The Evergreen State College Institutional Repository

Understanding the Phenomena of Institutionalized Recycling and Composting Programs

Item

Title (dcterms:title)

Eng Understanding the Phenomena of Institutionalized Recycling and Composting Programs

Date (dcterms:date)

2012

Creator (dcterms:creator)

Eng Keodara, Andreas

Subject (dcterms:subject)

Eng Environmental Studies

extracted text (extracttext:extracted_text)

UNDERSTANDING THE PHENOMENA OF INSTITUTIONALIZED
RECYCLING AND COMPOSTING PROGRAMS

by
Andreas Keodara

A Thesis: Essay of Distinction
Submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree
Master of Environmental Studies
The Evergreen State College
May 2012
 
 

 

 

i 

 

© 2012 by Andreas Keodara. All rights reserved

 
 

 

  ii 

 

This Thesis for the Master of Environmental Studies Degree
by
Andreas Keodara
has been approved for
The Evergreen State College
by

____________________________
Jean MacGregor
Member of the Faculty

________________________
Date

 
 

 

  iii 

ABSTRACT
Understanding the Phenomena of
Institutionalized Recycling and Composting Programs
Andreas Keodara
Recycling and composting programs, as an effort towards sustainability, have
recently become commonplace in institutionalized settings. Despite their
mainstream adoption in college and university campuses, institutionalized
recycling and composting programs are loosely defined and carried out in a
multitude of ways. For example, what is considered success in a given program
and how is that success measured? This research explored the history of
recycling, the development of sustainability on college and university campuses,
as well as social marketing as a tool for behavior-change. These elements were
put into the context of three institutionalized recycling and composting programs:
South Puget Sound Community College, The Evergreen State College, and
Pacific Lutheran University. Using phenomenology-based inquiry, data from
multiple sources included physical artifacts and texts, interviews, and
observations across all three campuses. Interviews with program managers
examined each program’s experiences of success as well as challenges in the
implementation of their recycling and composting programs. This multiple-case
study compared each institutionalized recycling and composting program to each
other and against an envisioned ideal. Both similarities and differences were
found and led to the conclusion that these programs vary in focus, metrics, and
expansiveness, among other contextual factors, while inarguably attempting to do
the right thing in their contribution towards sustainability.

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Figures…………………………………………………………………….v
List of Tables…………………………………………………………………….vi
Acknowledgements…………………………..…………………………………vii

1. INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………….1
2. RECYCLING AND COMPOSTING:
BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT………………………………………….4
2.1 THE CONTEXT: SUSTAINABILITY…………………………………………4
2.2. RECYCLING AND COMPOSTING: EVERYDAY PRACTICE TO
ORGANIZED PROGRAMS............................................................................11
2.3. GETTING PEOPLE TO RECYCLE: INFORMATION, EDUCATION,
AND SOCIAL MARKETING……………………………………………….15
3. METHODOLOGY/RESEARCH DESIGN………………………………..27
3.1. BRIEF OVERVIEW OF THE THREE INSTITUTIONS STUDIED……………27
3.2. RESEARCH QUESTIONS………………………………………………….28
3.3. METHODS OVERVIEW…………………………………………………...28
4. RESULTS/PRESENTATION OF DATA……………………………….…38
4.1. DESCRIPTIVE INFORMATION REQUEST…………………………………38
4.2. PHYSICAL ARTIFACTS AND TEXTS……………………………………...43
4.3. UNOBTRUSIVE, DIRECT OBSERVATIONS………………………………..60
4.4. INTERVIEWS: VIEWING FROM THE INSIDE-OUT……………………….68
5. DISCUSSION………………………………………………………………...97
5.1. ENVISIONING THE IDEAL…………………………………………...…...97
5.2. THE REALITY OF CASES UP AGAINST THE “ENVISIONED IDEAL”.........99
5.3. PROGRAMS COMPARED………………………………………………..117
6. CONCLUSION……………………………………………………………..128
WORKS CITED………………………………………………………………130
APPENDICES…………………………………………………………………133

 
 

 

  iv 

 
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Waste Sorting Station 1 – SPSCC………………………………….…45
Figure 2: Waste Sorting Station 2 – SPSCC…………………………………….46
Figure 3: Signage Complementing Composting Bins – SPSCC………………..48
Figure 4: Tray/Dish Station – SPSCC…………………………………………..49
Figure 5: Waste Sorting Station – Evergreen…………………………………...51
Figure 6: A Glimpse Inside An Unlabeled Compost Bin – Evergreen……….…53
Figure 7: Tray/Dish Station – Evergreen………………………………………..54
Figure 8: Sign for “Dish Return and Recycling Station” – PLU………………..55
Figure 9: Sign Complementing the Station – PLU……………………………...57
Figure 10: Recyclables Sorting Area – PLU…………………………………….58
Figure 11: Tray/Dish Area – PLU………………………………………………59

 
 

 

  v 

 
LIST OF TABLES

Table 1:
Table 2:
Table 3:
Table 4:
Table 5:
Table 6:
Table 7:
Table 8:
Table 9:

The Natural Step Framework……………………………………………7
The Active Forces in Achieving a Desired Behavior………………….25
An Institutional Profile………………………………………………...39
Levels of Compliance………………………………………………….62
Sustainability Culture………………………………………………...101
Behavior-Changing Strategies………………………………………..105
Prompts for Action…………………………………………………...107
Compliance…………………………………………………………...110
Program Evaluation and Metrics……………………………………..114

 
 

 

  vi 

 
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The flowing support I have received during the course of this project has been
vital to completing this thesis. I would first like to thank my thesis reader, Jean
MacGregor, for her everlasting guidance and patience not only in the thesis
process but also my efforts toward a master’s degree. Thank you to the faculty
and staff of Evergreen’s Master of Environmental Studies program for
educational as well as administrative support during the past three years. Thank
you to my informants at South Puget Sound Community College, The Evergreen
State College, and Pacific Lutheran University for sharing their time as well as
stories with me about their institution’s sustainability efforts. And last but not
least, I would like to thank my family, friends, and cohort for always being a
positive, forthcoming presence during this journey.

