Final Report of the Faculty Senate Ad
Hoc Committee on Recycling,
Members:
Graduate student
representatives: Adrienne Lukaski, Wilson Rickerson
Undergraduate student
representative: Jen Dickman (Environmental Concerns Committee of Alpha Lambda
Delta)
B) Summary
of activities undertaken fulfilling the charge (p.3)
II. Executive summary (p. 4)
III. Justification for recommendations (pp. 5-6)
IV. Recommendations
for Improving the Existing Program (pp. 7-9)
V. Longer-run recommendations (p. 10)
VI.
VII. External questionnaire
summary (pp. 13-14)
VIII. Internal questionnaire summary (pp. 15-17)
IX. Educational
synergies-Recycling in the curriculum (pp. 18-19)
X. Appendices:
A. Cost estimates
for short-term improvements (p. 20)
B. Internal
questionnaire results (pp. 21-28)
C. External questionnaire results (available
from committee as excel file)
IA. Charges and Short
Answers to Charges.
The ad hoc
1. Research the operation of programs at other universities that promote recycling especially examining organization, effectiveness, and levels of institutional support.
Fourteen universities were surveyed.
2. Evaluate the likely benefits and costs of university programs designed to promote recycling. The benefits should include those affecting pedagogy, public relations, and the university’s teaching mission.
Based on external
surveys and internal estimates, the committee has rough estimates for the costs
associated with achieving different levels of recycling activity. Benefits are harder to quantify. Universities that were surveyed have successfully
integrated recycling and sustainability issues into their curricula and report
positive public relations effects.
Recycling efforts also provide social benefits (e.g., fewer
environmental costs), but these benefits are also difficult to quantify.
3. Make
recommendations regarding whether or not to initiate a recycling program at the
The University
already has a recycling program that recycles approximately 19% of the solid
waste stream. The committee finds that
the efficiency of the current program needs improvement and recommends that a
recycling manager be hired and charged with improving efficiency and moving the
program forward. As a longer-term goal, based
upon other universities’ activities and upon pending state legislation on
recycling, the committee thinks that a substantial increase in recycling
efforts is justified.
4. If the committee recommends a recycling program be initiated, the committee will set realistic recycling goals and make recommendations about implementation of the program in terms of institutional support and the framework for joint oversight by both administration and faculty.
The committee
recommends a goal of recycling 30% of our solid waste stream. This goal would put the University at or near
the median of the 14 universities surveyed[1] and
at the level proposed by
5. The committee will make recommendations regarding the ultimate scope of any recycling program it endorses. In particular it will advise whether development of a program that also addresses issues such as energy conservation and use of sustainable energy should be instituted. The committee will make recommendations as to how the issues of recycling, energy conservation, and sustainable energy might play a pedagogical role in university curricula and campus life.
The committee has
assembled numerous specific proposals for activities consistent with increased
recycling goals and to a lesser extent sustainability. The complexity of the issues leads the
committee to abstain from some outright recommendations, but rather suggests
items for consideration by a recycling manager for assessing their cost
effectiveness. As the
IB. Scope of Activities
in Dispensing with the Charges
In satisfying the above charges, the Committee:
1. Surveyed the recycling programs of fourteen
institutions*
2. Surveyed 34 department heads concerning
departmental recycling activities
3. Met with Delaware Solid Waste Authority
representatives, Rich Von Stetten and Marsha Anthony
4. Met with City of Newark representatives,
Mayor Vance Funk and Mr. Richard LaPointe
5. Met with University of Delaware
representatives, Roger Bowman, Manager of Grounds Services and John Warren,
Director of Custodial Services.
*UD, Carnegie Mellon.
Connecticut, George Mason, George Washington, Michigan State, Maryland (College
Park), Massachusetts (Amherst), Ohio State, Oregon, Penn State, Rutgers, Towson,
Vermont.
