Kohlstedt_Analysis Paper Final

Kohlstedt 1
Analysis Paper
Why Do We Trash It? Identifying the Behavioral Challenges Behind Improper Disposal of
Recyclable and Compostable Waste
Name: Joel Kohlstedt
Journal: Resources, Conservation and Recycling
Thesis or Question(s): This paper argues that if there is more education in conjunction with
policy makers implementing clear labeling regulations of recyclable and compostable items, this
may increase the amount of recycling and composting that takes place.
Abstract
In conjunction with Sustainable Seattle, my project seeks to identify barriers to recycling and
composting in Seattle in order to increase recycling and composting. Landfills are harmful to the
environment as they produce gas and leachate, and also prevent the reuse of materials. It was
then important to examine why we aren’t recycling and composting all of the waste that we
produce. My research questions attempt to address this in two parts. First, if Seattle residents
participate in recycling and composting, what prevents them from recycling and composting
more? Second, what changes can policy makers implement to encourage more recycling and
composting? To identify barriers, I have read past reports studying difficulties in implementing
recycling, and behavioral studies identifying which methods can lead to behavior change. From
this, I tested methods by conducting consumer interviews and testing multiple waste
infrastructure systems at the Seattle Tower using different plans on each floor to determine
obstructions to commercial recycling in Seattle. Next, to identify possible behavioral
modifications for more renewable action, I conducted interviews and the Seattle Tower project.
Results suggest that common recycling problems for consumers are a lack of standardized
labeling on packaging and products. The results of this study and labeling recommendations will
be posted on the Sustainable Seattle website, and the Seattle Tower will be given infrastructure
recommendations for improved efficiency. Ideally, the implications of this project will lead to
increased recycling and composting rates in Seattle. This can lower the costs of waste disposal
for the public, businesses, and also the city. In Seattle, recycling and composting is more cost
effective and environmentally responsible than landfilling.

Kohlstedt 2
Section 1. Introduction
There are numerous issues surrounding the topic of garbage disposal, recycling, and
composting in the United States. Many environmental impacts of solid waste landfilling are
cause for concern, as opposed to recycling and composting, which tend to be much more
environmentally friendly options. Landfills are harmful to the environment as they produce large
amounts of gas and leachate, which can: negatively effect vegetation, emit odors to the
surrounding environment, lead to ground water pollution, contribute to both local and global air
pollution, which adds to global warming (El-Fadel, 1995). These effects are primarily due to the
microbial breakdown of landfill materials, as well as rainy conditions that can accelerate break
down and lead to greater amounts of runoff (El-Fadel, 1995). Although regulations help mitigate
the negative effects of new landfills, there are still cases of leachate and gas escapement. Older
landfills that weren’t constructed in accordance with current regulations must be constantly
monitored for environmental effects, even decades after they have been closed (El-Fadel, 1995).
In addition, perhaps one of the most discouraging facts of landfills is that they accept tons of
waste materials daily, most of which were made from valuable raw materials. Once these
materials enter the landfill, there are few cases where the resources will have any use ever again.
Some modern landfills are able to capture methane and turn it into energy from microbial
breakdown, but in most cases once something enters a landfill, it no longer has a purpose. More
raw materials must be mined, drilled, and cut from the Earth in order to keep the cycle going.
This is where the solution of recycling and composting arises. Recycling reduces the
amount of waste sent to landfills, thus eliminating many air and water pollution issues that result
from landfill wastes. Recycling conserves many natural resources such as timber, water, and

Kohlstedt 3
minerals. Recycling saves energy, reduces greenhouse gas emissions contributing to climate
change, and helps sustain the environment for future generations (EPA, 2013). Recycling is also
a benefit to society in that it creates six times more jobs than if something is sent to the landfill
(EPA, 2013). When considering resources, recycling one ton of aluminum saves 14,000 kWh of
energy and 39.6 barrels of oil while taking 95 percent less energy than making aluminum from
raw materials (Waste Management, 2013). The most common recyclable is paper, but this
doesn’t make it any less important. Recycling one ton of paper saves 4,100 kWh of energy, 9
barrels of oil, 7,000 gallons of water and 17 trees (Waste Management, 2013). There are similar
statistics for other recyclable items, making it clear that there are many advantages to recycling,
and keeping reusable items and materials out of the landfill.
Composting is similarly advantageous over sending yard and food waste to the landfill.
At the Cedar Grove Facility in Maple Valley, 350,000 tons of yard and food waste are
composted yearly, turning all of the material into a rich, valuable compost that can be used for
landscaping and gardening (Cedar Grove, 2013). Although this concept is different from
recycling, it is similar in that waste reenters the cycle of production rather than being a consumer
discard. When compost is created, it keeps food and yard waste out of the landfill while also
creating a valuable commodity (Cedar Grove, 2013).
Seattle currently recycles 55.4 percent of it waste – an impressive statistic – but over half
of what is sent to the landfill is still made up of recyclable or compostable materials (Seattle
Public Utilities, 2012). There is much room for improvement, as the recycling rate of
multifamily facilities (apartments and condos) is under 30 percent in the Seattle region (Seattle
Public Utilities, 2012).