 
 

 

  vii 

 

1. INTRODUCTION
Practicing sustainability is inarguably the right thing to do. While it is
sometimes difficult to justify the initial investment in new practices to be more
sustainable, there are often incentives and positive feedback to take part in such
practices. The opportunity to integrate sustainable practices exists in every sector
as well as across the board and on all scales. In this study, I researched
institutionalized recycling and composting programs as a sustainability effort on
college campuses.
Increased recycling and composting practices is not only the right thing to
do, but often provides an incentive for savings in terms of waste management
costs. In terms of the costs of handling and disposing of waste, recycling and
composting appropriate materials costs less than disposing of them as garbage.
Because institutionalized recycling and composting programs on college
campuses are increasingly becoming a norm, I was interested in investigating
their design as well as implementation. As a client of a college’s dining center, I
produce waste and thus, partake in their recycling and composting practices. As a
researcher, I went beyond reading the signs on how to sort my waste and studied
the institutional composting programs at three sites: South Puget Sound
Community College, The Evergreen State College, and Pacific Lutheran
University. My goal was to investigate and compare the various dimensions of
their institutionalized recycling and composting programs.
Beyond “doing the right thing,” are these campus composting-programs
successful? What is considered success? Are the programs evaluated? These

 
 

 

  1 

 
were just a few of the questions I attempted to answer. Using a phenomenologybased inquiry, I conducted a comparative case study by completing a literature
review on sustainability and gathering data about the three composting programs
from multiple sources, including physical artifacts and texts, interviews, and
observations. In the process, I learned about components of institutionalized
recycling and composting programs I would have never thought about as a casual
observer or dining client participating in sorting my wastes.
My research revealed that an ideal program with high participation is
characterized by a campus-wide sustainability culture; commitment to
environmental and sustainability studies; as well as a waste sorting system that
successfully uses behavior-changing strategies through social marketing and
effective prompts for action. While no institutionalized recycling and composting
program in any of the three cases holistically met this ideal, each had positive
traits in at least some of the idealized components.
This thesis covers the literature review conducted, discusses the
methodologies used, summarizes the data collected, and then discusses the
conclusions as well as recommendations resulting from the data analyzed. My
research found that institutionalized recycling and composting programs as a
whole within the three cases studied have similar goals but also have some
differences in terms of carrying out their sustainability efforts. Diverse contexts,
such as the number of dining student staff and number of students residing oncampus of each college studied kept cases unique. I conclude my study by

 
 

 

  2 

 
comparing each case to an envisioned ideal, each case to each other, and provide
recommendations for each program’s next steps for improvement.

 
 

 

  3 

 

2. RECYCLING AND COMPOSTING:
BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT
My literature review of institutionalized recycling and composting
programs revealed many facets of these approaches. In this chapter, I include the
concept and evolution of sustainability; recycling practices, including
composting; and the various forms of information, education, and marketing that
encourage people to recycle.
2.1. THE CONTEXT: SUSTAINABILITY
Sustainable Development to Sustainability
“Sustainable development” was an initiative internationally introduced in
1987 by the United Nations’ (UN) World Commission on Environment and
Development (WCED) as meeting the needs of the present without compromising
the ability of future generations to meet their own needs (WCED 1987). The
report pointed towards a new paradigm and way of thinking but was not specific
enough in terms of providing the means in which sustainable development could
be realized. As a result of the vagueness in this definition, many different groups
have conceived sustainable development in a wide array of interpretations.
Sustainable development is a revolutionary concept that explores the
working relationships between economy and environment as well as between the
present and future (National Research Council 1999). While Earth’s fate is the
shared value among those in favor of sustainable development, its foci differ
among its practitioners. Points of concern include what is to be sustained, what is

 
 

 

  4 

 
to be developed, as well as the timeframes and the linkages between each point of
concern.
The 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in
Rio de Janeiro built on the concept of sustainable development by discussing the
human race’s well-being as well as increasing disparity within and between
nations. The UNCED produced a major action plan, Agenda 21, which stated in
its preamble that sustainable development under a global partnership can “lead to
the fulfillment of basic needs, improved living standards for all, better protected
and managed ecosystems, and a safer, more prosperous future.” The 40-chapter
action plan addresses the multitude of factors associated with sustainable
development: social and economic dimensions; conservation and management of
resources for development; strengthening the role of major groups; and means of
implementation.
The term, sustainable development, is more often associated with
developing countries whose primary needs relate to economic development. In
Western countries, especially the United States, which is already highly
developed, the discrete term, sustainability, is more commonplace. Sustainability
as it is known in the developed world is what will be referenced from this point on
in my thesis.
The Natural Step Framework
A popular approach for incorporating sustainability concepts is The Natural
Step Framework, a comprehensive model for planning in complex systems.
Swedish scientist Karl-Henrik Robert led the development of this framework

 
 

 

  5 

 
following the publication of Our Common Future. The Natural Step framework
is an open-source publication, free for all to use; it offers principles and strategies
to help organizations as well as communities to “backcast from the principles of
sustainability” (The Natural Step 2011). “Backcasting,” as opposed to
forecasting, focuses on envisioning a success, working backwards from that
vision to the present-state, and figuring out how to put the pieces together, much
like a jigsaw puzzle. Backcasting in The Natural Step framework is based on
basic sustainability principles, which are reworded from four science-rooted
system conditions in mind. The following table from The Natural Step’s
organizational website lays out the four system conditions and four sustainability
principles (2011).

 
 

 

  6 

 
Table 1: The Natural Step Framework
The four system conditions characterizing the Natural Step framework.
The Four System Conditions

…Reworded as The Four Principles
of Sustainability

In a sustainable society, nature is not
subject to systematically increasing:

To become a sustainable society we
must...

1. concentrations of substances
extracted from the earth's crust

1. eliminate our contribution to the
progressive buildup of substances
extracted from the Earth's crust (for
example, heavy metals and fossil fuels)
2. eliminate our contribution to the
progressive buildup of chemicals and
compounds produced by society (for
example, dioxins, PCBs, and DDT )
3. eliminate our contribution to the
progressive physical degradation and
destruction of nature and natural
processes (for example, over harvesting
forests and paving over critical wildlife
habitat); and
4. eliminate our contribution to
conditions that undermine people’s
capacity to meet their basic human
needs (for example, unsafe working
conditions and not enough pay to live
on).

