Final Report-tnaz

Running head: ZERO WASTE AT UALBERTA
MONITORING OF ZERO WASTE STATIONS AT UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA:
STRENGTHS AND SHORTCOMINGS
By
TAIFOOR NAZ
M.Sc. Botany, University of Karachi, 1991
A Practicum Report submitted in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE
in
ENVIRONMENTAL PRACTICE
We accept this report as conforming
to the required standard
..........................................................
Dr. Liza Ireland
Practicum Coordinator
School of Environment and Sustainability
ROYAL ROADS UNIVERSITY
March 2015
© Taifoor Naz, 2015

ZERO WASTE AT UALBERTA 2
Abstract
Waste accumulation due to irresponsible exploitation of natural resources is a global
issue. Traditionally, waste management is irrelevant of production system that is now being
criticized at national and global levels including Higher Educational Institutes (HEIs). HEIs at
university levels have key potential to change the perception of the society about sustainable
development. Reviewing academic literatures, this research explores underlying issues of global
waste management, role of HEIs in waste reduction, and current status of “Zero Waste”
initiatives around the globe to evaluate the newly implemented “Zero Waste” pilot project of
University of Alberta. The evaluation process comprised of data collection through bin
monitoring and spot audits of the Lister Center and Student Union Building, analysis to
determine current material recovery and waste contamination status, and overall response of the
users of the campus. Results indicate total material recovery rate as Marina (33%), Market
(58%), and SUB (49%). Regarding percent purity, the highest waste stream is the organics with
over 80% from all of the stations studied followed by recyclables (approximately 50%). The
observations suggest substantial lack of knowledge and awareness among users as well as a lack
of interest towards recycling. The study also finds plenty of room for intensified strategies to
improve recycling behavior throughout the campus and proposes some thoughts for these
strategies.
Keywords: Waste management, HEIs, Zero Waste, waste diversion, contamination

Acknowledgement
I am using this opportunity to express my gratitude to the professors and staff members
of Royal Roads University for providing me their genius guidance and aspiring support
throughout my endeavor of this Master degree. It would not have been possible without
invaluable constructive criticism of my teachers and friendly support of my class fellows. I am
especially thankful to Dr. Liza Ireland for her guidance and continuous support in completion of
this research project.
I would like to thank Dr. Daryl McCartney for providing me the opportunity of working
on this project and introducing me to Kentson Yan, my project supervisor who helped me in
every aspect of this journey. I would like to express my deepest regards and appreciation to
Kentson Yan for his crucial role in my project. His contribution in stimulating suggestions and
encouragement helped me to coordinate my project especially in writing this report.
Furthermore I would also like to acknowledge all of UAlberta Office of Sustainability
personnel who provided me the possibility to complete this report. I give a special gratitude to
Shannon Leblanc and Jessie Kwasney for their warm welcome and friendly and supportive
attitude throughout the project.
Last but not least, I cannot thank my family enough, specially my husband, for their
selfless and tireless support that gave me the nerve to continue learning. I must say that this
journey would not have been imaginable deprived of the sustenance of my family.

List of Abbreviations
BGS Buildings and Ground Services, University of Alberta
DG Daily Grind coffee shop
EMSO Energy Management and Sustainable Operations, University of
Alberta
EWMC Edmonton Waste Management Center
EWMCE Edmonton Waste Management Center of Excellence
HEIs Higher Education Institutes
LF Landfill materials of the waste
Main Main Zero Waste Station in SUB
MP Mixed paper waste stream
OR Organic waste stream
OS Office of Sustainability, University of Alberta
RE Recyclable waste stream
Stg Zero Waste Station beside stage in food arena of SUB
SUB Students’ Union Building
SW Zero Waste Station beside Subway in SUB
UAlberta University of Alberta
UG Under Grind coffee shop in the basement of SUB
UK United Kingdom
UN-SD United Nations Division for Sustainable Development

List of Tables
Table 1: Summary of Percentage of users of Marina who correctly recycled……………… 22
Table 2: Summary of Percentage of users of Market who correctly recycled………………. 23
Table 3: Total Cross Contamination in Marina……………………………………………… 24
Table 4: Percent Cross Contamination in Marina…………………………………………… 25
Table 5: Total Cross Contamination in Market……………………………………………… 26
Table 6: Percent Cross Contamination in Market…………………………………………… 26
Table 7: Summary of Total of Categories Analyzed, Marina……………………………….. 28
Table 8: Summary of Total of Categories Analyzed, Market……………………………….... 28
Table 9: Summary of Percentage of users of SUB who correctly recycled………………….. 30
Table 10: Total Cross Contamination in SUB………………………………………………... 31
Table 11: Percent Cross Contamination in SUB……………………………………………... 31
Table 12: Summary of Total of Categories Analyzed, SUB………………………………….. 33
Table 13: Percent Purity of Marina, Lister Center…………………………………………… 34
Table 14: Percent Purity of Market, Lister Center…………………………………………… 35
Table 15: Percent Purity of SUB……………………………………………………………… 36

List of Figures
Figure 1: Zero Waste Station, Marina………………………………………………………. 15
Figure 2: Zero Waste Station, Market……………………………………………………… 16
Figure 3: Data Collection Hierarchy for Analysis…………………………………………. 18
Figure 4: Sample Bin Monitoring Recording Sheet………………………………………... 19
Figure 5: Sample Spot Audit Recording Sheet……………………………………………... 20
Figure 6: Graphic illustration of cross contamination in Marina………………………… 25
Figure 7: Graphic illustration of cross contamination in Market………………………… 27
Figure 8: Graphic illustration of Total Material Recovery, Marina……………………… 29
Figure 9: Graphic illustration of Total Material Recovery, Market……………………… 29
Figure 10: Graphic illustration of Cross Contamination, SUB……………………………. 32
Figure 11: Graphic illustration of Total Material Recovery, SUB………………………… 33
Figure 12: Graphic illustration of % Purity, Marina……………………………………….. 35
Figure 13: Graphic illustration of % Purity, Market……………………………………….. 36
Figure 14: Graphic illustration of % Purity, SUB…………………………………………... 37

Table of Contents
Abstract.........................................................................................................................................2
Acknowledgement ......................................................................................................................3
List of Abbreviations ..................................................................................................................4
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ 4
List of Figures............................................................................................................................... 6
Table of Contents......................................................................................................................... 7
Chapter 1: Introduction ...........................................................................................................10
Waste Management: A global issue......................................................................................................................10
Role of Higher Education Institutes (HEIs) in Waste Reduction.........................................................12
What is Zero Waste?......................................................................................................................................................13
The “Zero Waste Pilot Project” of UAlberta (Lister and SUB)...............................................................14
Zero Waste Stations (Lister and SUB).................................................................................................................15
Scope ofThis Study........................................................................................................................................................17
Chapter 2: On-Site Activities (Methodology).......................................................................18
Bin monitoring.................................................................................................................................................................18
Spot Audits..........................................................................................................................................................................20
Chapter 3: Data Analysis / Results.........................................................................................22
QuantifiedAnalysis........................................................................................................................................................22
Bin monitoring.................................................................................................................................................................22
Lister Center Data Analysis. ........................................................................................................................................22
SUB Data Analysis. ........................................................................................................................................................29

Spot Waste Audits...........................................................................................................................................................34
Lister Center Data Analysis. ........................................................................................................................................34
SUB Data Analysis. ........................................................................................................................................................36
Qualified Analysis...........................................................................................................................................................37
Users’ Attentiveness.......................................................................................................................................................37
Users’ behavior.................................................................................................................................................................38
Common Confusions About Materials...................................................................................................................39
Chapter 4: Discussion...............................................................................................................40
Waste: An Opportunity................................................................................................................................................40
HEIs and WasteManagement: Current Initiatives.......................................................................................41
Role of Signage inService quality..........................................................................................................................42
Waste Reduction Through Educational Programs......................................................................................42
Waste Reduction Through Procurement..........................................................................................................43
Chapter 5: Conclusions and Recommendations..................................................................44
Conclusion...........................................................................................................................................................................44
Future Recommendations for “Zero Waste Goal”........................................................................................44
Web- based Communication........................................................................................................................................45
Educational Initiatives....................................................................................................................................................45
Volunteer Incentives.......................................................................................................................................................46
Procurement.......................................................................................................................................................................46
Final Words........................................................................................................................................................................46
References ..................................................................................................................................48
Appendix 1 – Summary of Outreach Initiatives of UAlberta ............................................53
Appendix 2 – Sample Bin Monitoring Data Sheet ...............................................................54

Appendix 3 – Sample Spot Audit Data Sheet........................................................................55
Appendix 4 – Data Analysis of Lister and SUB Bin Monitoring........................................56
Appendix 5 – Data Analysis of Lister and SUB Spot Audits...............................................57

Monitoring of Zero Waste Stations at University of Alberta: Strengths and Shortcomings
Chapter 1: Introduction
Zero waste is a philosophy and a design principle for the 21st Century; it is
not simply about putting an end to landfilling. Aiming for zero waste is not an
end-of-pipe solution. Zero waste efforts, just like recycling efforts before,
will change the face of solid waste management in the future. Instead of
managing wastes, we will manage resources and strive to eliminate waste.
(Schumpert & Dietz, 2012, p. 5)
Waste Management: A global issue
Industrial revolution and development in technology brought comfort and prosperity to
the economies and day-to-day lives of human societies of the current era, but it is also associated
with the massive generation of waste that is an evil part of each developmental process. The
cause is the random exploitation of natural resources without establishing a cyclical lifecycles of
the products produced by these resources. The lack of this sort of resource management resulted
in frightening increase in the numbers and areas of landfills all around the globe. These landfills
are a major cause of environmental pollution in terms of leachate and open burning, which has
resulted in the alarming increase of global temperature and frequency of natural disasters.
Traditionally, management of the issue of irrepressible waste is considered a system that
“flames, flushes, or flings” all unwanted or unusable products that a society generates (Seadon,
2010, Introduction, para 1). This insufficient approach without controlling the source point of
wastes has turned the world a global unsustainable society. United States Environmental
Protection Agency (USEPA) reports that Americans generated 251 million tons of waste in 2012
and recycled only 87 million, which is 34.5% of total trash (USEPA, 2014, MSW page, para. 2).

