This document summarizes a case study conducted by students at Francis Marion University to increase recycling on campus. The students designed an experiment comparing recycling rates in student apartments that received recycling bins only, bins and recycling education, or no bins. Results showed apartments receiving bins recycled significantly more waste over time, diverting about 1/3 of the waste stream from landfills. While education did not statistically increase recycling amounts, the overall waste stream was reduced. Presenting results at conferences provided positive student feedback and recommendations to expand recycling university-wide. Challenges included bin contamination and limited physical plant support. Overall, the study demonstrated students will recycle given the opportunity.

1. The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister
IJSHE
4,3
218
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/1467-6370.htm
Science education and
sustainability initiatives
A campus recycling case study shows the
importance of opportunity
Lisa Pike, Tim Shannon, Kay Lawrimore, April McGee,
Martin Taylor and Gary Lamoreaux
Francis Marion University, Florence, South Carolina, USA
Keywords Case studies, Education, Problem-based learning, Recycling,
Sustainable development, Universities
Abstract Instructors at Francis Marion University developed a recycling course in an attempt to
satisfy the students’ goals of increasing campus awareness about sustainability and recycling, and the
teachers’ goals of using problem-based learning approaches in class. Students enrolled in the course
designed their own experiment, completed the experiment and presented the results at several national
meetings. The focal point of the experiment was student apartments, where some students were
provided with recycling bins, some were not, and some were provided with both bins and education
about the importance of recycling. Results show that students living in campus apartments
significantly reduced their waste stream when given recycling bins and some education about recycling.
Although ANOVA tests showed that while the presence of recycling education did not result in
significantly more recycling, students who received bins (opportunity) recycled more as time went on.
Positive student feedback indicated the success of using project-based learning to teach sustainability.
International Journal of Sustainability
in Higher Education
Vol. 4 No. 3, 2003
pp. 218-229
q MCB UP Limited
1467-6370
DOI 10.1108/14676370310485410
Background
If it is the role of colleges and universities to educate members of society,
including future leaders, then they must be at the forefront of the sustainability
movement, working to increase public awareness concerning environmental
issues and increasing the knowledge, the technology and the will to create a
sustainable future. However, simply teaching the required courses for an
environmentally literate citizenry is not enough. Many educators and
environmentalists emphasize that a university must act more responsibly
before its faculty can teach an ethic of responsibility (Allen, 1999; Creighton,
1998; Orr, 1992, 1994). This is also a tenet of the 1990 Talloires Declaration,
which encourages universities to engage in research and education towards a
sustainable future, and to set an example of environmental responsibility by
establishing programs of resource conservation recycling and waste reduction
at universities (University Leaders for a Sustainable Future, 1999).
David Orr (1994) states:
. . . students hear about global responsibility while being educated in institutions that often
spend their budgets and invest their endowments in the most irresponsible things. The lessons
being taught are of hypocrisy and ultimate despair. Students learn, without anyone ever
telling them, that they are helpless to overcome the frightening gap between ideals and reality.

