lobby
0.01 0.21
4 4
0.63
1
0.05
0.05
0.34 1.22
0.8
0.12
0.28 0.69
1.94
19 22
1 2
2.78
0.05 0.46 0.01 0.04 0.57 0.32 0.5 0.2727 0.7143 0.1667 0.5 Weight Weight
0.06
0.08
13 18
4 4
0.05 0.15
0.03 0.08 0 0.6 Weight
0
0.05
3 4
0.67
0.75
0.04
0.11
1 1 3
0.04
0.09
0.03 0.11 0.5 0.1667 0.5 Weight
0.33
0.48
1
0.28
0.04 0.43 0.25 0 Weight
0.11
1
1
3
Paper Count
Can B
**plastic / paper
NTU Recycling Rate Baseline Study in collaboration with NEA * styrofoam / plastic
0.6
0.27
0.29
4 2 2 2 6 6 1 1 1 2 1 1 Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight
Can Count
Before sorting Total
Recycle bins Items (sorting) Plastic bottle Metal can Tetra pak Paper Glass Others (non-recyclables) Plastic bag take away lunch box * Disposable cup ** Food packaging ** Tissue paper
Location (SS)
Date: 22/1/15
49
1 2 3 4 5 6
41 2 3 4 5
3
2
1
2
7 1
1 4
3
10
Paper Count
MCD
26 9 3 13 1
Plastic Can Count Count 2
0
Paper Count
2
3
LT 19A
2
2
Plastic Can Count Count 1
**plastic / paper
1
2
1
Paper Count
0
4
CEE office
4
7 3
1 0 1
5
3 1
5 1
MAE office N3 Plastic Can Paper Plastic Count Count Count Count 3 1 1 12
NTU Recycling Rate Baseline Study in collaboration with NEA * styrofoam / plastic
Can Count
1
5
Paper Count
0
1
CE office
1
1
Plastic Count
0.25
After sorting Non-recyclables
3.58 4.505
0.635
0
0.47 0.92
0.45
0.07
0.08 0.375
0.225
0.08 0.61 0 0.4 0.295 0.045 0.015 0.16 0.94 0.695 0.22 Contamination rate (count) 0.58333 0.23077 0.92857 #DIV/0! 0.4 0.66667 0.66667 0 0.63636 General waste bin Weight Weight Weight Before sorting Total 1.425 1.695 1.29 After sorting Non-recyclables Items (sorting) Count Count Count Plastic bottle 1 2 Metal can 1 Tetra pak Paper Glass Total no. of recyclables 0 1 3
0.29
0.35 1.67
0.035 0.185
0
Count
Count
0
0.115
0.035
0.115
0.015 0.085 1 0.16667 0 Weight
0.255
0.255
0.735
0.05 1.17 0 0.16667 Weight
0.865
1.065
1
0.035
0.035
1 4 3 1 1 1 1 Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight
Can Count
Before sorting Total
Recycle bins Items (sorting) Plastic bottle Metal can Tetra pak Paper Glass Others (non-recyclables) Plastic bag take away lunch box * Disposable cup ** Food packaging ** Tissue paper
Location (NS)
Date: 23/1/15
50
1 2 3 4 5 6
4 1 2 3 4 5
3
2
1
6
4
3
4 10
0
2
3
EEE office Plastic Can Paper Count Count Count 2 1 4
0.11
After sorting Others
0.06 0.76
0.51
1
1
2.26
0.05 0.46 0.62 0.6 0.4286 0.7692 Weight
0.19
Contamination rate (count) General waste bin Before sorting Total After sorting Non-recyclables Items (sorting) Plastic bottle Metal can Tetra pak Paper Glass Total no. of recyclables
Paper Count
Can B
4
Plastic Can Count Count 1
**plastic / paper
0
7
Paper Count
0
5
IGS office
2
0
0
4 7
0
3
23 7 2
Plastic Count 4
SS4 lift lobby
Plastic Can Paper Count Count Count 4 1 4
SS3 lift lobby Plastic Can Paper Count Count Count 2 1 2
NTU Recycling Rate Baseline Study in collaboration with NEA * styrofoam / plastic
0.07 0.66
0
3.21
0.03 0.37 0 0.4 Weight
0.23
0.42
0.8
0.11
0.17
0.13 0.46
0
1.14
0.04 0.19 0 0 Weight
0.1
0.22
0.4
0.05
0.11
0.35 1.13
0.55
1
1
4.76
0.08 0.26 0.45 0 0 0.5833 Weight