Canada has generated approximately 25 million tons of non-hazardous residential and non-
residential waste in 2010 while the conversion rate to recycling facilities was 33% for residential
and 19% for non-residential waste (Giroux, 2014, p. 8). UK has generated approximately 27
million tons of household waste in 2012, while the diversion or recycling rate was only 43.9%
(UK Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs, 2014, p. 2).
These statistics are just a glance over the current waste management situations in
developed countries of the world while the situation in developing countries is relatively
intimidating. According to United Nations Environment Program (UNEP, 2013) guidelines for
national waste management strategies, global statistics shows that more than 1.3 billion tons
waste have been generated in 2012 while almost 50% of the world population does not have
access to the waste management services and open dumping is still the method of disposal of all
kinds of wastes in most low income countries (p. 7). Further, waste collection rates in low and
middle-income countries are also as low as 40% compared to the 98% for high-income countries
(UNEP, 2013, p. 7).
Perhaps the issue lies in the conventional approaches of dealing with waste because
common waste management system operates irrelevant to the production system. This global
issue was also addressed in agenda 21 of the “United Nations Conference on Environment &
Development, June 2012” that defines environmentally sound waste management as one step
ahead to disposal or recovery of wastes to change unsustainable pattern of production and
consumption, which is the source point of the problem (United Nations Division for Sustainable
Development (UN-SD), 1992, para. 21.4). The agenda 21 provided a conceptual and
methodological framework for countries to develop an integrated life cycle management concept
in their national waste management strategies to reconcile development with environmental

protection (UNEP, 2013, p 8 & UN-SD, 1992, para. 21.4). This proposed framework is a
hierarchy of waste-related action plans in an order of preference, which are prevention and
reduction, reuse and recycling, better disposal and treatment, and higher waste service coverage
(UN-SD, 1992, para. 21.5 & UNEP, 2013, p. 18).
Role of Higher Education Institutes (HEIs) in Waste Reduction
Sustainable development starts with the awareness and knowledge of the need to comply
with the nature and natural processes around it and us and it can be best achieved by sustainable
education. Higher Education Institutes (HEIs) at university levels have key potential to change
the perception of the society about sustainable development because they develop professionals
and skilled community members who can shape social insights, lead technological innovations,
and influence policy making processes at national as well as international levels. This potential is
evident through the declaration of United Nations for the period of 2005-2014 as “Decade of
Education” to promote sustainability in all the aspects of educational processes (UNESCO,
2009). Regarding this directive, universities can assimilate sustainability into their curricula,
research, operations, and assessment (Gomez, Navarrete, Lioi, & Marzuca, 2014).
Another point of consideration for the vital role of HEIs for sustainability is the growing
international aspect of knowledge through several factors like urbanization, migrations, broader
access of learning resources, and greater technical supports that makes HEIs a multi-cultural
community of teachers, students, researchers, and future professionals (Gomez, et al. 2014 &
UNESCO, 1993). Over recent decades, this global and multicultural era of HEIs builds students’
personalities through “a complex network of experiences” and makes them responsible to elevate
the degrees of cognizance and ethics necessary for a sustainable global future (Gomez, et al.
2014). Moreover, most of the HEIs are located in the central areas of big cities, which are

already environmentally vulnerable in most of the cases and that also make them compelled to
integrate enhanced sustainability measures in all of their operations to advocate sustainable
development. A good example is University of Huston that is located in down town Huston,
covers approximately 550 acres with more than 100 buildings, and is being obligated by
regulatory bodies to reduce their wastes, specially chemical and hazardous wastes from their
more than 700 laboratories (Sullivan, O’Riley, & Shiwprasad, 2010).
What is Zero Waste?
The term “zero waste” is neither new for environmentally efficient communities nor only
a campaign of “empty trash bins”, but the zenith of the waste management hierarchy that aims to
improve resource efficiency to achieve sustainability (Jessen, 2003). The “Zero Waste Goal” was
first introduced in 1996 in Canberra, Australia, when the city government passed “No Waste by
2010” bill (Paul, 2006). After this advance, several countries initiated different aspects of the
zero waste tactic such as resource recovery park of Canberra, residual screening facilities of
Nova Scotia, and new source separation and collection system of San Francisco with huge
achievements towards waste reduction (Paul, 2006). Further, more than half of New Zealand
districts, Seattle, and North Carolina have began the zero waste programs for different passages
of time for achieving zero waste goals from 2015 to 2025 (Paul, 2006). Jessen (2003) also has
reported several well-established companies and businesses such as Interface Inc., Kimberley
Clarke, Hewlett-Packard of USA, Bell Canada, Toyota, and Ogihara in Japan, who are gaining
the extra environmental and economic benefits trough their zero emission initiates (p 4).
This revolutionary idea of waste reduction has become a global movement that puts
emphasis on such type of resources input in the consumer’s society that would be 100% reusable,
recyclable, or compostable after consumption (Paul, 2006). In other words, “Zero Waste” mimics

the nature for the cyclical nature of natural resources, as there is no waste in nature. The idea of
no waste has also captured the attention of renowned HEIs in the world such as research from
University of Southampton highly recommended new policies for better resource recovery
(Anonymous, 2011). For example, Arizona State University (ASU) initiated their “Roadmap to
zero solid waste” program with the goal of more than 90% waste reduction by 2015 (PR
Newswire, 2012) and “zero waste campus” commitment of Aquinas College, Michigan by 2014
(Dewey, 2014).
The “Zero Waste Pilot Project” of UAlberta (Lister and SUB)
Having a leading role in the community, five campuses, sixty four departments, 8000
staff members, 36000 students from 130 countries of the world, over 400 research laboratories,
and covering an area of 1.5 million square meters, the University of Alberta (UAlberta) is more
than a mini city within the city of Edmonton (University of Alberta, 2008). The UAlberta Office
of Sustainability is actively involved in streamlining, reduction, and diversion of their wastes
through campus sustainability initiatives (e.g., outreach and operations) and collaboration of
many organizations to achieve the University’s set target of diverting 50% (by mass) of landfill
waste by 2015 (University of Alberta, 2002-2015a). In order to accomplish this commitment, the
University of Alberta has initiated several programs and courses with the collaboration of
Edmonton Waste Management Centre of Excellence (EWMCE) to improve their waste
management system and to develop best waste management practices across the campus
(University of Alberta, 2002-2015b).
Currently, the University of Alberta is piloting a new zero waste project with the
collaboration of EWMCE and Tetra Tech EBA. This project “Post-implementation Monitoring
of Zero Waste Stations” is designed to observe users’ responses/behavior against the new set-up

of waste disposal. The data obtained through this observation will be used to further improve
waste diversion and awareness through initiatives such as enhancing the user experience through
better signage, ease of use, and convenience. Two buildings, Students’ Union Building (SUB)
and Lister Centre, were selected for this pilot project with the implementation of new “Zero
Waste Stations” in the dining areas of these buildings. The monitoring process comprises of bin
monitoring and spot waste audits. Bin monitoring involves recording data for users’ recycling
behaviors, their awareness about recycling, and their attention to the new signage system. Spot
audits are periodical audits of designated waste stations to quantify the actual waste and the
contaminants (wrong waste materials in wrong bins) of all four waste streams.
Zero Waste Stations (Lister and SUB)
As shown in Figures 1 and 2, Zero Waste Stations contain four containers that are color
coded for specific types of material streams. The signage system is fairly elaborate with stencil
prints on the front of each bin and a
headboard above each bin, which are highly
visible to the users. The headboards holds
pictures of materials belonging to that bin
that are common in the campus. Besides
these sign, each main station has a big
hanging decal with the logo of “Zero Waste”
with a slogan “Waste Less, Recycle More”
on top of the waste station that is noticeably visible and readable from a distance.
Each station has four material streams. The “Recyclable Bins” are bright blue in color
and have graphic signs of beverage containers, plastics, and glass/light metals. The UAlberta
Figure 1: Zero Waste Station, Marina

