The document summarizes literature on recycling and its implications. It discusses how landfills release gases like methane and carbon dioxide that contribute to climate change and air pollution, harming human health. While recycling reduces these issues, only 30% of recyclable waste in the US is recycled. The target population of a recycling program is described as college students, who will influence future policies and communities. Reaching this group requires an engaging educational program, as simply providing information is ineffective without incentives to encourage sustained behavior change.

1. Running head: RECYCLING 1
Recycling
Kyrian Obidiegwu, Haley Allen, Stephanie Jones, Bhavin Mistry
California State University, Fresno

2. RECYCLING 2
Table of Contents
Literature Review …………………………………………………………………… 3
Introduction …………………………………………………………………. 3
The Health Problem ………………………………………………………… 3
The Target Population …………………………………………………….... 6
Model Programs …………………………………………………………….. 6
Summary ……………………………………………………………….……. 8
Agency/Situation Description ………………………………………………….…… 8
Target Group Description ……………………………………………………….….. 8
Implications for the Program ………………………………………………………. 8
References ………………………………………………………..…………………. 10

3. RECYCLING 3
Literature Review
Recycling solid waste is an environmental health behavior that needs immediate attention
because it protects the environment and natural resources, and in effect, protects and promotes
the public’s health (Largo-Wight, Johnston, & Wight, 2013). The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) defines solid waste as any garbage, sludge from treatment plants, or air pollution
control facility and other discarded materials, including solid, liquid, semisolid, or contained
gaseous material resulting from industrial, commercial, mining, and agricultural operations, and
from community activities (EPA, 2016b). If solid waste is not recycled, the effects to the
environment and the health of the human population can be devastating.
The majority of the sources used to support this environmental and human health risk
was found at the EPA, CalRecycle, and Fresno State websites, and in Journals such as Science
Direct, Journal of Hazardous Materials, and Journal of Exposures to Science and Environmental
Epidemiology. Because science and technology change so quickly, the majority of the sources
used for this report were written within the past 10 years. The sources outside of the 10-year
timeframe were used because the information is still valid. Since recycling encompasses many
topics, this report limited the subject to solid waste. Even with a more concentrated recycling
topic, there were many reports and data to sift through. It was also a challenge to find specific
data concentrating only on solid waste’s effect on the health of the environment and the human
population.
Once the solid waste is collected, it is taken to a landfill. If responsibly sited and
managed, landfills are often preferred over other waste disposal options, such as incineration,
because they allow waste to decay naturally and safely (CMAP, 2008). On the other hand,
instead of the planned biodegradation of the solid waste in landfills, it is often mummified,
severely prolonging the natural breakdown processes (CMAP, 2008). Although landfills may be
a better waste disposal solution than other alternatives, they still have consequences.
There are three categories of public health, safety, and environmental concerns related to
landfills: subsurface migration, odor nuisance and surface emissions/air pollution (EPA, 2016a).
The first concern, surface migration, is the underground movement of landfill gas (LFG) to
another area inside or outside of the landfill property (CMAP, 2008). Methane, a potentially
explosive gas, makes up approximately 50 percent of LFGs (EPA, 2016a). It is possible for
LFGs to travel underground, accumulate in enclosed areas and ignite. There have been