0.11
0.23
2.57 3.49
0.69
0
3.74
1.09 0.41 1.57 0 0.1154 0.6364 Weight
0.07
0.23
2 6 1 3 1 2 2 1 4 2 3 2 4 2 3 2 2 Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight
Can Count
Before sorting Total
Recycle bins Items (sorting) Plastic bottle Metal can Tetra pak Paper Glass Others (non-recyclables) Plastic bag take away lunch box * Disposable cup ** Food packaging ** Tissue paper
Location (SS)
Date: 23/1/15
51
1 2 3 4 5 6
41 2 3 4 5
3
2
1
0.75
After sorting Non-recyclables
Contamination rate (count) General waste bin Before sorting Total After sorting Non-recyclables Items (sorting) Plastic bottle Metal can Tetra pak Paper Glass Total no. of recyclables
20
0.305 2.055
2
Paper Count
LT 19A
1
0.075 0.255
1.8
Count 3 1
4
Count
2
0.03 0.12 0 1 Weight
0.06
2.8
2
Plastic Can Count Count 1 3
Paper Count
CEE office
MAE office CE office N3 Plastic Can Paper Plastic Can Paper Plastic Count Count Count Count Count Count Count 7 2 5 2
0.75
0.09 -
0.12
0.275 0.785
0.43
1
1
Count
1.105
0.135 0.29 0.425 0 1 0.63158 Weight
0.08
0.215
0
4
3 1
Count
0.55
0 0.145 0.5 #DIV/0! Weight
0.09
0.12
0.6
0.055
0.095
0.14 0.885
0.71
1
1
Count
0.17
0.045 0.495 0.575 1 1 0.84375 Weight
0.035
0.035
20 0 1 3 0 2 12 2 0 3 2 2 27 4 7 1 3 1 13 2 4 1 1 2 10 1 1 2 1 1 1 14 1 1 2 Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight
Plastic Can Count Count 4
0.12 0.855 1.725 1 1 0.83333 Weight
0.75
2
2
Paper Count
MCD
**plastic / paper
NTU Recycling Rate Baseline Study in collaboration with NEA * styrofoam / plastic
1 1 18 Weight Weight
Can Count
Before sorting Total
Recycle bins Items (sorting) Plastic bottle Metal can Tetra pak Paper Glass Others (non-recyclables) Plastic bag take away lunch box * Disposable cup ** Food packaging ** Tissue paper
Location (NS)
Date: 26/1/15
52
1 2 3 4 5
4 1 2 3 4
3
2
1
0.09
After sorting Non-recyclables
Contamination rate (count) General waste bin Before sorting Total After sorting Non-recyclables Items (sorting) Plastic bottle Metal can Tetra pak Glass Total no. of recyclables
1 0
0.08 1.23
1
Plastic Can Count Count 7 2
Paper Count
EEE office
0.2 0.44
0
0
Count
Count
0.04 0.26 0.6 0 Weight
0.12
0.14
0.23
0.619
0.75
0.95
0.92
0.04 0.88 0.1111 0 Weight
0.2
1 1
7
Paper Count
Can B Plastic Count
**plastic / paper
Can Count 3
Paper Count
IGS office
1
Paper Count
Plastic Count
SS4 lift lobby
Plastic Can Count Count 6
SS3 lift lobby Plastic Can Paper Count Count Count 2 1 5
NTU Recycling Rate Baseline Study in collaboration with NEA * styrofoam / plastic
0
0.1
0.1
0.87 1.37
0.42
0.17
0.23 0.63
0
Count
1.12
3
1 2
Count
3.8
0.03 0.38 0.08 0.04 0.45 0.18 0 0 0.8462 0.1429 0.75 Weight Weight
0.04
0.08
0.25
0.06
0.23
0.04 0.44
0
Count
1.9
0.03 0.4 0 0 Weight
0.01
0.04
0
0.36
0.36
3 2 2 2 13 3 0 8 0 0 11 1 6 2 0 0 8 5 1 1 1 2 1 1 4 2 1 7 3 1 1 1 5 2 1 1 1 3 2 1 5 Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight
Can Count
Before sorting Total
Recycle bins Items (sorting) Plastic bottle Metal can Tetra pak Glass Others (non-recyclables) Plastic bag take away lunch box * Disposable cup ** Food packaging ** Tissue paper