Kohlstedt 4
My internship was with Sustainable Seattle, where I had the opportunity to look at both
policy and infrastructure issues. I conducted a great deal of research in order see what past policy
and behavioral change research had already been done. I was also interested in what policy
changes have been found to influence behavioral change. I will discuss these more in the
discussion of the paper in conjunction with the recycling and composting barriers I found from
my research. It is important to look at behavioral and policy studies when attempting to make
changes. If I was successful in discovering some of the barriers to composting and recycling
through my research, I needed to be aware of the policies most effective in effecting behavioral
change so that I could produce accurate recommendations.
My goals of the internship were to determine the barriers to recycling and composting
within Seattle, and to produce recommendations to increase the amount of recycling and
composting that occurs. I worked with Terri Butler of Sustainable Seattle to conduct interviews
in order to reveal barriers, as well as Heather Trim on an infrastructure study at the Seattle Tower
in downtown Seattle. I was able to reveal many of the barriers present for consumers and
businesses in Seattle. I also produced recommendations to help improve recycling and
composting. Further research is needed to implement recommendations that can increase the
amount of recycling and composting that occurs.
This paper argues that a better understanding of human behavior related to recycling and
education programs may increase recycling and composting, especially with the addition of
policy changes to help implement clear labeling of recyclable and compostable items. For the
remainder of this paper, I will analyze the results of my Sustainable Seattle research. I will
combine this research with a literature review of other behavioral and policy studies to analyze

Kohlstedt 5
the difficulties for Seattle residents to improve recycling and composting. I will also review
which policy changes could lead to more recycling and composting within Seattle.
Section 2. Materials and Methods
Section 2.1 Sustainable Seattle Study- Goals
My internship at Sustainable Seattle sought to discover the main barriers to recycling and
composting within Seattle. Initially I worked with Rachel Chamberlain (who at the time worked
with Sustainable Seattle) in coming up with these goals, as well as our initial steps to discovering
the barriers.
2.1.1 Preparation
We came to the decision that it would be best to conduct brief interviews. We wanted to
conduct these interviews in a location where both consumption and disposal would be fresh on
the minds of those we were interviewing. Looking at these aspects, we decided that grocery
stores would be an effective place to conduct interviews, especially at stores where prepared
food was sold, and thus some degree of disposal would take place directly on site. On site food
service took place at the PCC where I conducted my interviews, but not the QFC that was part of
the study. As part of the decision making process for the interview locations, interview
questions, as well as interview times and strategies, I consulted greatly with my faculty advisor,
Frederica Helmiere.
I also met with Kristin Kinder, an Education and Outreach Coordinator from Waste
Management, in order to delve further into the questions for the interviews. I wanted to discover
what factors would be helpful for companies to use in order to further educate about recycling.
We also discussed some of the issues that come with trying to make changes with the larger
system pertaining to labeling, and some of the difficulties that may become apparent the further I

Kohlstedt 6
progressed. She revealed that more information about the impact of recycling and composting
labeling would be very useful. She thought that it would also be helpful to see what resident’s
thought of as the biggest issues they personally had with recycling.
In making the location decision, I wanted a diverse sampling; this pertained to location
and type of grocery store. In talking with Sustainable Seattle and Frederica Helmiere, we decided
upon the PCC in Fremont, Seattle (a natural market grocery chain) and the QFC in Rainer Vista
(a national grocery chain). Both of these locations would provide different levels of affluence,
and presumably different types of shoppers. In this way we would achieve some diversity. I also
attempted to conduct interviews at the Northgate Mall, as well as the Westfield Mall in Tukwila
in order to get more diversity of location and a larger sample size, but was turned down by
management in both locations. To increase diversity of my sample, I decided that it would be
most effective to conduct some of the interviews in the morning/early afternoon, as well as some
interviews in the later afternoon/evening. The purpose of this was to get more variety of response
from presumably different groups of people shopping during different hours. Before beginning
interviews at either site, I spoke with the property managers to determine where the best spot for
me to conduct the interviews would be, and to make sure that I wouldn’t be a distraction for the
store or customers.
I worked with Terri Butler, the Executive Director of Sustainable Seattle, as well as
Frederica Helmiere in crafting the interview and the interview strategy. There were many
considerations that went into the interview questions and style itself. I wanted to make a survey
that would be relatively short and with simple questions, so that people would be likely to
participate and respond. At the same time however, I needed to create a survey that would

Kohlstedt 7
provide tangible results, which could be used to analyze the main barriers to composting and
recycling for the residents of Seattle.
2.1.2 Interviewing Process
The interview questions I used at PCC and QFC are shown in Figure 1. To conduct
interviews, I stood outside at each location and approached every third person leaving the store.
This was in attempt to limit personal bias that I may have had in selecting who to interview. I
approached each third person and asked if they would be willing to participate in a short, one-
minute, confidential interview for a University of Washington Study. This put a limit on the total
amount of people that I would have opportunity to interview; I made requests of fewer people,
but prevented my personal biases from skewing my interviewee selection. If they consented to
participating, I would explain that it was an interview about recycling and composting, and my
research was to examine the barriers.
2.1.3 Number of Interviews
I conducted seventy-one interviews at the PCC in Fremont, and the QFC in North Beacon
Hill. Forty-one of the interviews took place at PCC, and the remaining thirty were at QFC (Table
1). At PCC, twenty-two interviews took place in the morning/early afternoon group, and the
remaining nineteen in the evening group. At QFC, thirteen interviews took place in the
morning/early afternoon group, and the remaining seventeen in the evening group.
2.2 Seattle Tower Infrastructure Study
For this part of my project, I worked with Heather Trim in the implementation process.
She had previously done a great deal of research in determining the
garbage/recycling/composting system and number of bins for each office in the building (each of
the twenty-seven floors). Working from her research and in cooperation with the property