prefers paper be recycled as oppose to be composted, hence the MP material stream goes into
golden oak colored “MixedPaper Bins” with the graphics of papers and cardboard materials on
the headboard. The “Organic Bins” are
green and have signs of leftover food,
napkins, receipts, and compostable food
wrappings like pizza trays and French-
fries containers. Lastly, the “Landfill
Bins”, which are black in color and
meant to have all the non-recyclable and
non-compostable materials such as
Styrofoam containers, Tim Hortons
cups, chips, chocolates, and cookie wrappers, and non-recyclable plastics.
In the Lister Center, Marina is located on the main floor in Lister Center and a busy
“takeout or eat-in area” of the building. There are two Zero Waste stations in Marina, which are
placed beside each other near the exit door. Marina has Tim Hortons, a pizza and Chinese food
restaurant, and loads of frozen, packaged, Juices and junk food items. The dining gears include
biodegradable paper-based food containers and napkins and recyclable plastic crockery. The only
items that belong to landfill bins are Tim Hortons’ coffee cups with lids, disposable juice cups,
and chocolate and cookie wrappers. The second dinning area is the Market that is upstairs and
surrounded by several conference halls. It is a formal dine in area that completely serves their
food in reusable serve wares. The zero waste station is located beside the main door with an
organized set up of waste disposal with a big slotted cart beside the waste station for reusable
Figure 2: Zero Waste Station, Market

dishes. The station has an additional Organic bin because most of the waste is biodegradable in
nature.
The second studied building for this project is the Student Union Building. It is a busy
place because of high frequency of different students activities such as student’s campaigns,
occasional stalls, pet therapy, and student’s performances. There is one huge food arena and
three sitting and dinning areas on the main floor and one food area is in the basement. The main
food arena comprises of variety of food shops such as Daily grind (a coffee shop), Greek food,
Pita Shop, Edo, and Subway. It has four waste stations to cover three dinning areas. Among
several Zero Waste Stations, five stations were chosen for bin monitoring and named as SUB
Main, DG (Daily Grind), SW (By Subway), Stg (SUB Stage), and UG (Under Grind).
Scope of This Study
The scope of this study is the post-implementation monitoring of “Zero Waste” stations
in the Lister Center and Students Union Building of UAlberta campus. This research is being
conducted on behalf of EWMCE. Three objectives are chosen for this paper: 1) Study of
behavior/response of the users regarding waste disposal, recycling, and attentiveness towards
“Zero Waste” stations, 2) Data collection and analysis to determine current status of recycling,
material recovery, and contamination, and 3) Discussion about strengths, weaknesses, and key
areas of concern of the project in the light of literature review and potential examples of similar
sustainability initiatives of other HEIs in the world. Furthermore, based on a literature review,
this paper recommends certain initiatives (e.g. procurement, more effective signage and
awareness programs) to enhance the effectiveness of the program for University of Alberta.

Chapter 2: On-Site Activities (Methodology)
For this study, the methodology used for the collection of data is basically to monitor the
effectiveness of the new initiative of Zero Waste within the campus. It was done in two
dimensions: 1) Observation of users behaviors regarding this new waste disposal system and 2)
Determination of incorrect use or cross contamination within different waste streams through
spot audits. In so doing, first dimension was carried out through bin monitoring and the data is
mostly used for qualitative analysis, while spot audits are used for the data collection for
quantitative analysis. Finally the data obtained from these activities was used to identify the
strength and shortcomings, key challenges, potential for improvement, and recommendations for
future improvements. Figure 3 illustrates the hierarchy of data collection and analysis.
Bin monitoring
Bin monitoring is actually the observation of the users’ pattern or behavior toward the
newly installed zero waste stations. Recording the users’ picks for bins to throw their waste did
it. The sample sheet (Figure 4) shows the method of data collection Abbreviations were used as
mixed paper bin (MP), recyclable bin (Re), organics bin (Or), and landfill bin (LF).
Data
Collection
Bin
Monitoring
Users' Bhavior/Attention to Signs
% of Users had Materials and Used Correct Bins
% of Cross Contamination (Incorrect Material in
incorrect Bins)
Spot Audits
Weight of Correct Material in Correct Bins of 4
waste Streams
Weight of Contamination (Incorrect Material in
incorrect Bins)
Figure 3: Data Collection Hierarchy for Analysis

First two sections are quantified observations of number of users, the bins used by them,
and the actual waste material they had. Second section is used for qualified data that records
about the details of their behaviors, their attentiveness, and the time they took for reading the
signs around the stations. This comment or observation section also covers the type of
contaminants i.e., which bin was contaminated by incorrect disposal and this data was separately
used for the analysis of contaminations. For example, if the user threw their leftover food in
recyclable bin then it will be recorded as contamination of recycle bin with organics. But, in the
case of that organics in landfill bin, it will be counted in analysis section as one user who had
divertible material but did not recycle.
Figure 4: Sample Bin Monitoring Recording Sheet
Date: Location:
Material Disposed Bin Used Observations Analysis
Use
r
M
P
Re Or LF MP Re Or LF
Paus
e
(sec)
Comments / Type of
contaminant
had div,
but did not
recycle
1
2
3
Notes SUMMARY LF
MP RE OR
MP
MP
in
Re
MP
in
Or
RE
Re
in
MP
Re
in
Or
OR
Or in
MP
Or
in
Re
LF
LF in
MP
LF
in
Re
Lf in
Or
Tot
al
Cros
s MP
Cros
s Re
Cros
s Or
Cross Contamination Matrix
Total # of users monitored
# Of users had material
# Of users had material and
used correct bin
# Of users had div material,did
not recycle
0
Analysis
% of total,had material
% had material and used correct
bin
% had divertible,and did not
divert
(i.e. all landfill)
Average pause time (second)

The number of users has been recorded in one session ranged from four to forty seven
depending upon the factors like observer’s availability, time of the day, and ongoing events
around the observation area. The data is summarized into three categories: 1) Number of users
had material, 2) Number of users had material and used correct bin, and 3) Number of users had
divertible, but did not recycle. The last section quantifies the cross contamination data through
matrix to analyze the percentage of cross contamination in different waste streams.
Spot Audits
Weighing the total amount of correct waste materials of coordinating bins and incorrect
materials as contaminants did waste audits (Spot audits) for this study. This method is the
passive observation of the status of correct and incorrect uses of the Zero Waste stations by the
users. Figure 5 shows the methodology of data collection for the spot audits of Lister Center and
SUB.
Figure 5: Sample Spot Audit Recording Sheet
UALBERTA - SPOT/MINI AUDIT FORM
Date: Conducted by: Time: to pm
Station: Station: Station:
MIXED PAPER STREAM MIXED PAPER STREAM MIXED PAPER STREAM
RECYCLABLESTREAM RECYCLABLESTREAM RECYCLABLESTREAM
ORGANICS STREAM ORGANICS STREAM ORGANICS STREAM
LANDFILL STREAM LANDFILL STREAM LANDFILL STREAM

The material used for these audits are one full bag of all four waste streams from the
selected waste stations that were collected weekly and analyzed at the temporary stations at the
back of each building. In so doing, each labeled bag was sorted out into two bins, one as the
correct waste that belongs to that waste stream and other as incorrect or contaminants. Both bins
were weighed as the total weight of that waste stream and other as contaminants in that stream.
The correct waste shows the correct use of bins by the users, while contaminants are the
wastes that do not belong to their bins. For example, the organic components of waste from an
organic bin will be considered correct waste, while other components such as recyclables and
papers will be recorded as contaminants. The analysis of this data will determine the weekly
trend of percentage of contamination
For this study, two stations in the Lister Center, Marina and Market, were audited
weekly, while SUB was audited for three stations, Main, Daily Grind and SUB Stage. Weekly
spot waste audits include spot collection of wastes from zero waste stations, separation of the
waste of each bag in two streams (the correct waste and contaminants), and recording their
weights.