Location (SS)
Date: 26/1/15
53
1 2 3 4 5
41 2 3 4 5
3
2
1 1 5 1 1 9 2 13
Paper Count
MCD
5 2
Plastic Can Count Count 2
0
2
Paper Count
1
LT 19A
1
Plastic Can Count Count 2
**plastic / paper
0
2
Paper Count
1
CEE office
8 2
0
2
0
0
1
10 2
MAE office CE office N3 Plastic Can Paper Plastic Can Paper Plastic Count Count Count Count Count Count Count 3 1 1 2 3 1
NTU Recycling Rate Baseline Study in collaboration with NEA * styrofoam / plastic
0.73
After sorting Non-recyclables
0.475 1.575
0.26
0.16 0.19 1.08 Contamination rate (count) 0.52941 1 0.71429 General waste bin Weight Before sorting Total 3.16 After sorting Non-recyclables Items (sorting) Count Plastic bottle Metal can 1 Tetra pak Paper Glass Total no. of recyclables 1
0.84
0.12 0.33
0.14
0.305 0.77
0.4
3.28
Count 1 2 1
4
Count 2 3 1
6
0.045 0.27 0.315 0 1 0.72727 Weight
0.065
2.19
0.035 0.055 0.13 0 1 0.33333 Weight
0.04
0.07
0.035 0.165
1
Count 1
1.015
0.035 0.035 0 1 Weight
0.065
0
0.065
0.1 0.44
0.26
0
Count
0.04 0.24 0.28 0 1 0.83333 Weight
0.08
5 2 1 4 4 1 6 1 2 1 4 1 7 1 1 1 1 Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight
Can Count
Before sorting Total
Recycle bins Items (sorting) Plastic bottle Metal can Tetra pak Glass Others (non-recyclables) Plastic bag take away lunch box * Disposable cup ** Food packaging ** Tissue paper
Location (NS)
Date: 27/1/15
54
1 2 3 4 5
4 1 2 3 4
3
2
1
Contamination rate (count) General waste bin Before sorting Total After sorting Non-recyclables Items (sorting) Plastic bottle Metal can Tetra pak Glass Total no. of recyclables
After sorting Non-recyclables
Before sorting Total
Recycle bins Items (sorting) Plastic bottle Metal can Tetra pak Paper Others (non-recyclables) Plastic bag take away lunch box * Disposable cup ** Food packaging ** Tissue paper
Location (SS)
Date: 27/1/15
0
Paper Count
3 0 2 5
7
Plastic Count
Can Count
0
1
Paper Count
5 1
EEE office
1 6 1 1 1 3
2
Plastic Count
Can Count
0
4
Paper Count
1 0
IGS office
1 2
6 3
Plastic Count
Can Count
0
1 3
Paper Count
1 1
8 1 1 2 4
2 1
6
Paper Count
2 0
2
Plastic Count 2 1
SS4 lift lobby
Plastic Can Count Count 2
SS3 lift lobby
0.44 0.69
0
Count
Count
0
0.19
0.05 0.19 0.28 0 0.1667 0.6667 Weight
0.04
0.06
0.9
0
0.62
0.62
2.4
0.03 0.65 0 0 Weight
0.06 0.68
0.04 0.22
1
1
Count
2.2
0.04 0.15 0 0 Weight
0.03
0.1
0
0.08
0.08
0.45 0.84
1
1
Count
2.24
0.04 0.28 0 0.5 Weight
0.09
0.13
0.8
0.15
0.26
0.04 0.39
5
4 1
Count
4.3
0.02 0.23 0.25 0 Weight
0.15
0.26
0.4
0.06
0.09
1 1 2 1 Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight
Can Count
Can B
**plastic / paper
NTU Recycling Rate Baseline Study in collaboration with NEA * styrofoam / plastic
55
1 2 3 4 5
41 2 3 4 5
3
2
1
4
1
9 3 6
4
Paper Count
MCD
4
4
Plastic Can Count Count 1
0
Paper Count
2
2
LT 19A
2
2
0
0
CEE office Plastic Can Paper Count Count Count 1 4
**plastic / paper
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
MAE office CE office N3 Plastic Can Paper Plastic Can Paper Plastic Count Count Count Count Count Count Count 8 2 2 2 2