II Executive
Summary
·
Substantial inefficiencies exist with the current blue-bin
recycling program due to promotion and communication deficiencies
·
University stakeholders, both staff and students,
indicate a desire to do more for recycling
·
The committee recommends that a recycling manager be
hired to oversee, improve and expand the current recycling program
·
The committee recommends as a reasonable and
attainable longer-run goal that the University recycle 30 percent of its solid
waste stream
·
The committee recommends that a standing committee on
recycling and sustainability be established within the Faculty Senate to
monitor and report on recycling activities and to foster curricula development
in areas related to recycling and sustainability
III. Justifications for
increasing recycling efforts at UD
The
consensus of the Ad Hoc Committee on Recycling is that additional recycling
efforts at the University are desirable.
While recycling additional amounts of solid waste will prove to be costly,
the benefits accruing to the University from these efforts will also be
substantial. As the leading institution
of higher education in the State as well as a land, urban, space and sea-grant
institution, the University should be taking a leadership role in addressing
the environmental issues and
concerns facing society.
The State
of for the
Delaware River and the likelihood of higher future tipping charges
for solid waste disposal are creating pressures for legislation mandating
solid-waste recycling.[2] AnWhile this legislation may
not pass immediately, as problems continue to intensify, the pressures for
legislative action will grow. ARather
than be reactive, an opportunity now exists for
the University to take a proactive leadership role in increasing recycling
efforts.
The
question facing the University is not whether to recycle or not. The University already recycles approximately
19 percent of its solid waste stream.
Thus, the University has already determined that recycling has merit. The real question facing the University
community concerns the optimal level of recycling. In reviewing the recycling efforts of peer
institutions (survey results are contained in
Appendix C, available from the committee), the
levels of recycling mandated in neighboring states, and the current recycling
legislation being considered by the State of Delaware, the committee recommends
a self-imposed goal of 30 percent solid-waste recycling as a realistic and
desirable goal. This would put the
Benefits to the University from taking a more active role in recycling efforts are potentially substantial. Most schools surveyed by the Committee have found beneficial ways to develop courses or areas of study that deal with the economics, politics, biology, chemistry or engineering associated with recycling and related environmental issues (See Section IX on Educational Synergies.). As recycling and environmental issues grow in importance as social problems, a forward-looking and responsible institution of higher education is deficient not to incorporate recycling and environmental issues into its curriculum. Interdisciplinary problem solving is a mark of excellence for any university.
Stakeholders
at the University, students, faculty and staff, have expressed
interest in taking a more active role in recycling. The survey of departmental heads undertaken
by this Committee reveals substantial interest in doing more in recycling and
frustration in what is perceived to be an ineffective
current practicesolicy
(results of this survey are summarized
in Appendix B).
A small, recent survey undertaken by the Environmental Concerns
Committee of Alpha Lambda Delta of students indicates that a large
majority of students responding to the survey (91%) support more efforts in
recycling and an overwhelming majority of those would be willing to make a
greater effort in recycling if the University increased its efforts. Thus, an expansion in recycling would serve
to satisfy important stakeholder groups at the University.
A more
active and visible campaign to recycle would also provide public relations
benefits. Such a campaign would identify
the University as a forward-looking proactive institution concerned with social
issues and willing to lead by example in finding solutions to one of society’s
most pressing and complex problems. In
sum, the committee finds that there are sufficient benefits from the University
taking a more active role in recycling to justify the increased costs. The
Committee
recommends the goal of
recycling 30 percent of the
IV. Recommendations for Improving the Existing Program
(3-5% increase in the diversion rate achievable in two years: a recycling
manager and a standing committee of the Faculty Senate to liaison with the
recycling manager).
To improve the
efficiency of the existing recycling program and to move the program forward in
cost-effective ways, the committee believes that a recycling manager must be
hired. It is estimated that the wages and benefits for the manager, some
support staffing, activities suggested below and the development of pilot
programs for moving the program forward would cost $95,000-$125,000 annually
(See Appendix A.). The recycling manager
would be charged with and held accountable for finding ways to coordinate and increase
the involvement of students, staff and faculty in recycling efforts and in
discovering the most profitable ways of disposing of diverted waste. Reduced tipping charges and the sale of some
diverted items will partially offset additional salary and benefits costs.
The committee notes
that many universities successfully integrate recycling and sustainability
issues into their curricula (see Section IX of this Report). The committee recommends that the
Internal survey of UD department chairs, an
external survey of other universities and a student survey informs the
following list of recommendations for the recycling manager’s charge:
Target
• Better educate UD stakeholders about their
environmental
responsibilities and seek best-practice performance.
