Waste Audit Of Wescoe, Strong, and the Spencer Museum of Art

Environmental Studies Capstone ProjectLauren KeithLydia Gibson

Karin ScottRyan RastokRenee Boyd

Sustainability Update.Revised May 2010

table of contents01. what motivates people to recycle | why conduct a waste audit | what

was found in previous audits | why this project is valuable to KU

psychology

02. creating a baseline for future audits | the procedure we followedmethodology

03. building profiles | what we found | charts and graphsresults

04. what could have been done better | suggestions for the University of Kansas to implement

recommendations

2

05. works cited | thanks to resources

abstract

the waste stream at the University of Kansas and provides suggestions on how students and the University can reduce waste by diverting recyclable, reusable, and compostable materials from the waste stream.

We conducted a waste audit on three campus buildings: Wes-coe Hall, Strong Hall, and the Spencer Museum of Art. We chose to examine these buildings because they represent a variety of collegiate infrastructure. These buildings vary in the classrooms, offices, and administration activities, as well as the differing degrees to which student, faculty, and public have access to each building.

In none of the buildings surveyed was non-recyclable trash the majority of the waste stream. By weight, the recycling found in Spencer was 67% of the waste stream and 68% by volume. In Strong, 72% of the waste by weight and 74% by volume could have been recycled. In Wescoe, 76% of the waste by weight and 72% by volume could have been recycled.

Because previous audits of Wescoe Hall have been conducted, the Wescoe audit in 2010 will be compared with those from 2004 and 2005. The waste from Spencer and Strong will be compared with each other because similar sample sizes were pulled.

This project seeks to develop a unified sampling procedure for conducting waste audits to ensure that the results are com-parable. When a baseline procedure is created, these audits could be conducted annually and compared.

This project examines

3

01.psychology

Most studies have centered on behavioral models and regulating behavior through “rewards and punishments” (Mannetti et al 2004). The idea behind these models is that humans maximize effi-ciency and human behavior can be easily manipulated through a system of “sticks and carrots.” If it is finan-cially beneficial to recycle, people will do it. Recently, a more theoreti-cal approach to this model has been proposed. New models consider the role of socioeconomic and de-mographic variables that construct general attitudes toward the environment and define environmental re-sponsibility. This notion has been coined “the theory of planned behavior” (Mannetti et al 2004).This theory is an model based on the assumption that humans’ attitudes have a causal impact on behav-ior. According to the theory, people recycle because they internally rationalize “ecologically oriented be-havior within the domain of morality” (Mannetti et al 2004). In this theory, the act of recycling is not solely a simple calculation of profits and losses but a basic moral question of right and wrong.

The connection between pro-environmental behav-ior and positively evaluated social identities has even been reflected (and some might argue that it has been exploited) in commercial advertising (Mannetti et al 2004). Because most people associate buying green, recycled, and eco goods as the moral choice (though not necessarily the cheap-est), many companies have seen the benefits of brand-ing themselves this new identity.However, even though this concern for recycling and taking care of the environ-ment has evolved to be socially acceptable or even desirable, the changes in behavior required to recycle, such as sorting and separat-ing, have been “disappoint-ing” (Derksen and Gartrell 434). Although, according to surveys, the majority of people think recycling is important, hindrances and inconveniences associated with sorting and transport-ing material keep people from carrying out the act. Because of this, educational tools such as waste audits can be used to educate and inform groups about their waste streams and how to decrease them.

What motivates people to recycle?

4

01.psychology

Why conduct a waste audit?The purpose of a waste audit is to find out where a school, community, home, or business is in terms of its waste management practices. A good waste au-dit identifies wasteful prac-tices and creates potential opportunities for people to increase efficiencies, reduce waste, and lower costs. The first step in the process is a waste audit. According to the “Guidebook on Waste Minimisation for Industries,” the main objective of a waste audit is “to profile the

waste streams by finding out information on the types of waste, quantity of each waste stream, how they are generated, why they are generated, where they are being generated, and how they are managed after be-ing generated.” To reduce the volume of waste a group or communi-ty, in this case of this project the University of Kansas, is producing, the group needs to know more about the composition of the waste being produced.