NTU Recycling Rate Baseline Study in collaboration with NEA * styrofoam / plastic
1.18
After sorting Non-recyclables
0.12 1.8
0.12 1.77 Contamination rate (count) 0.69231 1 General waste bin Weight Before sorting Total 2.85 After sorting Non-recyclables Items (sorting) Count Plastic bottle Metal can 2 Tetra pak Paper Glass Total no. of recyclables 2
1.2
0.8
0.47
0.48
0.1 0.22
0.12
0.11 0.58
2.73
Count 2
2
Count 1
1
0.03 0.09 0 0 Weight
0
0.1
1.98
0.05 0.1 0.15 0 1 0.66667 Weight
0
0
0
0.06
0.37
1.15 1.35
1
1
Count
1.46
0.04 0.14 0 0 Weight
0.1
0.13
0
0
0.07
0
0.045
0.06
0
0
0
Count
0
0 Weight
0.305
0.39
0
0.26
0.33
3 Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight
Can Count
Before sorting Total
Recycle bins Items (sorting) Plastic bottle Metal can Tetra pak Glass Others (non-recyclables) Plastic bag take away lunch box * Disposable cup ** Food packaging ** Tissue paper
Location (NS)
Date: 28/1/15
56
1 2 3 4 5
4 1 2 3 4
3
2
1
Contamination rate (count) General waste bin Before sorting Total After sorting Non-recyclables Items (sorting) Plastic bottle Metal can Tetra pak Glass Total no. of recyclables
After sorting Non-recyclables
Before sorting Total
Recycle bins Items (sorting) Plastic bottle Metal can Tetra pak Paper Others (non-recyclables) Plastic bag take away lunch box * Disposable cup ** Food packaging ** Tissue paper
Location (SS)
Date: 28/1/15
0
Paper Count
9 0
2 3
7 2
0
Plastic Can Paper Count Count Count 5 11
0
8
EEE office
6 3
9
Plastic Can Count Count 6
0
0
Paper Count
2 0
IGS office
0
Plastic Can Count Count 1
1
1
1
Paper Count
1
3 1
1
1
Plastic Count
SS3 lift lobby Can Count
0
9
Paper Count
2 3
3
3
Plastic Count 9
SS4 lift lobby
0.92 1.36
0.44
0.65 1.06
1
0
Count
Count 1
1.95
0.06 0.28 0 0 Weight
0.06
0.25
1.31
0.04 0.3 0.34 0 0 0.5833 Weight
0
0.6
0.16
0.16
0.06 0.31
0
Count
1.16
0.03 0.12 0 0 Weight
0.04
0.15
0
0.05
0.1
0.08 0.52
0
Count
2.65
0.04 0.46 0.5 0.25 Weight
0.37
0.39
0
0.05
0.05
0.06 0.97
0
Count
1.95
0.05 0.96 0 0.6 Weight
0.69
0.25
0.25
0.22
0.66
3 Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight
Can Count
Can B
**plastic / paper
NTU Recycling Rate Baseline Study in collaboration with NEA * styrofoam / plastic
57
1 2 3 4 5
41 2 3 4
3
2
1
0
25 3
8
7
3
Plastic Can Count Count 15
2 3
Paper Count
MCD Paper Count
9 8
LT 19A
6
Plastic Can Count Count 3
**plastic / paper
1
2
Paper Count
4
CEE office
12 4
Plastic Can Count Count 2
NTU Recycling Rate Baseline Study in collaboration with NEA * styrofoam / plastic
0
Paper Count
4
MAE office
7 2
Plastic Can Count Count 4
0
1
Paper Count
4
CE office
2 2
Plastic Count 1
0.265
After sorting Non-recyclables
0.655 2.69
0.07 0.86 Contamination rate (count) 0.61538 1 General waste bin Weight Before sorting Total 2.265 After sorting Non-recyclables Items (sorting) Count Plastic bottle 1 Metal can 1 Tetra pak Glass 1 Total no. of recyclables 3
0.345
3
0.625
0.525
1.69
0.14 0.59
0.375
0.085
0.345 1.14
0.71
3
1 2
Count 1
Count 1 2
1.25
1.69
0.075 0.21 0.05 0.26 0.655 0.285 0.965 0 1 0.66667 0.33333 1 0.85714 Weight Weight
0
0.075
0.06 0.265
0.205
0