Implementation and Coordination
• Provide all faculty and staff with
blue recycling bins. Reinforce
policies on blue-bin usage.
• Assign to a staff member (e.g., the recycling manager) the responsibility of disseminating semi-annual reminders about blue-bin recycling to Chairs. Chairs would be responsible for relaying such reminders to faculty and staff.
• Charge the Facilities Coordinator for
each building with distributing
information and blue-bin labels as well as to spot-check
recycling
facilities.
• Coordinate recycling efforts; A recycling
manager would act
as liaison between student organizations, faculty bodies,
and the
administration.
Information to University Communities
• Launch a website for recycling
procedures and environmental awareness;
the website should be no more than two clicks from the UD homepage.
• Start a sustained ad campaign with
posters, fliers, and radio
announcements underscoring staff, student, and faculty
commitment to
recycling; the “stakeholders” of the UD community need to
be informed
and a strong visual assertion of UD’s commitment to recycling is vital. Perhaps the design of such media can be incorporated into graphic design classes.
Education for Faculty
• Provide information to new faculty on UD’s recycling policy and re-educate current faculty members who continue to contaminate waste through faulty sorting.
• Send e-mail reminders to all faculties every semester to encourage recycling.
• Department
Chairs and Facility Coordinators of Buildings should work together to encourage
faculty and staff to be supportive of recycling efforts.
Education for Students
• Incorporate recycling education (e.g., information on the location of bins and why recycling is important) into Resident Assistant and Hall Director training. RAs should act as “eco-reps” for student dorms.
• Make environmental responsibility a
central theme of freshman
orientation; recycling and environmental awareness should
be part of
UD’s citizenship test.
• Append a statement of environmental
responsibility to the information
packet that UD distributes to all off-campus students;
students living
in apartments and houses should know about the wide range
of recycling
possibilities offered by the town and state.
• Support a Green Festival every spring on the Green to publicize UD’s efforts toward recycling, conservation, and environmental awareness. Alongside music and refreshment to celebrate a green campus, the event should sponsor booths to distribute information, awaken interest, and encourage participation.
• Organize friendly student
competitions to maximize recycling efforts;
sponsor competitions between dormitories; and at the national level, UD can join the dozens of other colleges and universities participating in Recycle Mania, a nation-wide competition that uses national uniform criteria to measure campus recycling.
Equipment
• Ensure that all UD staff and faculty
have recycling bins in their
offices and make available the stick-on labels for these
bins that
indicate which paper materials can be recycled.
• Introduce equipment that will enable
custodians to accommodate
segregated trash.
• Following best-practice data,
introduce 30 percent recycled paper as
standard issue in all departments and copying centers.
V. Longer-run Recommendations (30% diversion
rate goal achievable in 3-5 years; additional personnel, capital outlays, and
broadened scope of recycling. Expected additional annual cost: $80,000-$100,000.
If the
· Increase collection of ONP (old newspaper) and plastics at most academic buildings
· Begin an office paper and junk mail recycling program at all residence halls
· Recycling of debris (asphalt, concrete, wire, metal, etc.) from construction projects
· Better recycling facilities in the library and at computer sites
· Expand blue-bin program to dormitory rooms
·
Storage and use of rain water to wash university
vehicles (as done at
VI. Delaware
and Regional Recycling: Where We Stand.
The history
of recycling in
During the past five years, there
has been an effort to revitalize the state’s recycling program and introduce a
mandatory recycling program. In 1999, Governor Carper issued Executive Order
No. 60 and created the Recycling Public Advisory Council (RPAC) to devise
strategies for improving residential recycling rates. The residential sector
accounts for 60% of
With the potential of legislation
being introduced this year, it appears that momentum for mandatory recycling in
REFERENCES
Delaware Recycling Public Advisory Council, Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, & Delaware Solid Waste Authority. (2005). State of Delaware residential curbside recycling report documents. Dover, DE: Recycling Public Advisory Council.
