Running Head: BIG BLUE WASTE STREAMS

Survey of Waste Streams Surrounding Stockton’s “Big Blue”

Sean McGee, Tina Notaro, Timothy Stukowski, Stanley Peiffer
Stockton University
School of Natural Sciences and Mathematics

ENVL 4300
Dr. Dan Moscovici
18 September 2018
BIG BLUE WASTE STREAMS
1
​ Introduction
Waste management systems across the United States provide a solution for municipal trash to be
disposed of properly while additionally capturing recyclables to be reused. These systems protect our
environment from pollution and ensure the safe, long-term storage of solid waste. The consequences of
irresponsible waste management range from localized contamination--as seen in Superfund sites--to
widespread, non-point source pollution of Earth’s
ecosystems.
In order to better understand the patterns of
Stockton University's own waste streams, we collected
trash and recycling from four receptacle sites on
campus. The selected four sites were in proximity of
the Sports Center [Figure 1]. Bags from each site were
collected, sorted and subsequently weighed to
determine the distribution of contents. Possible waste
categories included trash, recyclables, compost, and
hazardous materials. The data was used graphically to
compare the contents of each bag. Consideration of the results prompted recommendations on
how Stockton can reduce trash generation and increase recycling rates.

Background
EPA data show the average American produces 4.4 lb of waste per day, with 2.44 lb per person
being generated at public events (U.S. EPA 2015). The recycling rate for the U.S. was found to be 34% of
all solid waste (U.S. EPA 2015). Comparatively, in 2014 New Jersey recycled 61.5% of its 20.8 million
tons of waste (​Goodrow, S., & Procopio, N). With a reported 9,216 enrolled students in Fall 2017,
Stockton obviously has a significant amount of waste to manage (University Fact Sheet 2017).
An interview with David Wood, Stockton University’s Supervisor of Landscape Maintenance,
revealed that in 2017 the college disposed of 742.54 tons of solid and bulky trash, 203.12 tons of
commingled recycling, and 192 tons of food waste (T. Notaro, email interview, 17 Sept. 2018). Both
waste streams are transported to the Atlantic County Utilities Authority daily by Stockton employees
using the college’s own fleet. There is no fee for recycling materials, however a $55.06/ton tipping fee is
incurred for all solid waste. Using this data it is possible to estimate a yearly expenditure of at least
$40,884 for the college’s waste disposal.
BIG BLUE WASTE STREAMS
2
A three year waste audit at Furman University in South Carolina determined that 25% of campus
waste by weight could have been recycled (Baldwin 2012). The study also showed that compostable
material was 17% of campus waste, while true waste made up approximately 40%. Another study by the
University of British Columbia in Vancouver found similar results, with 29% of waste found to be
recyclable, 21% compostable, and 28% true trash (Smyth 2010).

Results
Analysis of the data showed Stockton to be
in line with the aforementioned waste studies. Of the
trash collected, 51.2% was determined to be true
trash while 24.4% could have been recycled [Figure
2]. 23.2% of the trash was compostables and 1.2%
was hazardous materials. Data collected from
recycling waste showed 28.4% of the weight was
actually true trash, with 71.9% being recyclables
[Figure 3]. There was no compostable or hazardous materials found in recycling bins. Gross weight of all
waste streams analyzed was found to be 42.5% true trash, 42.5% recyclables, 14.3% compostables, and
0.7% hazardous materials [Figure 4].

We also found a significant difference in the total weight of some bag versus the weight of its contents.
This was largely due to water weight from unemptied bottles and infiltrated rainwater. Visual inspection
was used to determine items most often found in each stream. Single use plastic and paper cups as well as
plastic water bottles comprised the large majority of waste by volume in both trash and recycling [Figure
5]. Energy bar wrappers, fast food bags, and fruit remnants were also found in quantity throughout the
waste.
BIG BLUE WASTE STREAMS
3
Discussion
Through visual content analysis, we determined much of the disposed materials were likely the
waste of athletes and commuters. The presence of energy bar wrappers and sports drinks suggests traffic
from the Sports Center and recreation fields, while fast
food bags and single-use coffee cups often represent
off-campus travel. While plastic bags and styrofoam did
not makeup a significant portion of sampled waste, they
are both items that cannot be recycled through Stockton
and ACUA. These items--when clean and dry--can be
recycled at local retailers such at Shoprite of Galloway
(ACUA).
Reducing Stockton’s waste generation is most
possible through conditioned behavior change and policy. Paperless efforts have already
eliminated a portion of office waste on campus, and a relationship with Liepe Farms diverts
food waste from the landfill. Further sampling could identify areas of campus that produce the most trash.
Educational outreach in these areas could help faculty, staff and students better understand that nature of
waste management and why it is important to ​reduce​. Printable ads, such as the informational ones
provided through the NJ EPA’s website, would clarify what items belong to which waste stream (NJ EPA
2018).
In order to increase recycling rates, the university should consider an interactive bin much like the
current water refill stations on campus. A 2016 study at the University of Georgia showed a marked
improvement in recycling rates when “Smart” style bins displayed item counters and flashy LED lights
(Mozo-Reyes 2016). The university could also promote its participation in the nationwide recycling
challenge known as “RecycleMania” (RecycleMania 2017).

Conclusion
Our study shows that while Stockton’s recycling rates are fair, there is plenty of room for
improvement with regards to sorting and waste reduction. The patterns of campus waste suggests an
uninformed albeit considerate college population. The most effective approach towards better waste
management lies in informed behavior change and university-wide policy adherence. Efforts in these
directions could lead to significant savings on the college’s bottom line.
BIG BLUE WASTE STREAMS
4
References
ACUA. (2018). Recycling Guidelines. Retrieved September 18, 2018, from
http://www.acua.com/disposal-recycling/residential/recycling/

Baldwin, E., & Dripps, W. (2012). Spatial characterization and analysis of the campus residential
waste stream at a small private Liberal Arts Institution. Resources, Conservation and
Recycling, 65, 107-115. doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2012.06.002

Goodrow, S., & Procopio, N. (n.d.). NJDEP- Environmental Trends. Retrieved from
https://www.nj.gov/dep/dsr/trends/

Mozo-Reyes, E., Jambeck, J. R., Reeves, P., & Johnsen, K. (2016). Will they recycle? Design
and implementation of eco-feedback technology to promote on-the-go recycling in a
university environment. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 114, 72-79.
doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2016.06.024

NJ EPA. (2018, July 10). Promotional Tools for Recycling. Retrieved from
https://www.nj.gov/dep/dshw/recycling/promotools.html

Recyclemania. (2017). Retrieved September 17, 2018, from https://recyclemania.org/

Smyth, D. P., Fredeen, A. L., & Booth, A. L. (2010). Reducing solid waste in higher education:
The first step towards ‘greening’ a university campus. Resources, Conservation and
Recycling, 54(11), 1007-1016. doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2010.02.008

University Fact Sheet Fall 2017. (n.d.). Retrieved September 17, 2018, from
https://www.stockton.edu/institutional-research/fact-sheet.html
BIG BLUE WASTE STREAMS
5
BIG BLUE WASTE STREAMS
6