Introduction

The combination of over-consumption, population increase, and our dependence on plastic products
in the U.S has caused our waste production levels to increase at unsustainable levels. With the increase in
knowledge on sanitation and the importance of public and environmental health, our waste management
practices have improved significantly with the implementation of sanitary landfills and more efficient
methods of recycling. However, there is still a lack of participation when it comes to public disposal of
waste; this problem is most likely caused by confusion and/or lack of education on what can and cannot
be recycled, which varies by state and local municipality (Oskamp et al., 1991). Not everyone knows the
detrimental impact that improperly or poorly collected waste has on their environment (​Hoornweg, D., &
Bhada-Tata, P).​ This is due to a lack of communication between municipalities and their respective
citizens. It has been shown that organic wastes take up a majority of the weight in waste streams (​Sakai,
S., 1996​). Cutting down on these organic wastes and finding better ways to dispose of them would reduce
the cost to dispose of regular trash. In order for there to be efficiency in solid waste management, both the
municipality and their citizens need to participate actively (​Guerrero, L. A., Mass, G., & Hogland, W.,
2013)​ In this experiment we wanted to better understand how the students and faculty of Stockton
University, located in Atlantic County, recycled and discarded trash in the areas designated for such
materials. Similar types of waste disposed by college students are found in certain key locations (​Zhang,
H., Liu, J., Wen, Z., & Chen, Y., 2017)​. We chose to highlight one specific area, Lot 0, a parking lot
designated for commuter students. Due to its location on campus it is one of the first lots to fill up in the
morning and consistently stay full throughout the day. The goal of this experiment is to find a solution to
resolve confusion between what is trashable, what is recyclable, what is compostable, and find ways that
could better manage how waste is disposed of at Stockton University.
Procedure
This experiment was conducted September 13, 2018 at 1:00pm at Stockton University’s parking
Lot 0. As a group of three we chose three locations to extract six total waste bags from both the trash bin
and recycling bin. Area 1 was located on a path with high amounts of foot traffic. Area 2 is about twenty
feet from the first area and is first to be seen from drivers who chose to park in Lot 0. Area 3 is located in
the corner of the parking lot, bordering the bus stop waiting area. At each location we removed the bags
containing waste and recycled materials, properly marked each bag with a “T” for trash and “R” for
recycling, and numbered each bag from 1-3 according to the site it was extracted from. After collecting all
the materials we moved our bags to an open area to properly weigh them in ounces and then identify the
materials that were disposed. The contents were analyzed and separated into what we deemed was
trashable, recyclable, and compostable. We then placed each category found into a clean plastic bag to
weigh separately. The waste was properly disposed of after this experiment. The data collected was
compiled it into Microsoft Excel to analyze the item composition and weight distribution of each bin.
Results
On average we found that 65% of the items in the recycling bins were recyclable, 33% were trashable
items, and ~2% were compostable materials. On average for the trash bins we found 87% of the content
to be trashable items, 5% were recyclable, and 8% were compostable materials. The total weight of all the
trash collected was 4.6875 lbs. The cost to dispose 100 lbs of trash at ACUA is $3.38 making the rate
$0.0338 per 1 lb. The total cost to dispose of our trash would be $0.16. Recycling is free according to
Atlantic County Utilities Authority (ACUA Disposal Rates, 2018).

The following data chart lists the types of items found in each bin: The paper and cardboard items listed
in red were super saturated and could not be recycled.

The charts below list the total weight of the original bags collected, the weight of trash, the weight of
recyclables, the weight of compost, the weight of “other” or hazardous materials, any undistributed
weight from the original bag due to liquids and rain, the item quantity of each bag, a weight percentage of
each bag, and an item percentage for each bag. It is important to note that it rained on September 13, 2018
as rainwater was a large addition to the undistributed weight.
Chart 1 - Compares the number of trash, compost, recycling and other material found in each bin.

Chart 2 - Shows the weight distribution of trash, compost, recycling, other, and undistributed weight in
ounces.
Chart 3 - Shows the item percent composition found in Trash 1’s bin.

Chart 4 - Shows the item percent composition found in Trash 2’s bin.
Chart 5 - Shows the item percent composition found in Trash 3’s bin.

Chart 6 - Shows the item percent composition found in Recycling 1’s bin.
Chart 7 - Shows the item percent composition found in Recycling 2’s bin.

Chart 8 - Shows the item percent composition found in Recycling 3’s bin.
Chart 9 - Shows the weight distribution percentage found in Trash 1’s bin.
Chart 10 - Shows the weight distribution percentage found in Recycling 1’s bin.

Chart 11 - Shows the weight distribution percentage found in Trash 2’s bin.

Chart 12 - Shows the weight distribution percentage found in Recycling 2’s bin.
Chart 13 - Shows the weight distribution percentage found in Trash 3’s bin.