Chapter 3: Data Analysis / Results
The data collected for this study was analyzed as quantified and qualified data analysis.
Quantified Analysis
Bin monitoring
For this study, bin-monitoring data is analyzed in three dimensions: 1) Total numbers and
percentages of users who carefully and correctly recycled, 2) Total numbers and their fractions
of users who tried to recycle, but did it incorrectly and caused cross contamination in other waste
streams, and 3) Complete comparison of all aspects of analysis such as number of users, numbers
and their percentages of disposed, recycled, and non-recycled wastes. Further, the two buildings
(Lister & SUB) will be analyzed separately due to difference in nature, purpose, and activities.
Lister Center Data Analysis. The data was collected from August 28, 2014 to
November 12, 2014 and distributed into ten weeks. Table 1 for Marina and 2 for Market show
the percentage of correctly recycled wastes as first Dimension of the analysis.
Table 1
Summary of Percentage of users of Marina who correctly recycled
Note. The Table shows weekly percentage of correct recycling of each waste stream in Marina;
W stands for Week; MP, RE, OR, and LF are the bins of four waste streams (see List of
Abbrevitions); AVG stands for Average that shows total percentage of correct recycling of each
waste stream.
Bins
Percentage of Users had Materials and Used Correct Bins, Marina
W1 W2 W3 W4 W5 W6 W7 W8 W9 W10 AVG
MP -- -- 100% 0% -- 100% -- 100% -- -- 30%
RE 50% 63% 45% 20% 36% 17% 0% 20% 50% 9% 31%
OR 19% 36% 13% 43% 5% 29% 6% 20% 33% 38% 24%
LF 83% 14% 40% 100% 75% 100% 50% 75% 62% 56% 66%

It can be observed in Table 1 that the readings are not very consistent for MP materials.
The reason behind this could be the nature of the food area where it is not very likely to have
paper wastes and most of the readings are zero. Moreover, among very low number of users had
MP, if one user had MP and correctly disposed it, the percentage of that week is 100 and if not, it
is zero (No reading (--) denotes no use of that bin). So in this case, that data shows a 30%
recovery rate of MP waste stream. The RE waste stream is quite frequent in Marina and ranges
from 0% to 63% in ten weeks whereas the average ratio of correct disposal is 31%. Organics are
usually the main component of the waste in any food area to dispose but data presents only 24%
recovery of organic materials in Marina within a range of 5% to 43%. According to the obtained
data, landfill’s correct disposal average is 66%, which is the highest correct within all waste
streams. Observations reveal that it is mostly due to the highest rate of use by the users rather
than correct disposal.
Table 2
Summary of Percentage of users of Market who correctly recycled
Note. The Table shows weekly percentage of correct recycling of each waste stream in Market;
description of table is same as Table 1.
Table 2 shows that data obtained from the Market of Lister Center. Market is a formal
diner place with a highly organized disposal system. In the Market observations for ten weeks
show 0% recovery of MP materials. There could be two explanations, one that no one had MP
Bins
Percentage of Users had Materials and Used Correct Bins, Market
W1 W2 W3 W4 W5 W6 W7 W8 W9 W10 AVG
MP -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 0%
RE 92% 100% 50% 100% 29% 67% 44% 20% 83% 100% 69%
OR 62% 50% 54% 56% 61% 69% 55% 88% 57% 46% 60%
LF 50% -- 67% 40% 67% -- 100% -- 25% 100% 45%

waste or nobody used MP bin because it is evident in Figure 2 that MP bin is the far most bin of
the station in the corner. In this case, users had MP materials but did not use the correct bin. For
recyclable waste, data shows better recovery rate of an average of 69%, which is within the range
of 20% to 100%. Organic recovery is 60% within the range of 46% to 88%. The data in table 2
appeared slightly consistent for OR recovery that is probably because of the restaurant style food
and use of reusable dinning accessories. Lastly, LF recovery of 45% demonstrates low frequency
of landfill materials in the Market because theoretically, it should be quite lesser than observed.
The reason could be that the LF bin is the first reachable bin for the users (Figure 2) and users
have been observed using LF bin for napkins during bin monitoring.
Second dimension of the analysis used in this study for bin monitoring is total numbers
of users who tried to recycle, but did it incorrectly and instigated cross contamination. Table 3
will show contamination of total of all three waste streams in Marina while table 4 shows
percentage of contamination of each waste stream.
Table 3
Total Cross Contamination in Marina
Note. The Table shows total amount of incorrect recycled materials in MP, RE, and OR waste
streams; % Contamination is calculated by dividing total numbers of contamination and users.
Total Cross Contamination, Marina
MP RE OR Total # Of Users % Contamination
Week 1 7 0 1 8 28 29%
Week 2 4 1 4 9 15 60%
Week 4 12 3 0 15 23 65%
Week 6 0 0 0 0 11 0%
Week 7 24 7 1 32 72 44%
Week 8 10 4 1 15 26 58%
Week 9 3 5 1 9 27 33%
Week 10 1 1 0 2 25 8%

Table 4
Percent Cross Contamination in Marina
Note. The Table shows percentage of the data in Table 3; the percentage is obtained through
division of each individual contamination with total of contaminations in all waste streams.
Regarding second dimension, Figure 4 demonstrates the matrix that is used to analyze
bin-monitoring data to determine the percentage of cross contamination of MP, RE, and OR
waste streams. Landfill data is not included in this analysis because this dimension has more
focus on the purity of divertible rather than material recovery from landfills as waste audits. It
can be observed in Tables 3 and 4 that weeks 3 and 5 are not included. This was done to keep the
data consistent with the activity table, as no data of contamination was available for these weeks.
Figure 6: Graphic illustration of cross contamination in Marina. % Contamination
represents the data obtained from Table 3.
% Cross Contamination, Marina
MP RE OR Total
Week 1 88% 0% 13% 100%
Week 2 44% 11% 44% 100%
Week 4 80% 20% 0% 100%
Week 6 -- -- -- --
Week 7 75% 22% 3% 100%
Week 8 67% 27% 7% 100%
Week 9 33% 56% 11% 100%
Week 10 50% 50% 0% 100%

It can be observed in Figure 6 that after week 3, overall cross contamination in the bins
is slightly decreasing (From 65% to 8%), which is obviously a good sign regarding the success
towards this new waste reduction initiative around the campus.
The second place in the Lister Center that was observed in this study is the Market.
Regarding cross contamination, the Market is slightly lower than Marina within a range of 32%
to 4%. The data was analyzed in Tables 5 and 6 and Figure 7 expresses the data graphically.
Table 5
Total Cross Contamination in Market
Note. Description of the Table is same as Table 3.
Table 6
Percent Cross Contamination in Market
Note. Description of the Table is same as Table 4.
Total Cross Contamination, Market
Week 1 0 1 2 3 49 6%
Week 2 2 0 0 2 18 11%
Week 4 11 2 0 13 55 24%
Week 6 1 1 2 4 25 16%
Week 7 3 1 1 5 62 8%
Week 8 1 0 2 3 20 15%
Week 9 4 3 1 8 25 32%
Week 10 0 0 1 1 26 4%
% Cross Contamination, Market
MP RE OR Total
Week 1 0% 33% 67% 100%
Week 2 100% 0% 0% 100%
Week 4 85% 15% 0% 100%
Week 6 25% 25% 50% 100%
Week 7 60% 20% 20% 100%
Week 8 33% 0% 67% 100%
Week 9 50% 38% 13% 100%
Week 10 0% 0% 100% 100%

Figure 7: Graphic illustration of cross contamination in Market. % Contamination is obtained
from Table 3.
Third dimension of the analysis summarizes the data into aforementioned three
categories. Tables 7 and 8 show the summary of the data collected from Lister bin monitoring
including Marina and Market. Summary of Table 7 shows that 227 users in Marina have been
monitored using Zero Waste station during the period of ten weeks. Most of the users had wastes
of more than one waste stream and summarized by their number of disposal attempts and types
of materials they had. It can be observed that total of 314 waste materials had been disposed in
which there were 8 (3%) mixed paper material, 82 (26%) recyclables, 165 (52%) organics, and
60 (19%) landfill material present. Regarding the details of the four waste streams, recycling rate
of MP is 62%, RE is 30%, OR is 23%, and LF is 60%, while the rest of the materials were either
went into incorrect bins (Contaminants) or LF bins. Overall, out of the total waste recorded, only
33% was correctly recycled while 67% was wasted. The data obtained from Market shows fairly
high concentration of OR material in their waste (76%) and the recovery rate of 59% is indeed a
positive sign. LF materials are only 7% of the total waste that is an achievement for a diner
regarding their procurement strategy. As mentioned before, MP is the least used bin in the
Market, as the data appears zero activity here.

Table 7
Summary of Total of Categories Analyzed, Marina
Note. The Table displays total of the data obtained from Marina in three categories; Number of
users is the data from ten weeks observations; Number of materials is the total amount and
attempts of users in all four streams; Number of materials in correct bin is the total of recycling;
Number of divertible not recycled is the total of the use of LF bins.
Table 8
Summary of Total of Categories Analyzed, Market
Note. The Table displays total of the data obtained from Market in three categories; description
of the table is same as Table 7.
Further, graphical illustrations of the analysis of total percentage of material recovery
(Number of materials in correct bins) in Marina and Market are shown in Figures 8 and 9.
Summary of Analyzed Categories, Marina
Categories MP RE OR LF Total
Total Number of users monitored 227
Numbers of materials users had 8(3%) 82(26%) 165(52%) 60(19%) 314
Number of materials in correct bins 5(62%) 25(30%) 37(23%) 36(60%) 103(33%)
Number of divertible not recycled 3(38%) 57(70%) 128(77%) 24(40%) 212(67%)
Summary of Analyzed Categories, Market
Numbers of materials users had 0 59(18%) 257(76%) 22(7%) 338
Number of materials in correct
bins
0 34(58%) 151(59%) 12(55%) 197(58%)
Number of divertible not recycled 0 25(42%) 106(41%) 10(45%) 141(42%)