5

01.psychology

What was found in previous audits of Wescoe Hall?

6

Waste audits of Wescoe Hall were conducted in 2004 and 2005. The amount of news-paper being thrown away was the biggest surprise, and newsprint made up nearly half of the waste in 2004 and more than half of

the waste in 2005. Follow-ing the waste audit that was conducted on Earth Day 2004, the KU Recycling staff places eight newspaper recycling containers in the north and south hallways on the fourth floor of Wescoe.

01.psychology

The implementation of a successful waste audit can lead “to source reduc-tion and recycling,” which in turn could save money (Solid Waste Policy Group). From a business stand-point, producing waste is not economical or sustain-able, and it costs the Uni-versity money when it is hurting from budget cuts. The potential reduction of waste could also “conserve landfill space, energy in the manufacturing process, and natural resources” (Solid Waste Policy Group). A waste audit, as a tool in implementing waste reduc-

tion, is a cost-effective business tool for universities and businesses alike.Waste audits are also edu-cational tools. By having students and citizens par-ticipate in their own waste audit, these groups can learn more about the waste they generate and its ef-fects on the campus. Our group wanted to implement this line of thinking into our waste audit project, which is why we created a public event near Wescoe so that people could see the waste that they were generating and participate in sorting through it.

Why is this project valuable to the University of Kansas?

7

02.methodology

Although waste audits were conducted in Wescoe in 2004 and 2005 (Environ-mental Stewardship Pro-gram), a specific procedure has not been developed and outlined to serve as a base-line for future audits at the University of Kansas. Many environmental organizations have created materials and procedures about how to conduct a waste audit, but it is incredibly important to use the same procedure and method each year so that the results from the audits are comparable over time. When results from past and present audits can be compared, students and environmental organiza-tions can target a particular waste stream and determine the best course of action to alleviate or lessen this type of waste. With comparable data, it is also easy to de-termine which actions have worked over time and which still need to be tweaked for better future success. Our group decided to use

waste audit worksheets that were created by Kan-sas Green Teams, an initia-tive that promotes waste reduction, recycling and environmentally responsible purchasing in state and local governments, businesses and schools (Kansas Green Teams). Rodney Fergu-son and Sandy Barnett of the Kansas Department of Health and Environment coordinate the organization. Worksheets from the Kan-sas Green Teams include a building questionnaire that calculates and maps the number of waste and recy-cling bins in the building, a walk-through worksheet that gives a visual sample to see the approximate type and composition of the waste being disposed of, and a table that we used during the waste audit to record the weight, volume and composition of the trash be-ing thrown out. These work-sheets and walkthrough documents are also includ-ed at the end of this report.

Creating a baseline for future audits

8

02.methodology

Celeste Hoins, who works with the Environmental Stewardship Program, was instrumental in contacting and coordinating trash col-lection with Facilities Opera-tions and giving our group space in the ESP warehouse for our trial run of sorting trash from Strong Hall and the Spencer Museum of Art. She contacted Vic Kane at Facilities Operations, who instructed the custodial staff to put the trash col-lected into a separate blue container next to the dump-ster. Trash is emptied in Strong and Spencer twice per week (on Mondays and Thursdays). This amounted to seven bags of trash for the Spencer Museum of Art and eight bags of trash from Strong Hall. The bags from Spencer included trash from the entire building, and the trash from Strong was from the third floor only. Trash from the galleries and library at the Spencer Museum were considered negligible for this study because no food or drink is allowed. About 25 bags of trash were collected from the fourth floor and third floor auditori-ums in Wescoe.We conducted a test run of the trash from Strong and Spencer to make sure that we all knew what to ex-pect for the larger event on