Kohlstedt 8
manager and janitorial staff on site, she devised a different infrastructure plan for each floor in
order to test what system was most effective.
2.2.1 Treatment Types (Trim et. al., 2013)
Method 1: Cardboard recycling bin at individual desks and shared areas with two bins
(landfill/compost) in a station.
Method 2: Blue recycling bin at individual desks and shared areas with two bins
(landfill/compost) in a station.
Method 3: No bin at individual desks and shared areas with three bins
(garbage/compost/recycle).
Method 4: Control, no change to floor or restroom.
Bathrooms on all floors 1-3 in the building received paper towel composting in the
bathrooms.
2.2.2 Testing
Prior to modifying the infrastructure, we weighed the garbage/compost/recycle from each
floor, and took note of any contamination. This provided a baseline for our study.
We then implemented the floor-by-floor plans. For each of these floors we spoke to those
in the office about the test that was occurring, and that the building was conducting a trial period
with a new plan. We then would implement the bin changes, also setting up posters and placing
stickers on bins stating what part of the waste stream should go into each.
After total implementation, we weighed each floor and measured contamination between
the three bins twice more to determine the potential successes and failures of the different plans.

Kohlstedt 9
2.3 Behavioral Research
I conducted research of behavioral studies in order to supplement the results of my
interviews and the Seattle Tower infrastructure project in attempt to discover what prevents
Seattle residents from recycling and composting more than they currently do. I was also looking
to discover what would be most effective at changing their behaviors. I will now briefly highlight
what each of the studies focused on. I will demonstrate how they related to my research more in
the discussion section.
2.3.1 (Bohara, 2007)
The first study looked at the willingness to pay for different programs if education and
cost savings are made clear. The study found that if cost savings are made clear, both businesses
and the public might choose to decrease their garbage size while increasing their recycling size,
in order to achieve overall cost savings. This study was important as it demonstrated that overall
disposal amounts could be maintained with a larger recycling size and smaller garbage, leading
to a larger diversion amount.
2.3.2 (Catlin, 2013)
This study found that if the size of recycling service is increased, it could also increase
overall consumption. The authors were led to this conclusion after looking at behavioral issues
following an individual performing an environmentally friendly act, such as recycling. The
consequence of this act was that they had less guilt to perform a subsequent act that may be less
environmentally friendly. This response would generally lead to a rebound, an unneeded
purchase or disposal of something in the wrong location. This information helps to give a new
perspective on garbage and recycling. Although recycling is preferential to putting something

Kohlstedt 10
into the garbage, it is best to not dispose of anything at all and to consume less. This is important
for policy makers to consider.
2.3.3 (Frahm, 2001)
This project looked at the barriers to different issues, and the policy changes that
followed in attempt to change the behaviors. The study showed that in order to change behaviors,
barriers to the goal behavior change need to be identified. Policy makers must do more than
provide information to change the system. The information and tools need to be tailored to the
issues at hand. Data needs to be made personally relevant, and people who fear loss are more
likely to try an innovation.
2.3.4 (Kaplowitz, 2009)
This study found that educating communities would be very worthwhile; more education
along with labeling would be beneficial.
2.3.5 (Mass. Dept. of Environmental Protection, 2002)
This study looked at the results to different educational campaigns in regard to behavioral
change resulting from it. They found that it’s important to educate not just on what can be
recycled, but also why, and why it’s important to do so, as this received the best results.
2.3.6 (Nye, 2009)
This study was looking at behavioral change, and found that policy studies should pay
more attention to understanding the process of behavior change. Often times when a policy is
implemented policy makers only consider their end goals and what they want as a result, and not
what the public needs/wants or what an effective way to get there would be.
2.4 Policy Research

Kohlstedt 11
Conducted research of policy studies to supplement results of interviews and the Seattle
Tower infrastructure project to see what has been attempted in other areas, and examine what
may be effective to implement here.
2.4.1 (Borin, 2011)
Policies that implement more positive environmental messaging/labeling, lead to more
purchasing by consumers. This is important for businesses to know, because more labeling may
lead to better recycling and composting practices, and cost savings for businesses.
2.4.2 (FTC, 1991)
In the United States there is no regulation requiring the labeling of a product or package
as compostable or recyclable. Environmental attributes may not be overstated, but no labeling is
required.
2.4.3 (Huang, 2011)
Study evaluated a PAYT (pay as you throw) policy. Found that in cities where it was
successful, it was very beneficial in reducing the amount of waste that was present. It provides an
incentive, but one that is easy to maintain which is a positive. Authors suggest that the decrease
in MSW (municipal solid waste) disposal may translate into lower cost to a specific municipality
as well. PAYT is not however the best solution for everyone, because there are challenges
involved regarding enforcement, outreach and education about the system, and administration.
2.4.4 (Kiesling, 2009)
Another study that looked at PAYT and came up with similar findings to Huang. Found
that PAYT can lead to great improvement in recycling/composting, with a reduction in garbage if
used in the right situations.
2.4.5 (Steg, 2009)

