Design Interventions to Encourage Pro-Environmental Behavior:

Transcription

1 Design Interventions to Encourage Pro-Environmental Behavior: An Action Research Study on Waste Diversion in a University Residence Hall Jessica Moreland, The Ohio State University Moreland.56@osu.edu Susan Melsop The Ohio State University ABSTRACT This action research study examined the effectiveness of four design interventions, which aimed to encourage students to recycle and compost in a university residence hall. The study took place at a major university in the United States, where recent efforts have been made toward a zero waste campus. Zero waste is defined as diverting more than 90% of waste from landfill. In 2011, The Ohio State University successfully implemented a zero waste program in their football stadium and now plans to convert the entire campus to zero waste by Implementing zero waste across campus, however, proves challenging especially in residence halls as they require a more complex logistical infrastructure and rely heavily on students knowledge, attitudes, and practices. Using approaches from social practice design and anthropology, this study examined practical and scalable interventions with the ultimate goal of assisting in the future transition to zero waste. On a larger scale, these results may provide new knowledge in comprehensive waste management and methods of social practice design that encourage pro-environmental behavior change. INTRODUCTION Comprehensive solid waste management is a major challenge to sustainability. The practice of recycling diverts materials from landfill, reduces pollution, saves raw materials and conserves energy. Still, inconveniences of recycling and engrained social practices lead to minimal participation in recycling and composting programs only 34 percent of America s waste was recovered in 2012 [1]. Academic institutions have begun to realize their environmental obligations to promote sustainable behavior among students, faculty, and staff [2, 3]. Zero waste is an emerging goal of sustainable materials management, where 90% or more of solid waste is diverted from landfills. To assist in recent efforts towards a zero waste campus, this action research study explored the decision-making process associated with recycling on campus and examined the effectiveness of four design interventions encouraging students to recycle and compost in a university residence hall. CONTEXT The study took place at a major university in the United States, where recent efforts have been made toward a zero waste campus. Achieving zero waste requires a shift from a waste management mindset to a resource management mindset where technical and biological nutrients are treated separately and have productive destinations [4, 5]. Zero waste plans are comprehensive and require diversion and aversion efforts including: material capturing, waste stream modification, and waste Jessica Moreland is a graduate student in the Department of Design, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio. Susan Melsop is a professor in the Department of Design, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio. 1

2 prevention. While waste stream modification and waste prevention are ongoing, material capturing can be improved through proper sorting practices. In recent years, The Ohio State University (Ohio State) has made great strides in zero waste. In 2011, the Office of Sustainability started a zero waste program in their football stadium one of the largest in the country. The stadium frequently holds over 105,000 fans and on average accumulates 8-10 tons of waste per game [6]. By 2013, the program was successful in diverting over 98% of waste an average of 8 tons per game! Control over the material stream, cooperation from fans, and the ability to sort on the back end were critical components to the project s success [7]. After achieving zero waste in the football stadium, Ohio State set an ambitious goal to transition their entire campus to zero waste by This goal was articulated in 2008, and in 2013 five years later the campus was still only capturing 31% of their waste (Fig.1)[8]. To determine how much of their waste had the potential to be captured, Ohio State completed a comprehensive waste audit in The audit found that 89.1% had the potential of being recycled or composted (Fig. 1). In other words, Ohio State has the ability to increase their current diversion rate of 31% to their potential diversion rate of 89% by improving sorting practices. This shift to zero waste not only involves structural changes in how waste is collected and processed, but also behavioral changes for members of the institution [9]. Figure 1: Current Diversion Rate (31%) compared to Potential Diversion Rate (89%), 2013 APPROACH Interventions that promote recycling are not new, but these strategies typically address recycling as planned behavior that is guided by a rational decision-making process. Many decisions made throughout the day, however, are not rational. In terms of decision-making, people are governed by two systems of thinking: the automatic system guided by intuition, and the reflective system controlled by rational thought [10]. With a limited capacity for rational thought, many decisions turn to the automatic system where the least amount of thinking occurs. Months of observations across campus suggest that recycling is often one of these automatic decisions. As a result, the way recycling choices are presented can greatly influence the choice that is made [10]. On campus, throwing waste in the trash currently requires the least amount of thinking, in other words trash is automatic and as a result many people do not recycle. The intervention strategies in this study targetted the automatic system and the reflective system to determine what factors most influenced students recycling practices. All interventions targetted the automatic system by sharing a new infrastructure where recycling and compost became automatic. Incrementally higher-level interventions targetted the reflective system by introducing education, ecofeedback, and social influence. This study used approaches from social practice design and anthropology and was completed in four iterative phases: ethnography, intervention design, intervention experiment, and analysis. 2

