Key Findings and Results

Transcription

1 The Environmental Impact and Cost-Effectiveness of 1-Ply versus 2-Ply Toilet Paper with Housekeeping and Facilities & Real Estate Services Orly Arbit and Nicole Posadas Introduction Penn Housekeeping was interested in determining the most environmentally-friendly and cost-effective option for supplying toilet paper in public bathrooms on campus. We devised and implemented a pilot study to compare the amount of toilet paper used when there is 1-ply, 2-ply, or 1-ply with stickers that say these come from trees. The pilot was carried out in Huntsman Hall and English College House. A tracking system was set in place and followed by housekeeping staff, and the data collected was used to make recommendations. Project Goals Determine whether Penn s campus should convert its toilet paper from 1-ply to 2-ply rolls based on environmental and financial factors. Determine whether stickers placed on toilet paper dispensers that say these come from trees (see Figure 26 for reference) reduce the amount of toilet paper used. Key Stakeholders Housekeeping Department Partners: Joseph Gaither, Wendy Sparks, James Allen, Michelle Caleb, Glenn Stieffenhofer, and Slyvester Broxton Penn s Sustainability Office Housekeepers of Huntsman Hall and English College House Students Toilet Paper Suppliers Methodology Baseline data collection- The 1-ply toilet paper used in both Huntsman Hall and English College House was Scott JRT Jr. Bathroom Tissue, product number One roll of 1-ply weighed 2.24lb and cost $3.00. Before making any changes to the existing toilet paper stock, we collected baseline data for three weeks (from February 5- February 25). Housekeeping managers used a tracking system (discussed below) to manage and appropriately replenish the 1-ply toilet paper supply during this baseline period. The data measured during this time were compared with the results of the main pilot intervention, namely the change to 2-ply and the addition of stickers. Intervention data collection- After the initial 3 weeks of baseline measurement, the 2-ply and sticker interventions were carried out using the same tracking system for an equivalent 3 weeks (March 12-April 1). The 2-ply toilet paper used in both buildings was Scott JRT Jr. Bathroom

2 Tissue, product number One roll of 2-ply weighed 1.75lb and cost $3.95. Below are the protocols for Huntsman Hall and English College House, respectively: Huntsman Hall protocol- The pilot was implemented in all bathrooms on floors G, 2, 3. The housekeeping managers were responsible for maintaining a stock of 15 available rolls in each supply closet, from which the housekeepers would take rolls to replenish the toilet paper in the dispensers. The number of rolls added to the closets on a daily basis was recorded in an Excel tracking spreadsheet designed for the study as shown below. In addition to the daily tracking, we also collected and weighed the partially-used rolls that had been removed from the dispensers. The housekeepers had been trained to remove smaller rolls that were not completely used and replace them with full rolls in the dispensers. Each dispenser has the capacity to hold a full roll and a partially-used roll of toilet paper, thus causing the toilet paper to be replenished before the dispensers were truly empty. In order to measure how many partially-used rolls were discarded each week, we collected and weighed them weekly. We also attempted to arrange for these excess rolls to be donated to a homeless shelter, but for sanitary and logistical reasons we were unable to do so. English House protocol- The pilot was implemented in all public bathrooms in the residential building for consistency. During the intervention, Floor 5 contained 2-ply, Floor 4 contained stickers with 1-ply (see Figure 26 for reference), and the remaining bathrooms in the building contained 1-ply. The housekeepers logged each roll they replenished in the dispensers, and this information was recorded on an Excel tracking spreadsheet designed for the study as shown below.

3 Data analysis and visualization- After both the baseline and intervention periods were completed, we aggregated the data and conducted several quantitative analyses to provide concrete results regarding 1-ply versus 2-ply. This included a Wilcoxon signed-rank test to determine the statistical significance of the findings for Huntsman Hall. This test was used to account for the fact that the data recorded did not have a normal distribution. We also graphed the data in various forms and configurations to make the comparison between the baseline and intervention results easy to understand. All of our calculations and graphic visualizations represented toilet paper usage in pounds (lb) to reflect the amount of paper used overall. Key Findings and Results Huntsman Hall: Environmental impact- The first and most noteworthy result is that the total weight of the 1-ply used during the 3-week baseline period was 59.99lb less than that of the 2-ply during the 3-week intervention period (Figure 1). The Wilcoxon signed-rank test indicated that this was not a statistically significant difference. This means that the slight increase in toilet paper usage measured during the 2-ply condition can be attributed to chance, and does not allow us to make assumptions or generalizations about 2-ply being better or worse for the environment. In other words, we did not find a notable difference between the amount of toilet paper consumed (in pounds) when using 1-ply versus 2-ply. When we analyzed the data down on a more granular level, we saw similar results. The average weekly weight of 1-ply toilet paper used during the 3-week baseline condition was lb, as compared to the weekly average of lb of 2-ply used during the 3-week intervention