Kohlstedt 12
Looked at behavioral interventions as a way of following policy, and found that they can
be effective. Authors believe that environmental problems are psychological, as well as
ecological, technological, and socio-cultural. It is important to study for which types of behavior
and which conditions behavioral strategies would be most effective in encouraging pro-
environmental behaviors.
2.4.6 (URS Corp, 2009)
This was a report given to the City of Seattle with different methods to encourage waste
reduction, and their implementation strategies and feasibility for the city. The two that I focused
on were eco-labeling and Green Dot programs, as these were most related to my project. Found
that environmental labeling can have a significant effect on consumer purchases if consumers are
educated about the issues that are present.
Section 3. Results
Section 3.1 Sustainable Seattle Interview Results
3.1.1 Question 1- Do you Recycle or Compost?
An overwhelming amount of respondents stated that they both recycled and composted at
PCC and QFC (Figures 2, 7, 12; Table 1). Eighty percent said they composted and recycled, and
twenty percent said they only recycled. There was no difference between the results at PCC and
QFC. There were more ‘only recycling’ responses in the morning (23% PCC, 31% QFC). In
attempt to make the interview brief, there wasn’t a follow up to answers given for any of the
questions.
3.1.2 Question 2- How Do You Determine if Something is Recyclable or Compostable?
Forty-six percent of respondents stated that they relied on handouts from the garbage
provider or the city, thirty-one percent relied upon past experience/general knowledge of

Kohlstedt 13
recycling, twenty-one percent relied on the recycling symbol on plastics, and twenty-one percent
relied on the labeling on the bins themselves (Figures 3, 8, 13; Table 2).
For PCC, the overall responses were similar, and the top four responses were the same.
There was more reliance on handouts in the morning (55 to 26%), and more reliance on past
experience in the evening (47 to 36%).
For QFC, there were also the same top four responses, although in this case fifty-three
percent relied on the handouts. There was more reliance on handouts in the afternoon compared
to the morning (65 compared to 38%), and more reliance on labeling on bins in the afternoon (29
compared to 0%).
3.1.3 Question 3- What are the Barriers that Prevent You from Recycling or Composting
More, or What Change Would Make it Easier to Recycle or Compost?
Thirty-two percent stated they had no barriers, seventeen percent said more public
locations for recycling would be helpful, fifteen percent said more clear information/education
about recycling would be beneficial, ten percent said a barrier was that garbage and recycling
still need to be separated, and seven percent said more standardized labeling would be beneficial
(Figures 4, 9, 14; Table 3).
At PCC the top responses were the same, and more people stated they had no barriers in
the evening (32 compared to 9%).
At QFC, half of respondents stated that they had no barriers (Figure 9). Twenty three
percent responded that they would prefer more education and information, and there was little
variation between early afternoon and evening results.
3.1.4 Question 4- Do You Feel that Standardized Labeling on Packaging Marked
Recyclable or Compostable Will Help Overcome This Barrier?

Kohlstedt 14
At PCC, Eighty-five percent said yes overall, ninety-five percent said yes in the evening
interviews (Figure 5, 15; Table 4).
At QFC ninety-three percent said yes overall, with similar responses from both morning
and evening interviews (Figure 10, 15; Table 4).
3.1.5 Question 5- Do You Feel That Standardized Labeling on Packaging Marked
Recyclable Would Be Preferable to Having Labeling on Bins?
The responses between PCC and QFC were very similar, overall seventy-six percent said
yes, and eleven percent said both, leaving thirteen percent who stated they would not prefer to
have standardized labeling on packaging instead of labeling on bins. (Figure 6, 11, 16; Table 5).
3.2 Seattle Tower Results
3.2.1 Whole Building Results
When looking at the entire building, there were major reductions in garbage waste
stream, from 1683 ounces in the pretest, to 881 ounces in post-test 1, to 1442 ounces in post-test
2 (Figure 17). The total recycling and compost streams also increased because of this garbage
decrease (Figure 17). The total amount of waste increased in the building, which may
demonstrate fluctuations, and may mask some of the reductions in overall garbage percentage
(Trim et. al., 2013).
3.2.2 Impact on Control Floors
For the control floors in which no treatment occurred, the overall total garbage weights
decreased and compost and recycling increased (Figure 18). This may have been due to the
overall publicity throughout the building, and represents a potential spillover effect (Trim et. al.,
2013).

