1. Owl’s Nest Waste Diversion Initiative
Kelsey Smith
Environmental Studies, 3​rd​
year
khsmith@ucsc.edu
Megan Stafford
MCD Biology, 3​rd​
year
mbstaffo@ucsc.edu
Mentor:
Roger Edberg
UC Santa Cruz Grounds Services Senior
Superintendent
rjedberg@ucsc.edu
11 June 2014
1

2.
Abstract
Throughout the course of the 2013­2014 academic year, the Owl’s Nest Zero
Waste Restaurant project team to reduce the total amount of waste coming out of Owl’s
Nest at Kresge College in UC Santa Cruz. As a team, we assessed the waste leaving
Owl’s Nest, consulted with the restaurant’s management and implemented changes to
the waste system to help the restaurant increase waste diversion from the landfill. We
focused on increasing and improving signage as well as adding compost bins outside of
the restaurant. A post­implementation assessment was conducted to determine how
much of a change the new signs and system were able to create. Our goal was to
divert 20% of compostable material from the garbage stream. Based on the results of
our waste assessments, we surpassed that goal and diverted 26% of compostable
waste from the landfill.
Context and Background
The EPA reported that in 2012, the United States generated 251 million tons of
waste, and only 87 million tons (34.5%) was composted or recycled (United States EPA,
2014). This is a great concern for everyone who lives in the United States, because the
rest of that garbage ends up in a landfill or incinerator, the impacts of which will be
discussed. The United States produced a staggering 30% of waste in the world
(Rogers, 2002). That puts much of the pressure to divert more compostable and
recyclable materials from trash. Waste reduction has become a pressing issue for
sustainability advocates because, among many reasons, some consumers lack
knowledge about waste systems and the environmental costs of landfilling. Consumers
often fail to correctly separate waste into their correct streams, including compost and
recycling streams. While a lot of materials are created to be thrown away, most of these
can be diverted and re­used. (Pastor, 2012)
Waste that could be recycled or composted is often buried in a landfill, where
methane, an extremely potent greenhouse gas, is released. Landfills contributed to 18%
2

3. of all methane emissions in the United States between 1990 and 2012, and methane
has an impact on climate change 20 times greater than that of carbon dioxide
(“Methane Emissions”). Methane emissions from landfills make up 5.2% of total
greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. (Platt, 2013). Not only are natural resources,
such as food waste or paper made from trees, wasted when placed in a landfill, but they
also contribute to atmospheric pollution. In addition, landfills produce a toxic sludge that
leaches into soil, affecting animals and plants. Heavy metals such as zinc, nickel, and
copper were found in landfills in Spain that killed off populations of nematodes (Pastor,
2012). Greenhouse gas emissions, loss of resources and soil toxicity are only a few of
the problems associated with the use of landfills to dispose of waste in the United
States.
To successfully divert waste from landfills, it must go someplace else depending
on what the waste product is. Recycling is one of the best known practices of waste
reduction. Recycling systems are integral to sustainability because they keep the
planet’s natural resources in use, instead of throwing them away forever . Materials like 1
aluminum and glass have the capability of being re­used and continually remade into
new products. Recycled materials also save energy from what it would take to harvest
from raw material. Recycled aluminum saves 95% of the energy that would be used into
making new aluminum products when it is recycled (Pleuddemann, 1994). Most forms
of plastic and paper can be made into something useful while also saving energy and
land.
Another effective waste reduction practice is composting, in which food scraps
and other organic materials are decomposed and turned into a nutrient­rich fertilizer.
Japan executed a program that required food industries to buy from farms that reuse
compostable materials (Takata, 2012). Besides providing an incentive to compost
waste, this program was economically viable. Programs like this are important in our
society because nearly two thirds of our waste is compostable (Anderson, 2013) and
1
It is important to note that recycling is not an impact­free process. There has been much research into the
costs associated with recycling. For the purposes of this report, we are focusing on the importance of
keeping resources in use, which is accomplished through recycling.
3