Figure 8: Graphic illustration of Total Material Recovery, Marina. % Users who used correct
bins represents data analysis of all four waste streams from Appendix 4.
Figure 9: Graphic illustration of Total Material Recovery, Market. % Users who used correct
bins represents data analysis of all four waste streams from Appendix 4.
SUB Data Analysis. Bin monitoring in the Students Union Building (SUB) was slight
different from the Lister Center in terms of period of the semester, dates, frequency, number of
stations observed, and time of the day. As mentioned before, five Zero Waste Stations (Main,
DG, Stg, SW, & UG) were selected for this study and have been observed in different days and
time because it was difficult to monitor all the stations in one day. Observations started from
October 3 to November 26, 2014 and analyzed for six weeks periods where week 1 has only one
monitoring data while weeks 5 and 6 have all five stations covered. Because of this frequency

constraint, this study will examine the data on average of weeks. The data was analyzed in three
dimensions, same as the Lister Center.
First dimension of the analysis was the percentage of correctly recycled wastes.
Table 9 shows the quantitative observations. The data demonstrates higher percentages of
recycling activities in RE and LF streams. Observations clarified that in the case of RE bins,
users usually seemed confident about their disposal choice, but LF bins were used for many
reasons by users of the SUB such as lack of attention on the signs, lack of time, lack of
awareness about the product they have, and more frequently in the case of any confusion. This
trend resulted in higher recovery rate of landfill materials but lower the recovery frequency of
other waste streams specially MP and OR.
Table 9
Summary of Percentage of users of SUB who correctly recycled
Note. The Table shows weekly percentage of correct recycling of each waste stream in all five
waste stations of SUB; W stands for Week; MP, RE, OR, and LF are the bins of four waste
streams (see List of Abbreviations); AVG stands for Average that shows total percentage of
correct recycling of each waste stream.
Regarding second dimension of the analysis, which is total numbers of users who tried
to recycle, but did it incorrectly and caused cross contamination, data obtained from SUB was
Bins
Percentage of Users had Materials and Used Correct Bins
Week 1 Week 2 Week3 Week4 Week5 Week6 AVG
MP -- 63% 75% 33% -- 60% 39%
RE 100% 69% 61% 78% 66% 36% 68%
OR 38% 14% 7% 17% 26% 11% 19%
LF 75% 92% 93% 94% 84% 92% 88%

used on average for six-week duration. Table 10 displays the analysis of cross contamination,
while Table 11 shows the percentage of contamination of individual waste streams.
Table 10
Total Cross Contamination in SUB
Note. The Table shows total amount of incorrect recycled materials in MP, RE, and OR waste
streams; % Contamination is calculated by dividing total numbers of contamination and users.
Table 11
Percent Cross Contamination in SUB
% Cross Contamination
MP RE OR Total
Week 1 0% 67% 33% 100%
Week 2 50% 25% 25% 100%
Week 3 56% 33% 11% 100%
Week 4 100% 0% 0% 100%
Week 5 47% 26% 26% 100%
Week 6 50% 25% 25% 100%
Note. The Table shows percentage of the data in Table 10; the percentage is obtained through
division of each individual contamination with total of contaminations in all waste streams.
Total Cross Contamination
Week 1 0 2 1 3 26 12%
Week 2 6 3 3 12 122 10%
Week 3 5 3 1 9 48 19%
Week 4 7 0 0 7 62 11%
Week 5 9 5 5 19 109 17%
Week 6 6 3 3 12 132 9%

The data presents a slight decrease in the rate of contamination from the highest 19% to
9%. According to the individual waste streams, MP has the highest rate of contamination. The
reason could be the common confusion of users about napkin and other biodegradable papers
such as food containers and paper cups, which were usually been put into MP bins. Graphical
illustration of the data also clarifies the decrease in contamination rate in SUB (Figure 10).
Figure 10: Graphic illustration of Cross Contamination, SUB. % Contamination is obtained from
Table 11.
Third dimension of the analysis demonstrates all the categories that have been analyzed
in this study. In SUB (Table 12), total 474 users were observed during entire sessions of bin
monitoring for all five stations that disposed 614 waste materials of all waste streams. The ratio
of correctly recycled and non-recycled materials is approximately the same (49 & 51%) but it
can be observed that the lowest recovery rate is of OR waste stream (only 20%) as compare to
the landfill (87%). MP rate of recovery is 61% that is close to the RE (64%). As mentioned in the
Lister bin monitoring analysis, higher rate of LF recovery is mostly due to non-recycling attitude
of the users rather than positive separation and recycling of the landfill materials from other
recoverable waste streams. It was fairly common observation in the SUB that users were
confused between biodegradable paper and Styrofoam food containers and most of the users

decided to throw then in LF bins. Same attitude was observed for napkins with the difference of
use of both MP and LF bins. A graphic illustration in Figure 11 expresses the trend of recycling
in SUB more explicitly.
Table 12
Summary of Total of Categories Analyzed, SUB
Note. The Table displays total of the data obtained from all five stations of SUB in three
categories; Number of users is the data from ten weeks observations; Number of materials is the
total amount and attempts of users in all four streams; Number of materials in correct bin is the
total of recycling; Number of divertible not recycled is the total of the use of LF bins.
Figure 11: Graphic illustration of Total Material Recovery, SUB. % Users who used correct bins
represents data analysis of all four waste streams from Appendix 4.
Summary of Categories Analyzed, SUB
Numbers of materials users had 36(6%) 112(18%) 301(49%) 165(27%) 614
Number of materials in correct bins 22(61%) 72(64%) 60(20%) 144(87%) 298(49%)
Number of divertible not recycled 14(39%) 40(36%) 241(80%) 20(13%) 315(51%)

Spot Waste Audits
Lister Center Data Analysis. This study used the method of spot audits to measure the
percentage of “correct waste” present in the labeled bins and the percentage of all other types of
materials in that bin, considered as “contaminants”. In the Lister Center, total of six spot audits
have been done for the Lister Center (Both Marina and Market together) during the period of
September 10 to October 29, 2014. The data is analyzed as “% Purity” of the recovered materials
from landfills through the “Zero Waste Stations”.
Tables 13 and 14 show the percentages of purity of all four waste streams from Marina
and Market in the Lister Center. OR and RE wastes have higher rate of purity, or in other words,
less contamination than the other two streams.
Table 13
Percent Purity of Marina, Lister Center
Note. The Table explains the ratio of correct and incorrect recycling in all four waste streams in
Marina; the data is analyzed as percentage of purity of individual waste streams through the
formula: % Purity= 1- Weight of Contaminants / (Weight of Correct Waste + Weight of
Contaminants); data analysis is presented in Appendix 5.
% Purity – Waste Audit Results of Marina
Weeks MP RE OR LF
I 3% 35% 81% 13%
2 0% 55% 90% 18%
3 15% 34% 82% 10%
4 0% 0% 86% 19%
5 0% 38% 86% 5%
6 3% 21% 93% 16%

Table 14
Percent Purity of Market, Lister Center
Market; description of the table is same as Table 13.
The data indicates better understanding of users about organic and recyclable waste
materials. However, the fact that organic food materials are fairly heavy than Styrofoam or
chocolate or cookie wrappers may alter this understanding. For example, if five users put
Styrofoam food container in OR bin and one user threw an apple, the result will indicate higher
percentage of OR material in that OR bin. Other factor that can show higher percentage of purity
is lesser usage of the bin that is the case of higher percentage of purity in MP bin of Market.
Figures 12 and 13 will express the results graphically.
Figure 12: Graphic illustration of % Purity, Marina. Data analysis obtained from six waste
audits is presented in Appendix 5.
% Purity – Waste Audit Results of Market
Weeks MP RE OR LF
I 46% 78% 98% 27%
2 57% 78% 84% 32%
3 0% 65% 90% 12%
4 64% 57% 91% 28%
5 100% 93% 93% 16%
6 77% 54% 89% 11%

Figure 13: Graphic illustration of % Purity, Market. Data analysis obtained from six waste audits
is presented in Appendix 5.
SUB Data Analysis. Sub spot audits started from October 8, 2014 and ended at
November 26, 2014. In SUB, Six reading were taken from week 5 to 10, to be consistent with the
Lister Center. For SUB, only three stations were chosen for spot audits, which are Main, DG,
and Stg stations. Same as bin monitoring data, analysis of SUB spot audits were done on an
average basis. Table 15 and Figure 15 show the percentages of purity in all three stations.
Table 15
Percent Purity of SUB
all five waste stations of SUB; description of the table is same as Table 13.
% Purity – Waste Audit Results of SUB
Weeks MP RE OR LF
I 46% 78% 98% 27%
2 57% 78% 84% 32%
3 0% 65% 90% 12%
4 64% 57% 91% 28%
5 100% 93% 93% 16%
6 77% 54% 89% 11%