Kohlstedt 15
3.2.3 Treatment Method 1 & 2 – Cardboard Recycling at Desk and Blue Bin at Desk
Treatment method one, in which there was a cardboard recycling bin at each desk but no
garbage container, showed an increase in recycling and composting and a decrease in overall
garbage rate by nearly half. Treatment method two, in which there was a blue bin at each desk an
go garbage container, led to a massive change in compost levels, nearly triple that of the pre-test
(Figure 19). There was some overall variation, to be expected when there is a relatively small
sample size and time period (Trim et. al., 2013).
3.2.4 Contamination Results
Recycling showed the lowest contamination rates, while garbage contamination rates
ranged from 20 to 75%, and much more contamination was present than in recycling or
composting.
Section 4. Discussion
Section 4.1 Interviews
There are some small variations in my results between PCC and QFC, as well as slight
differences between morning and evening responses. At this time I believe these likely had more
to do with a relatively small sample size and respondent bias than having a direct correlation
between the time of response and different categories of shoppers. Although there was some
variation for different questions, there were no glaring differences considering the number of
overall respondents. A greater sample size with less respondent bias would likely produce clearer
correlations.
In order to draw more direct connections between responses and demographics, it would
be a good idea for future studies to ask demographics related questions as part of an interview.
An alternative to this would be to conduct interviews or surveys in locations that would provide

Kohlstedt 16
less respondent bias, and encourage a greater percentage of participation, as I was frequently
turned down (over 75% of the time) in my request for an interview. This may be more possible
through wide scale surveys or interviews, such as an online survey where a greater number of
people can be reached. There is a risk in not having face-to-face interviews however; as
interviewee’s would not be presently confronted with the items they would need to dispose of, as
was the case in the grocery store situation.
Also, in regards to question 5 and having the labeling be preferable to posters on the bins
themselves, I do not interpret the results to mean that labeling on the bins should be
discontinued. From other questions in the survey, it is apparent that many people still rely upon
the labeling on bins for information. Also as it was an open response question, a great deal more
respondents may have said ‘both’ instead of ‘yes,’ if the question had been asked differently and
wasn’t viewed by most respondents as a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ question.
Section 4.2 Seattle Tower
From the Seattle Tower infrastructure study, it is clear that large gains can be quickly
realized from infrastructure improvements. This was apparent due to the amount of overall
garbage greatly decreasing, and the amount of composting and recycling increasing. This was the
result of some simple posters, brief education, and moving some bins around. If these gains can
be taken as a low hanging fruit, it would make a tremendous difference city-wide if more
buildings and offices could implement some of the changes.
The positive results on the control floors, where no infrastructure change or outreach
occurred, demonstrates that people have a behavioral tendency to follow the example of others.
This highlights the importance of uniformity of outreach and message, as this result shows that

Kohlstedt 17
people do pay attention to what others are doing, and if the message is different it can be
confusing which may lead to people not attempting to recycle.
This study also did a great job at highlighting one of the barriers to recycling and
composting that didn’t come out as much in the interviews. That is that coffee cups can cause a
great deal of confusion. If guidelines are different, or if they change over the years, people are
unlikely to keep up on every single change in the recycling guideline that the garbage hauler or
city will mail out (the number one thing that people rely on from the interviews). This points at
the need for more education. It seems that people are trying to do the right thing, but they may
need to be helped along and pointed in the right direction at times.
Seattle Tower also clearly demonstrated that just offering or providing a service is not
enough. The building offered composting prior to the study, but it still was not being used by
each floor or office. When an office did have composting, there was little in the way of
educational materials so that people would know where waste should be disposed of. Offering is
a great first step, but having someone go office-to-office and setting up specific programs that
should be utilized is what will make the most difference. This outreach can be from many
different sources, ideally an enthused property manager or education and outreach team.
Section 4.3 Recommendations
4.3.1 Labeling
According to the interview results, eighty-nine percent of people feel that labeling would
be beneficial in making it easier to recycle and compost (Figure 15; Table 4). There is currently
no regulation for recycling in the US. Manufacturers cannot be deceptive about attributes, but are
not required to mark anything as recyclable or compostable (FTC, 1991). There are however
many great labeling attempts occurring, such as How2Recycle (Figure 20).

Kohlstedt 18
If more and more people push for programs such as How2Recycle, it is more likely that
businesses will begin to realize the importance of environmental labeling, at this point they
should begin to implement labeling on their packaging and products. The effect of environmental
labeling was demonstrated in the behavioral study by Borin et. al., which found that a positive
environmental message on a product led to it being purchased more frequently (Borin, 2011).
First, the labeling programs such as How2Recycle need to gain more traction and publicity so
that consumers can become more aware of their existence.
4.3.2 Infrastructure
Many people also showed interest in public infrastructure increasing; as this was the most
common response to question number three in the interview (Figure 14; Table 3). It then seems
that it would be very important to increase public composting and recycling infrastructure as
much as possible. This does have to be done in conjunction with education however, as often
times people will throw whatever it is that they need to get rid of into the first bin that they see,
unless there is a clear reason why they should not. Changing the infrastructure needs to be done
carefully, and decreasing the amount of garbage size in conjunction with increasing recycling
and composting should be considered. The behavioral study done by Catlin found that the option
to recycle could lead to more recycling, but no reduction in the amount of trash that is produced.
This can be dealt with partially by just decreasing the amount of garbage that is available, but
even more should be done with education in effort to reduce not only the amount of garbage, but
the contamination as well.
4.3.3 Education and Behavior Impacts
Increasing the amount of recycling is good, but it is more important to decrease the
amount of consumption that is occurring, and thus decrease the amount of waste produced. This