Minner, R. A. (2005). 2005 State of the State Address of Governor Ruth Ann Minner. Retrieved March 21, 2005, from http://www.state.de.us/governor/speeches/state%20of%20the%20state%202005_english%20version.shtml#TopOfPage.
NJDEP. (2004). 2002 generation, disposal and recycling rates in New Jersey (tons). Trenton, NJ: New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Solid & Hazardous Waste.
Northeast Recycling Council. (2004a). Pennsylvania solid waste and recycling tonnage, 2002. Retrieved March 21, 2005, from http://www.nerc.org/recycling/pa_tbl1.html.
Northeast Recycling Council. (2004b). Statewide material disposal bans and recycling requirements in NERC states. Brattleboro, VT: Northeast Recycling Council, Inc.
VII. External Questionnaire Summary (Detailed
Responses to Specific Questions in Appendix D)
Schools in
survey: UD, Carnegie Mellon.
Connecticut, George Mason, George Washington, Michigan State, Maryland (College
Park), Massachusetts (Amherst), Ohio State, Oregon, Penn State, Rutgers,
Towson, Vermont.
External Survey Comparisons to UD
We received 14 replies (82%) to our external survey request for data on institutional recycling programs.
Regulatory and Policy Environment: UD does not have these policies
Thirteen states were represented of which ten mandate recycling programs.
Eight institutions have a policy regarding recycling on campus.
Eight institutions have policies on purchasing supplies from recycled materials.
Seven institutions have waste reduction programs
Program Personnel:
UD has one part-time manager and
one FTE
Twelve institutions have a full time recycling manager to run their programs.
Twelve institutions have full time employees (nine with 4 or more FTE)
Statistics:
Recycling diversion rates vs. the normally stated goal of 35%:
15-25% seven universities
26-35% five universities
36-65% three universities
Program Costs: UD costs are approximately $65,000 annually
with a net loss of ($35,000)
Budget data are somewhat subject to interpretation because of apparent different methods of budgeting and nomenclature used.
Revenue generated by recycled material account for average 8% of program cost.
Avoided costs (tipping fees) account for an average 39% program cost.
Recycling program operating expenses: range $65,000 to $650,000 annually.
Net cost of programs: one institution reports a profit of $309,000 annually. All other respondents report inferred losses ranging from $10,000 to $480,000 annually.
Program Marketing: UD is currently setting up a recycling web
site.
Most institutions advertise their programs through web-sites, university publications, and newsletters as part of an ongoing campaign to encourage recycling. Ten of the respondents indicated some form of collaboration with student environmental groups or interested faculty groups. Ten also have some form of academic programs that are related to the recycling effort. This could be through an Environmental Studies, Environmental Science, Conservation Studies, or seminars in Solid Waste management. The coordination often was assigned to the appointed recycling manager who administers the program and is its primary advocate.
Do we want to make some
specific proposals, like a full time recycling staff, ….VIII.
Internal Questionnaire Summary (Detailed Responses in Appendix B)
Thirty four internal questionnaires sent to department heads were completed and returned. Overall, departmental chairs noted deficiencies in recycling efforts arising from information problems and sparsely and poorly placed recycling bins. It is clear that the efficiency of the blue-bin program can be improved. Many respondents noted that many faculty misused the blue bins due to beliefs that material placed in the blue bins frequently failed to be recycled. Inaccurate knowledge and perceptions about the existing recycling efforts at the University foster an anti-recycling attitude.
The questionnaire consisted of five questions. Summaries of the findings to the five questions follow.
Question 1. What percentage of the following items do you
think your department recycles?
Please see Appendix B
for a more detailed presentation of the departments’ reported recycling rates. The weighted average recycling rates are
calculated using the departments’ reported recycling rates.
Question 2. Are there problems with the current recycling
efforts in your department? Briefly
explain.
Many respondents identified informational problems and lack of recycling containers. Recycling bins for newspapers, plastic bottles and aluminum cans are either not available or placed in inconvenient locations far away from where cans, bottles, etc. are disposed. Many respondents also mentioned the “white paper bins” (i.e., the blue bins) suggesting some confusion concerning the items that are acceptable for the blue bins (white paper, colored paper, manila folders, envelopes (white or brown), “post-it” notes and magazines).