Earth Day when we audited Wescoe. We divided 18-gal-lon storage containers into the labels indicated on the worksheets from Kan-sas Green Teams, such as trash, plastic bags, paper cups, and newspaper. The waste was sorted and then weighed on a pallet scale. (For future audits, we rec-ommend that a more pre-cise scale be used to get a more accurate weight of each container, instead of having to round to the near-est pound. See the recom-mendations section.)For the Wescoe audit, we used the same procedure, but a spring scale was used instead of a pallet scale for convenience. Waste was sorted into types in 50-gal-lon bags, and then bags were weighed and recorded. We conducted this audit on Earth Day to raise aware-ness of the event. Our proj-ect was picked up by the Lawrence Journal-World, KUJH-TV and The University Daily Kansan. Although it was raining this Earth Day, we moved into a dry over-hang between Wescoe and Stauffer-Flint. Because of the rain, the weights might have been slightly heavier than they would have been if it were dry. However, we did not adjust the weights that we recorded.

How we did it

9

03.results

The results of the waste audits of the Spencer Muse-um of Art, Strong Hall, and Wescoe Hall are depicted by volume, not compacted, and by weight. Both measures have their own utility for evaluating the waste stream. Landfills and other disposal services base disposal fees based on weight, usually with a tonnage tipping fee. However, volume often dic-tates when containers are removed for disposal. At the University, individual waste receptacles are emptied into larger dumpsters out-side of campus buildings, and these are collected as dictated by a set schedule or as they fill. This method places increased emphasis on the volume of material being disposed of rather than the weight. Volume measurements are more subjective than weight measurements because

they were estimated instead of specifically calculated. In the waste audits con-ducted for this study, coffee and drink cups were sepa-rated from trash because of the amount we found in the initial audits. They are clas-sified as trash.The “plastic bags” category includes recyclable bags found in the waste stream and trash bags used to con-tain the waste. The volume and weight of these trash bags are important because they are often under-filled and result in the creation of extra waste. They also represent a key problem in waste generation and disposal. Trash bags are necessary for sanitation and health reasons, but they are often under-utilized. The most common problem is that bags are larger than their containers, which uses more plastic than is needed.

What we found

10

03.results

Area audited: All floors Number of classrooms (estimated): 5Number of offices (estimated): 14Square feet: 91,095

Spencer has two custodians and one dumpster. Recycling bins have been added in offices for paper, newspaper, and catalogues at the request of the of-fice’s occupants. An old outdoor central location will be removed, and containers for office paper, newspaper, bottles, and cans will be added throughout the build-ing this summer.

Fourteen cans were found on the second floor. Five were examined. The cans were about half full and con-tained coffee cups, sand-wich bag, soup cup, to-go box, two magazines, snack bags, an envelope, and two pieces of paper. Cans on the third floor contained similar materials.The fifth floor was all of-fices. There were 10 cans in open rooms, and three were examined. The first can con-tained paper. A can near the top of the stairs was half-full of plastic packaging used for shipping. There were several empty cans.

Spencer Museum: Building profile and walkthrough

11

Spencer Museum of Art, 1301 Mississippi St.

03.results

As was found in all of the buildings we audited, reus-able and recyclable ma-terials made up a majority (about 67%) of the waste stream by both weight and volume. Office paper was the biggest recyclable material that ended up in the waste stream, despite additions of desk-side paper collection. Of the portion of the waste stream that was trash, almost half of it

was made up of coffee and other drink cups. Food and compostable waste made up a significant portion of the materials in the waste stream that could have been reused. Compostable mate-rial was just over one-fourth of the recyclable/reusable stream. There was great di-versity of the materials that could have been recycled in both the weight and volume categories.

Spencer Museum of Art

12

figures 01, by weight. Amount of trash vs. recyclables in Spencer, in pounds

>>

>>

of the trash,

of the recycling,

figures 02, by volume. Amount of trash vs. recyclables in Spencer

>>of the trash,

>>of the recycling,

Material Weight (lbs) Volume (gal)

Cardboard 1 18

Office paper 9 18

Magazines 5 5.4

Chip board <1 9

Newspaper 4 9

Aluminum cans <1 5.4Steel cans 0 0Plastic #1 & #2 1 12.6Plastic #3-7 <1 12.6Food/compost 8 18

Styrofoam <1 5.4Coffee/drink cups 7 27

Glass 0 0Trash 8 36

Plastic bags 1 18Reusable 2 5.4

TOTALS 46 199.8

Though listed on the Kansas Green Teams sheets, batteries and hazardous material were not included in our counts because none were found in any of the buildings.

weights of <1 lb were omitted

“Reusable” includes a light bulb, unopened candy, a Nalgene bottle, wiring, unopened ketchup packets, a DVD, a DVD case, pens, pencils, and a sock.