2. Increasing emphasis on sustainability in practice, rather than solely in theory,
is the solution to this problem, and can often be a benefit to a university as well.
Colleges and universities which attempt to integrate sustainability into campus
operations often see positive effects: reducing ecological footprint, often
resulting in monetary savings for the institution, decreasing waste stream,
reducing pollution and energy, and developing a green campus can serve as a
model for other campuses or institutions (Eagan and Keniry, 1998; Filho, 2000;
Strauss, 1996).
At the same time that there is a need for infusing curriculum and campus
operations with sustainability, and teaching earth literacy in our students,
there is a need for national science education reform focusing on improving
the quality of teaching in higher education (Arambula-Greenfield, 1996;
Balsas, 2001; Friedler and Tamir, 1986; Gurwick and Krasny, 2001; Jorgensen,
2001; Laurillard, 1993). As education and sustainability are linked, reform
must take place if we hope to become a sustainable society. Though the use of
lectures has been the predominant way to instruct university students, there
has recently been a shift towards a more interactive, inquiry-based teaching
style. It is recognized that the way in which learning occurs is as important as
the content; courses taught as lecture courses tend to induce passivity
whereas in an active learning process such as laboratory, the old adage
“learning by doing” once again rings true (Ahern-Rindell, 1998; Orr, 1994;
Schamel and Ayres, 1992). Because students have little opportunity to design
and complete their own long-term experiments they lack an adequate
understanding of the scientific method. The National Research Council states
that a central strategy for teaching science must include active inquiry
beginning with a student’s question and followed by a student-designed
experiment (Martin-Hansen, 2002; National Research Council, 2000). Towards
this end, problem-based learning methods are becoming more popular and are
resulting in better student learning (Adey and Shayer, 1990;
Arambula-Greenfield, 1996; Boersma et al., 2000; Darling, 2001; Gerber et al.,
2001; Grant and Vatnick, 1998; Gurwick and Krasny, 2001; Laurillard, 1993;
Marek and Cavallo, 1997; Whyte, 1999;).
Student-led research can not only improve learning subject by subject, but
can help students think logically and in a “big picture” kind of way,
incorporating knowledge from a variety of backgrounds and coordinating it
into a cohesive whole. David Orr (1994) includes among the failings of today’s
educational systems the lack of connectedness – without interdisciplinary
learning, students won’t learn to think in whole systems and will fail to
recognize our dependence on natural systems. “All education is environmental
education”, Orr (1994) says, and points out that our system of teaching, with
each discipline separated from the rest, only leads to the misconception that one
discipline has nothing to do with another. Finding the key to living sustainably
requires interdisciplinary cooperation (Jenks-Jay, 1995). Integrating service and
Campus
recycling case
study
219

3. IJSHE
4,3
220
learning by solving problems as part of the curriculum can improve education
as well as make education more relevant and more interdisciplinary (Orr, 1994).
Problem-based courses, similar to service learning, focus on a specific problem,
promote interdisciplinary learning and faculty cooperation, clarify information
learned in lecture, and teach critical thinking while actively engaging the
student (Ahern-Rindell, 1998; Balsas, 2001; Cortese, 1992; Leroy et al., 2001). In
teaching science and the scientific method especially, problem-based projects
need to involve students at each step of the research; students should start with
defining a research question and proceed through carrying out experiments
and analyzing/interpreting data, raise new questions based on their results
and, just as important as the research itself, present/publish the results
(Breyman, 1999; Clugston and Calder, 1999; Darling, 2001; Gurwick and
Krasny, 2001; Whyte, 1999). These projects and case studies, unlike standard
cookbook laboratories, often last several weeks, draw upon a variety of
resources, and often have no pre-ordained answer.
In addition, teaching environmental science using problem-based methods
can result in a high level of student engagement as students learn to put their
ideas about sustainability into action. The process of campus greening raises
student consciousness, gives the student a sense of excitement and
connectedness to the campus, and allow students to develop a greater
attachment to the discipline because of their positive research experience
(Chaplin et al., 1998).
With this in mind, and at the request of several biology majors, professors at
Francis Marion University in Florence S.C. designed an honors biology course
with two goals:
(1) to reinforce the scientific method using a project-based learning
approach; and
(2) to teach sustainability using campus operations, particularly recycling,
as a focus.
Three students signed up for the course: two biology majors and one business
major.
Francis Marion University (FMU) is one of South Carolina’s 12 public,
co-educational liberal arts universities. It is also a Phase II school in the
Sustainable Universities Initiative (SUI), a joint effort by Clemson University,
the Medical University of South Carolina, and the University of South Carolina
to educate our students for a complex future and to provide models for
sustainable design and operations within each school. Francis Marion
University realizes that practices at the classroom and academic office level on
college and university campuses offer many opportunities for environmental
action. These opportunities are also a way to teach by example and, when
students are actively involved in the greening initiative, these opportunities can
be used as a case-study method of teaching as well.