4. should be utilized. Compostable foodware, such as plates, cups and utensils, have
gained popularity in the past decade as an alternative to plastic and paper foodware
options. Leading companies like Solo Cup, Wal­Mart, Coca­Cola, and Dixie Cup are
now manufacturing compostable products to keep up with the market demand for
sustainable foodware (Yepsen, 2009). Businesses and schools that want to become
more sustainable choose to purchase compostable materials and send them to
industrial composting facilities after use, instead of sending other disposable foodware
to a landfill. At these composting facilities, compostable foodware and food waste are
turned into compost and/or energy in a process that takes on average between two to
eight weeks (Hermann et al., 2010, p. 1161). In addition to being more sustainable,
some schools choose compostable products to be able to combine pre­ and
post­consumer waste (Hedges, 2008, p. 23). Being able to put almost all waste into
one stream drives many purchasing decisions.
It is particularly important that universities nationwide create a clean system of
recycling and composting because it can be used as a model system for businesses
and serve as an example to the thousands of students on campus on how to reduce
their environmental impact. Students entering into their college years are often open to
new ideas and adopting new practices, including waste diversion. What students learn
in college will be applied in their lives after graduation, so making waste diversion a
common practice will spread out from the university to wherever their careers lead
them.
Waste reduction programs, specifically on college campuses can be tricky. A
multitude of problems tend to occur regarding waste. A project on cultural change at
the University of Idaho identified some of the problems that we found during our own
research. Among the six identified barriers to public participation in waste reduction
programs, we found the first three particularly applicable:
“1) Inadequate recycling program­­not enough bins, poorly placed bins, lack of
signage and other information, recycling staff throws recycling away due to
contamination.
2) Uncertainty that recycling, composting, e­waste are significant issues. Small
minority of students think recycling is unimportant.
4

5. 3) Lack of understanding of contamination and willful contamination of food
composting program” (Saul & Bowie, 2012, p. 3).
These barriers are not specific to the University of Idaho. They have also been
found at our study site and are surely at other campuses with waste reduction
programs.
Problem Statement
At UC Santa Cruz (UCSC), waste diversion practices are being implemented
across campus in the residential halls and apartments, dining halls, classrooms,
restaurants and cafés. UCSC’s Chancellor initiated a Chancellor’s Sustainability
Challenge to encourage students, staff, faculty and campus organizations to take action
in reducing waste (“Chancellor’s Sustainability”). This challenge was made with the
intention of coming closer to reaching UCSC’s Zero Waste by 2020 goal, or, 95% waste
diversion from landfills.
Compost from UCSC is taken to the Monterey Regional Waste Management
District (MRWMD) in Marina, where it is used as a feedstock for the SmartFerm
Anaerobic Digester. This digester became operational in March 2013 and processes
blends of food scraps, yard waste and other compostable materials to create energy
and compost (MRWMD, 2013, p. 8). When a compost stream is not clean, the workers
who transport the compost and who manage the SmartFerm digester will laboriously
filter out the non­compostable waste. Not only is it important to keep the compost
streams clean, but it is also important to keep compost out of the garbage stream where
it could add methane emissions.
This project is focused on Owl’s Nest, a popular restaurant in Kresge College.
Our project has worked to address the problems and consequences of waste not going
in the correct receptacle by implementing methods used to reduce the
cross­contamination between garbage, recycling and compost. In her paper,
“Increasing Participation in Municipal Solid Waste Reduction,” Elizabeth O’Connell
(2011) highlights practical methods that can aid in the reduction of cross­contamination,
5

6. including making waste reduction a social norm, increasing education and fostering a
concern for the environment in all people. This project has worked with the restaurant
management and used some of O’Connell’s educational methods to increase general
knowledge and ultimately to minimize the amount of cross­contamination in the waste
bins at Owl’s Nest . 2
Our preliminary assessment has identified several issues that make efficient waste
separation more difficult. The waste receptacle system is not adequate or clearly
labeled. There is only one place to throw compostable materials and the signage can
be confusing, with a small font and information not relevant to the Owl’s Nest’s use of
compostable utensils and dishware.
Above: Setup of the waste system inside of Owl’s Nest. On the left is a compost
collection bin. On the right is a black garbage bin and a small blue recycling bin. Not
pictured: additional garbage bin in the eating area.
Outside of the restaurant there is a courtyard with tables and chairs where patron like to
eat, but there are only garbage bins available there to get rid of waste. These garbage
bins are more convenient for those eating outside, and are constantly filled with
compostable cups and napkins.
2
These methods will be addressed in Project Description section of this report.
6