2. concentrations of substances
produced by society

3. degradation by physical means

4. and, in that society, people are not
subject to conditions that systemically
undermine their capacity to meet their
needs

Violating any of the four principles is detrimental and not conducive to success
because doing so is equated to the roots causes of un-sustainability (The Natural
Step 2011). While the exact conditions of success, ultimately a sustainable
society, are not known, the Natural Step program argues that following these four
principles of sustainability will lead organizations on a more sustainable path.

 
 

 

  7 

 
The Natural Step framework has become a popular practice towards
sustainability because it includes strategies that still keep businesses profitable
(Castle 2001). Using The Natural Step framework, a vision for sustainability in
the automotive services industry was created and prepared for the State of
Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality in 2001. An analysis conducted
revealed that of all the automobile services industry’s many practices, materials,
energy, and waste had the greatest environmental impacts. In such a case, goals
are developed for each impact in terms of their relation to the four principles of
sustainability. For example, all businesses create waste and all waste created
must be utilized, so it should no longer be acceptable to send any waste to
landfills.
While approaches to sustainability vary, many fundamentals from each
approach are inextricably linked. Take The Natural Step framework’s example
from above, where all waste created must be utilized, referring to the concept of a
closed-loop system and that Earth cannot endure to serve as a landfill for waste.
In particular, the Natural Step framework is conceptually similar to the cradle-tocradle design, “…a framework in which the effective, regenerative cycles of
nature provide models for wholly positive human designs” (McDonough and
Braungart 2003).
The Emergence of Sustainability on Campus: A Growing Trend
The growing trend of environmental awareness and action on college
campuses is a phenomenon that began in the latter half of the 20th century. Earth

 
 

 

  8 

 
Day, beginning in 1970, and the subsequent energy crisis of the mid-1970’s
stimulated widespread environmental consciousness within the public and
particularly on college and university campuses (Bartlett and Chase 2004).
Students and staff began their rallying efforts for more on-campus environmental
resources such as the preservation of more green space, the establishment of
environmental studies programs, and the promotion of outdoor recreation
activities and ecology clubs, among others.
Institutionalized sustainability efforts on college campuses continued to
develop in the 1990s. An international conference in Talloires, France in 1990,
convened by the leadership of Tufts University, drew together 22 university
presidents from throughout the world. They discussed and defined the role of the
university in the following way:
“Universities educate most of the people who develop and manage
society's institutions. For this reason, universities bear profound
responsibilities to increase the awareness, knowledge, technologies, and
tools to create an environmentally sustainable future" (Report and
Declaration of the Presidents Conference (1990); source cited in 2008).
This conference resulted in the Talloires Declaration, which has now been signed
by over 400 college and university institutions. The Talloires Declaration is a tenpoint action plan for institutions that are committed to promoting education for
sustainability and environmental literacy. It has served as a model for other
sustainability plans and models that followed (ULSF 2001).
Colleges and universities are increasingly committing themselves to a
number of national as well as international efforts towards sustainability,
including the Talloires Declaration. Dr. Anthony Cortese, an environmental
 
 

 

  9 

 
advocate, was part of the international meeting leading up to the Talloires
Declaration and went on to co-organize numerous other sustainability programs in
higher education. Dr. Cortese was the co-founder for the Association for the
Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education (AASHE), an organization
responsible for the Sustainability Tracking Assessment & Rating System
(STARS).
STARS is a “…transparent, self-reporting framework for colleges and
universities to measure their sustainability performance” (AASHE 2011). The
self-reporting in STARS covers metrics from every aspect of an institution
including, but not limited to offerings of sustainability-centered courses,
opportunities for staff and faculty development, and minimization of waste,
among others. Nearly 900 institutions of higher education and over 250
organizations including businesses as well as non-profits are registered members
of STARS, while nearly 700 institutions of higher education have signed the
American College & University Presidents’ Climate Commitment (ACUPCC).
The ACUPCC, another highly visible effort towards sustainability on college and
university campuses, focuses on addressing climate change by achieving carbon
neutrality. Activities associated with being an ACUPCC signatory include
conducting an emissions inventory and reducing greenhouse gas emissions,
among others. STARS requires its members to pay an annual fee while most
members of the ACUPCC voluntarily pay annual dues.
Campus sustainability initiatives at colleges and universities today are
now the norm rather than the exception, regardless of an institution’s independent
 
 

 

  10 

 
efforts or its affiliation with a program such as the Talloires Declaration, STARS,
and ACUPCC. These sustainability initiatives encompass issues ranging from
campus green space to energy and waste planning to faculty and organizational
development. A common issue addressed is waste reduction, perhaps because it
is more quantifiable than a metric such as organizational development. Increased
recycling, decreased landfilling, and the integration of composting have become
major strategies for campus sustainability programs.
2.2. RECYCLING AND COMPOSTING: EVERYDAY PRACTICE TO
ORGANIZED PROGRAMS
Recycling has been one of the most significant and common practices in
caring for the environment because it reduces the need for landfilling and
incineration of waste materials that can otherwise be made into new products
(EPA 2010). Recycling is the practice of processing used materials normally
considered waste to create a new, usable material or product. The direct and
indirect benefits that result from recycling include the conservation of natural
resources, reduction of energy usage, reduction of air pollution, and reduction of
water pollution, among others.
Evidence shows that recycling is far from a new concept: materials such as
soiled paper have been processed into new materials beginning hundreds of years
ago. At certain times in history, economic incentives have played a large role in
the importance and popularity of recycling. For example, when resources were
scarce during war, recycling became heavily adopted; however, as resources

 
 

 

  11 

 
became increasingly available again, waste disposal in landfills increased and
recycling became a less attractive alternative (Blunt 2011).
The environmental movement in the 1970s stimulated a greater
consciousness and public awareness of environmental issues. This time, recycling
was well on its way to a long lasting practice as recycling drop-off centers and
processing plants became much more common. Local municipalities as well as
individual states in the U.S. began to implement mandates on recycling in the
1980s. Recycling has grown to be an important practice and is often less costly
than sending material waste to landfills. In communities where mandates on
recycling do not exist, voluntary programs are common and fill the void. Today,
commonly recycled materials include paper of most types, cardboard, plastic,
glass, and metals, among others.
Today’s recycling programs have broadened their scope through the
integration of composting foods scraps as well as biodegradable plates, cups and
flatware, particularly in residential households, restaurants, and dining facilities.
This practice at college institutions’ dining centers is a growing trend in the larger
constellation of sustainability strategies. While institutionalized composting
programs offer new tools for waste-stream reduction on college campuses, these
strategies require proper infrastructure, management, coordination, participation,
and education to fulfill its potential and approach goals for reducing waste.
Composting is viewed both as an art and science. Decomposition
naturally occurs most efficiently when there are the right levels of organic matter,