4. The sustainability initiative
The campus recycling effort, spurred by the voluntary efforts of the Ecology
Club in 1995, and by results from an environmental science laboratory that
documented the campus waste stream was initiated in 1995. This increased
awareness and effort was also partly due to a state mandate by the South
Carolina Legislature for the reduction of solid wastes produced by state offices
(including state educational facilities) by 30 percent.
In addition to the state mandate, there was already some evidence that
officials at Francis Marion University were interested in sustainability: a new
energy efficient lighting system the gymnasium, fairly active paper recycling
program in the academic buildings, use of some native plants in landscaping,
and a revitalized nature trail. But an area of major concern to the students was
the lack of recycling in student housing, a service which was discontinued in
1996 because of too much contamination in the recycling bins which didn’t have
secure lids with the can/bottle opening and which weren’t adequately labeled.
During 2001, three professors, at the request of several students, developed
the honors biology course. They agreed to initiate and design a scientific
recycling study, use student workers and use the campus as a laboratory. Two
biology professors and a business/marketing professor worked together to
create the course and obtain funding. Several grants from the Sustainable
Universities Initiative (SUI) were used for student travel, publicity/recycling
education, and to purchase equipment.
Recycling is a popular area in campus environmental reform, and is often
targeted first by groups interested in campus greening. With this recycling
project we hoped to instruct all members of the campus community about the
amount of recyclable trash they discard and the cost savings benefits of recycling.
The project was designed to answer the questions: Will students at FMU recycle
given the opportunity, and will recycling education increase recycling at FMU?
In an attempt to encourage fellow students to recycle, an experiment was
designed to test whether education about recycling and opportunities for
recycling had an impact on student participation in the campus recycling effort.
The project involved research, experimental design, data collection and
interpretation, marketing the recycling concept, presentation of results at
national conferences, and a term paper. Goals of the project included:
.
to expand the recycling program into student areas, such as the dorms
and apartments;
.
to show the university administration that students want recycling, and
will recycle, given the opportunity;
.
to create greater awareness about recycling and other sustainability
issues facing our campus; and
.
to create a Web page and an orientation brochure to be given to incoming
students on the “whys and how-tos” of recycling at FMU.
Campus
recycling case
study
221

5. IJSHE
4,3
222
Project design
The project design involved 13 apartment blocks, with eight four-person
apartments in each. The buildings were divided into three groups. Group A
(four blocks) received weekly education about recycling as well as individual
recycling bins. Group B (four blocks) received the bins only and group C (five
blocks) received no recycling equipment. All groups received an introductory
notice explaining the experiment and detailing what items the FMU campus
was equipped to recycle. Recycling bins were purchased at area stores and
consisted of ten-gallon rectangular plastic storage bins with a recycle logo
spray-painted on the sides and a videotape-sized hole cut in the lid. Trash and
recycled items were collected weekly, on Mondays and Thursdays between
4.00 pm and 6.00 pm and weighed using a standard bathroom scale. Trash and
recycled items were weighed separately, and the trash thrown out and the
recyclables placed in the campus recycling dumpster. Group A also received
student-designed weekly education marketing the concept and stressing the
importance of recycling. This education consisted of several flyers indicating
reasons to recycle, Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC)
recycling posters, a pizza party/informational session, and a “10 ways to save
the Earth” bookmark.
Results
Results show that students living in campus apartments can and will
significantly reduce their waste stream when given recycling bins. The total
waste stream for the study was 2,841 kilograms (Figure 1); there were eleven
collections in a seven-week period, excluding spring break week and the days
students were out of state presenting preliminary results at meetings. The total
recyclable material for groups A and B was 661 kilograms. Group A had 382
kilograms of recyclables and B had 279 kilograms of recyclables: almost 1/3 of
the waste stream was diverted. Group A began the study with 35 per cent of the
waste classified as recyclable and group B had 25 per cent thus classified
(Figure 2). By weight, glass had the most impact in the recycling material
followed by plastic and paper (Figure 3).
The statistical technique, analysis of variance, is the preferred method to test
whether there is a significant difference among means of two or more
independent samples. The results showed that the waste stream of the three
groups did differ (F ¼ 9:8, p ¼ 0:001; see Figure 4). However, the test did not
support the hypothesis of a difference between the means of recyclables for
group A and group B ( p ¼ 0.25 see Figure 5). There was, however, a significant
change in the percentage of recyclable material from the start of the study until
the completion (from 25 percent to 32 percent) for groups A and B.
Although the statistical analysis did not allow the conclusion that education
increases the amount of recycling, we are confident that the presence of
education and bins did significantly reduce the waste stream. And, we are

