Further steps, Further learning. Will shame motivate recycling?

Although I never expected 100% recycling, the results we were getting were frustrating. And my concern grew when I saw building-wide results (results from the whole Reagan Building complex, not just the Wilson Center).

I’ve copied below the essence of the report.  The bottom line was:  this mixed-use building (it houses offices, meeting sites and a food court that attracts tourists as well as office workers) could do a lot better.

The report set goals of increasing recycling by an additional 10% by September 2012 to 26.5%.  26.5% is less than what EPA reports as the national average, 34.1% for 2011.

Table 18:  Observations and Recommendations
Issue	From the waste audit, the audit team found that of the 330.4 lb representative sample of trash sorted, 117.3 lb or 36% of it was actually trash. 34% was composed of various recyclable materials.
Recommendation	The facility should improve its collection of paper, PET #1, and glass found in the waste stream. Property management should increase communication and awareness of the facility’s recycling program through various methods, such as improved signs, notices, and training.
Projected Outcome	Increased recycling will lead to a higher waste diversion rate.
Goal	Increase diversion rate by an additional 10% by September 2012 to 26.5%.
Issue	Assuming 27% of each day’s waste stream that goes to the compactor is comprised of   paper, this would accumulate to approximately 166.77 tons a year. If this paper were all recycled, the diversion rate for the facility would be 33% instead of the current 16.5%. Given the range of  $30-$65/ton for mixed paper, this would generate an extra $5,003.10-$10,840.05 of revenue annually.
Recommendation	Ensure all tenants have paper recycling bins that are easily accessible and trash bins are eliminated from areas where only paper is generated.
Projected Outcome	Higher percentage of paper being recycled and more revenue being acquired.
Goal	Increase diversion rate by 15% while increasing revenue from recycling by $5,000   annually.

REALITY	IDEAL

The report also pointed out various mechanical, but important challenges to effective recycling.  For example, there were problems with collection of co-mingled containers and with the efficiency of pick-ups (compactors could have been better utilized to reduce the number of actual pick-ups).  Since food waste constituted an imposing almost one-third of the waste stream, the report recommended investigating off-site composting.

Issue	In recycling report provided by the recycling coordinator for this region, no commingled container tonnages are ever recorded for this facility.
Recommendation	Ensure commingled containers are being collected as recycling vendor demands and are recorded properly.
Projected Outcome	Higher and more accurate diversion rate due to better data capture.
Goal	Increase diversion rate by an additional 5% by September 2012 to 21.5%.
Issue	The current solid waste service utilizes a 34 cy compactor serviced on schedule three times a week.  The average payload of the compactor is 3.86 tons per load. Compactors of this size servicing general office buildings can experience average payloads of 6-7 tons or more per load. The compactor is being over-serviced.
Recommendation	Change the compactor to an on-call service when full.
Projected Outcome	Assuming the compactor can achieve an average payload when full of 6 tons, the number of pulls would be reduced to about 98 instead of the current 151. Annual savings would be $6,625 savings.
Goal	Reduced service with annual savings of $6,625 savings.
Issue	Food waste constituted 31% of the waste stream.
Recommendation	Investigate food waste treatment solutions including off-site compost or on-site   treatment of the food waste to save money and increase diversion.
Projected Outcome	Food waste treatment either through off-site composting or an on-site system.
Goal	Increase diversion rate by an additional 20% by September 2013 to 36.5% diversion.

Perhaps I was primed by this report, but — I had a small temper tantrum when I saw aluminum cans in waste bins in the area where Wilson Center interns work, as I walked over to get my printing. 

Aluminum is the highest value recycling material and there should be nothing ambiguous about whether aluminum can be recycled!  How could young people, undergraduates who presumably were taught to recycle from a very young age, do this?

This led to an email to interns which, while not ballistic, probably was intemperate.

(c) <a href=’http://www.123rf.com’>123RF Stock Photos</a>

It read:

Of all people here, you should be the folks who do the best job of recycling.  You are young.  You have been taught this all your lives.  And it matters for your future.

But when I walk to the printer, I find all sorts of valuable materials in the waste baskets – not in the recycle bins.  Today is was aluminum cans; the day before it was glass bottles.

Recycling scrap aluminum requires only 5% of the energy used to make new aluminum.

How can I convince all of you to take a moment and move your hand toward the blue recycle bin?   I attach a photo of a board in the dining room of a very fancy law firm up the street, showing people what can be recycled.  We hope soon to install similar boards here at Wilson Center.

Please give me feedback.  The project that brought me to Wilson Center is an effort to use demonstrate how to make social science research actionable in specific domains, such as its potential for improving efficiency commitments and developing smarter ways to resolve the many behavioral obstacles to energy efficiency.  I want to hear from you about what you think will persuade you to make that extra recycling effort.

Ruth

Some say that shame is a behavioral motivator, but I am not sure this message produced that result. For one thing, it was essentially a private message to each intern.  It didn’t create  public exposure and disapproval in the way, for example, huddled smokers in designated smoking areas might.  I didn’t get a single response; and no wonder –.  I don’t think it motivated any change, but I also had no metric beyond personally watching the trash and recycling bins. 

So, back again, to the drawing board, which is the subject of the next post.

---