 
 

 

  12 

 
oxygen, temperature, moisture, and soil pH to break down organic materials into
simpler molecules. People who use composting practices at any scale try to
establish those same ideal conditions for decomposition. Before this can all take
place, however, the responsibility falls on the producers of compostable waste
(also referred to as “compost feedstock”) to transport sorted food waste and other
biodegradable materials to the location of the composting process, be it a
residential backyard or large-scale facility.
The mainstream adoption of biodegradable plastic utensils, an alternative
to conventional plastic utensils, is a recent phenomenon in the last decade.
Conventional plastics are non-recyclable and especially serve as environmental
hazards not only because of their derivation from petroleum, bio-based polymers
but also because of their contribution to solid waste pollution when not disposed
of properly (Thompson et al. 2009). Biodegradable plastic, termed “bioplastics,”
are made up of many different sources and materials. In the biodegradable
utensils market, the majority of bioplastics, nearly 90%, are made of starch-based
plants (Bastioli 2000). Corn and potato in particular were the common materials
making up utensils used in the institutionalized recycling and composting
programs that I studied.
Utensils at each institutionalized recycling and composting program that I
studied were not only biodegradable but also certified compostable. The
technicalities that distinguish compostables and biodegradables from each other
are the following standards under a certification process conducted by the
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM 2011):
 
 

 

  13 

 
Certified biodegradable plastics are: Plastics that will degrade from the
action of naturally occurring microorganisms (such as bacteria, fungi,
and/or algae) under specific environmental conditions (such as soil,
compost, and/or marine) over a period of time.
Certified compostable plastics are: Plastics capable of undergoing
biological decomposition in a compost site as part of an available program,
such that the plastic is not visually distinguishable and breaks down to
carbon dioxide, water, inorganic compounds, and biomass, at a rate
consistent with known compostable materials (e.g. cellulose) and leaves no
toxic residue.
It is important to take note that certified compostable plastics are characterized by
additional regulations requiring that they break down into no toxic residue and
that they decompose within a specific time window (60% biodegradation within
180 days). For these reasons, certified compostable plastics are a much more
desired product than their certified biodegradable counterparts.
There was no indication from the research that compost facilities experience
difficulty in composting certified compostable utensils. However, if these utensils
contribute to pollution by way of littering or end up in landfills, they most likely
will never break down and be equal to conventional plastics in terms of the global
waste problem. From this point forward, certified compostable utensils will be
shortened and referred to as “compostable utensils.”
Before transporting materials to undergo composting, wastes provided
must be managed and monitored so that the feedstock has limited to no
contamination. At-home composters are able to limit their waste contamination
much more efficiently than institutionalized composting programs, which have
more moving parts to consider. On college and university campuses, the process
of collecting wastes requires compliant participation from students, faculty

 
 

 

  14 

 
members, visitors, and staff, all of whom make up the dining facilities’ clientele.
Clientele participation includes properly sorting their post-meal waste such as
food scraps and biodegradable utensils while dining staff sort their compostables
during food preparation. This sorting alleviates the added costs in labor for
sorting efforts at the receiving compost facilities.
In an institutionalized recycling and composting program, members of the
dining staff play a role just as important, if not more important than other
clientele. Members of the dining staff have the responsibility to encourage dining
clientele to sort their landfill, recyclable and compost waste correctly. As a
member of the dining staff, they sort waste including compostables in the food
preparation, serving, and cleaning areas. Additionally, members of the dining
staff play the role of dining clientele whenever they decide to have a meal at the
facility. The compliance and success of such programs heavily rely on the actions
as well as behavior while sorting waste of all clientele, including members of the
dining staff. From this point forward, “composting program”, will be used in
place of institutionalized recycling and composting program.
2.3. GETTING PEOPLE TO RECYCLE: INFORMATION, EDUCATION,
AND SOCIAL MARKETING
To influence people to recycle as well as compost, organizations have
used various strategies including information-awareness campaigns, education
programs, and social marketing tools. Each strategy used has a similar intent:
getting people to recycle and compost, but are different in the way their efforts are

 
 

 

  15 

 
carried out. This section will review the different strategies used and some of
their practical applications locally and nationally.
Information Campaigns: A One-Way Street
Addressing issues of waste minimization is made possible through the
transfer of information. Environmental information includes facts and opinions
about specific environmental issues. These communications of one-way,
information campaigns vary in depth and in the magnitude of their propagation
for a given issue.
Information campaigns are often thoughtful, mature, and promote a
specific issue to people, often a mass population. The time, financial resources,
and personnel required to coordinate effective informational campaigns makes it a
costly effort (Maibach 1993). Numerous information campaigns making up the
broader sustainable seafood movement in recent years has particularly been
successful. For example, the Seafood Watch program offers people regional
pocket guides that raise consumer awareness about ocean conservation issues.
The Seafood Watch program collaborates with many organizations, including
universities, zoos, aquariums, restaurants, and seafood suppliers (Monterey Bay
Aquarium 2011). Pocket guides offer information on seafood’s consumer list of
“best choices,” “good alternatives,” and “avoid.” The information is based on
factors such as the state of a fish’s population, environmental impacts, and
toxicity to human health, among others. The Seafood Watch program is an

 
 

 

  16 

 
example of an effective information campaign because it has raised awareness of
ocean issues and garnered a lot of interest as well as participation from the public.
Although it serves a purpose in putting environmental issues on the
forefront, some information campaigns can also be extremely advocacy-driven.
These biased efforts have the potential to be counterproductive and turn people
off. Extreme advocacy with strong bias for one idea, such as the Nuclear Energy
Institute’s campaigns focused on increasing nuclear power as a strategy to get the
United States off fossil-fuel dependence and on the path to cleaner energy may
find it difficult to be an effective information campaign. While energy is a
polarizing issue, this example is not to negate the concept of nuclear power but
rather to offer an example of strong bias in an information campaign.
Environmental information campaigns are numerous and highly variable.
Information today is extremely accessible, especially online through
organizations’ websites and personal blogs. The shortcomings of awareness
campaigns is that they generally depend on one-way messaging that may or may
not succeed in influencing their audience, and that they are often shallow.
Environmental Education
Environmental education generally aims to teach environmental concepts
and problem-solving skills through face-to-face interaction and dialogue. People
are taught about environmental issues and then encouraged to discuss, act on, and
solve problems as well as make decisions on important issues. Important issues
such as initiatives on climate change, solid as well as toxic waste prevention, and