7. Owl’s Nest sells drinks in recyclable containers, yet the only receptacle for these
containers is a small blue bin next to the dish collection counter. Employees have
complained about compostable plastics and garbage in the recycling bin, which they
have to sort out of the bin. The next closest place to recycle is beyond the courtyard,
behind a wall and is shared with a nearby apartment complex. That line of recycling
containers has its own set of problems; each is labeled as either paper or container
recycling, but those labels are often not observed, so cross­contamination within the
bins is common. Our first waste assessment concluded that recycling bins meant for
only glass, plastic, aluminum and tin containers contained 29% paper, 5% garbage and
3% compostable materials.
Patrons at Owl’s Nest need to be educated about what materials are
compostable and how they should be disposed of. Waste in garbage bins should be
purely garbage, free of any compostable or recyclable materials and employees should
be actively working to reduce landfilled kitchen waste. Through our first waste
assessment, we found that the garbage stream from Owl’s Nest actually consisted of
52% compostable materials and food waste. From this striking discovery, we decided
that diverting compostable materials would be the focus of our project. Our goal was to
divert at least 20% of the compostable contamination from the garbage stream.
Project Description
The goal of this project is to reduce the amount of compostable waste going to
the landfill by creating a clear and convenient waste diversion system and educating
Owl’s Nest patrons about what items are compostable.
First Waste Assessment
We began with a thorough assessment of all waste that left the restaurant in a
three­day period. Grounds Services was able to set aside the garbage, recycling and
compost that came out of Owl’s Nest between Monday, February 10 and Wednesday,
February 12, 2014. The waste from these three days was collected and assessed on
Thursday morning. With the help of three Grounds Crew employees, two volunteers
7

8. and our team of two, we were able to complete the assessment in three hours.
Because the garbage collected from the restaurant was mixed with the residential
garbage, we began by separating the many bags. The contents of each bag made it
particularly obvious which bags came from the restaurant and which came from the
apartments. We assessed waste from both the kitchen and the “front of the house.”
After separating the bags, we carefully opened up all of the restaurant bags and
placed the contents in labeled bins by category: garbage, hard plastic, paper and
paperboard, aluminum, glass, compostable containers and napkins, food waste, and
plastic film. Each bin was weighed and recorded once filled, then dumped and
returned.
Once we were done separating and weighing the garbage, we cleaned up the
assessment area and repeated the process with five recycling bins, then again with a
sample of three bins of compost, out of the nine collected.
Waste Assessment Results
The compost was surprisingly clean; less than .02% of garbage out of the 57 lbs of
compost assessed. The recycling and garbage results were not as simple.
8

9.
Of the five recycling bins assessed, four of them were specifically for containers
(plastic, aluminum, glass and tin). Though 29% was paper, which should have been
placed in the other bin meant for paper, these bins were mostly clean.
The garbage statistics were the most alarming. Of the 136 lbs of garbage
9

10. assessed, 16% was food waste and 36% was other compostable containers and
napkins, adding up to 52% compostable materials. These statistics led us to decide to
focus on diverting compostable waste from the garbage stream.
Actions
These results were presented to Jeffrey Wildenboer, the Food Services Manager
of Owl’s Nest on February 28, 2014. Through discussion, we decided that the next step
would be to focus on signage. Signs would be most effective in this situation because
the size of the restaurant presents obstacles in changing the configuration of waste
bins. Signs were also a faster and more feasible solution given our time restraints . We 3
helped dining create signs for use on and above the trash bins with pictures of the
compostable items that asks restaurant patrons to put them in the compost bin (below)
We were also able to bring two compost bins outside of the restaurant so that it is more
convenient for guests eating outdoors. Having a convenient way to compost organic
waste is key to successfully making students compost their waste (Blaszczak, 2011).
3
Realistically, our team only had about three months after the first waste assessment to make changes to
the restaurant before the project was over.
10

11.
Above: One of the new compost bins next to a garbage bin in the courtyard outside of
Owl’s Nest.
11

12.
Sign put above garbage bin to encourage users to compost their food waste and
compostable foodware.
12

13.
Image of the courtyard outside of Owl’s Nest, including the two garbage bins.
Understanding Patron Knowledge
One week before we completed our project with a final waste assessment, we
surveyed people outside of Owl's Nest to understand which waste receptacle people
believed certain items belonged in. This was done by testing participants on where
items from the Owl’s Nest should be disposed of. These eight items are: A plastic bottle,
a candy wrapper, a plastic clamshell, a french fry boat, TaterWare utensils, the
cardboard takeout container, a coffee cup and a cold drink cup. To represent the
different waste receptacles, we covered three glass mugs with paper and labeled them
as “Garbage,” “Recycling” and “Compost.” Each participant put a colored slip (each
container had one) into which receptacle they thought it goes in. For example, the
corresponding color for the coffee cup was blue, so participants put the blue slip of
paper where they would normally put the coffee cup. After the participants were
quizzed, we explained which ones they got right or wrong, with the intention that they
will properly dispose of Owl’s Nest containers in the future and spread their knowledge
13