Kohlstedt 19
is the best way to combat the problem of resource use and disposal, but can only be
accomplished through better education.
Education will be key in letting the public know about some of the benefits of recycling,
such as resource conservation and preventing pollution (EPA, 2013). Education will also play a
large role in simply letting people know what can and cannot be recycled. As shown in Figure 14
and Table 3, many people are relying on past experience and knowledge in order to determine
what they put in the recycling and compost containers. If people are well educated about what is
recyclable this may be acceptable, but based on many people also relying upon the chasing
arrows symbol (Figure 13; Table 2) to determine what is recyclable, people’s general knowledge
may be an issue. Many waste haulers are currently telling people to ignore the number and
symbol that is on products, but to rely on the shape of plastics instead (WM, 2013). This is
because the chasing arrows symbol is not regulated, and does not mean that something is
recyclable (FTC, 1991). What the symbol is referring to is the type of plastic that the container is
made of, not whether or not it is recyclable. More education would be helpful to let consumers
know what waste goes where, the recycling and composting options available, and how recycling
can be more environmentally friendly. A study by Frahm showed that people are more likely to
change a behavior if they know the benefits and understand why the behavior change has value
(Frahm, 2001). The more education that also occurs about the benefits of recycling, the more
recycling will likely occur, we can’t only focus on how to recycle.
4.3.4 Policy and Behavior Implications
There are many policies that may be positive in the effort to increase recycling and
composting, for example mandatory labeling and recycling service sounds like a good start.
Some options that may have a good chance of occurring are PAYT or incentive programs. These

Kohlstedt 20
should be carefully analyzed before being started however. The behavioral study by Frahm found
that it is very important to know what the actual barriers are before starting a policy, otherwise
the issue may not be dealt with, and something such as incentives may not make a difference!
This can be helped through more research before steps are taken.
Kiesling looked at incentives and PAYT, and found that in some cities it resulted in up to
seventeen percent less garbage. This can sound great, and even result in additional cost savings
for both the citizen and the city, but may not be great in all situations. It can be difficult to
implement, and if education is not widespread and well done, can be a very costly failure by a
city (Kiesling, 2002). Huang and Bohara found similar results as Kiesling. They noted that in
successful cities, education was crucial in order to let people understand the potential cost
savings, and resultant positive environmental impacts (Bohara, 2007).
Section 5. Conclusion
There are many negative impacts of landfilling, such as water and air pollution (El-Fadel,
1995). Recycling and composting can be a great alternative that will avoid many of the
environmental issues of landfills, while also providing many benefits such as resource
conservation and reduction of energy usage (EPA, 2013).
As part of my research with Sustainable Seattle I wanted to discover the barriers to
recycling and composting within Seattle, and to produce recommendations that may alleviate
these barriers. Through the interviews I conducted at PCC and QFC, and the infrastructure study
I participated in at the Seattle Tower, I feel that I was successful in obtaining some of the barriers
and issues currently present in Seattle regarding waste disposal. Although more research is
needed, I was also able to provide recommendations that may help recycling and composting
barriers going forward.

Kohlstedt 21
Labeling products and packaging as recyclable or compostable could make a large
impact, as well as making sure that infrastructure is utilized in the best possible way. Current
methods of education should be continued however, as many people are relying on the handouts
from garbage providers and cities, as well as the labeling found on bins, in order to determine
what should be recycled and composted. The largest barrier that presented itself was a lack of
public infrastructure, along with labeling this should be increased, as long as it is done in a way
that will not increase the amount of overall waste that is disposed of.
More education will be necessary in the road ahead as we get towards more recycling and
composting, and less overall waste. Consumers need to be aware of why recycling is important,
what the negative issues behind landfills are, and that the most important thing they can do is
consume less, and thus dispose of less. Behavioral implications of policies that are being
considered should be looked at, so the barriers that are present are addressed, and the largest
impact possible can be made.
Recycling and composting can save money for businesses, consumers, and also be more
environmentally friendly than sending waste to the landfill. It should be utilized whenever
possible looking forward to the future, in order for everyone to be more sustainable.

Kohlstedt 22
Bibliography
Bohara, A., Caplan, A., Grijalva, T. (2007). The effect of experience and quantity-based pricing
on the valuation of a curbside recycling program. Ecological Economics. 62(2), 433-443.
Borin, N., Cerf, D., Krishnan, R. (2011). Consumer effects of environmental impact in product
labeling. Journal of Consumer Marketing. 28(1), 76-86.
Catlin, J., Wang, Y. (2013). Recycling gone bad: When the option to recycle increases resource
consumption. Journal of Consumer Psychology.
doi:10.1016/j.jcps.2012.04.001
Cedar Grove. (2013). What We Do. Cedar Grove. Accessed 12 May, 2013.
El-Fadel, M., Findikakis, A., Leckie, J. (1995). Environmental Impacts of Solid Waste
Landfilling. Department of Civil Engineering, Stanford University.
EPA. (2012). Recycling Basics: Reduce, Reuse, Recycle. United States Environmental
Protection Agency. Accessed April 20, 2013.
Frahm, A., Galvin, D., Gensler, G., Moser, A., Savina, G. (2001). Changing Behavior: Insights
and Applications. Local Hazardous Waste Management Program in King County.
Federal Trade Commission. (1991). Guides for the Use of Environmental Marketing Claims. Part
260. 15 U.S.C. 41-58.
Huang, J., Halstead, J., Saunders, S. (2011). Managing Municipal Solid Waste with Unit-Based
Pricing: Policy Effects and Responsiveness to Pricing. Land Economics. University of
Wisconsin Press. 87(4), 645-660.
Kaplowitz, M., Yeboah, F., Thorp, L., Wilson, A. (2009). Garnering input for recycling
communication strategies at a Big Ten University. Resources, Conservation and
Recycling. 53(11), 612-623.
Kiesling, L. (2002). Incentives and Waste: Pay-as-You-Throw. The Heartland Institute.
Accessed April 20, 2013.
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection. (2002). Recycling: Why People
Participate; Why They Don’t. Prepared by Asceti Associates of Arlington, MA.
Nye, M., Hargreaves, T. (2009). Exploring the Social Dynamics of Proenvironmental Behavior
Change. Journal of Industrial Ecology. 14(1), 137-149.