03.results

Area audited: Third floor Number of classrooms: 11Number of offices: 10Square feet: 175,806

Strong Hall has five custodians and two large dumpsters. Five trash cans from this floor were ex-amined. One was half-full and contained office paper. Another trash can contained a #1 plastic soda bottle. The third was full of both news-paper and regular office pa-per. A fourth can was empty, as were many others on the floor. The fifth can contained another recyclable bottle.The International Program

office was open, and five trash cans were examined inside. Two of them had food boxes. One contained two pieces of paper. Anoth-er contained plastic bags, and the last one contained a sandwich bag, a recyclable bottle, and newspaper.Four cans in the algebra tutoring room contained of-fice paper, food wrappers, a plastic bottle, a disposable cup, a pizza box, and plastic wrap.There were also trash cans in the hallway, which con-tained a plastic bottle, used tissues, a disposable cup, a milk carton, and a food box.

Strong Hall: Building profile and walkthrough

13

Strong Hall, 1450 Jayhawk Blvd.

03.results

The waste stream from Strong was different from Spencer’s, as the third floor of Strong contains several more classrooms. Cof-fee cups and other drink cups made up a signifi-cantly smaller percentage of the waste stream, by both weight and volume. However, much more com-postable materials such as food scraps were found in the trash on the third floor

of Strong. Office paper and newspaper make up another significant portion of the recyclable waste stream. Although a few aluminum cans were found on this floor, they seem to have been mostly eliminated from the waste stream. However, this waste could also just be taking a different form as #1 plastic bottles that students can get from vending ma-chines.

Strong Hall

14

figures 03, by weight. Amount of trash vs. recyclables in Strong, in pounds

>>

>>

of the trash,

of the recycling,

figures 04, by volume. Amount of trash vs. recyclables in Strong

>>of the trash,

>>of the recycling,

Material Weight (lbs) Volume (gal)

Cardboard 1 18

Office paper 3 18

Magazines 0 0

Chip board 1 18

Newspaper 6 9

Aluminum cans <1 4.5Steel cans <1 4.5Plastic #1 & #2 4 18Plastic #3-7 1 18Food/compost 14 9

Styrofoam <1 4.5Coffee/drink cups 1 18

Glass <1 0.1Trash 10 36

Plastic bags 1 27Reusable <1 4.5

TOTALS 42 207.1

Though listed on the Kansas Green Teams sheets, batteries and hazardous material were not included in our counts because none were found in any of the buildings.

weights of <1 lb were omitted “Reusable” includes uneaten wrapped food, hangers,

toys, pens, pencils, and toothpaste.

03.results

Comparison between Strong and Spencer

15

By weightDisposing of food products, wrappers and bottles was the largest component of waste in Strong, most likely because of its location near Wescoe and its Hawk Shop on the first floor that serves food and drinks. Food and other compostable materi-als were two of the largest portions of the waste stream that could have been divert-ed, and the amount of food and compostable waste in Strong was nearly half of the overall recyclable/reus-able stream (45%). News-paper and office paper are other big weight targets that should be eliminated next.

By volumePlastic bottles and coffee and other drink cups are an increasing problem for disposing of waste by vol-ume. They take up a lot of space but are relatively light, so they give the illusion that the trash cans need to be emptied when they usually do not. This also creates a large amount of waste in the plastic trash bags that must be thrown away al-though they contain very little weight in trash. In fact, both Strong and Spencer had about 15% of waste by volume that could have been recycled in trash and other plastic bags.