3 Ethnography The research team used a grounded theory approach to observe recycling behavior and ask students why they recycle or not. The goal was to identify students knowledge, attitudes, and practices in regards to recycling in order to develop a theory of student decision-making. Observations and interviews took place in the participating residence hall and the main dining facility. Students admit that they typically choose the easiest way to dispose of their waste. Many students even throw things away subconsciously. They often choose the nearest bin out of convenience and rarely go out of their way to recycle. Some students will recycle more obvious items such as bottles and cans, but many students throw everything in the trash because they do not have to think about what can be recycled. Some students fail to recycle because they feel their individual behavior does not make a significant environmental impact. And while there is some social pressure to keep an environment clean by not littering, students feel little social pressure to recycle. These findings became the theoretical framework that guided the strategy and development of the design interventions. Figure 2: Emerging theory of students decision-making process in regards to recycling Intervention Design Prior to the intervention experiment, the participating residence hall provided students with 2 large trash bins that were picked up by housekeeping daily (one in the bathroom and one in the common living room). If students wanted to recycle, they were given a small recycle bin and it became the students responsibility to collect recycling and empty the bin. Students had to find a location for their bin, decipher what could be recycled, collect recycling, and empty on a regular basis a much more laborious activity (mentally and physically) than throwing waste in the trash. The emerging theory of decision-making suggested that students will recycle if it is easy, accessible, and they know what is recyclable in other words they will recycle if it becomes automatic. On the other hand, students may not recycle if they have a limited understanding of their environmental impact, or a lack of social pressure. So, are clear instructions and an easy/accessible system enough to achieve zero waste in residence halls? Or do education and/or social pressure lead to higher diversion rates? The four interventions were designed to answer these questions. Interventions were incremental. That is, each intervention had increased involvement with students and thus, built in complexity. Design interventions 1 4 had the same baseline zero waste infrastructure and instructional signage. While, interventions 2, 3, and 4 built in complexity with increasing levels of environmental messaging and social pressure. The hypothesis was that higher-level interventions would have more influence on students compliance with the zero waste program. The interventions were implemented as follows: Intervention 1: New Waste Collection Infrastructure. The previous system made trash disposal very easy and recycling more difficult. In this new system (Fig. 3), the trash bin in the common room was converted to recycling and the trash bin in the bathroom was converted to compost. A small landfill bin was added to the bathroom for personal hygiene waste. The housekeeping staff emptied all three bins daily. Both the compost and recycle bins were accompanied by a simple instructional poster. 3

4 Figure 3: Recycling, compost, and landfill bins with instructional signage Intervention 2: Education. To further eliminate confusion about recycling and composting, intervention 2 utilized educational posters to provide general information about questionable materials (Fig. 4). These posters showed the environmental impact of recyclable and compostable materials and encouraged students to reuse and reduce. Posters were placed on the bathroom stall doors. Figure 4: Informational posters Intervention 3: Eco-feedback. To help students reflect on the impact their everyday practices had on their community and the environment, intervention 3 utilized social media to educate students on their behavioral impact, and suggest ways to make an even greater impact. Digital white boards were also placed beside the resident advisor s (RA) room to allow students to ask questions and offer feedback. This gave students an opportunity to get involved in the conversation. Intervention 4: Social Influence. To create a sense of peer-pressure, students volunteered to be Zero Waste Agents who made sure their suitemates complied with the new zero waste system. Casually but consistently the behavior and attitude of the Zero Waste Agents set examples for pro-environmental behavior. Intervention Experiment The participating residence hall consisted of eight floors and approximately 400 students. There were two floors and approximately 100 students per intervention. During the 30-day intervention experiment, a new logistical infrastructure was implemented (Fig. 5) where the housekeeping staff collected one large recycle bin, one large compost bin, and a small landfill bin daily. In addition to the new infrastructure (easy access and clear instructions), three higher-level design interventions were evaluated. 4