14. of which containers don’t go in the waste stream. Each participant received a smoothie
sample from Owl's Nest as an incentive to be quizzed.
Results from this game were illuminating. As expected, based on the large
amounts of the compostable cold drink cups, french fry boats and cardboard containers
in the garbage during our waste assessments, it is unclear that these items are
compostable. TaterWare utensils, on the other hand, cannot be composted. However,
the university advertises these utensils as compostable because they are made from
potato starch. The revelation that TaterWare should be classified as trash was very
recent among dining personnel and is a new problem to address in the future.
Regardless, the results proved that we were focusing on the right area of
diversion by working to raise awareness of what is compostable.
14

15.
Post­Implementation Waste Assessment
After adding the signs and compost bins, we performed another assessment to
determine the impact that our changes had on the garbage stream. We assessed the
garbage from Owl’s Nest between May 12 and May 14, 2014. Because our focus was
on the garbage stream, we decided not to assess the recycling and compost streams
under the assumption that they are clean. We worked with Owl’s Nest employees and
the groundskeepers at Kresge to keep the garbage waste from inside the restaurant
and in the courtyard separate from residential waste. Grounds Services provided Owl’s
Nest with extra brown bins placed on the deck behind the kitchen to use for garbage so
that the garbage stream would not be mixed with any others and, therefore, assure that
we are only assessing Owl’s Nest waste.
Results
The results of this assessment were extremely encouraging. We were able to
decrease the amount of compostable materials in the garbage stream from 52% to
26%. We cut the compostable waste going to the landfill in half and exceeded our
original goal of reducing this waste by 20%.
15

16.
Outcomes & Evaluation
We measured the success of our main objective (increasing waste diversion from
the landfill), in additional pounds (lbs) of compostable waste diverted in total after
implementation of the new system. After we found that over half of the trash was
composed of compostable materials from our preliminary analysis, we set a goal of
diverting 20% of compostable waste from the landfill. We surpassed that goal by
diverting 26% of the compostable waste from trash. The level of cross­contamination
between waste receptacles was only significant in the trash stream. The recycling and
compost were mainly clean and the compost leaving the Owl’s Nest is also sorted
before taken outside. We assume that decreased cross­contamination is an indication
of increased public participation.
Initiation or Demonstrations Strategy, Limitations and Tradeoffs
There were many limitations and tradeoffs involved in executing our project;
mostly having to do with the waste assessment. Our measurements were not exact
because we were unsure of where some materials belonged. For example, one of the
garbage bags from the restaurant was full of receipts, and we did not know if those
16

17. receipts were recyclable as paper. It is possible that they are classified as trash
because of the coating, so we put them in the garbage. We later found out that these
can be recycled when clean. Because they did not contribute to much of the weight,
this was not of too much concern. Plastic film was another category that was not as
accurate as it could be. Most of the plastic film we collected was contaminated by being
in the garbage, and that contamination added weight to the measure. After weighing
the film, it was added to the garbage because the contamination made it no longer
recyclable. We were uncertain about straws because some straws on campus are
compostable while others are not. We decided to put the straws in the compostable
category and later found out that straws are the only thing that Owl’s Nest provides that
is not either compostable or recyclable. However, the straws were changed to a
compostable version before the second waste assessment.
Our initial waste stream assessment came from a dumpster that also held
residential garbage, so even though we separated what looked to be from the cafe from
what was clearly residential, we could not be entirely certain. It is possible that a bag
originating from the restaurant was placed in the residential pile and not assessed. The
second assessment was easier in regards to this problem because we were able to
collaborate with the restaurant staff to keep their garbage stream separated from nearby
residences.
Despite these limitations in project implementation our results still provide
compelling evidence that there is too much compostable material in the garbage
stream. Waste assessments in general are time consuming and involve a lot of
advanced planning so they cannot be done, realistically, more than once per quarter. It
was suggested that we make multiple changes to Owl’s Nest’s waste system and
assess each one, but it is not possible to implement these changes and have an
assessment for each change with the time we had for the project. We were restricted
by time so we made what we believe to be the most effective modification to the waste
system within the time given.
17