Count
0.225
0.06 0.12 0.18 0 1 0.63636 Weight
0
0
0.105 0.25
0.105
1
1
Count
0.66
0.105 0.09 0.195 0 1 0.66667 Weight
0
0.04
4 12 4 1 2 7 4 1 7 1 2 2 1 4 5 6 3 1 Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight
Can Count
Before sorting Total
Recycle bins Items (sorting) Plastic bottle Metal can Tetra pak Glass Others (non-recyclables) Plastic bag take away lunch box * Disposable cup ** Food packaging ** Tissue paper
Location (NS)
Date: 29/1/15
58
1 2 3 4 5
4 1 2 3 4
3
2
1
3
3
3 3 0
0.4
After sorting Non-recyclables
0.09 1.41
8 5
13
4 1 1 1 1
Plastic Can Paper Count Count Count 7 1 1
0
EEE office
0
0
Count
0 Weight
0.25
0.25
Count
0.8
0.2
0.2
1.1
0.619
0.73
0.84
0.37
0.05 1.18 0.5 0 Weight
0.48
Contamination rate (count) General waste bin Before sorting Total After sorting Non-recyclables Items (sorting) Plastic bottle Metal can Tetra pak Glass Total no. of recyclables
Paper Count
Can B
1
1
1
Plastic Count
**plastic / paper
Can Count
0
Paper Count
6 0
IGS office
5 3 1 1
0
3 2
3 4
8 1
Plastic Count
SS3 lift lobby Plastic Can Paper Count Count Count 2 1 3
NTU Recycling Rate Baseline Study in collaboration with NEA * styrofoam / plastic
Can Count
0
7
Paper Count
3 0
0
Plastic Count
SS4 lift lobby
0.5
0.05
0.05
0
1
Count 1
1.77
0 Weight
0.08
1.6 1.82
0.625
0.08
0.22
0.09 0.32
1
Count 1
1.63
0.03 0.17 0 0.4 Weight
0.09
0
0.14
0.14
0
0.16
1
Count 1
1.58
0 Weight
0
0.12 0.28
0
0
0
2 Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight
Can Count
Before sorting Total
Recycle bins Items (sorting) Plastic bottle Metal can Tetra pak paper Others (non-recyclables) Plastic bag take away lunch box * Disposable cup ** Food packaging ** Tissue paper
Location SS)
Date:29/1/15
59
1 2 3 4 5
41 2 3 4
3
2
1
4 1 9 11 1
Paper Count
MCD
23 3
Plastic Can Count Count 6
0
1
Paper Count
2 2
LT 19A
4
Plastic Can Count Count 2
**plastic / paper
0
5
Paper Count
9 3
CEE office
6
Plastic Can Count Count 3
NTU Recycling Rate Baseline Study in collaboration with NEA * styrofoam / plastic
1
1
Paper Count
3 3
MAE office
2 1
Plastic Can Count Count 1
1 0
3
Paper Count
2 1
CE office
13
Plastic Count 4 1
0.315
After sorting Non-recyclables
0.59 2.345
0.26 1.665 Contamination rate (count) 0.72222 0.55 General waste bin Weight Before sorting Total 2.6 After sorting Non-recyclables Items (sorting) Count Plastic bottle Metal can Tetra pak Glass Total no. of recyclables 0
0.425
0.7931
1.09
1.33
0.07 0.275
0.145
0.425 0.65
0.115
1 3
2
Count 2
Count 1 1
3.695
0.035 0.045 0.115 0 0.25 0.66667 Weight
0.035
0.11
1.87
0.02 0.085 0.14 0 0.5 0.66667 Weight
0.035
0.06
0.085 0.275
0.12
1
1
Count
0.91
0.045 0.09 0.175 0.5 0.5 0.66667 Weight
0.04
0.07
0.25 1.27
0.455
2
2
Count
2.735
0.2 0.375 1.075 0 0.33333 0.72222 Weight
0.5
0.565
6 16 3 2 1 8 2 5 4 2 1 1 4 1 1 4 2 5 2 2 1 1 Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight
13 3
Can Count
Before sorting Total
Recycle bins Items (sorting) Plastic bottle Metal can Tetra pak Paper Others (non-recyclables) Plastic bag take away lunch box * Disposable cup ** Food packaging ** Tissue paper