5 Residence Hall Figure 5: Logistics of waste collection during the 30-day intervention experiment Analysis The intervention effectiveness was measured and analyzed in two ways: (1) changes in practices measured by overall waste diversion and accuracy of sorting, and (2) changes in perceptions measured by reported knowledge, attitudes, and practices. Professional waste audits and weekly visual assessments were recorded to determine diversion rates and sorting accuracy. Questionnaires were administered before and after the interventions to assess changes in perceptions. 101 students (43 women and 59 men) responded to the pre-experiment survey and 26 students (16 women and 10 men) responded to the postexperiment survey. Data was analyzed for each individual intervention and all interventions as a whole. FINDINGS Changes in Practices During the program, students sent an average of 71% of their waste to be recycled and composted, a significant increase compared to the 31% campus average in Figure 6 shows the waste distribution before the experiment (campus average), during the experiment (in a single residence hall), and the goal to achieve zero waste in The results show a significant step towards zero waste residence halls in a very short period of time. 100% 80% Diversion Rates Before the experiment, During the experiment, & Future campus goal 60% 40% 20% Landfill Compost Recycling 0% 2013 Average 2014 Pilot 2030 Goal Figure 6: Results of experiment in comparison with campus average and campus goal Comparatively, the four interventions showed no significant difference in the amount of waste diverted, however, there was a significant difference in the accuracy of sorting (Fig. 7). The baseline 5

6 intervention achieved 82% overall sorting accuracy. The highest-level intervention using Social Influence achieved 85% sorting accuracy, but showed no statistical difference from the baseline intervention. The second and third level interventions, however, both achieved 76% sorting accuracy and showed a statistically significant (and surprising) decrease of 6% from the baseline intervention. In addition to differences between interventions, across the board, sorting accuracy of recycling (62% average) was significantly lower than sorting accuracy of compost (92% average). Sorting Accuracy Across Interventions Sorting Accuracy 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% Recycling 72% 63% 63% 73% Compost 92% 90% 90% 97% Intervention Levels Recycling Compost Figure 7: Results of sorting accuracy for each intervention Changes in Perceptions As a whole, students perceptions about recycling and composting changed significantly after experiencing the design interventions (Fig. 8). In general, students reportedly had a better understanding of how to recycle properly and tried harder to comply. After the experiment, they found recycling more rewarding and felt more strongly that it could positively impact their community and the environment. Students also felt more optimistic that by recycling they could motivate others to recycle. Comparing pre and post surveys, students in intervention groups 1&4 reportedly tried harder during the experiment, while students in intervention groups 2&3 showed no significant change in their effort. Student Perceptions Before and After Interventions Figure 8: Changes in students perception before and after the intervention experiment 6

7 DISCUSSION Overall, having large, accessible recycle bins that were picked up daily by housekeeping drastically increased (more than doubled) the amount of recyclables collected although sorting accuracy could be improved. To increase sorting accuracy, the authors believe it would be beneficial to have the compost bin directly next to the recycle bin in the common room. Students typically ate in the common room, and the main recycling contaminant was food waste. In order to dispose of food waste properly, students had to walk to the compost bin in the bathroom. The primary reason for having compost in the bathroom was to easily dispose of paper towels. However, if paper towels could be eliminated or minimized, the compost bin could be next to the recycle bin, making it easier for students to dispose of their food waste. When comparing intervention effectiveness, student participation did not increase with each level as hypothesized. However, students in intervention groups 1 and 4 reportedly tried harder and achieved greater success during the experiment. Why is this? What did intervention group 1 and 4 have in common? To find out, we interviewed students at the end of the study and asked why the baseline intervention might have done as well as the highest-level intervention. One of the Zero Waste Agents mentioned that the RAs on the floors assigned to intervention group 1 and 4 were highly involved with their residents. Although the RA involvement was not a controlled variable, it was certainly an unavoidable influence that could vary widely from floor to floor. It seems that peer influence was present on all floors (not just intervention 4) in the presence of an RA, and that some RAs are better than others at getting their students to participate in activities; in this case, the zero waste pilot program. It is important to note the limitations of the study. First, the intervention experiment was implemented in the middle of the school year. Students were accustomed to the existing waste system, and compared to starting a system at the beginning of the year, they could have been more resistant to change. Second, the study did not include a waste audit of the participating residence hall prior to the intervention experiment. Therefore, an assumption was made that the material stream and recycling rates in the residence hall did not widely vary from the campus-wide stream. Observations made prior to the intervention experiments confirmed that students were recycling 25-30% of their waste, however these limited data points could not be used for statistical analysis. CONCLUSIONS How close to zero waste can we get with a simple and efficient infrastructure? Is education as important as we think when it comes to encouraging recycling behavior? What kind of influence does social influence have on student s recycling behavior? This study suggests that when people are faced with a choice, a large number will accept the default, the option that requires the user to do nothing [10]. A simple and efficient infrastructure can be a great start to achieving zero waste. And suprisingly, education may not be as important as we think, but social pressure can significantly influence students to recycle and compost. In this study, a simple and efficient infrastructure was the foundation for a successful zero waste program. Many residence halls offered frequent pick-up of large trash (landfill) bins, but students took out recycling in small crates. Offering recycling and compost pickup made the recycling process easier and more accessible to students. In addition, appropriate bin size and bin placement were essential to the success of a zero waste program. In general, bin sizes should more accurately reflect a university s material stream (which Ohio State determined to be 60% recycling, 30% compost, and 10% landfill waste) and bins should be placed in the room where the majority of that material stream is accumulated. Students also need clear and simple instructions. Beyond instructions, additional education about recycling, composting, and environmental impact had little impact on the greater success of this zero waste program. Students did, however, show an interest in having access to additional information online. Perhaps additional information could be shared through currently used social media channels (e.g. links to zero waste information on an existing residence hall homepage) accessible to those students with a desire to know more. Additional 7