03.results

Area audited: Fourth floor and large third floor auditoriumsNumber of classrooms: 35Number of offices: 42Square feet: 179,844

Wescoe has six custodians and four small dumpsters. Each auditorium has 300+ seats.Vic Kane, the assistant di-rector for facility operations custodial services, said, “I can’t really estimate the number of trash containers in each building. As an ex-ample, I can tell you Wescoe has 400+ small trash cans in the office areas.”There are 23 recycling bins

(two office pack, two maga-zine, 11 cans/bottles, and eight newspaper) and six trash cans in the hallway. Ten trash cans from different rooms were sampled. Cans in the hallway were also inspected. The hallway trash cans had a much higher vol-ume of waste than the trash cans in the classrooms, which were empty except for candy wrappers, coffee cups, and paper. The hall-way trash cans were almost full and contained bottles, newspaper, mixed paper, coffee and other cups, wrappers and compostable material, and trash.

Wescoe Hall: Building profile and walkthrough

16

Wescoe Hall, 1445 Jayhawk Blvd.

03.results

Wescoe had similar break-downs of trash vs. recycling compared with the other buildings that were audited. A smaller portion of the trash was made up of cof-fee cups by weight, but the amount by volume was similar to the measurements from Strong and Spencer. Again, there was a great di-versity in the types of waste that could have been reused or recycled. Newspaper and

office paper again made up large percentages of the recyclable material that was found in the trash. A signifi-cant percentage of plastic bags were found, most likely as a result of having din-ing areas close by but also because many of the trash bags are not completely filled when they are emp-tied. Food and compostable items were also a large por-tion in this building.

Wescoe Hall

17

figures 03, by weight. Amount of trash vs. recyclables in Wescoe, in pounds

>>

>>

of the trash,

of the recycling,

figures 04, by volume. Amount of trash vs. recyclables in Wescoe

>>of the trash,

>>of the recycling,

Material Weight (lbs) Volume (gal)

Cardboard <1 <0.1

Office paper 28 50

Magazines <1 <0.1

Chip board 24 100

Newspaper 26 40

Aluminum cans 7 25Steel cans 0 0Plastic #1 & #2 16.5 62.5Plastic #3-7 6 25Food/compost 31 50

Styrofoam 1.5 25Coffee/drink cups 12.5 75

Glass <1 <0.1Trash 48 100

Plastic bags 21 50Reusable 13 12.5

TOTALS 237.4 615

Though listed on the Kansas Green Teams sheets, batteries and hazardous material were not included in our counts because none were found in any of the buildings.

weights of <1 lb were omitted

“Reusable” includes full pop cans, unopened ketchup packets, a KU ID, pens, a stapler, and an unopened box of Lucky Charms.

03.results

Comparison between Wescoe in 2010 and 2005

18

Material (by weight) 2005 2010 Percent Change

Newspaper 110 26 -76%

Chipboard/cardboard 4 25 +525%

Steel cans 0.9 0 -100%

Mixed Paper 6 29 +383%

Aluminum cans 5 7 +40%

Plastic #1 & #2 41 16.5 -60%Glass 0.9 0.9 0%Trash 39 133 +241%

TOTALS 207 237.4 +15%

Because only the basics of the procedure were known for the last audit of Wescoe Hall in 2005, it was difficult to compare exactly the dif-ferences in waste that we collected. The waste audit conducted in 2010 broke down the waste into more categories that were not included in the 2005 audit.For this comparison, the results from the 2010 audit were recalculated and con-strained into the parameters of the 2005 audit. Categories that were not

included in the 2005 audit (food waste, plastics 3-7, re-usable materials, and plastic bags) were simply added to the trash amount, although this will alter the results. It is hoped that future audits will use the categories outlined by the Kansas Green Teams so that those results will be easier to compare.The results from the 2004 and 2005 audits by volume were not accessible, so the chart below compares the years by weight. Future re-sults should compare both.