Kohlstedt 23
Seattle Public Utilities. (2012). 2011 Recycling Rate Report. Seattle Public Utilities. Accessed 9
Nov. 2012.
Steg, L., Vlek, C. (2009). Encouraging pro-environmental behavior: An integrative review and
research agenda. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 29(3), 309-317.
Trim, H., Chamberlain, R., Butler, T., Price, M., Kohlstedt, J. (2013). Recycling for All: Moving
Businesses to Full Recycling in Seattle. Sustainable Seattle & Zero Waste Seattle. Accessed 3
May, 2013.
URS Corporation, Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc., Norton-Arnold Company. (2007).
Seattle Solid Waste Recycling, Waste Reduction, and Facilities Opportunities. Prepared
for Seattle City Council and Seattle Public Utilities.
Waste Management. (2013). Recycling Facts and Tips. Waste Management, Inc. Accessed 12
May, 2013.

Kohlstedt 24
Figures and Tables
Figure 1: Questions used for interviews at PCC and QFC
1) Do you recycle or compost? (If no, continue to 3)
2) How do you determine if something is recyclable or compostable? (examples: The triangle
recycling symbol; the labeling on bins; watching or asking other people; guidelines and handouts
from garbage service provider)
3) What is/are the barrier(s) that prevent you from recycling or composting (more), or what
change would make it easier to recycle or compost? (examples: takes too much time, not sure
what is recyclable or compostable, no standard labeling, don’t see benefit, accepting more
materials for recycling)
4) Do you feel that standardized labeling on packaging marked recyclable or compostable will
help overcome this barrier? … Expand?
5) Is this labeling preferable to the posters on the bins themselves?
Figure 2: Responses from question number 1 given to 41 different PCC customers. Question
asked, ‘Do you recycle or compost?’
80%
20%
0%
Question 1 PCC
Both
Recycle
No

Kohlstedt 25
asked how do you determine if something is recyclable or compostable?
asked what the barriers to recycling or composting were, and what would make it easier.
17
10
17
10
2 0 2 1
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
NumberofResponses
Determining if Something is Recyclable/Compostable
Question 2 PCC
8
4
10
4 3 2 0
6
4
2 1 3
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
NumberofResponses
Recycling/Composting Barrier Description
Question 3 PCC

Kohlstedt 26
Figure 5: Responses from question 4, given to 41 different PCC customers. Question asked
whether having standardized labeling for recyclable and compostable products would make
sustainable disposal easier.
Figure 6: Responses from question 5, given to 41 different PCC customers. Question asked
whether having standardized labeling would be preferable to having posters/information on the
bins themselves.
85%
15%
0%
Question 4 PCC
Yes
No
No, just throw it
away anyways
71%
10%
19%
Question 5 PCC
Yes
Both
No

Kohlstedt 27
Figure 7: Responses from question number 1 given to 30 different QFC customers. Question
asked, ‘Do you recycle or compost?’
asked how do you determine if something is recyclable or compostable?
80%
20%
0%
Question 1 QFC
Both
Recycle
No
16
5 5 5
0 1 2 1
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
NumberofResponses
Question 2 QFC

Kohlstedt 28
asked what the barriers to recycling or composting were, and what would make it easier.
Figure 10: Responses from question 4, given to 30 different QFC customers. Question asked
whether having standardized labeling for recyclable and compostable products would make
sustainable disposal easier.
15
7
2 1 1 1 0 1 2 0 1 0
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
NumberofResponses
Question 3 QFC
93%
4% 3%
Question 4 QFC
Yes
No
No, just throw it
away anyways

Kohlstedt 29
Figure 11: Responses from question 5, given to 30 different QFC customers. Question asked
whether having standardized labeling would be preferable to having posters/information on the
bins themselves.
Figure 12: Combined responses from question number 1 given to 71 customers of both PCC and
QFC. Question asked, ‘Do you recycle or compost?’
83%
14%
3%
Question 5 QFC
Yes
Both
No
80%
20%
0%
Question 1 Combined
Both
Recycle
No