4. RECYCLING 4
incidences where subsurface migration has caused fires and explosions on both private and
landfill properties (CMAP, 2008). LFG emissions’ unpleasant odor is the second concern
because the stench can lower the quality of life for those living near landfills and they can reduce
local property values (EPA, 2016a).
Uncontrolled surface emissions of LFGs released into the air is the third and most
significant concern. LFGs include carbon dioxide, methane, volatile organic compounds (VOCs),
hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) and odorous compounds (EPA, 2016a). These landfill gasses
cause damage to the environment and consequently harm human health (Dockery, 2009).
Excessive emissions of greenhouse gasses, which causes global climate change, is becoming a
common problem (EPA, 2002). Both carbon dioxide and methane, two of the major gasses
produced in landfills, are greenhouse gasses that contribute to the climate change. Greenhouse
gasses traps heat in the atmosphere which gradually increases the temperature of the planet and
contributes to increased sea levels and severe heat waves which could damage agriculture and
cause droughts or floods (EPA, 2002). Carbon dioxide is known to be a major contributor to
global warming. However, many are unaware that methane is 25 times more effective at trapping
heat in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide (EPA, 2016a). This is an alarming statistic since
almost 95 percent of the gas produced in landfills are carbon dioxide and methane (Themelis and
Ulloa, 2007). By diverting waste from landfills, recycling helps reduce greenhouse gas emissions
(EPA, 2002).
Landfill gasses not only contribute to global warming but these gasses also to a poor
quality of air (Themelis et al., 2007; EPA, 2016a). Air quality has a strong correlation to
premature death, cancer, and long-term damage to the respiratory and cardiovascular systems
(Durmusoglu, Taspinar, & Karademir, 2010; Healthy People, 2016).VOCs, a component of LFG,
contribute to ground-level ozone (smog) which can reduce or damage vegetative growth and
cause respiratory illnesses (EPA, 2016a). HAP exposure can cause a variety of health problems
including respiratory irritation, cancerous illnesses, and central nervous system damage.
During the 1980’s, particulate air pollution (anything liquid or solid suspended in the air)
concentrations in the U.S. were not seen as a public health hazard (Dockery, 2009). It was not
until the early 1990’s that exposure to particulate air pollution was connected with acute and
chronic morbidity and mortality (Dockery, 2009). Studies in both adults and children have
shown that exposure to particulates is associated with symptoms of bronchitis, as well as reduced

5. RECYCLING 5
lung function growth (Kelly, 2003). The results were reversed if the victim was relocated to an
area with lower particulate concentrations. Epidemiological studies have also shown a clear
connection between exposure to particulate air pollution and decreased lung function,
cardiovascular morbidity, and increased hospital admissions (Kelly, 2003). Landfills are found to
release particulates into the air creating a public health threat.
Asthma is another short-term effect of air pollution. According to research, rises in
ambient air (the air we breathe) pollution increases the morbidity of children with asthma (Mann,
Balmes, Bruckner, Mortimer, Margolis, Pratt, & Tager, 2010). Another study from the Fresno
area found approximately 50 percent of children had mild persistent asthma and about 30 percent
had moderate to severe asthma (Gale, Noth, Mann, Balmes, Hammond, & Tager, 2012). By
increasing recycling, pollution-related health problems will naturally decrease.
Ninety percent of the solid waste produced in the U.S. is recyclable. Unfortunately, only
30 percent of that waste is recycled (Largo-Wight, Johnston, & Wight, 2013). Data retrieved
from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) determined that in 2013,
Americans generated approximately 254 million tons of trash (EPA, 2015). In 2014, California
disposed of 31.2 million tons of solid waste (CalRecycle, 2015). The majority of California’s
waste was sent to landfills while one percent was exported outside of the state (CalRecycle,
2015). Of the 31.2 million tons of waste produced in the state of California, California State
University: Fresno’s total amount of disposal was 471,000 tons (CalRecycle, 2014). According
to CalRecycle, CSU Fresno can improve on reusing, recycling and composting food waste, non-
recyclable packaging and construction materials (CalRecycle, 2015). Currently, CSU Fresno is
utilizing a single-stream recycling program. All trash cans across the campus accept both trash
and recycling. The waste hauler transports all of the trash to a sorting facility where the
recyclable materials are recovered (The California State University, n.d.). This method is an
issue because it takes away the conscious effort and responsibility to recycle from the students
and the ability for students to create recycling habits to influence the community.
College students are shown to recycle to a less degree than older generations (Ojala,
2008). However, other studies have found that younger generations are more knowledgeable,
interested in, and worried about environmental problems. College campuses impact
environmental-related health. The waste created on a college campus contributes to the
communities total waste. A large amount of the waste produced at colleges is not recycled even