 
 

 

  17 

 
natural resource depletion, require critical thinking, which includes new
awareness and sensitivity; knowledge and understanding; attitudes; skills; and
participation to facilitate the dialogue (EPA 2009). The components of critical
thinking are often incorporated into environmental education programs.
Environmental education programs historically have had a difficult time
integrating into established curricula such as the K-12 school system because of
the longstanding, “laundry list” of standards and topics already put in place for
teachers to cover. However, the importance of environmental education is
continually reverberated by individuals to foster pro-environmental change as
well as decrease society’s top-down reliance on environmental leaders and experts
to solve environmental problems. It is believed that a stronger public
understanding of environmental science and related issues is a growing necessity,
and an enriching environmental education is the answer that makes sense (Coyle
2004). While the barriers to integrating environmental education content into
school curricula are numerous, programs do find their way into some traditional
classrooms and informal settings such as parks and youth programs.
Environmental education programs have a particularly strong following on the
community level to educate youth and adults.
The Large Effort in Keeping America Beautiful
One of the largest campaigns in the United States took place in the 1950s
when Keep America Beautiful (KAB), an environmental organization, was
established. The efforts of KAB are mostly one-way-message, information
campaigns to promote its core issues of preventing litter, reducing waste, and
 
 

 

  18 

 
beautifying communities. In order to address the litter problem, business leaders
of package and beverage industries jumpstarted the campaign to get community
members all over the country to clean up litter. KAB’s focus on communitybased litter cleanup and opposition to proposed bottle bills raised suspicion
among the public in regards to the organization’s interest in such a large
environmental campaign. Bottle bills are container deposit laws that require “a
minimum refundable deposit on beer, soft drink, and other beverage containers in
order to ensure a high rate of recycling or reuse” as well as put more
responsibility on industry (CRI 2010).
KAB’s Great American Cleanup, an annual event, continues to recruit
millions of volunteers each year to improve and beautify communities all over the
U.S. through tree plantings, waterway cleanup, and recycling collections, among
many other activities. Despite its strong following, KAB continues to experience
criticism from groups and individuals. Environmental organizations such as the
Sierra Club find KAB’s focus on people cleaning up pollution suspect because
KAB seems to imply that the sole responsibility is on the consumer (CRI 2010).
Recyclemania, described as “a friendly competition and benchmarking
tool for college and university recycling programs to promote waste reduction
activities to their campus communities”, is a popular program managed by KAB
(2006). In the spring, participating schools perform annual audits through the
evaluation of their waste streams by reporting numbers on the amount of landfill
trash produced, the amount of recyclables produced, and the rate of recycling,
among others. While many of KAB’s efforts are confined to the realm of
 
 

 

  19 

 
information campaign strategies, they do offer some environmental education
resources for teachers and after-school programs. KAB remains highly active
today, with many regional chapters all over the United States.
Information Campaigns and Environmental Education in Washington State
In Washington State, municipal and county governments have program
initiatives that address issues ranging from energy conservation to the need for
increased carpools and waste reduction. Thurston County offers a Masters
Recyclers program for adults, where community members participate in a 19-hour
training program and then serve 30 hours the following year as volunteers who
encourage waste reduction and recycling in their local neighborhoods, schools,
and work offices. In addition, Thurston County has managed to integrate
environmental education programs beyond reduce, reuse and recycle to K-12
schools with a lunchroom composting program. The program, “Food to Flowers,”
recycles leftover food scraps and food-soiled paper at local K-12 schools by
educating and training staff, volunteers, and students. Thurston County also
provides the infrastructure such as compost bins as well as signs and information
materials for proper sorting of cafeteria waste. The “Food to Flowers” program
has helped reduce participating schools’ kitchen and cafeteria landfill waste by 75
percent (TC Public Works Department 2011). Other education opportunities
offered by the county’s Public Works Department include information
presentations by county employees and field trips to the local waste collection
facility.

 
 

 

  20 

 
King County, nearly eight times more densely populated than Thurston
County, has similar programs. In particular, the county has a highly interactive
program for K-12 schools, called the “King County Green Schools Program.”
Participation in the program requires interest from a team of students, parents, and
staff at a given school. Acceptance into the program is dependent on an
application process and completion of the level one requirement, which entails
reaching specific benchmarks of waste reduction and recycling. Upon successful
completion of the level one requirement, schools can choose to move to level two
and three, energy and water conservation, respectively, while continually
improving on the previous levels’ benchmarks. The program has multiple
benefits due to its collaborative effort among the county, parents, students and
staff. King County provides assistance and resources, including recycling
containers; schools have the opportunity to save money on waste, students are
learning about environmental issues, taking action and developing leadership
skills; parents become more involved and can improve their recycling practices at
home; and finally, schools are recognized for their hard work as a “green school”
model. Ninety-three schools in King County completed Level One, Level Two
and/or Level Three in the 2009-10 school year (King County 2011).
Social Marketing
Beyond environmental awareness and education is action and personal
behavior change, but how is that addressed? Through social marketing strategies,
applying behavior-change techniques to achieve desired actions from participants
has been a growing practice. In the 1970s, marketing experts Philip Kotler and
 
 

 

  21 

 
Gerald Zaltman developed social marketing to improve the wellness of society.
Social marketing is different from standard marketing in that it attempts to “sell”
ideas, attitudes, and behaviors, not necessarily physical products (Weinrech
2010). Increased breast cancer screening, seatbelt usage, recycling and
composting are just a few issues that have been addressed by social marketing
campaigns. Promoting behavior through social change campaigns using social
marketing strategies requires the group organizing the effort, the change agent,
and the group intended for persuasion, the target adopter (Kotler and Roberto
1989). Social marketing campaigns require careful planning that incorporates
numerous tools to increase its likelihood of success, wherein the target adopter
begins to adopt or practice a desired behavior.
The first set of tools a social marketing campaign uses are a mix of the
four Ps: product, price, place, and promotion. Additionally, personnel,
presentation, and process are three newer Ps identified as tools. In the planning of
a new campaign, social marketers are responsibly for strategically allocating the
program budget as they have at least seven Ps from the mix to choose from,
among other tools. It is important to not only consider outreach to target adopters,
but also distribution outlets and channels where social products will be available.
The second set of necessary tools are the five factors in regards to the
target adopter group: (1) the force, the target adopter’s level of motivation
towards the target behavior and degree of stimulation in the change agent’s
message; (2) the direction, the target adopter’s ability to carry out the campaign’s
desired objectives; (3) the mechanism, the target adopter’s accessibility to
 