Location (NS)
Date: 30/1/15
60
1 2 3 4 5
4 1 2 3 4
3
2
1 1
1
1
11 2 7 2
1 15 stacks 0 0
0.07
After sorting Non-recyclables
1.91 3.45
Paper Count
4 1
4
6 2
Plastic Can Count Count 1
0.53 1.2
2
2
Count
Count
0
0.39
0.05 0.33 0.65 0.5 0.2 0.8571 Weight
0.27
0.28
2.48
0.55
0.57
1.39
1.09
0.03 0.67 0 0 Weight
0.15
Contamination rate (count) General waste bin Before sorting Total After sorting Non-recyclables Items (sorting) Plastic bottle Metal can Tetra pak Glass Total no. of recyclables
Plastic Can Count Count 9
EEE office
5
Paper Count
Can B
**plastic / paper
0
1
Paper Count
5 0
IGS office
0
Plastic Count
NTU Recycling Rate Baseline Study in collaboration with NEA * styrofoam / plastic
Can Count
0
2
Paper Count
1 0
2
2
Plastic Count
SS3 lift lobby Can Count
1
3
Paper Count
1 3 0
2
2
Plastic Count 2
SS4 lift lobby
0
Count
1.04
0.65 2.21 . 0.02 0.03 1.57 0 0 Weight
0.04
0
1.52
1.52
0.05 0.18
1
1
Count
2.51
0.02 0.1 0 0 Weight
0.02
0.07
0
0.06
0.06
0.48 1.01
1
Count 1
2.27
0.04 0.14 0.25 0 Weight
0.04
0.09
0.5
0.06
0.44
1 1 Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight
Can Count
Before sorting Total
Recycle bins Items (sorting) Plastic bottle Metal can Tetra pak paper Others (non-recyclables) Plastic bag take away lunch box * Disposable cup ** Food packaging ** Tissue paper
Location (SS)
Date:30/1/15
11.2 Survey Results Not Included in Report In this section, we will include survey results that we deem irrelevant or problematic and provide explanations as to why we chose not to include them in the report.
11.2.1 Course of study. Respondents who were students were asked to enter their course of study. However, some respondents entered their year of study instead. As such, we were unable to provide an accurate list of courses the respondents are from and chose not to include this in the main report. 11.2.2 Most economically valuable recyclables. Respondents were asked to choose the 3 most economically valuable recyclables from a list of recyclables.
Figure 27: Results for “Choose the 3 most economically valuable recyclables.� As can be seen from Figure 27, the top 3 choices are aluminium can, paper and plastic bottle. However, as we do not have any sources that compare the economic value of all 8 of the listed recyclables, we are unable to conclude how knowledgeable respondents are on this area.
61
Furthermore, on hindsight, we realised that “economically valuable” was not clearly defined and this might render the results problematic as respondents may have different interpretations. As such, we have decided not to include this result in the main report. 11.2.3 Ranking of most economically valuable recyclables. After respondents answered “Choose the 3 most economically valuable recyclables” (see Section 11.2.2), they were asked to rank their chosen 3 recyclables from the most to least economically valuable. For instance, if a respondent chose aluminium can, paper and plastic bottle as the 3 most economically valuable recyclables, s/he will rank these 3 recyclables. 161 respondents attempted the ranking.