“No collection of anything except papers”
“Policies on recycling are not clear.”
“We have NO University effort going in”
“I don’t think anyone is paying attention”
“Soda can bins are location in the basement—most traffic is typically on the first and second floors”
Question 3. Are there problems with the University’s
recycling efforts? Briefly comment.
Respondents frequently cited lack of PR, information, and enforcement and the failure to provide for the recycling of materials other than those intended for the blue bins. Several respondents cited casual observations or rumor that the materials placed in the blue bins did not actually get recycled.
“Promote awareness, I believe most people are willing to help”
“More PR!”
“It is rumored that custodial staff empties trash and recycles into the same basket”
“Not enough is recycled”
“It appears that the University has abandoned recycling at the department level. Is this an accurate assessment?”
“Not every office has blue baskets. People forgot (or don’t know) what goes where. Feeling that janitors don’t pay attention (or don’t know), so why should we make extra effort when you don’t know if those efforts are being paid attention to”
Question 4. Briefly, can you recommend ways to improve
recycling in your department?
As expected from the answers to the previous questions, respondents suggested increases in information concerning the use of the blue bins, additional bins for other recyclable materials and increased communications from the University concerning recycling policies:
“Make everyone aware of paper use for blue trash cans”
“Place more receptacles in obvious places”
“We need education on how to recycle correctly”
“Faculty just needs to hear about what they can do”
“State a clear policy. Define targets. Build incentives for successful recycling”
Question 5. How would you characterize your department’s awareness of the University’s current recycling efforts?
Over half of the respondents indicated a low level of awareness.
Please see Appendix B for a full list of the responses to these questions.
IX. Educational Synergies- Recycling in the
Curriculum.
Model institutions were examined to
see how recycling initiatives find their way into the classroom. The following information only reflects a
small portion of the demonstrated possibilities. It is obvious that there is no shortage of
creativity or passion among environmentally committed individuals and
programs. A common theme among the four
model institutions is that recycling is taught as only one component of the
mission to protect the environment and that almost all of the programs are
interdisciplinary. Some of the education
initiatives are externally funded by agencies such as the USDA.
Carnegie Mellon offers graduate
programs and research centers to train the next generation of technology,
policy, and civil leaders to consider the impact and issues their disciplines
can have on the environment. A recent
grant from the Luce Foundation is helping to infuse the undergraduate
curriculum with new courses to make every student—regardless of their
major—conscious of the role of energy and environmental issues in society (http://www.cmu.edu/greenpractices). The theme of this initiative is “the greening
of undergraduate education”.
Within the “Oregon
Recycles” initiative at the University of Oregon (UO) (http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~recycle/)
the communication of environmental issues (recycling) is encouraged in non-environmentally
oriented courses that strive to utilize practical or socially important
examples. For example, one advertising
course has consistently produced ad campaigns, displays and
posters that have been very useful for promotions of University and local
recycling and environmental programs.
This messaging strategy is a low-cost initiative. UO also has a phenomenal service learning
course that works with businesses, agencies and organizations that wish to
improve environmental conditions. Within
this course, recycling is only one component of a broader environmental
curriculum that includes ecological restoration, energy and materials
conservation and public interest research.
The Environmental Studies program
at UO is an interdisciplinary program that focuses on the relationship between
humans and their environment from a variety of perspectives. The
Environmental Studies Program draws upon the strengths of the campus community
and the connections to their region. Students integrate coursework in the
sciences, social sciences, and humanities, as well as the professional programs
of management, public policy, design, and law. The program offers
undergraduate and graduate training leading to a B.A./B.S. in Environmental
Studies or Environmental Science; an M.A./M.S. in Environmental Studies; or a
Ph.D. in Environmental Science, Studies, and Policy (ESSP).
The national President's Council on
Sustainable Development assembled educators to discuss the principles of
sustainability and to set an agenda for incorporation of these principles into
higher education. The group defined education for sustainability as "a
lifelong learning process that leads to an informed and involved citizenry
having the creative problem-solving skills, scientific and social literacy, and
commitment to engage in responsible individual and cooperative actions that
will help ensure an environmentally sound and economically prosperous
future." The
X. Appendices
Appendix A-
Estimated Additional Costs To Increase Landfill Diversion Rate by 3-5%
- Hire a full-time employee to manage and oversee operation of the recycling program. Manager of recycling will allow for much greater supervision of the program, overseeing the issues of participation of departments, investigation of optimal placement of diverted materials, working with campus building contacts, reduction of contamination, updating web site information, preparation of reports and coordination of staff.