18. Skills and Knowledge
To complete this project, we needed organizational skills, surveying skills,
knowledge of the different methods of waste reduction, data collecting and analyzing
skills, and knowledge of environmental impacts associated with waste systems. These
forms of skills and knowledge already existed within the group and have expanded
throughout the project. Many of these skills, such as data collection, have been learned
through communicating with the advisors and gathering information from other groups
that have more experience, such as Bill Alderson, the Recycling Shop Supervisor, and
Jeffrey Wildenboer, the Food Service Manager of Owl’s Nest.
Organizational, planning, and interpersonal skills have also come into play. We
have needed to show our respect and appreciation to all stakeholders. We have
communicated between stakeholders and relayed information between them. This was
a key skill leading up to the second assessment when we coordinated between
Grounds Services and restaurant staff.
Overall, our skillsets have grown as well as our knowledge of how to plan and
implement a waste diversion project.
References
Anderson, P., Liss, G. (2010). Expanding Diversion of Food Scraps and Soiled Paper. ​BioCycle
51​(9), 20.
Blaszczak, J. (2011). Design Influences on Composting Behavior in Three Cornell Eateries.
This source is an essay on the factors that influence composting activity. They isolated
availability of compost bins as the largest factor in to whether consumers compost their organic
waste. They studied the behavior through observation and a survey. Surveyers identified one
on­campus restaurant to have best aesthetic to promote composting.
Chancellor's Sustainability Challenge. (n.d.). ​Chancellor's Sustainability Challenge​. Retrieved
18

19. May 26, 2014, from ​http://sustainability.ucsc.edu/get­involved/challenge/index.html
Hedges, B. (2008). Survey of Composting as a Method of Waste Reduction at Northern
Universities and Colleges.
This source is a research paper written by Barbara Hedges of University of Alaska, Anchorage
(UAA), surveying the composting methods of 32 universities across the United States and
Canada. It was written to assess these methods and decide which would be best for UAA, which
was still trucking all food waste to the landfill at the time that this paper was released.
Hermann, B. G., Debeer, L., De Wilde, B., Blok, K., & Patel, M. K. (2011). To compost or not to
compost: carbon and energy footprints of biodegradable materials’ waste treatment. ​Polymer
Degradation and Stability​, ​96​(6), 1159­1171.
"Methane Emissions." ​EPA​. Environmental Protection Agency, n.d. Web. 26 May 2014.
Monterey Regional Waste Management District (2013). ​Annual Report 2013.
This 10­page report is available at the Monterey Regional Waste Management facility. It
contains highlights from the Board of Directors and information about programs such as Public
Education and Household Hazardous Waste Collection. Most importantly, it has information
about the SmartFerm Anaerobic Digester, which is where UCSC’s compost gets processed.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (2014). Municipal Solid Waste Generation,
Recycling and Disposal in the United States: Facts and Figures for 2012.
O’Connell, E. J. (2011). Increasing Public Participation in Municipal Solid Waste Reduction.
Geographical Bulletin, 52​(2). 105­118.
Pastor, J., & Hernandez, A. J. (2012). Heavy metals, salts and organic residues in old solid urban
waste landfills and surface waters in their discharge areas: Determinants for restoring their
19

20. impact. ​Journal of Environmental Management​, ​95​, S42–S49.
Platt, B., Lombardi, E. (2008). STOP TRASHING THE CLIMATE. ​BioCycle​ ​49​(8), 24­32.
Plueddemann, D. W. (1994). Creating Incentives for Waste Reduction: State and Local
Perspective. ​Journal of Environmental Health​, ​57​(3), 23­26.
Rogers, H., & Parenti, C. (2002). The Hidden Life of Garbage. ​UTNE­MINNEAPOLIS​, 44­48.
Saul, D. & Boie, J. (2012). Implementing cultural change to minimize waste and University of
Idaho.
This assessment paper reports on an outreach program implemented by sustainability organizers
at the University of Idaho that focused on increasing participation in waste reduction efforts and
reducing the amount of waste on campus.
Takata, M., Fukushima, K., Kino­Kimata, N., Nagao, N., Niwa, C., & Toda, T. (2012). The
effects of recycling loops in food waste management in Japan: Based on the environmental and
economic evaluation of food recycling. ​Science of the Total Environment​, ​432​, 309­317.
This article analyzes the economic and environmental aspects of the new “recycling loop” policy
in Japan that requires food industries to buy from farms that re­use compostable materials. This
system is found to be economically feasible and had varying environmental impacts.
Yepsen, R. (2009). Compostable Products Go Mainstream. ​BioCycle 50​(7). 25­32.
20