 

 

  22 

 
resources that will provide motivation and move them into action; (4) adequacy
and compatibility, the change agent’s degree of efficacy in its own objective; and
(5) distance, the amount of energy and required cost perceived by the target
adopter to change their behavior or attitude toward the desired outcomes of the
change agent (Kotler and Roberto 1989).
Once a campaign plan is developed, piloting the program is key to
evaluate its effectiveness on the targeted population. Social marketers must
collect baseline data from both a control and experimental group. After applying
the social marketing campaign to the experimental group, data is collected and
compared to the baseline data. The before-and-after results are focused on the
target group’s actual behavior change rather than simply its awareness. If results
show that the campaign was not effective, social marketers must redesign their
plan and use different behavior-changing strategies until successful results are
both defined and met in the pilot program.
Community-Based Social Marketing
Community-based social marketing (CBSM) incorporates new dimensions
to information-intensive as well as traditional social marketing campaigns on
large populations. CBSM aims to deliver programs on a community level, a
strategy thought to be more effective in changing people’s behavior. The
objective of CBSM is to create long-term environmental change and sustainability
(McKenzie-Mohr and Smith 1999). CBSM moves away from universal
application, builds on the tools characteristic of traditional social marketing

 
 

 

  23 

 
campaigns, and aims to create more specialized programs specific to intended
communities in an effort to maximize effectiveness. The philosophy of CBSM
approaches program development by focusing on a specific group and then
systematically identifying barriers to target sustainable behavior; using behaviorchanging tools to break down these barriers; piloting small programs to
understand contexts of barriers as well as opportunities for target behaviors in
intended communities; and finally, evaluating programs for refinements. These
steps ideally involve face-to-face communications between the social marketing
team and the target population.
Force field analysis, a tool unique to CBSM and absent in traditional
social marketing protocols, takes into consideration contextual factors of the
intended community such as their awareness of a sustainable behavior and the
convenience of the target behavior. The force field analysis was developed by
Kurt Lewin in 1951 and is widely used to inform decision-making, particularly in
planning and implementing change management (Hovland 2005). Applied to
CBSM, it is a powerful method for gaining a comprehensive overview of the
different forces acting on a behavior-change issue. The following table is from
McKenzie-Mohr and Smith’s (1999) book and uses a simple matrix to illustrate
the forces (competing behaviors) playing a role against the desired behavior (new
behavior) of walking to work (p. 6):

 
 

 

  24 

 
Table 2: The Active Forces in Achieving a Desired Behavior
Benefits and barriers characterize competing behaviors. In this example,
transportation alternatives to work are described.
New Behavior:
Walk to work

Competing
Behavior 1:
Take a Taxi

Competing
Behavior 2:
Take a Bus in
Winter

Perceived
Benefits

-Helps
environment

-Time with family

-Cheaper than taxi

Perceived
Barriers

-Lose time with
family

-No alternative
-Costly
-Bad for
environment

-Loses more time
with family

Using the force-field analysis, social marketers can continue to find ways to
increase the perceived benefits of walking to work and decreasing the perceived
barriers for taking a taxi as well as taking the bus.
In the case of composting programs, if community-based programs are a
new concept in a particular community or region, social marketers might develop
a campaign with greater foci on education and building of familiarity with waste
minimization concepts to provide the intended community with proper knowledge
and increased their perceived benefits of participating in a program of recycling
and composting more. CBSM particularly has a sizeable amount of literature
focused on recycling and composting practices. Research in this field includes
studying the effects of signed commitments, psychological constructs, visual
prompts, and increased incentives, among others on the compliance of appropriate
waste sorting.

 
 

 

  25 

 
What is it about sorting recyclables, compostables, and garbage from each
other that results in rather high non-compliance? A study in 2008 examined
whether or not recycling compliance by clientele in public settings was affected
by the use of specialized lids on waste receptacles (Duffy and Verges). The study
concluded that visual prompts from the use of specialized lids on waste
receptacles could reduce the cognition required and potentially improve the
affordances of non-native English speakers for appropriate waste sorting
behavior.
In another case, The Milwaukee Irish Fest, an annual festival promoted
waste reduction efforts by offering attendees an incentive: soda refills at a
discounted price so long as they purchased a reusable souvenir cup. The festival
used waste reduction as the theme through their event displays, games, and prizes.
Visual prompts in the form of signs reminding attendees to use reusable and
recyclable cups were also used. The program was a success as all 7,500 souvenirs
cups produced for the event was sold and an estimated 20-25% reduction in waste
was achieved compared to the previous year. While I have given two examples of
cases experiencing some success using CBSM, there are also many cases out
there that have failed.

 
 

 

  26 

 

3. METHODOLOGY/RESEARCH DESIGN
My research design integrated a comparative case study methodology with
phenomenology to investigate composting programs as they exist on college
campuses. Multiple data sources, including physical artifacts and texts,
interviews, and observations were used and interpreted to create each case study.
Each of the three cases was unique and analyzed as an independent entity. Then,
the cases were compared to one another, with contextual factors in mind.
3.1. BRIEF OVERVIEW OF THREE INSTITUTIONS STUDIED
The three institutionalized composting programs studied were at South
Puget Sound Community College (SPSCC), Pacific Lutheran University (PLU)
and The Evergreen State College (Evergreen). All three schools have similarities:
their location relative to one another in the Thurston-Pierce County region and
their dining facilities. At the same time, there are some notable differences
among the colleges. SPSCC is a public educational community college offering
up to an Associate’s Degree and serving about 6,000 students. PLU is a private
university, which offers up to a Master’s Degree and serves about 3,600 students.
Evergreen is a public regional liberal arts college that offers up to a Master’s
Degree and serves about 4,300 students. Table 1 in Chapter 4 of this thesis
provides an overview comparing each institution in terms of its general profile
and waste management practices.