- Estimated cost of a full-time
recycling manager ($50,000 salary plus benefits) plus additional funds
required for part time or shared office support.
Increased expense of $70,000 – $90,000 annually
- Advertising and miscellaneous
expenses
Increased
expenses of $10,000 annually
- Budget for pilot programs and purchase
of miscellaneous recycling materials
Expenses
$20,000-30,000
Cost avoidance from reduced tipping charges and sale of some items
$5,000-$8,000 annually
Net Total: $95,000-$125,000
Appendix B: Internal survey of chairs
1. Percent of items thought to be recycled
2. Specific questions and answers to open-ended
questions.
Question # 2:
Are there problems with the current recycling efforts in your
department? Briefly explain. Use the obverse if needed for any extended
comments.
Do not currently recycle newspapers, plastic bottles, or cardboards.
We only have cans for white paper.
There are no containers, except those for while papers in Mechanical Hall.
We have recycling trash cans for white paper but a custodian said all the trash is dumped together and discarded. So what we throw away is not recycled.
Recycling container is frequently used for non-recyclable items.
There are inadequate means for recycling cans and bottles. If there were more can and bottle recycling containers in the buildings I think people would use them more.
We have NO University effort going in—the above recycling occurs only because we have had faculty and staff investigate and develop a system for the department. Our student workers and staff do the work.
Faculty, staff, and students would recycle if receptacles for aluminum cans and plastic bottles were located more conveniently. The only aluminum can receptacle is on the ground floor of Willard and there is no receptacle for plastic to my knowledge.
Typically, we use the white paper recycling bins but that is about it.
Not everyone recycles and there is no apparent University emphasis on recycling.
No collection of anything except papers.
No mechanism to recycle cardboard or plastic.
No aluminum can recycling in Sharp Lab, especially second floor graduate student lounge. There is a lot of waste.
Policies on recycling are not clear. Also, places to deposit cans, bottles, cardboard, etc., do not exist. Perhaps if they were visible, more cycling would occur.
Soda can binds are located in the basement—most traffic is typically on the first and second floors.
In the past there have been problems in that the custodians did not separate the stuff we put in different binds. I think they are doing this now. Also, to my knowledge, they don’t recycle plastic, glass or aluminum in our building.
Just need more visibility.
Other than white paper, for which we have blue recycle trash cans, it is not clear, to whom or where the other recyclables should be placed. Do custodians sort by material??
I do not know process for “unsure” response recycling. If I did, I could do it!
Besides the blue “white” paper cans, I know of no other recycling that goes in our department.
I am not aware of any recycling efforts in my department.
I don’t think anyone is paying attention. Several offices don’t even have a blue basket.
Our graduate students run our recycling program. I think they do a good job.
There are not adequate recycling containers.
None. (7 respondents answered no/none).
Question # 3:
Are there problems with the University’s recycling efforts? Briefly
comment.
No designated containers in departments for newspapers, plastic bottles, cardboard
It is rumored that custodial staff empties trash and recycles into the same basket!
No enforcement. People do what is easiest.
It is not apparent to us that material put in the blue recycling containers actually gets recycled. There are occasional reports that people have seen the blue cans emptied into the same trash containers as the black garbage cans.
YES—even though we have white paper recycling containers, the paper is dumped into the general trash bins when emptied. No other recycling effort exists within our building from the University facility perspective.
It appears that the housekeeping staff place all paper/trash in one container, so the department’s efforts to place white paper in appropriate blue waste baskets is not meaningful. Housekeeping staff need to place white paper and cardboard in appropriate trash receptacles that would hopefully be located outside each building.
Organization.
There are no separate binds for cans, plastic or cardboard.
Yes. When the program started Mr. Bowman seemed to be supportive and brought this program to everyone’s attention. This is no longer the case.
Only few sites to collect other items.