Chart 14 - Shows the weight distribution percentage found in Recycling 3’s bin.
Discussion / Conclusion
The recyclability of items is dependent upon the processing capabilities of the landfill and
recycling center, because of this, recycling systems often vary by town and state (Rinaldi, 2017). The
ACUA recycles clean plastics, glass, dry paper products, and aluminum products, however, they do not
accept plastic lids, and the cardboard items must be dried, flattened and tied (ACUA Recycling
Guidelines). Considering the majority of Stockton’s students and faculty live out of state or in different
areas of New Jersey it is not surprising that students have a hard time differentiating between trash and
recyclable items. In order to find ways to combat this issue we looked at the methods used by Japan, and
found they had extreme success using education and simple pamphlets to educate outsiders on their
recycling system (Sakai S., 1996). Awareness and knowledge are two of the most important components
in proper waste separation (Guerrero, L. A., Mass, G., & Hogland, W., 2013). Composting is just as
important as recycling, as food waste is the largest component by weight in the trash stream (​Zhang et al.,
2017)​. Even though our bins did not have much food waste, the ones that did showed that compostable
material takes up a lot of weight. The 3 compostable materials found in the trash from Area 3 took up
roughly 30% of the weight composition compared to the other thirty items. Sorting waste by what is
biodegradable and what is non-biodegradable can reduce half the amount of waste being taken to
recycling plants or landfills (​Jouhara, H et al., 2017.).​ The ACUA charges $3.38 per 100 lbs of trash or
$67.50 per ton (ACUA Disposal Rates, 2018). Food waste becomes unnecessary weight being added to
trash bins making trash more expensive to dispose of.​ As a solution​, we believe Stockton should provide a
lecture during the freshmen and transfer student orientations on the importance of proper waste disposal.
They should also provide a guide on the recycling system used by the ACUA to minimize confusion. We
also think Stockton should provide new students with a reusable canteen to lessen the amount of plastic
bottles used on campus.​ ​The addition of a third waste bin option for compostable material should be
implemented to reduce the cost of waste disposal. It has been shown that composting increases soil
structure and fertility (​Li, Z., Lu, H., Ren, L., & He, L., 2013). ​Composting would help reduce the weight
of trash bins, save Stockton on waste disposal costs, and benefit the environment. There were minor errors
and uncertainties during the lab such as deciding whether or not certain types of cardboard and paper were
recyclable or trashable due to the material’s condition.

Works Cited
ACUA Disposal Rates. (2018). Retrieved from
http://www.acua.com/disposal-recycling/rates-procedures-operation/

ACUA Recycling Guidelines. (n.d.). Retrieved from

http://www.acua.com/disposal-recycling/residential/recycling/

Guerrero, L. A., Mass, G., & Hogland, W. (2013, January). ​Solid waste management challenges for cities
in developing countries​ [PDF]. Elsevier.

Hoornweg, D., & Bhada-Tata, P. (2012, March). ​What a Waste : A Global Review of Solid Waste
Management​[PDF]. Washington, DC: World Bank.

Jouhara, H., Czajczysnka, D., Ghazal, H., Krzyzynska, R., Anguilano, L., Reynolds, A., & Spencer, N.
(2017, July). ​Municipal waste management systems for domestic use[​ PDF]. Elveiser.

Li, Z., Lu, H., Ren, L., & He, L. (2013, October). ​Experimental and modeling approaches for food waste
composting: A review[​ PDF]. Elsevier.

Oskamp, S., Harrington, M. J., Edwards, T. C., Sherwood, D. L., Okuda, S. M., & Swanson, D. C. (1991).
Factors Influencing Household Recycling Behavior. ​Environment and Behavior,​ ​23​(4), 494-519.
doi:10.1177/0013916591234005

Rinaldi, S. (2017). NJDEP-Recycling Information. Retrieved from

https://www.nj.gov/dep/dshw/recycling/faq.html

Sakai, S. (1996). Municipal solid waste management in Japan. ​Waste Management,​ ​16(​ 5-6), 395-405.
doi:10.1016/s0956-053x(96)00107-9

Sakai, S., Sawell, S. E., Chandler, A. J., Eighmy, T. T., Kosson, D. S., Vehlow, J., . . . Hjelmar, O.
(1996). ​World Trends in Municipal Solid Waste Management[​ PDF]. Elsevier.

Sullivan, M. (2018, September 10). Parking Information for 9-10-18 [E-mail].

Zhang, H., Liu, J., Wen, Z., & Chen, Y. (2017, June). ​College students’ municipal solid waste source
separation behavior and its inuential factors: A case study in Beijing, China[​ PDF]. Elsevier.

Zhang, R., El-Mashad, H. M., Hartman, K., Wang, F., Lio, G., Choate, C., & Gamble, P. (2007, March).
Characterization of food waste as feedstock for anaerobic digestion[​ PDF]. Elsevier.