04.recommendations

Suggestions for future auditsWhen measuring the waste and recycling from Strong and Spencer, better scales should be used in the future. The scale used in this year’s audit rounded to the closest pound, which did not ac-count for slight variations in weight and could not show us weights in pounds and ounces. Something like a bathroom scale would have been more useful and accurate.Second, there was subjec-tivity involved in sorting dur-ing the audits. The purpose of our audit was to find what “ideally” could have been recycled if it hadn’t been thrown in the trash originally.Paper that had become soaked in food or liquid,

was recycled because if it had not been put in the trash, it would have been viable. We suggest that instead of leaving it up to individual sorter’s “best judgment,” the next group develops more consistent method to make the audit better quality. There was also some sub-jectivity involving calculat-ing the volume of waste or recycled materials. Because this year’s group had no defined may of measuring volume, the group estimated the waste based on the volume of trash bags it was in. This could be improved upon in the future to make the comparisons and data more useful and viable.

19

04.recommendations

Suggestions to curb waste and encourage reusing

19

Coffee cups, plastic bottles and aluminum cansThe volume of cups being discarded was surprisingly high. It is important to target cups and drink containers because it is possible that discarded drink contain-ers could be easily diverted from the waste stream.Other campuses have at-tempted this. On Earth Day 2006, the University of Oregon started a cam-paign to promote reusing by giving out free mugs on the premise that “if every-body on campus bought one beverage a day in a refill mug instead of a dispos-able cup, more than 9 mil-lion cups would be saved a year” (University of Oregon). The campus was inspired to do this when it was dis-covered that 25% volume of the waste stream on campus. (Wescoe’s waste stream has about 12% drink cups by volume.) The University of Oregon also found that many people thought disposable coffee cups were recyclable when they are not. Oregon has found that it is difficult to convince people to reuse because only 11% of bever-ages purchased on campus are in refillable containers. KU Dining offers reusable

drink mugs that cost only 89 cents to refill, but more marketing for this discount should be considered as an incentive for more students to start reusing.Freshman orientation could have a presentation dedi-cated to reusing and how it helps green efforts on campus. Freshmen could be issued their own reusable container with a barcode on it with their student ID number. The barcode could be scanned every time the student reuses the container and adds that amount Beak ’Em Bucks. An incentive could be after the container is filled 10 times, the next drink is free.Pop bottles and cans made up a another recyclable por-tion of the waste stream and have been identified in the past by KU Recycling and the Center for Sustainability as a target material. In 2008, it was found that about 10.6 tons of plastic bottles and 1.1 tons of alu-minum were recycled, but a survey conducted by Coca-Cola revealed that less than one-half of students were recycling (KU News). Again, more promotion of reusable cups from KU Dining and student media could reduce this amount.

04.recommendations

Suggestions to curb waste and encourage composting

20

Food, napkin and silverware compostingWescoe had a large amount of food and compostable waste (13% by weight). It is possible to compost much of this waste. Fruit and vegetable scraps are ready to compost. Food is not the only thing that can be composted. The dispos-able utensils purchased and used by KU Dining are now biodegradable (KU Dining Services). It would allow for a reduction in the need to purchase fertilizers and a lower cost to haul waste. The compost could benefit student gardens and the student farm. Furthermore, the compostable waste will have a shorter distance to travel. The campus garden already has its own compost piles. The two existing piles consist of fruit and veg-etable scraps, leaves, and grass clippings.The University has con-sidered composting in the

past. In 2008, a site on West Campus was pro-posed to handle appropriate food waste from cafeterias (Earles 2008). This report recommended starting composting sites near the dining centers but noted the lack of space around these areas. An article in The University Daily Kansan sug-gested using an Earth Tub, a closed composting unit with an auger inside for mixing. The unit also has a biofilter that will prevent unpleasant odors. Food waste, napkins, biodegradable serviceware, and tougher materials such as leaves or straw can be added to this unit.The most numerous item by volume from the Wes-coe audit was chipboard. Besides recycling, it can be shredded or chopped for mulch and then covered with soil. It may be possible to reduce this waste by al-lowing chipboard to be col-lected with newspapers.

05.resources

Works citedCAP-KU: Creating a Climate Action Plan for the University of Kansas. Publication. C-CHANGE IGERT Program and the Urban Planning Graduate Program, Spring 2009. Web.

Derksen, Linda and John Gartrell. “Social Context of Recycling.” American Sociological Re¬view 58.3 (1993): 434-42.