8 information that is available, but not invasive, may be the motivation some students need to become advocates for change. Finally, social influences played a very influential part of students daily recycling practices. This study addressed peer-to-peer relationships and authority figures as influencers of student perceptions and behavior. A peer influence, especially from a mentor who is relatable and respected, can significantly motivate students to participate in pro-environment behaviors such as recycling. While changing the default from trash to recycling through a simple zero waste infrastructure was the first step towards increasing diversion rates, behavioral reinforcement from recycling advocates, especially resident advisors, significantly increased compliance. This study specifically targeted the residential population at a large university in the United States, however findings from the study revealed significant considerations for comprehensive waste management as well as design intervention strategies that encourage pro-environmental behavior. This study focused on waste management, but the findings can be applied to many institutional behavior change endeavors. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This action research project would not have been possible without the support and funding from Student Life and the Coca-Cola Sustainability Grant. The authors would like to personally thank Carlos Lugo, Thyrone Henderson and Tom Reeves for providing managerial guidance and support. The authors would also like to thank Corey Hawkey for providing the foundation for the zero waste residence hall project, Dr. Mark Moritz for his guidance and expertise in ethnographic methods and research design, Mallory Ray and Devin Griglik for their assistance with data collection and analysis, Graham Oberly for his assistance with waste audits, and the Behavioral Decision Making Initiative for funding the ethnographic research phase. The authors also gratefully acknowledge Facilities Operations and Development, Eartha Limited, Housekeeping management and staff, and all the student participants for their co-operation and support of the project. Thank you. REFERENCES 1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2012). Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) in the United States. Retrieved from 2. Baldwin, Erika, and Weston Dripps. (2012). Spatial Characterization and Analysis of the Campus Residential Waste Stream at a Small Private Liberal Arts Institution. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 65: Smyth, Danielle P., Arthur L. Fredeen, and Annie L. Booth. (2010). Reducing Solid Waste in Higher Education: The First Step Towards greening a University Campus. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 54.11: McDonough, William and Michael Braungart. (2002). Cradle-to-Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things. New York: North Point Press. 5. Pegasus Capital Advisors. (2012). Zero Waste Investing in Our Future. Pegasus Zero Waste Family of Companies. Retrieved from 6. OSU Department of Energy Services and Sustainability. (2013). Zero Waste Game/Events Stats [Data File]. Retrieved from 7. Hawkey, Corey. Personal interview. 20 Nov OSU Department of Energy Services and Sustainability. (2013). The Ohio State University Materials Management Summary [Data File]. Retrieved from 9. Best, Henning. (2009). Structural and Ideological Determinants of Household Waste Recycling: Results from an Empirical Study in Cologne, Germany. Nature and Culture 4: Thaler, Richard H. and Cass R. Sunstein. (2008). Nudge: Improving Decision About Health, Wealth, and Happiness. Yale University Press. 8