 
 

 

  27 

 
3.2. RESEARCH QUESTIONS
The research questions for my thesis study were the following:
1. In what context has each composting program developed in order to carry
out its design and implementation at their respective institution?
a. How does each program compare to one another in these terms?
2. What is the culture on campus like in terms of recycling/composting?
Does behavior reflect attitudes?
a. How does each program compare to one another in these terms?
3. If each composting program is evaluated, what are the metrics in terms of
success and challenges?
a. How does each program compare to one another in these terms?
4. What tools and strategies might be used to improve the success of each of
these composting programs?
a. How does each program compare to one another in these terms?
The question, “How does each program compare to one another in these terms?”
was used for comparative purposes among the individual case studies.
3.3. METHODS OVERVIEW
As stated earlier, this thesis research was on institutionalized recycling and
composting programs (“composting programs”) at different college campuses in
Thurston-Pierce County, the quintain of this study. Quintain is an esoteric term
for the object, phenomenon, or event being studied (Stake 2006). My study
investigated how such programs generally occur and operate by studying these
three cases. The respective, individual programs occurring at SPSCC, PLU and
Evergreen make up the culminating investigation of the quintain in this multiple
case study to instrumentally learn about composting programs in a college

 
 

 

  28 

 
campus setting. I looked broadly at each respective program to obtain an
improved understanding of these programs. Each case was explored through
investigation of each program’s mission, goals, objectives, history, and practices.
Data was triangulated and gathered from observations through text, physical
artifacts, interviews, and direct observations.
3.3.1. Case Study Methodology
Case study methodology is “empirical inquiry that investigates
contemporary phenomena within its real-life context, when boundaries between
phenomenon and context are not clearly evident, and in which multiple sources of
evidence are used” (Yin 1984, p.23). A qualitative case study methodology was
appropriate for this study as it sought to holistically investigate programs and
bring out details through direct observation and to create an understanding of the
complex interrelations taking place. In addition, some data include numerical,
quantitative metrics.
Case study research methods, often organized into successive steps, were
incorporated into this thesis study. My literature review helped determine and
define the research questions, a critical first step. Gathering information on past
and current composting programs through the scaffolding of multiple literature
resources created a foundation for this research and ultimately, the questions
needing to be addressed. Once research questions were defined, data sources and
collection techniques were determined to seek the best outcomes for this study.

 
 

 

  29 

 
The final step of case study research was the production as well as dissemination
of a case study report itself.
The struggles and successes of a recycling program could not simply be
explained by factors in a cause-effect relationship that might be revealed through
some experimental investigation. Instead, my data collection sought to
understand phenomena from numerous people’s experiences. The chronologies
and details tell the story of the complex interrelationships within a case and
following further analysis, between cases. Interpretation methods were
holistically integrated in the research design with the recognition of its lack in a
value-free period, a strategy to keep variables experientially defined. Traditional
quantitative research designs operationally defined variables by using interpretive
methods in only the hypothesizing and analysis stages of research, limiting the
potential for considerations of developing events and ongoing revelations, all of
which are important to learn about the quintain. This constructivist philosophy
enabled my study to compile the experiences of the interviewee and direct
experience of the researcher to capture each case, interpret it, contextualize it, and
explore situational conditions rather than treat them as erroneous, producing the
story of each respective case.
Each case was instrumental in understanding composting programs as a
whole at the three different campuses in Thurston and Pierce County,
Washington. I chose these three campuses to represent different higher
educational sectors (two-year public, four-year public and four-year private
institutions) of approximately the same size. Each institution is committed to
 
 

 

  30 

 
sustainable practices but carry their efforts out in different ways. These campuses
may not be representative of campuses through the United States because the
Pacific Northwest has a heritage of being environmentally active. Furthermore, I
learned that each campus has been supported in their recycling and composting
practices by regional waste haulers.
3.3.2. Phenomenology
The role of learning in this research was phenomenological in inquiry,
studying experience from the perspective of individuals, which is important in
understanding subjective experience and gleaning insight about people’s
motivations and actions. This approach attempts to go beyond assumptions and
conventional wisdom (Lester 1999). This paradigm values personal knowledge
and subjectivity, which is advantageous in aiding the understanding of each case
as well as in the broader quintain sense. While phenomenology is in alignment
with other approaches of qualitative research, it focuses on people’s lived
experience. Furthermore, the deeper meaning of that lived experience can be
learned.
Because understanding rather than explanation is sought, the epistemology
of phenomenological research does not begin with hypotheses or preconceptions;
it attempts to begin perspective-free (Husserl, 1970). The nature in which
phenomena is experienced by case study informants is more important than the
nature of the phenomena itself. In this study, my informants were those who
manage recycling programs at each campus’ dining center. The interpretations of

 
 

 

  31 

 
these experiences informed me about the recycling programs in their current,
everyday existence at SPSCC, PLU and Evergreen.
Phenomenology’s ability to glean out a subjective experience helped
address normative and subjective assumptions. For example, Inc. Magazine, a
business publication, featured an article on starting an office recycling program
and implied going green is not as simple as it might seem, even in small settings:
“You can do everything you can to educate employees and make it easier for them
to contribute, but don't assume the rest of the parts you can't see are going to do it
the right way too” (Vanden Boss 2010). This concept can be applied to
composting programs; the implementation of a university campus’ large-scale
recycling program deserves praise, yet starting a program does not automatically
reveal details on how successful such a program is in actuality. Only learning
from the program managers’ perspectives can we begin to understand the
phenomenon.
3.3.3. Triangulation
A triangulated research strategy also characterizes this study. Such a
strategy allows results from a study lacking significant quantitative data to be
gleaned with more confidence. Triangulation is an effective technique used to
help validate data through comparison by cross-verifying results between multiple
sources (Bogdan & Biklen, 2006). Validation in these cases can be reached when
multiple sources of data observe similar results. For example, an interview with a
dining manager can bring out his or her observation of dine-in customers’ lack of

 
 

 

  32 

 
good habits to clean up after themselves, while the interviewer later directly
observes that same lack of habit from customers; this regularity gleaned from the
cafeteria manager’s observations and the researcher’s personal observations
creates a sense of validation in a study’s data. In other instances, different results
can be revealed and provide subtle nuances within the program.
Sociologist Norman Denzin has identified four basic typologies of data
triangulation. The previous example of an interviewee’s observations coupled
with the researcher’s direct observations represents (1) methodological
triangulation, where two or more methods are used under one research design.
Denzin’s other types of triangulation include: (2) data source, where multiple
sources of data found in time, space and person are used; (3) investigator, where
data gain more credibility through observations from multiple observers,
interviewers, coders, or data analysts; and (4) theoretical triangulation, where a
phenomenon is examined under multiple theories or hypotheses (Denzin, 1970).
Multiple triangulation methods were adopted in this study by pairing data
source with methodological triangulation. According to researcher Todd D. Jick,
unique findings, increased confidence in research findings, and multi-perspective
as well as lucid understandings of the phenomenon are benefits of combining
triangulation strategies (1979). Data collected from Evergreen, SPSCC and PLU
to learn about the quintain triangulated data sources while conducted interviews
and direct observations triangulate methodologies.