6. Campus
recycling case
study
223
Figure 1.
Total waste (trash and
recyclabels)total
recyclabes for study vs
total recyclables for
study period
Figure 2.
Recyclabes (glass,
aluminum, plastic, paper)
as a percentage of the
waste stream

7. IJSHE
4,3
224
Figure 3.
Total recyclable material
Figure 4.
Total waste stream for
each collection period

8. Campus
recycling case
study
225
Figure 5.
Total recyclabes for each
collection (glass,
aluminum, plastic, paper)
confident that the students changed their behavior over time (from a low of 25
percent waste reduction to a high of 59 percent the week following spring
break).
The students also made the following recommendations regarding
university recycling policy. These included:
.
Recycling bins should be placed next to trash cans in order to create an
option for students. This should increase the amount recycled.
.
Creating a new full time staff position (recycling coordinator).
.
Recycling at campus functions (such as orientation, sorority, fraternity
and sporting events, school dances, and the annual Arts Alive Festival).
Media exposure was an added bonus as students were interviewed by the press
and presented their research at the district Tri-Beta meeting in New Orleans,
the National Collegiate Honors Conference in Nashville, and the South Carolina
Academy of Sciences in Conway.
Challenges
There were several major hurdles during the course of the semester. The first
was the contamination problem – what to do with bins that had non-recyclable
items in them; despite our notice about what could and could not go in the bins,
we had a lot of styrofoam, plastic wrap, paper cups and plastic bags included.
In the end, we decided that we didn’t have the time to go through the bins and

9. IJSHE
4,3
226
sort out the trash, if a bin was badly contaminated, the whole thing was
recorded as trash.
Getting the physical plant, already overworked and understaffed, to support
the recycling initiative was also a challenge. They were helpful in letting us
borrow a truck and unlocking closed roads between the dorms, making
collections easier. It was a bit harder to coordinate storage and pickup of
recyclables. It was made very clear that the university couldn’t afford to
increase the workload of the custodial staff, and it was also fairly clear that the
university was quite happy with the local waste hauler. At FMU, the local
waste hauler is paid per trip to campus, not per pound of trash collected. Most
recycling programs can document monetary savings in that less trash
(poundage) is shipped out when recycling takes place, so they pay less for
hauling waste. As the physical plant was reluctant to have the waste haulers
reduce the number of trips they made to campus to empty trash dumpsters,
FMU actually pays more when the recycling program is operational.
Continuing the sustainability initiative
Education of both custodial staff and the housing office are the next steps. We
need to ensure that the recycling bins are placed on the room inventories, both
so that there will be a charge, and replacement funds, if a bin gets stolen, lost, or
damaged, and so the bins won’t need to be collected at the end of the term. At
present, students may request a recycling bin; we hope that in the future bins
will become a standard piece of “furniture” included in all student rooms. The
biology department will continue to support the Housing Office in encouraging
students to recycle, the Physical Plant is working on putting together a
recycling committee, the director of custodial services has agreed to let the
recycling committee address the custodians, and a Web page and a brochure
describing Francis Marion University’s recycling program have just been
completed and will be a part of this year’s new student orientation program.
Conclusions
Visible and enforceable, recycling is one of the easiest and most
environmentally sound practices a college or university can undertake in the
greening process (Ching and Gogan, 1992). And because it is also measurable,
the recycling effort lends itself well to scientific study. The results of our study
further indicate the willingness of students to recycle when given the
opportunity (bins); an additional focus on education about the importance of
recycling was not necessary. The impact of the student effort becomes
significant when faced with a state mandated 30 percent reduction of waste
stream.
It is also clear that interdisciplinary collaboration is an essential ingredient
to living sustainably. Due to the complexity of environmental issues, students
involved in a project such as ours learn more than just science: students learn