6. RECYCLING 6
though the waste consists mainly of paper products (Largo-Wight, Johnston, & Wight, 2013).
Campus recycling can be increased with effective campaigns targeted at the college students.
Currently, there are few studies focused specifically on the college student population’s
recycling knowledge and habits (Ojala, 2008; Wilcox, 2014). It is during the college years that
household routines, which include recycling, are developed and ingrained (Ojala, 2008). Once
these routines are established, they are very difficult to change (Ojala, 2008). College students
are the future generation who will face numerous environmental issues directly connected with
waste and the lack of recycling (Wilcox, 2014). Therefore, it is important that the college
population gain recycling habits to better themselves, the community, and the environment.
Another reason the college student population is a perfect group to educate in recycling is
because of its size. In California alone, the 2015 student enrollment for all CSU schools totaled
474,571 (The California State University, 2016). With the addition of private schools, the college
population is massive and will have a large influence on the community. Finally, this population
is unique since it is concentrated to a single campus and is connected through a school email.
These two features of the college population make it easier to relay information to versus any
other population.
In May 2014, the CSU Board of Trustees approved an expanded sustainability policy
making an environmentally conscious living and learning the way of life on campus (The
California State University, (n.d.). One area of focus is waste management. The primary goal of
the sustainability policy for 2016 and 2020 is, respectively, to reduce solid waste disposal by 50
percent and 80 percent, ultimately working towards zero waste (The California State University,
(n.d.). Many CSU schools have taken huge and creative strides to reduce the amount of solid
waste produced on their campuses. Channel Islands achieved a 60 percent recycling rate with the
installation of 29 recycling bins placed throughout the campus (The California State University,
(n.d.). They also actively compost waste by participating in a pilot program hoping to transition
to composting 100 percent of their green waste. In 2012, San Francisco installed 120 new three-
bin systems for collecting compost, waste, and recycling. Since then, the campus has increased
the recycling amount by ten percent and doubled its composting rate. The campus diverts 76
percent of its waste from landfills. By 2020, San Francisco’s goal is to use the three-bin system
is to have zero waste (The California State University, (n.d.).

7. RECYCLING 7
California State University, Long Beach has developed a variety of recycling programs to
suit each recycling need. For example, when recycling paper, designated blue bins are placed
within classrooms as well as throughout the campus for the paper to be recycled. Specific bins
are also placed throughout the campus for batteries, cardboard and food scraps (California State
University Long Beach, 2015). This enables and teaches students, faculty, and staff to correctly
recycle certain items. Another recycling program that Long Beach State has developed is the use
of water hydration stations throughout campus. More than 60 stations are distributed throughout
the campus encouraging the use of reusable bottles instead of plastic disposable bottles
(California State University Long Beach, 2015).
There are several studies focused on college students and their recycling tendencies. An
eight-week field study conducted at a large southeastern university tested the effectiveness of an
intervention aimed at increasing can and bottle recycling on a college campus.(Largo-Wight,
Johnston, & Wight, 2013). By simply supplying indoor recycling receptacles, there was a
significant increase in recycling from the baseline to the post-test. This study’s results offer
support to the premise that college students are willing to recycle if the opportunity is presented.
Another study showed that people who did not participate in recycling stated it was an
inconvenience or a nuisance to do so (Cheung, Chan, & Wong, 1999; Kelly, Mason, Leiss, &
Ganesh, 2006). With people who were already inclined to recycle, simply increasing the
convenience helped improve the degree at which people recycled (Cheung, Chan, & Wong,
1999; McCarty & Shrum, 1994).
Without recycling, landfills will continue to grow, releasing hazardous gas emissions
which will severely affect human health. These harmful pollutants have proven to be extremely
detrimental to human health. Recycling helps to reduce the accumulation of these toxins
generated by landfills and incinerators. College students will be the next generation to face,
environmental issues, privately and politically, directly related to recycling. Therefore, this
population is vital to the future health of the environment and humanity. Multiple studies have
demonstrated that recycling programs specific to the college demographic are effective. If the
college population can be reached, the community will be positively impacted, and the
environment will eventually improve.