Figure 14: Graphic illustration of % Purity, SUB. Data analysis obtained from six waste audits is
presented in Appendix 5.
In comparison of the Lister Center, SUB data show a higher range of purity in all of their
waste streams that indicates enhanced acceptance of recycling initiatives in this busy place. The
data also show lower rates of purity in LF stream that could be the observed confusion about
certain recyclable materials such as napkins and paper based food containers.
Qualified Analysis
Qualitative analysis was performed during bin monitoring and was focused on users’
attention to the new waste stations, time taken to read the signs on the bins, and overall users’
behaviors and habits towards waste disposal.
Users’ Attentiveness. For a hectic campus such as University of Alberta, proper waste
disposal is usually not the main priority of the people, which is mostly based on their habits and
convenience. Regarding observations of using these well organized, colorful, and eye-catching
“Zero Waste Stations”, it undeniably catches users’ attention most of the times. Even though the
concept of “Zero Waste” is relatively new for the society as well as around the campus, most of
the users have been observed paying attention to the overall set up of these waste stations. It was
frequently observed that users take time to read the signs on the bins prior to disposing their
wastes. Among all the stations observed in both buildings, most attentive users were observed in

the Market, Lister Center. It could be because of several sustainability initiatives taken in the
Lister center (S. Leblanc, personal communication (see Appendix 1 for details), February 26,
2015), but it seems more about the procured and organized environment of the Market where
users really take time to rub off their reusable dishes to put in the dirty dishes cart.
Users’ behavior. Most of the users observed for this study were students of UAlberta,
however faculty members, staff, construction workers, and a vast variety of visitors were also
observed occasionally (approximately 25% of users). It was observed frequently that when
students were in groups of three to six persons, they were busy talking and paid very little
attention to the waste stations or the signs around them. An interesting observation revealed that
the choice of bin of the first person influenced the subsequent choices of the rest of the group.
Seldom people chose a different bin than the first person. This behavior was very common in
Marina of Lister Center where the waste stations are in front of the exit door and most of the
users just pass by the waste stations without paying any attention to the signs or watching their
moves. Another place that experienced this behavior of users was the DG station in SUB, which
was also at the end corner of the food arena towards the exit door.
Besides this inattentiveness, some keen and watchful users have also been observed at all
of the stations, but most seemed like visitors or new to the campus. This behavior is very
common in the Market of Lister Center and Main Station of SUB. Both of these stations have
some special arrangements around them such as Market has a system of dirty dishes cart beside
the station and Main Station has an attached small kitchenette where people warm their food and
wash their reusable dishes. Both activities take time and while doing so, most people read the
decals and signs and try to follow it. But the main issue was lack of awareness about the
materials of the trash they had. Generally visitors or some students who were seen to be

observant and considerate regarding disposal of their wastes faced this problem. Some users
were found literally trying to match the waste in their hands with the pictures on the waste bins.
Common Confusions About Materials. Observations of users’ behaviors also revealed
some confusion among them regarding wastes. Although Zero Waste Stations have adequate
signs and pictures to encourage and guide the users, there are still some quandaries present for
certain products that are commonly used in the food areas around the campus. The most
perplexing item was the “Napkin”, which was commonly mistaken for MP or LF materials by
more than 90% of the users. Secondly, “Paper-based Food Containers and Cups” were mistaken
with Styrofoam containers and Tim Hortons’ cups and ended in the LF or MP bins more than
75% of the times. Another confusing material was the “Plastics”, which confused the users quite
frequently and was a common cause of contamination in RE bins.

Chapter 4: Discussion
Waste: An Opportunity
Wastes are currently taken as a challenge by industry and management, but proper waste
management strategies and policies can open a new prospect of social, economic, and
environmental opportunities (UNEP, 2013, p. 8). The global movement of achieving sustainable
development has inspired governments and communities to improve their waste management as
an integrated system that incorporates “environmental prestige, enhanced monetary profits,
social involvement and appreciation, and governmental assiduousness” (Chung & Lo, 2003).
Although, it is difficult to achieve desirable success for many countries, a significant number of
governments and environmental agencies have initiated researches and implementations of
sustainable waste management based on the waste hierarchy described above. Moreover, public
participations in Europe, UK, and USA has been developed for appropriate local waste strategies
in the form of Community Advisory Committees (CACs) that provide excellent technical and
professional judgments for policy makers (Petts, 2001). A good example is the “WasteWise
Program” of U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which reported a six-fold increase
in waste reduction (Approximately 26 million tons) by program partners in five years
(Anonymous, 2000). A recent example is the waste reduction grants of $2.93 million, announced
by Massachusetts Governor Duvall Patrick’s administration to 179 cities, towns, regions, and
communities for different waste reduction initiatives (Anonymous, BioCycle, 2014).
Canada has a plenty of room to develop new strategies for waste management because
most of the provinces and jurisdictions have poor records of wastes and have spend fairly large
amounts of public funds on collection and transportation, recycling and composting, and other
recovery treatments of wastes (Giroux, 2014, p. 9). In this regard, organizations like the National

Zero Waste Council by Metro Vancouver (2012) and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities
(FCM) initiated an approach to prevent waste upstream by engaging industries to drive
innovation and downstream by changing consumer’s behavior (Giroux, 2014, p. 15). Indeed,
there are many voluntary programs are working Canada-wide such as Canadian Electrical
Stewardship Agency, Clean Farms, “Recycle My Cell” by Canadian Wireless
Telecommunication Association, Call2Recycle, and Health Products Stewardship Association,
which are working towards waste reduction and recycling targets (Giroux, 2014, pp. 35-39).
HEIs and Waste Management: Current Initiatives
Importance of the roles of universities for sustainability was first highlighted in
Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment in 1992 and followed by several declarations
such as Talloires Declaration (1990), Halifax Declaration (1991), and Swansea and Kyoto
Declarations (1993) (Mason, Brooking, Oberender, Harford, & Horsley, 2003). Association of
University Leaders for a Sustainable Future (ULSF, 2008) recognizes the exceptional place of
universities and colleges to influence the developmental path of the societies as well as
responsible for doing so in a sustainable way. Talloires Declaration (1990) describes the role of
universities to educate, enhance awareness, and provide knowledge and trainings to the future
professionals as well as societies.
During recent decades, HEIs have been featuring values of sustainable development in
their educational and operational environment worldwide (Glavic, Lukman, & Lozano, 2008).
An example is the 4th international conference on environmental management for sustainable
universities (EMSU) held in University of Wisconsin, USA (2006) with the theme of
“Transforming ideas into action: building sustainable communities beyond university campus”
(EMSU, 2006). Glavic et al, (2008) presented several examples of universities, especially

engineering schools that play a leading role for integrating innovative sustainability approach in
the actual technology and industrial practices. University of British Columbia (UBC) took a good
Canadian waste reduction initiative, which is among the best HEIs for environmental activities.
In 1998, a thorough waste audit was performed for the campus solid waste to provide directions
to achieve the campus goal of 50% waste reduction with vital future recommendations (Felder,
Petrell, & Duff, 2001). U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) appreciated voluntary
waste reduction initiative of Seattle University in its five years report on WasteWise program in
2000 for composting approximately 200 tons of their organic waste and distributing reusable
mugs to students that saved 2.5 million paper cups to be wasted (Anonymous, 2000).
Role of Signage in Service quality
Signage quality is of utmost importance for businesses or services to allow the user to
develop an expected perception. Bonfanti (2013) argues that the signage system should give an
information review on the theme, ascertains users’ needs, and offers theoretical background. The
studied Zero Waste Stations are fairly supplemented by informative signs and decals, but
findings of this study suggest more enhanced functional value for these signs to improve users’
understanding to zero waste concept and the correct way to use it.
Waste Reduction Through Educational Programs
As discussed earlier, universities have better opportunities to educate sustainable
practices in two ways: Prepare sustainability conscious professionals and create a role model
sustainable environment throughout the campus. University of Alberta has taken this opportunity
in its maximum extent to change the culture of waste disposal through new “Zero Waste”
initiative. Although Office of Sustainability has led several educational programs to enhance
awareness towards its waste reduction initiatives (See Appendix 1), finding of this study

emphasizes for more achievements and further improvement in overall waste reduction culture
around the campus. For example, “Resource Efficient Program” of Scottish government
established a user-friendly, informative online tool to prepare businesses for new regulation
(Scottish Business Insider, 2013). This study found lack of online resources for “Zero Waste
Program” for helping students to be accustomed with new waste disposal system in the campus
and find literature for guidance.
Waste Reduction Through Procurement
As this study is focused on waste disposal analysis of food areas of the campus of
UAlberta, the discussion of procurement is limited to the food services. This study finds that
because adequate procurement strategy was already implemented in the Market; the results of
material recovery and recycling behavior of users are fairly high than other places like Marina
and SUB food area where Tim Hortons and Edo are still using non-recyclable products.
However, new strategies should be implemented to avoid non-recyclable products on the campus
with other initiatives to achieve the goal of a zero waste culture.