10. that ethical, social, political, economical and international relations are key
factors in the success of their project (Clugston and Calder, 1999). They learn
that environmental issues often involve moral choices and that to make
informed decisions, they must learn the skills necessary to deal with real-life
problems. In addition, they must learn to interact with and understand people
with different backgrounds and viewpoints (Flint, 2000). During the course of
study the students learned that there are many countries around the world
where active recycling programs are found, and, in fact, a few countries with
more aggressive recycling policies than the USA. Recycling becomes not just a
state-wide or nation-wide issue, but a global problem to tackle. Studying the
European Union’s legislation, directives and initiatives concerning solid waste
disposal and recycling, or Germany’s “Green Dot” system (licensed in nine
European countries), which places the responsibility for minimizing waste on
the manufacturers, or Canada’s deposit system and push for greater producer
responsibility, can illustrate to our students the variety of ways that waste can
be reduced as well as give local and worldwide examples of good recycling
programs (Lund, 2001).
The economics of recycling including markets, decreasing landfill space and
rising waste disposal costs, and concerns about incineration combine well with
politics – most states as well as the European Union have mandatory recycling
legislation – and psychology – attitudes are important in getting high
participation rates. The European union, for example, requires that countries
“recover” a minimum of 50 percent of their used packaging with material
recycling at 25 percent minimum (Lund, 2001). Economic and political
decisions have resulted in the United States and 15 other countries enacting
laws to require the take-back of certain kinds of batteries, and many countries
are placing the responsibility for collecting recyclables back on the companies
that made the product (Lund, 2001). These visible relationships help show
students that environmental problems are interdisciplinary and international.
Campus greening projects are often a student’s first experience with social
change, promoting greater consciousness and awareness (Breyman, 1999).
Working with the intent that the policies and procedures created would
actually be implemented and translated into an upgrade of the university
recycling gave the students a sense that their voices mattered and that they
actually made a difference. Curriculum greening teaches students the means to
help society become sustainable and how science, especially that which
involves active learning, can be used as a tool to teach environmental
responsibility (Breyman, 1999; Pace, 2000). Student feedback on the course was
positive and coupled with requests for a variety of similar courses and
amazement that the students themselves were able to reduce the waste stream
by 30 percent.
Information from this course has been incorporated into introductory
biology classes and has helped enlighten the entire campus community about
Campus
recycling case
study
227

11. IJSHE
4,3
problems and controversy surrounding waste management. It was an excellent
experiential learning opportunity for the students to become familiar with a
universal problem and understand it in a way that lecturing in the classroom
could not have achieved.
228
References
Adey, P. and Shayer, M. (1990), “Accelerating the development of formal thinking in middle and
high school students”, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, Vol. 27 pp. 267-85.
Ahern-Rindell, A. (1998), “Applying inquiry-based and cooperative group learning strategies to
promote critical thinking”, Journal of College Science Teaching, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 203-7.
Allen, A. (1999), “Institutional change and leadership in greening the campus”, in Filho, W.L.
(Ed.), Sustainability and University Life, Peter Lang, Frankfurt am Main, pp. 105-28.
Arambula-Greenfield, T. (1996), “Implementing problem-based learning in a college science
class”, Journal of College Science Teaching, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 26-30.
Balsas, C. (2001), “Towards more sustainable transportation: lessons learned from a teaching
experiment”, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 2 No. 4,
pp. 316-28.
Boersma, S., Hluchy, M., Godshalk, G., Crane, J., DeGraff, D. and Blauth, J. (2000),
“Student-designed, interdisciplinary science projects”, Journal of College Science
Teaching, Vol. 30 No. 6, pp. 397-402.
Breyman, S. (1999), “Sustainability through incremental steps? The case study of campus
greening at Rensselaer”, in Filho, W.L. (Ed.), Sustainability and University Life, Peter Lang,
Frankfurt am Main, pp. 79-88.
Chaplin, S.B., Manske, J.M. and Cruise, J.L. (1998), “Introducing freshmen to investigative
research – a course for biology majors at Minnesota’s University of St. Thomas”, Journal
of College Science Teaching, Vol. 27 No. 5, pp. 347-50.
Ching, R. and Gogan, R. (1992), “Campus recycling: everyone plays a part”, in Eagen, D.J. and
Orr, D.W. (Eds), The Campus and Environmental Responsibility, New Directions for Higher
Education, No. 77, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 113-26.
Clugston, R.M. and Calder, W. (1999), “Critical dimensions of sustainability in higher education”,
in Filho, W.L. (Ed.), Sustainability and University Life, Peter Lang, Frankfurt am Main,
pp. 31-46.
Cortese, A.D. (1992), “Education for an environmentally sustainable future”, Environmental
Science and Technology, Vol. 26 No. 6, pp. 1009-14.
Creighton, S.H. (1998), Greening the Ivory Tower, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press,
Cambridge, MA.
Darling, R. (2001), “A directed research project investigating territoriality and aggression in
crickets”, The American Biology Teacher, Vol. 63 No. 1, pp. 44-7.
Eagan, D.J. and Keniry, J. (1998), Green Investment, Green Return: How Practical Conservation
Projects Save Millions on America’s Campuses, National Wildlife Federation, Washington,
DC.
Filho, W.L. (2000), “Sustainability and university life: some European perspectives”, in Filho,
W.L. (Ed.), Sustainability and University Life, Peter Lang, Frankfurt am Main, pp. 19-30.
Flint, R.W. (2000), “Interdisciplinary education in sustainability: links in secondary and higher
education”, International Journal on Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 1 No. 2,
pp. 191-202.