8. RECYCLING 8
Agency/Situation Description
CSU Fresno’s demographics show a lot of diversity. Females outnumber males, making
up 57 percent of the population. Fresno State has a diverse ethnic population, as well. Hispanics
(45%), Whites (23%), and Asians (15%) are the majority of the student population. The student
to faculty ratio is 22 to 1. Eighty-nine percent of the undergraduate classes contain fewer than 50
students. Of the 5,458 students enrolled in the Fall 2014 semester, 35.3 percent are transfer
students (Voluntary System of Accountability (VSA, 2014) These data figures are highly
relevant as a basis of understanding our population base.
To make this program successful requires the expertise from a variety of agencies in
order to effectively reach students. Fresno State's Environmental Health department, Risk
Management, and the Green Issue club make great resources to possibly utilize in establishing an
efficient program. The program would also need to reach out to the marketing department to help
promote the project. Trying to get information out to the student body is a difficult task, but with
assistance from the marketing department, information will be effectively broadcasted around the
university.
Target Group Description
The target population will consist of college students, specifically from the CSU Fresno
campus, ages 17 to 24. This population is ideal for the program’s objective, increasing solid
waste recycling because it is the college students who will be making the decisions, privately and
politically, with regards to future community recycling programs (Wilcox, 2014). As of fall
2015, 24,136 students are enrolled at CSU Fresno (Fresno State, 2015). If this population of
students develops positive recycling habits, they can then create a positive ripple effect in the
Fresno/Clovis community. In addition to affecting the local community, students from different
towns or those who acquire a job in a different city have the potential to create a recycling
impact there, as well. College students are not a stagnant population, therefore, they have the
greatest potential of impacting many different communities making them a great population to
educate in positive recycling habits.
Implications for the Program
The target population has had at least 12 years of education, therefore, they are fairly
educated and have a higher set of reading and vocabulary skills. To reach this collegiate
population, the program must be sophisticated enough to captivate their interest. Catering to their

9. RECYCLING 9
level of knowledge on recycling will be difficult to judge since a student’s awareness of a topic
can vary. Because of this, the educational recycling program is meant to provide Fresno State
students with practical information on recycling that they can apply to their own lives. To make
the program the most effective, there are several aspects to be aware of. The first is to not
overwhelm the participant with information but make the topic interesting, enticing, and
personally applicable (Cheng & Hu, 2010). Programs that provide information through
brochures, prompts, or pamphlets are highly ineffective unless paired with some sort of incentive
program (McCarty & Shrum, 1994). However, the issue with incentives is once it is removed the
participants return back to their baseline behaviors (Kelly, Mason, Leiss, & Ganesh, 2006;
McCarty & Shrum, 1994). Ultimately, the goal of the program is to cause students to want to
recycle rather than recycle only for a reward.

10. RECYCLING 10
References
California State University Long Beach. (2015). Waste Reduction & Recycling. Retrieved
February 16, 2016, from http://www.csulb.edu/sustainability/program-initiatives/waste-
reduction-purchasing
CalRecycle (2015). California's 2014 per capita disposal rate. Retrieved January 27, 2016,
fromhttp://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/GoalMeasure/DisposalRate/MostRecent/de
fault.htm
Cheng, H. , & Hu, Y. (2010). Municipal solid waste (msw) as a renewable source of energy:
Current and future practices in china. Bioresource Technology, 101(11), 3816-3824.
Cheung, S. , Chan, D. , & Wong, Z. (1999). Reexamining the theory of planned behavior in
understanding wastepaper recycling. Environment and Behavior, 31(5), 587-612.
Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning (CMAP). (2008, October). Solid waste disposal
strategy report. Retrieved January 29, 2016, from
http://www.cmap.illinois.gov/documents/10180/62950/Waste+Disposal_PDF.pdf/b10b29
c7-1543-41d3-abe2-fcb914e97cbc
Dockery, D. W. (2009). Health effects of particulate air pollution. Annals of
Epidemiology, 19(4), 257-263. http://dx.doi.org/:10.1016/j.annepidem.2009.01.018
Durmusoglu, E., Taspinar, F., & Karademir, A. (2010). Health risk assessment of BTEX
emissions in the landfill environment. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 176(1-3), 870-
877.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2016a). Public Health, Safety, and the
Environment. Retrieved February 11, 2016, from
http://www3.epa.gov/lmop/faq/public.html
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2016b). Wastes – non-hazardous waste. Retrieved
February 12, 2016, from
http://www3.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/index.htm
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2015, December 16). Advancing sustainable materials
management: Facts and figures. Retrieved January 28, 2016, from
http://www.epa.gov/smm/advancing-sustainable-materials-management-facts-and-figures