Chapter 5: Conclusions and Recommendations
Conclusion
Universities have a vital role in the society in terms of preparing professionals and
influence the values and norms of communities. Regarding sustainability, universities have
extensive responsibilities and incorporation of sustainable practices is being accepted in HEIs
worldwide through several declarations and organizational initiatives. Among other
internationally recognized HEIs, University of Alberta has implemented several sustainability
programs including “Zero Waste Stations”. In this study, these waste stations were analyzed for
their effectiveness towards the university’s set goal of 50% waste diversion by 2015. The study
was focused on users’ behavior towards recycling and current status of waste recovery and
diversion from landfill through bin monitoring and spot audits of newly implemented zero waste
stations. The data indicates total material recovery rate as Marina (33%), Market (58%), and
SUB (49%). Regarding percent purity, the highest waste stream is the organics with over 80%
from all of the stations studied followed by recyclables (approximately 50%).
Further, the study reviews the ways of improvement in outreach, signage, and
procurement fields in the light of literature review. The observations suggest a significant lack of
knowledge and awareness among users as well as slight lack of interest towards recycling. The
study also finds plenty of room for intensified strategies to improve recycling behavior
throughout the campus and proposes some thoughts for the improvement.
Future Recommendations for “Zero Waste Goal”
With the help of literature review, on-site observations, and data analysis, this study
recognizes tremendous environmental sustainability initiatives taken by UAlberta. Regarding
zero waste initiative, which is the focus of this study, quantitative findings and qualitative

observational summary find it a good start towards a zero waste campus. However, as every
initiative takes time and significant efforts to achieve its anticipated goals, this project also
requires overcoming its weaknesses to prompt the desired progress. Therefore, after a thorough
observation and data study, this paper recommends some strategies for improvement in the
project.
Web- based Communication. Although people are aware of zero waste project on
campus, this paper recommends a strong, educational and resourceful website to supplement the
project. This website could also contain surveys about users’ experiences and concerns about
waste disposal and provide activities like ecological footprints. This mode of communication
will definitely increase the prominence of this project within and outside the campus and could
bring potential new ideas of improvement.
Educational Initiatives. Being an educational institution, UAlberta can use this
opportunity by involving passionate staff members, students unions, sports and Information
Technology (IT) personnel, who volunteer to spread the concept of zero waste in its true and
literary meanings. This study highly recommends working towards capturing new students
attention on waste reduction plans because it is more convenient and faster way to convey the
message to new students. Some of the actions that can be taken easily are:
 Conceptual and functional tours of zero waste stations during new student campus tour.
 Distribution of free reusable cups during new students orientations.
 Mandatory orientation of waste reduction strategies of UAlberta for new students.
 Involvement of custodial staff for spot-checking of bins and correction of users.
 Frequent events for promoting waste reduction habits and attitude towards recycling.

Volunteer Incentives. Enthusiastic volunteers are a great power for any institution and
certainly, UAlberta also has a wealth of them. There should be new and exciting incentives (e.g.,
Zero Waste Champion Award, Zero Waste Poster Winner Award, achievement awards and
grants) for these volunteers to promote behavioral and cultural change in recycling and waste
reduction strategies. This study proposes strong volunteer stewardship in Marina to motivate and
educate users of zero waste stations.
Procurement. Even procurement is a policy matter for an organization; this study finds
that there is a possibility of significant improvement in material recovery and recycling behavior
of users through the replacement of non-recyclable materials from food areas of the campus. The
observations through bin monitoring confirm that the use of non-recyclable plastic products and
Styrofoam is a major cause of contamination in recoverable materials in food areas as well as
confusion about waste materials among users. Although, UAlberta’s waste reduction goal for
2016-2020 is exploring ways to address this issue, this study strongly recommends more
effective outreach and procurement plans for Marina and SUB food area.
Final Words
According to 2007 FCM Community Energy Planning Mission, Edmonton’s integrated
and innovative waste management strategies such as street sand recycling and landfill gas
recovery plant, and 60% waste diversion rate make the city a leader in sustainable waste
management. EWMC and EWMCE is the hub for these remarkable achievements of the city
government. On the other hand, University of Alberta has award winning sustainability plans for
their campus sustainability such as Waste in Residence Outreach Program, Organic Diversion
Program, Waste Diversion Working Group and many others, which are working towards their
Sustainability Plan for 2016-2020 (University of Alberta, 2014). Assisted by EWMCE

professionals, the Zero Waste Pilot Project is one of these robust initiatives that have potential to
change the whole culture of recycling within the campus. This project could be among those vital
waste diversion initiatives, which will help achieve sustainable waste management target of
UAlberta. However, the success of this project depends on some factors such as intensive
outreach for awareness of the concept and requirements of zero waste, dedicated volunteer ship,
and improved procurement strategy that would help this program to run in its full strength and
benefits. Through profound observations of users responses, this research project found necessity
of strategic changes in outreach programs for the users and procurement plans to enjoy the
targeted success of this sustainable initiative.

References
Anonymous. (2011). Waste Management Research; Research from University of Southampton in
the Area of Waste Management Research Published. Trade Journal, The Business of
Global Warming via NewsRx.com. 8. Retrieved from ABI/INFORM Complete database.
Anonymous. BioCycle. (2014). Massachusetts waste reduction grants. J.G. Press Inc. 55(10). 1-
10. Retrieved from ABI/INFORM Complete database.
Association of University Leaders for a Sustainable Future (ULSF). (2008). About ULSF:
Rational. ULSF 2008. Retrieved from http://www.ulsf.org
Association of University Leaders for a Sustainable Future (ULSF). (2008). Talloires
Declaration: Report and declaration of the presidents’ conference (1990). ULSF 2008.
Retrieved from http://www.ulsf.org
Bonfanti, A. (2013). Towards an approach to signage management quality (SMQ). Journal of
Services Marketing, 27(4). 312 – 321. doi: 10.1108/08876041311330780
Chung, S. & Lo, C. W. H. (2003). Evaluating sustainability in waste management: The case
study of construction and demolition, chemical and clinical wastes in Hong Kong.
(2003). Resources, Conservation and Recycling Journal, 37(2). 119-145. doi:
10.1016/S0921-3449(02)00075-7
Dewey, C. (2014). Aquinas College focuses on zero-waste commitment. Grand Rapid Business
Journal, 32(18). 1-3. Retrieved from ABI/INFORM Complete database.
Environmental management for sustainable universities (EMSU). (2006). Transforming ideas
into action: building sustainable communities beyond university campus. Global
Environmental Management Education Center (GEM), University of Wisconsin, USA.
Retrieved from http://www.uwsp.edu

FCM Community Energy Planning Mission. (2007). Innovation pushes Edmonton to the leading
edge of waste management. FCM Centre for Sustainable Community Development.
Retrieved from https://www.fcm.ca
Felder, M. A. J., Petrell, R. J., & Duff, S. J. B. (2001). A solid waste audit and directions for
waste reduction at the University of British Columbia, Canada. Waste Management &
Research Journal, 19(4). 354-365. doi: 10.1177/0734242X0101900412
Giroux, L. (Giroux Environmental Consultants). (2014). State of waste management in Canada:
Prepared for Canadian Council of Ministers of Environment (CCME). PN 1528, CCME.
1-119. Retrieved from www.ccme.ca
Glavic, P., Lukman, R., & Lozano, R. (2008). Engineering education: environmental and
chemical engineering or technology curricula – a European perspective. European
Journal of Engineering Education 34(1), 47–61. doi: 10.1080/03043790802710193
Gomez, F. U., Navarrete, C. S., Lioi, S. R., & Marzuca, V. I. (2014). Adaptable model for
assessing sustainability in higher education. Journal of Cleaner Production, 1(11). 1-2.
doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.07.047
Hawken, P. (2010). The Ecology of Commerce: a declaration of sustainability. New York:
HarperCollins Publishers, 1st ed. 1993.
Jessen, M. (2003). Discarding the idea of waste: The need of a Zero Waste policy. An article
presented in Recycling Council of BC's Annual Waste Reduction Conference and Talkin’
Trash: Community Economic Development and Recycling conference, Smithers, BC
Canada (2000). 1-145. http://www.zerowaste.ca

Mason, I. G., Brooking, A. K., Oberender, A., Harford, J. M., & Horsley, P. G. (2003).
Implementation of a zero waste program at a university campus. Resources, Conservation
and Recycling, 38(4). 257-269. doi:10.1016/S0921-3449(02)00147-7
Paul, C. (2006). Zero waste wins. Alternatives Journal, 32(1). Retrieved from CBCA Reference
& Current Events database.
Petts, J. (2001). Evaluating the effectiveness of deliberative processes: Waste management case-
studies. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 44(2), 207-226, doi:
10.1080/09640560120033713
PR Newswire. (2012). Waste Management of Arizona Driving Arizona State University's
Roadmap to Zero Solid Waste. PR Newswire Association LLC [New York]. Retrieved
from ABI/INFORM Complete database.
Schumpert, K., and Dietz, C. (2012). Zero waste for schools. Green Teachers, Spring 2012, 95.
5-7. Retrieved from CBCA Education database.
Scottish Business Insider. (2013). Looking for more information on the new waste? Scotland?
Regulations? Resource Efficient Scotland, 37. MGN Ltd. Retrieved from ABI/INFORM
Complete database.
Seadon, J. K. (2010). Sustainable waste management system. Journal of Cleaner Production,
18(16-17). 1639-1651. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2010.07.009
Sullivan, E. C., O’Riley, M. A., & Shiwprasad, S. (2010). Chemical waste: Professional safety.
American Society of Safety Engineers, University of Huston, 55(6). 54-58. Retrieved from
ABI/INFORM Complete database.