Environmental Stewardship Program. “Wescoe Hall Waste Audit 2004.” Chart. KU Facilities Operations. Apr. 2005. Web. http://recycle.ku.edu/pages/events_and_projects/earth_day/wescoewaste_compare.shtml.

“Earth Tub.” Green Mountain Technologies. Web. 28 Apr. 2010. http://www.compostingtechnology.com/invesselsystems/ earthtub/.

“FAQ.” Environmental Stewardship Program. Web. 28 Apr 2010. http://www.recycle.ku.edu/faq. shtml

Kansas Green Teams. How to Conduct a Waste Audit. <http://www.kansasgreenteams.org/how-conduct-waste-audit>

Kate Gould, Joey Warren, and Shane Capra. “Chapter 3: Closing the Loop: Materials and Waste Management.” The Sus tainable University. 2008. Clark University, Web. 9 Feb 2010. http://clarku.biz/offices/campussustainability/docu ments/EN%20103%20The%20 Sus¬tainable%20University%20Class%20Report%202008.pdf#page=55

“KU Dining Services.” KU Memorial Unions, 2010. Web. 28 Apr 2010. http://union.ku.edu/dining.shtml.

“KU Dining Services — Sustainability.” KU Memorial Unions. University of Kansas, 2010. Web. 27 Apr 2010. http://www. union.ku.edu/sustainability.shtml

“KU News - Coca-Cola, Unions Promote Recycling by Students; Special Discounts on April 22.” Home - KU News. Web. 28 Apr. 2010. http://www.news.ku.edu/2009/april/21/recycling.shtml.

Mannetti, Lucia, Antonio Pierro, and Stephano Livi. “Recycling: Planned and Self-expressive Be¬haviour.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 24.2 (2004): 227-36. Web.

Mott, Stephanie. “University considers recycling.” University Daily Kansan 2008. n. 28 Apr 2010. http://www.kansan. com/news/2008/jun/26/compost/.

National Environment Agency, JTC Corporation, Singapore Manufacturers’ Federation, and Waste Management & Recy-cling Association of Singapore. Guidebook on Waste Minimisation for Industries. National Environment Agency, 2002.

Personal Communication. “Vic Kane, Assistant Director for FO Custodial Services.” 01 May 2010

Personal Communication. “Celeste Hoins, Administrative Manager of Environmental Stewardship Program.” 23 Feb 2010

Solid Waste Policy Group. Waste Audit. Rutgers State University of New Jersey, 2004. Web. 22 Apr. 2010.

University of Oregon Campus Recycling. EMU and Campus Recycling Gave Away FREE MUGS. Rep. 26 Apr. 2006. Web. <http://www.uoregon.edu/~recycle/FreeMugs.htm>

21

Thanks to Celeste Hoins and Vic Kane for making this waste audit possible.

campus photos and design by Lauren KeithMay 6, 2010

We

igh

t (

lbs

)V

olu

me

Co

mm

en

ts

Ba

tte

rie

s

Na

me

of

au

dit

or:

EV

RN

61

5:

CA

PS

TO

NE

PR

OJ

EC

T,

CA

MP

US

WA

ST

E A

UD

IT

Da

te/t

ime

sa

mp

led

:

Lo

ca

tio

n o

f S

ou

rce

:

To

tal

Tra

sh

Oth

er:

Re

use

ab

le

Oth

er:

Pla

stic B

ag

s

Gla

ss

Ha

za

rdo

us M

ate

ria

ls

Sty

rofo

am

Fo

od

/co

mp

osta

ble

Pla

stic #

3-7

Ma

teri

als

Ty

pe

Ma

ga

zin

es

Pla

stic #

1 &

#2

Co

ffe

e/d

rin

k c

up

s

Ca

rdb

oa

rd

Ch

ip B

oa

rd

Alu

min

um

ca

ns

Ste

el ca

ns

Ne

wsp

rin

t

Offic

e P

ap

er

Waste Audit Worksheet, adapted from Kansas Green Teams, http://www.kansasgreenteams.org/how-conduct-waste-audit