12. Friedler, Y. and Tamir, P. (1986), “Teaching basic concepts of scientific research to high school
students”, Journal of Biological Education, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 263-9.
Gerber, B., Cavallo, A.M.L. and Marek, E.A. (2001), “Relationships among informal learning
environments, teaching procedures and scientific reasoning ability”, International Journal
of Science Education, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 535-49.
Grant, B.W. and Vatnick, I. (1998), “A multi-week inquiry for an undergraduate introductory
biology laboratory”, Journal of College Science Teaching, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 109-12.
Gurwick, N.P. and Krasny, M.E. (2001), “Enhancing student understanding of environmental
sciences research”, American Biology Teacher, Vol. 63 No. 4, pp. 236-41.
Jenks-Jay, N. (1995), “Higher education and the environment: how colleges and universities are
responding to the challenge of educating future leaders”, National Association of
Environmental Professionals News, September-October, pp. 20-3.
Jorgensen, L.M. (2001), “Science literates or science experts?”, The Science Teacher, Vol. 68 No. 9,
pp. 46-9.
Laurillard, D. (1993), Rethinking University Teaching, Routledge, London.
Leroy, P., van den Bosch, H. and Ligthart, S. (2001), “The role of project-based learning in the
‘Political and Social Sciences of the Environment’ curriculum at Nijmegen University”,
International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 8-20.
Lund, H.F. (2001), “Recycling in other countries”, in Lund, H.F. (Ed.), The McGraw-Hill Recycling
Handbook, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, pp. 37.1-37.24.
Marek, E.A. and Cavallo, A.M.L. (1997), The Learning Cycle and Elementary School Science,
Heinemann, Portsmouth, NH.
Martin-Hansen, L. (2002), “Defining inquiry”, The Science Teacher, Vol. 69 No. 2, pp. 34-7.
National Research Council (2000), Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards,
National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
Orr, D.W. (1992), “The problem of education”, in Eagen, D.J. and Orr, D.W. (Eds), The Campus
and Environmental Responsibility, New Directions for Higher Education, No. 77,
Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 3-8.
Orr, D.W. (1994), Earth in Mind, Island Press, Washington, DC.
Pace, P. (2000), “Attitudes towards environmental education in the Maltese formal education
system”, in Filho, W.L. (Ed.), Communicating Sustainability, Peter Lang, Frankfurt am
Main, pp. 25-44.
Schamel, D. and Ayres, M.P. (1992), “The minds-on approach: student creativity and personal
involvement in the undergraduate science laboratory”, Journal of College Science Teaching,
Vol. 21, pp. 226-9.
Strauss, B.H. (1996), The Class of 2000 Report: Environmental Education, Practices, and
Activism on Campus, Nathan Cummings Foundation, New York, NY.
University Leaders for a Sustainable Future (1999), The Talloires Declaration, ULSF,
Washington, DC.
Whyte, R.S. (1999), “Promoting environmental citizenship and sustainability in regional
campuses: experiences from a consortium of 15 colleges and universities”, in Filho, W.L.
(Ed.), Sustainability and University Life, Peter Lang, Frankfurt am Main, pp. 193-210.
Campus
recycling case
study
229