4 condition. Again, more pounds of toilet paper were used during the 2-ply collection period as compared to the 1-ply collection period, but this difference was not substantial. For a further break-down of the results, the Appendix (Figures 1-10) includes graphic visualizations of weekly, daily, and floor-by-floor data. Finally, we found that the weight of the partially-used excess rolls collected during the baseline 1-ply condition was less than that of the intervention 2-ply condition. The partially-used rolls discarded during the 3 weeks of 1-ply weighed 46.18lb, while the rolls discarded during the 3 weeks of 2-ply weighed 65.44lb. This 19.26lb increase during the 2-ply condition similarly contributes to our conclusion that 2-ply is certainly not better for the environment although we cannot say that it is worse either. Economic impact- From a cost perspective, the most important result is that overall, the 3 weeks of 2-ply toilet paper was $ more expensive than the 3 weeks of 1-ply toilet paper. This amounts to a 79.8% price increase from 1-ply to 2-ply. Such results make 2-ply toilet paper much less appealing financially. English College House: Environmental impact- In English College House, the data collected was much more variable and the toilet paper roll replacement rate was much lower than that of Huntsman Hall (see Figure 13 for reference). As a result, we did not conduct a statistical significance test. Despite this, we were able to make some key comparisons. During the 3-week intervention period on Floor 4, which contained stickers with 1-ply toilet paper, there was a 16.67% increase in pounds of toilet paper used as compared to the 3-week baseline period of just 1-ply. This means that during our collection period, the stickers did not seem to motivate students to reduce their toilet paper consumption as expected. On Floor 5, which contained 2-ply during the 3-week intervention period, similar increases in toilet paper usage was recorded % more pounds of toilet paper were used during the 3 weeks of 2-ply than during the 3 weeks of 1-ply. Although no statistical significance was calculated, such an increase in usage during the intervention certainly supports the benefits of 1-ply toilet paper. For a further break-down of the results, the Appendix (Figures 13-25) includes graphic visualizations of weekly, daily, and floor-by-floor data. Economic impact- From a cost perspective, we found similar results to that of Huntsman Hall. On Floor 5, the 3 weeks of 2-ply toilet paper was $18.97 more expensive than the 3 weeks of 1-ply toilet paper. This amounts to a 31.6% price increase from 1-ply to 2-ply. Although this difference is not as large as that of Huntsman Hall, such results also make 2-ply toilet paper much less appealing financially. Recommendations and Future Directions

5 Based on the findings of our pilot study, we do not recommend that Penn s campus convert from 1-ply to 2-ply toilet paper. Since there were also more pounds of toilet paper used when stickers were added to the toilet paper dispensers on one floor in English College House, we also do not recommend using stickers to influence toilet paper consumption. Potential improvements for this project would be to devise a longer pilot study to provide more consistent data, and to find new ways to track bathroom traffic by possibly using door motion-sensing technology. To further determine the environmental impact of 1-ply versus 2-ply toilet paper, it may be useful to analyze data on toilet clog frequency during the time period of the pilot study. Moreover, surveying students, specifically those who have utilized the restrooms where the study has or will occur, may help measure student awareness on the environmental impact of toilet paper and of the different ply options available. Lastly, we would recommend finding an alternative and more sustainable way of repurposing partially-switched out rolls. Considering that there were several pounds of toilet paper thrown out each week, it will be beneficial to donate the excess of half-used rolls to a shelter or composting company.

6 Appendix Figure 1. Huntsman Hall total comparison of 3 weeks of baseline (1-ply) and 3 weeks of intervention (2-ply).

7 Figure 2. Huntsman Hall floor comparison during baseline and intervention period. Figure 3. Baseline tracking over 3 week period on 3 floors in Huntsman Hall. Figure 4. Baseline collection for Floor G in Huntsman Hall.

8 Figure 5. Baseline collection for Floor 2 in Huntsman Hall. Figure 6. Baseline collection for Floor 3 in Huntsman Hall.

9 Figure 7. Intervention tracking over 3 week period on 3 floors in Huntsman Hall. Figure 8. Intervention collection for Floor G in Huntsman Hall.

10 Figure 9. Intervention collection for Floor 2 in Huntsman Hall. Figure 10. Intervention collection for Floor 3 in Huntsman Hall.

11 Figure 11. Weighing comparison during baseline and intervention periods in Huntsman Hall. Figure 12. Weighing summary of excess rolls in Huntsman Hall on a weekly basis.

12 Figure 13. Weekly baseline collection data for all 7 floors in English College House. Figure 14. Comparison of baseline (1-ply) and intervention period (stickers for Floor 4; 2-ply for Floor 5) in English College House.

13 Figure 15. Baseline collection for the Lower Lobby in English College House. Figure 16. Baseline collection for Floor 1 of English College House.

14 Figure 17. Baseline collection for Floor 2 of English College House. Floor 18. Baseline collection for Floor 3 of English College House.

15 Figure 19. Baseline collection for Floor 4 of English College House. Figure 20. Baseline collection for Floor 5 of English College House.

16 Figure 21. Intervention collection for Floor 1 of English College House. Figure 22. Intervention collection for Floor 2 of English College House.

17 Figure 23. Intervention collection for Floor 3 of English College House. Figure 24. Intervention collection for Floor 4 of English College House.

18 Figure 25. Intervention collection for Floor 5 of English College House. Figure 26. Sticker added to dispensers on Floor 4 of English College House during the 3 week intervention period.

19

20