UK Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs: Government Statistical Service. (2014).
Waste and recycling statistics and ENV23 - UK statistics on waste – 2010 to 2012. 1-10.
Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk
United Nations Division for Sustainable Development. (1992). United Nations conference on
environment & development, agenda 21 – chapter 21, para. 21.4-21.6. Retrieved from
http://unhabitat.org
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). (2009). Education
for sustainable development. UNESCO 2009 – 2014. Retrieved from
http://www.unesco.org
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). (1993).
Recommendations on the recognition of studies and qualifications in higher education.
UNESCO, general conference, 27th session, 1993. Retrieved from http://portal.unesco.org
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). (2013). Guidelines for national waste
management strategies: Moving from challenges to opportunities. International
Environmental Technology Centre (IETC) of UNEP & United Nations Institute for
Training and Research (UNITAR). 1-99. Retrieved from http://www.unep.org
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2014). Municipal solid waste
generation, recycling, and disposal in the United States: Facts and figures for 2012. EPA-
530-F-14-001. Retrieved from www.epa.gov/wastes
University of Alberta Sustainability Plan 2016-2020. (2014). Waste: Selected activities and
accomplishments related to the campus sustainability. Sustainability at UAlberta.
Retrieved from http://sustainability.ualberta.ca

University of Alberta. (2002-2015a). About waste diversion: Operations and Maintenance,
buildings and ground services. Facilities and Operations: University of Alberta.
Retrieved from http://www.facilities.ualberta.ca
University of Alberta. (2002-2015a). Campus sustainability initiative. Office of Sustainability:
University of Alberta. Retrieved from http://www.sustainability.ualberta.ca
University of Alberta. (2008). Celebrating a Century of Achievement in Public Education:
University of Alberta Centennial. University of Alberta. Retrieved from
http://www.ualbertacentennial.ca

Appendix 1 – Summary of Outreach Initiatives of UAlberta
The Office of Sustainability led three evenings of outreach at Lister Centre (in the dining hall)
between August and December 2014. They essentially would staff the dining hall Zero Waste
station and intercept students as they were using the bins. Key messages included:
- Generally, would explain what the system is (four streams, need to sort accordingly, etc.)
- Focused messaging after we had done some monitoring on "paper towels are organics,
not mixed paper"
- Students can help us reach our Sustainability Plan goal to divert 50% of waste by 2015
- Contamination in the bins can cause the bins to be sent to landfill
Recycle it Right Game was used at the beginning of the term
- Game developed by the OS with input from BGS and EMSO
- Students get bean bags with pictures of waste items and they have to throw them in the
correct bin
- It’s like a carnival game that teaches them to sort according to our system on campus
- Prizes are awarded for getting a certain number correct
One Simple Act on Campus was done early in the term as well (late August) at one of the dinner
buffets with first year students.
- Program adopted in partnership with Government of Alberta
- Ask people to choose an action they are not already doing and commit to it publicly and
in writing (e.g. "I will compost at school" or "I will use reusable dishes for my lunch") for
a certain period of time, to encourage behavior change.
- To participate, they choose an action, write their commitment on a card, have their
picture taken, and then keep the card as a prompt/reminder.

Appendix 2 – Sample Bin Monitoring Data Sheet
BIN Monitoring Form
Date:
Station Location:
MP=mixed paper; Re=recyclables; Or=organics; LF=landfill Put √ for ‘Yes’
Was <material>
disposed?
Was <bin> used? Observations
Us
er
MP Re Or LF
M
P
Bi
n
R
e
Bi
n
O
r
Bi
n
L
F
Bi
n
Pause
(#sec.
before
toss)
Comments / Notes
(use codes if needed as trends arise
e.g. NS=no sign check, S=sight, C=confused,
D=distracted;
type of contaminate)
0, 2,
…
1 y y y 2 Fork and paper plate
2 y y 0 Napkins in MP
3 y y 0 Fork and plastic plate
4 y y 0
5 y y y y 3 S but C- Plastic in LF & coffee cup in Re
6 y y 0 Sandwich wrap in MP
7 y y y 5 S but C
8 y y y 2 Milk bottle in Or
9 y y 0 Napkins in MP
10 y y 2 S
11 y y 2 S
12 y y 2 Pizza plate & napkins in MP
13 y y 0 Napkins
14 y y 2 Coffee cup in Re
15 y y 2
16 y y y 2 Milk bottle & paper plate in MP
17 y y y 0 Napkins & sandwich wrap in Re
18 y y 0 Napkins
19 y y 0 Napkins
20 y y 0 Water bottle
21 y y 0
22 y y y 2 Napkins
23 y y 0 Yogurt cup and fork
24 y y 2 Pizza plate & napkins in MP
25 y y y 0 Sandwich wrap & coffee cup
26 y y y y 3
S but C- Plastic tray in Or & napkins in
MP
1.0

Appendix 3 – Sample Spot Audit Data Sheet
3.1 3.1 8.0
7.4 5.0 4.5
3.3 3.7
4.1 3.6
15.7 12.4
4.0 3.6
4.1 3.8 3.8
7.2 8.7 9.2
UALBERTA - SPOT/MINI AUDIT FORM
Station: Marina Station: Market Station:
MIXED PAPER STREAM MIXED PAPER STREAM MIXED PAPER STREAM
Contaminants: Paper-based organics
Contaminants: Paper-based organics 90% & LF+Re
10%
RECYCLABLE STREAM
ORGANICS STREAM ORGANICS STREAM
Contaminats: No trend
Date:Oct 29/2014 Conducted by: KY,TN,SM Time: 12:30 to 1:30pm
Note: Did not use compostable bag.
Contaminants: Mainly plastics, 50% Re & 50% LF
Contaminants: Mainly plastics
LANDFILL STREAM LANDFILL STREAM LANDFILL STREAM
RECYCLABLE STREAM RECYCLABLE STREAM
ORGANICS STREAM
Contaminants: Mainly plastics

Appendix 4 – Data Analysis of Lister and SUB Bin Monitoring
Percentage ofUsers had Material and Used Correct Bin
WEEK MP Re Or LF
1
2
2.5
2.7
3
3.2 100% 56% 14% 100%
4
4.5 #DIV/0! 33% 8% 100%
4.8 100% 100% 50% 75%
5 #DIV/0! 67% 26% 80%
5.5
6 100% 80% 21% 50%
SUBMainStation DailyGrind
MP Re Or LF
33% 0% 17% 80%
#DIV/0! 60% 29% 100%
33% 71% 0% 83%
100% 100% 22% 100%
#DIV/0! 33% 28% 93%
100% 67% 25% 100%
SUBStageDailyGrind
MP Re Or LF
#DIV/0! 100% 38% 75%
0% 75% 17% 83%
50% 40% 8% 100%
SUBStage UnderGrind
MP Re Or LF
#DIV/0! 75% 14% 100%
#DIV/0! 100% 0% 100%
75% 100% 43% 71%
50% 100% 23% 63%
SUBFoodCourtbySubway
(SW)
UnderGrind
MP Re Or LF
25% 36% 23% 100%
#DIV/0! 100% 0% 83%
100% 50% 22% 100%
50% 63% 33% 100%
Avg
SUBFoodCourtbySubway
(SW)
MP Re Or LF
#DIV/0! 100% 38% 75%
29% 18% 20% 90%
#DIV/0! 68% 21% 100%
#DIV/0! 100% 0% 83%
33% 71% 0% 83%
100% 56% 14% 100%
100% 100% 22% 100%
#DIV/0! 33% 8% 100%
#DIV/0! 100% 25% 88%
#DIV/0! 83% 34% 76%
#DIV/0! 53% 22% 92%
70% 70% 22% 83%
Avg

Appendix 5 – Data Analysis of Lister and SUB Spot Audits
WEEK MP Re Or LF
1 3% 35% 81% 13%
2 0% 55% 90% 18%
3 15% 34% 82% 10%
4 0% 0% 86% 19%
5 0% 38% 86% 5%
6 25% 21% 93% 28%
7
8
9
10
% Purity Marina
Comparision Summary of Lister Centre (Market & Marina) SpotAudits
MP Re Or LF
46% 78% 98% 27%
57% 78% 84% 32%
0% 65% 90% 12%
64% 57% 91% 28%
100% 93% 93% 16%
77% 54% 94% 11%
Market
MP Re Or LF
24% 56% 89% 20%
29% 66% 87% 25%
8% 50% 86% 11%
32% 29% 89% 24%
50% 66% 90% 11%
51% 38% 93% 19%
Avg
WEEK MP Re Or LF
5
6
7
8 70% 92% 100% 21%
9 77% 82% 96% 12%
10 64% 82% 89% 4%
Comparison Summary of SUB (Main, Daily Grind & Stage) SpotAudit
Main Station Daily Grind
MP Re Or LF
25% 67% 90% 16%
58% 100% 95% 11%
75% 64% 85% 11%
80% 82% 77% 44%
50% 68% 100% 11%
34% 98% 88% 98%
Daily Grind SUB Stage
MP Re Or LF
63% 88% 93% 33%
49% 93% 96% 17%
50% 86% 86% 13%
93% 88% 95% 63%
49% 89% 96% 27%
38% 100% 92% 10%
SUB Stage AVG
MP Re Or LF
44% 77% 91% 25%
54% 96% 96% 17%
63% 75% 86% 12%
81% 87% 91% 42%
59% 80% 97% 17%
45% 93% 90% 37%
AVG

Final Report-tnaz

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Final Report-tnaz

Similar to Final Report-tnaz (20)

Final Report-tnaz