Again, beyond white paper, I know of no recycling options in our building.
Unclear policies, lack of visible and clearly marked deposit areas.
Don’t know enough to comment.
More PR!
Promote awareness, I believe most people are willing to help.
Not aware of UD’s efforts.
Not enough is recycled.
Policy is not evident. No targets.
It appears that the University has abandoned recycling at the department level. Is this an accurate assessment?
Not every office has blue baskets. People forgot (or don’t know) what goes where. Feeling that janitors don’t pay attention (or don’t know), so why should we make extra effort when you don’t know if those efforts being paid attention to.
Most are not aware of the efforts.
There are only two trash cans in each office—white/colored paper and other. We as a department use both cans. Newspapers, cardboard, plastic bottles are not recycled by custodians.
None. (6 respondents answered no/none).
Question # 4:
Briefly, can you recommend ways to improve recycling in your
department?
Make everyone aware of paper use for blue trash cans.
Having other containers for cans and plastic easily accessible would help the staff to recycle.
Make containers available. Make sure these are recycled.
We should be sent email detailing new procedures for recycling—what items will be recycled and where to put, and custodians ordered to cooperate. Make it easier for them to do so. Tell them where to put recyclables.
Better communication and assurances that our efforts to recycle actually result in the material being recycled, not put in the common dumpster. More availability of receptacles for material other than paper.
Need to begin with facilities implementing the white paper recycling that should already be in place. Additional containers for glass, aluminum, plastic, etc. need to be made available in convenient locations within the building.
University should conveniently place aluminum can and plastic bottle receptacles in more high volume areas and at individual department locations. The department does recycle toner and ink jet cartridges.
Campus wide email reaffirms procedures.
Promote recycling and provide containers.
Add recycle binds for plastic/cans/newspapers to more buildings.
Place aluminum can options on every floor.
Add can/bottle receptacles to the building/classrooms etc. (NOT by vending machines—no one throws trash away there).
Clarify policies, have a recycling contest, provide containers.
Place more receptacles in obvious places.
Give us binds for recyclables and make sure it gets picked up.
Faculty just needs to hear about what they can do.
Promote, advertise appropriate practices, collection points, etc.
We need education on how to recycle correctly.
Set a clear policy. Define targets. Build incentives for successful recycling.
Actually, short of fining violations, I’m sure.
Increase availability of recycling containers.
I believe the custodians need more recyclable containers—plastic bottles, cardboard, newspapers, etc.
Have a can/plastic bottle receptacle.
I think we do a good job.
No. (2 respondents answered no/none).
Question # 5:
How would you characterize your department’s awareness of the
University’s current recycling efforts?
Other than hazardous materials, including cartridges, we were unaware of any policy. We are aware of recycling igloos but other than aluminum cans, we do not use them.
Fully aware.
Minimal.
We place items in blue can and set aside our boxes. What the custodian does is a mystery.
I suspect we rarely think about it.
Department probably needs a review.
Poor: Many either don’t know or don’t trust that the system is actually being used by those who handle the refuse after it leaves our offices.
Limited awareness due to University efforts exist within our building.
I have not heard anything for many years pertaining to recycling on campus. We were given blue waste baskets many years ago, and that is the last I heard. I am aware there are recycling bins in certain university parking lots for use by the general public.
Not very informed.
Minimal.
I believe people are aware but do nothing due to lack of obvious University support.
Limited.
Not good. I obviously don’t know about them.
Most recycle white paper, but not colored/newsprint/glossy etc. papers. For some, if it is not pure, plain paper, it gets tossed. What paper is recyclable?
Not really aware. Most people say “Oh are they trying to recycle again?”
Most don’t know anything about UD’s efforts—other than the “blue” office trash can recycling efforts.
High.
Minimal.
Fair (Physics and Astronomy). Excellent for white paper.
Aware of white paper recycling and toner cartridge only.
Minimal.
High.
Non-existent.
Not high.
Poor.
Not very aware.
Very aware.
Very aware.
Slightly aware.
Where are the aluminum can/plastic bottle recycling binds located on campus?
Good.
Average. Would like more information on the recycling of ink cartridges.
Appendix C. External Survey
Available from committee as excel file.