11. RECYCLING 11
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2002, May). Solid waste management: A local
challenge with global imapcts. Retrieved January 31, 2016, from
http://www3.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/municipal/pubs/ghg/f02026.pdf
Fresno State, Office of Institutional Effectiveness. (2015, October 15). Retrieved January 31,
2016, from Fresno State website:
https://tableau.fresnostate.edu/views/Enrollment/Headcount?:isGuestRedirectFromVizpor
tal=y&:embed=y
Gale, S. , Noth, E. , Mann, J. , Balmes, J. , Hammond, S. , Tager, I. (2012). Polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbon exposure and wheeze in a cohort of children with asthma in fresno, ca.
Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology,22(4), 386-392.
Healthy People 2020. (2016). Environmental Health. Retrieved January 25, 2016, from
http://www.healthypeople.gov/2020/topics-objectives/topic/environmental-health
Kelly, F. J. (2003). Oxidative stress: Its role in air pollution and adverse health effects.
Occupational & Environmental Medicine, 60, 612-616.
http://dx.doi.org/:10.1136/oem.60.8.612
Kelly, T. C., Mason, I. G., Leiss, M. W., & Ganesh, S. (2006). University community
responses to on-campus resource recycling. ScienceDirect, 47(1), 42-55.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2005.10.002
Largo-Wight, E. , Johnston, D. , & Wight, J. (2013). The efficacy of a theory-based,
participatory recycling intervention on a college campus. Journal of Environmental
Health, 76(4), 26-31.
Mann, J. K., Balmes, J. R., Bruckner, T. A., Mortimer, K. M., Margolis, H. G., Pratt, B., . . .
Tager, I. B. (2010). Short-Term Effects of Air Pollution on Wheeze in Asthmatic
Children in Fresno, California. Environ Health Perspect Environmental Health
Perspectives, 118(10), 1497-1502.
McCarty, J. , & Shrum, L. (1994). The recycling of solid wastes: Personal values, value
orientations, and attitudes about recycling as antecedents of recycling behavior. Journal
of Business Research, 30(1), 53-62.
Ojala, M. (2008). Recycling and ambivalence: Quantitative and qualitative analyses of
household recycling among young adults. Environment and Behavior, 40(6), 777-797.

12. RECYCLING 12
The California State University (2016). Statistical reports: CSU fall tern summary, fall 2015
profile. Retrieved February 15, 2016, from http://www.calstate.edu/as/stat_reports/2015-
2016/f_15toc.shtml
The California State University. (n.d.). Sustainability Report 2014 The California State
University. Retrieved February 16, 2016, from
http://www.calstate.edu/cpdc/sustainability/policies-
reports/documents/CSUSustainabilityReport2014.pdf
Themelis, Nickolas J., and Priscilla A. Ulloa. "Methane Generation in Landfills."Renewable
Energy 32.7 (2007): 1243-257. ScienceDirect. Web. 15 Feb. 2016.
Voluntary System of Accountability. (2014). California State University, Fresno College
Portrait. Retrieved January 31, 2016, from
http://www.collegeportraits.org/CA/CSUFRESNO/print
Wilcox, Mark Allen, “A study of college student attitudes and behaviors related to recycling”
(2014) Electronic Theses and Dissertations. Paper 2.