Figure 28: Results for “Rank the following from most economically valuable (1) to least economically valuable (3).” In Figure 28, the number in the parenthesis indicates the number of respondents involved in ranking that particular recyclable. For instance, 128 respondents chose aluminium can as one of the 3 most economically valuable recyclables, and thus have to rank it in relation to their 2 other choices. 62
As mentioned in 11.2.2, we do not have any data comparing all 8 recyclables in terms of their economic value that will help us analyse the result. Thus, we felt that this piece of result is currently irrelevant to our study and we decided not to include it in the main report. 11.2.4 Rating of convenience of recycling at NTU. Respondents were asked to rate the convenience of recycling at NTU from 0 to 100 with a slider in the survey. Respondents who were unsure of the recycling situation or wished to remain neutral were allowed to skip this question.
Number of recycling
Min
Max
Average
Standard
No. of
Value
Value
Value
Deviation
responses
0.00
100.00
46.59
20.93
133
0.00
100.00
49.66
25.02
131
2.00
100.00
44.10
23.53
128
bins at NTU Variety of recycling bins for different types of recyclables Convenience of recycling bins’ location Table 5: Results for “Rate the convenience of recycling at NTU.” We are hesitant to include the results for this question in the main report due to the possibility of accidental responses, which may cause the data to be inaccurate. In a random sample of 12 responses, there was 1 respondent who did not give a rating for “Number of recycling bins at NTU” and “Convenience of recycling bins’ location”, but gave a ‘0’ for “Variety of recycling bins for different types of recyclables”. This respondent’s rating was very likely to be accidental, since his/her refrainment from rating the other 2 conditions suggests that s/he did not intend to rate at all. An accidental touch of the slider might have led to an unintentional recorded response. It cannot be guaranteed that there are no other accidental responses, and hence, due to our lack of confidence in the accuracy of this result, we decided not to include this in our report.
63
On hindsight, this question should have been better designed. Instead of a slider, another device that could minimise the risk of accidental responses should be used. Instead of 1 – 100, a simpler rating such as 1 – 10 or simply “Unsatisfactory/ There is room for improvement/ Satisfactory” can also be used instead to increase clarity of understanding.
64
References Boh, S. (2015, May 15). Bigger push to get S’poreans to recycle. The Straits Times. Retrieved from http://news.asiaone.com/news/singapore/bigger-push-get-sporeansrecycle
Frater, J. (2014, July 2). This paper cup can be recycled – unlike the 50 billion that end up in landfills. Cable News Network. Retrieved from http://edition.cnn.com/2014/07/02/business/uk-recylable-cup/
Loo, D. (Unknown.) Alternative Bin Design. [Image from powerpoint slide]. Case Study: Addressing Low Recycling Rates & Contamination in Ngee Ann Polytechnic. [Powerpoint slides].
National Environment Agency. (n.d.). 3R Guidebook for Shopping Malls. Retrieved July 17, 2015 from http://www.nea.gov.sg/docs/default-source/energy-waste/recycling/3rguidebook-for-shopping-malls.pdf?sfvrsn=0
National Environment Agency. (n.d.) Frequently Asked Questions: Energy & Waste – Recycling. Retrieved July 17, 2015 from http://www.ifaq.gov.sg/NEA/apps/fcd_faqmain.aspx#FAQ_50753
ProjectManhattan. (2013). File: Recycling bins at changi airport.jpg [Online image]. Retrieved January 30, 2015 from https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Recycling_bins_at_changi_airport.jpg
Stanford University. (n.d.). Frequently Asked Questions: Contamination. Retrieved July 17, 2015 from http://bgm.stanford.edu/pssi_faq_contamination
65
Contact Information
Website:
http://clubs.ntu.edu.sg/earthlink/website/
Email:
ntu.earthlink@gmail.com
Disclaimers This report aims to provide Earthlink’s perspective on the state of recycling within NTU. All of the content written are subjected to revision and should, in no way, be taken as a definite representation of the state of recycling in NTU. Property of Earthlink NTU Š
66