Kohlstedt 30
QFC. Question asked how do you determine if something is recyclable or compostable?
QFC. Question asked what the barriers to recycling or composting were, and what would make it
easier.
33
15
22
15
2 1
4
2
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
NumberofResponses
Question 2 Combined
23
11 12
5 4 3 0 7 6 2 2 3
0
5
10
15
20
25
NumberofResponses
Question 3 Combined

Kohlstedt 31
Figure 15: Combined responses from question 4, given to 71 customers of both PCC and QFC.
Question asked whether having standardized labeling for recyclable and compostable products
would make sustainable disposal easier.
Figure16: Combined responses from question 5, given to 71 customers of both PCC and QFC.
Question asked whether having standardized labeling would be preferable to having
posters/information on the bins themselves.
89%
10% 1%
Question 4 Combined
Yes
No
No, just throw
it away
anyways
76%
11%
13%
Question 5 Combined
Yes
Both
No

Kohlstedt 32
(Trim et al., 2013)
Figure 17: Percentage of total waste for landfill, compost, and recycling and the differences
between the initial test, and the two tests post implementation.
(Trim et al., 2013)
Figure 18: Results from floors with treatment method 1, which was the control groups.
(Implementation in rest of building but these floors left alone)

Kohlstedt 33
(Trim et al., 2013)
Figure 19: Difference in number of ounces for landfill, recycling, compost and total for
treatment method 2, which involved placing blue plastic recycling bins at each desk.
Figure 20: Label example from How2Reycle.com. A voluntary labeling program in the United
States.
Table 1: Combined responses from PCC and QFC to question number 1, which asked do you
recycle or compost?
Question (response)
PCC
Responses
QFC
Responses Total/Combined
% of
total
1)
Both 33 24 57 0.80

Kohlstedt 34
Recycle 8 6 14 0.20
No 0 0 0 0.00
Total 41 30 71
Table 2: Combined responses from PCC and QFC to question number 2, which asked what
sources were most often used in order to determine if something is recyclable or not.
Question (response)
PCC
Responses
QFC
% of
total
2)
Handouts from garbage provider 17 16 33 0.46
Recycling number/symbol 10 5 15 0.21
Past Experience/General 17 5 22 0.31
Labeling on Bins 10 5 15 0.21
General online research 2 0 2 0.03
Sea. Public utilities website 0 1 1 0.01
Put in garbage if not sure 2 2 4 0.06
Put in recycling if not sure 1 1 2 0.03
Table 3: Combined responses from PCC and QFC to question number 3, which asked what are
the barriers that prevent you from recycling or composting more, or what change would make it
easier to recycle or compost.
Question (response)
PCC
Responses
QFC
% of
total
3)
No Barriers 8 15 23 0.32
More clear information/education 4 7 11 0.15
More public locations 10 2 12 0.17
More standardized labels 4 1 5 0.07
More incentives or programs 3 1 4 0.06
E-waste drop off locations 2 1 3 0.04
Mixed packaging is tough 0 0 0 0.00
Still have to separate out 6 1 7 0.10
Have more accepted materials 4 2 6 0.08
Animals are composting problem 2 0 2 0.03
Composting not available 1 1 2 0.03
Pick up every week 3 0 3 0.04
Table 4: Combined responses from PCC and QFC to question number 4, which asked whether
having standardized labeling for recyclable and compostable products would make sustainable
disposal easier.

Kohlstedt 35
Question (response)
PCC
Responses
QFC
% of
total
4)
Yes 35 28 63 0.89
No 6 1 7 0.10
No, just throw it away anyways 0 1 1 0.01
Table 5: Combined responses from PCC and QFC to question number 5, which asked whether
having standardized labeling would be preferable to having posters/information on the bins
themselves.
Question (response)
PCC
Responses
QFC
% of
total
5)
Yes 29 25 54 0.76
Both 4 4 8 0.11
No 8 1 9 0.13

Kohlstedt 36
Appendix A.
Table 1. Tangible Products and other materials done as part of Capstone Experience in Winter
2013.
Deliverable Title Recipient Description
Recycling and Composting
Labels- Steps to
Standardization
Terri Butler; Frederica
Helmiere
A word document outlining
and describing the current
labeling situation within the
United States, as well as what
is working well in Europe.
Recommendations for what
may help labeling here in the
future.
Summarization of Interview
Results and Recommendations
Helmiere
Summary of interview results
by question, with graph for
each. Breakdown of
differences between sites, and
what the main responses were
to each question.
Excel Interview Result Tables
and Graphs, for Both Location
and Time
Helmiere
Detailed Excel workbook that
contained tables of question,
and number of responses for
each location and interview
time. Corresponding graphs
for each table.
Individual Interview Results
by Respondent
Helmiere
List of each interviewee’s
responses to each question.
Annotated Bibliography P. Sean McDonald An annotated bibliography of
sources to be used in Capstone
analysis paper, as required by
the Capstone guidelines.
Progress Memos P. Sean McDonald Three memos were delivered
to the Capstone Instructor
detailing internship progress.
Delivery dates were: January
25, February 15 and March
15, 2013. As required by the
Capstone guidelines.

Kohlstedt_Analysis Paper Final

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (16)

Similar to Kohlstedt_Analysis Paper Final

Similar to Kohlstedt_Analysis Paper Final (10)

Kohlstedt_Analysis Paper Final