 
 

 

  33 

 
3.3.4. Typologies and Interpretation of Data
Each case study in my research was made up of triangulated data,
illustrating a comprehensive picture of the composting program. The typologies
of data used were: physical artifacts of texts, revealing the program
implementation as it is in place; interviews, providing the context and mindset in
which the program is operating from; and observations, revealing the behavior of
the participants that the program targets.
Physical Artifacts and Texts
Methods used for handling physical artifacts and texts were taken from
Robert Stake’s 1995 publication, The Art of Case Study Research. Data collection
began with document review, which included studying physical artifacts and
texts, the written materials providing snapshots of each program’s working
relationships. As a part of the research’s groundwork, studying physical artifacts
and texts helped frame the important questions needing answers to better
understand each case as well as quintain. Qualitative research experts see
document review as providing key insights on the foundations and conditions of a
case. It is important to note that texts and artifacts were not faulted but rather
analyzed in their representation and for their effects on the institutionalized
composting program, a strategy to focus on understanding the phenomenon
(Silverman 2006). Some things to consider for this study were the recycling
programs’ implementation in relation to its design and business plan as well as
graphical signs’ effect on clientele during recording of unobtrusive observations.

 
 

 

  34 

 
Interviews
The second source of data for this study was interviews with each
program’s head of operations, often the director of residential and dining services.
Qualitative interviews attempt to understand the subject’s perspective of the world
and more importantly, their lived experience (Kvale 1996). Interviews in this
study were additional fingerprints to the case where subjective perspectives
illustrate the programs’ direct approach in operating a recycling program. A
major advantage of qualitative-centered interviews over their quantitative
counterparts is their ability to gather more in-depth information that often
includes personal details and opinions.
Qualitative interviews in this thesis were semi-structured and conducted
with a general interview guide. Topics of interest and questions characterized the
guide; however, the interviews themselves were flexible and allowed for open, yet
focused dialogue. The structure included in these flexible interviews ensured
cross-case comparability among data (Wengraf 2004) from SPSCC, PLU and
Evergreen. It is important to note that flexibility here did not constitute an
absolutely informal, conversational interview but rather implied the interviewer’s
ability to change the order of questions as well as word choice so long as each
interview covers the same main concepts for research data purposes.
My interviews were open-ended in order to understand the attitudes and
values of those individuals leading sustainability initiatives through
institutionalized composting programs. Interviews were recorded for post-

 
 

 

  35 

 
interview transcription and used as a reference for data analysis. Interviews were
founded on emotionalism, to be collaborative and to involve equal participation
from both parties to bring out authentic experiences that serve as particular
representation and accounts of the interviewee’s views and opinions. Refer to
Appendix A for a glance at the interview guide used in this study.
Unobtrusive, Direct Observations
Composting programs on college campuses not only include those
individuals running the program but also the behavior of clientele (or in social
marketing terms, the “target population”) who utilize campus-dining services.
The experiences of food recycling program individuals such as dining center
clientele were manifested by unobtrusive observation, a data collection technique
generally taking place in the participant’s natural setting – for example, their
workplace, home or a recreation facility. In order to avoid influencing a
participant’s behavior for data collection, researchers blend in with the “natural
setting” during unobtrusive observation (Lee 2000), a strategy which I followed.
Unobtrusive observations were conducted and recorded focusing on
behaviors and compliance of campus dining services clientele’s interaction with
post-consumer1 waste sorting bins. Waste sorting binds included one specified
for composting food scraps and biodegradable utensils as well as others for
recycling and landfill trash. Although participants were not aware that they are
                                                        
1 Post-consumer

refers to matter that are produced at the end of a material’s use, in this case –
food that is leftover from a consumed meal. 

 
 

 

  36 

 
being observed, the events taking place were not considered controversial and this
study did not anticipate any issues arising from an institutional review board
regarding this form of research methods. Unobtrusive observations provided an
avenue for data collection where participants’ actions were observed and recorded
while they were naturally going about their lives.
Comparison of Case Studies
As stated earlier, the group of cases was bound within the Thurston-Pierce
County region with each case being strategically selected. While each case was
important as a stand-alone study, the three cases, as a group study was also
significant to the quintain because it provided the opportunity to conduct a
comparative case study. Studying three unique cases – a two-year public, a fouryear public, and a four-year private institution provided information not on only
how composting programs function at each specific institution but also at college
institutions as a whole within the Thurston-Pierce County region.
For my comparative case study of the group of three composting
programs, I analyzed each individual case carefully and found similar, recurring
themes. With these themes, I made research-based conclusions on the
phenomenon of composting programs at college campuses within the ThurstonPierce County region.

 
 

 

  37 

 

4. RESULTS/PRESENTATION OF DATA
Chapter 4 presents the data I prepared for this thesis study. I derived these
results from the raw data I collected in my primary research. Data is organized by
typology, which then includes the results from each institutionalized composting
program’s case study.
4.1. DESCRIPTIVE INFORMATION REQUEST
4.1.1. Profile of the Three Institutions Studied
As stated earlier, there are numerous similarities as well as differences
among South Puget Sound Community College (SPSCC), The Evergreen State
College (Evergreen) and Pacific Lutheran University (PLU). Table 1: An
Institutional Profile, below, illustrates the fundamental characteristics of each
school and their dining program. Information below were retrieved during the
interview process and followed up by communication after I had sent out my
Descriptive Information Request via e-mail; the Descriptive Information Request
sheet can be found in Appendix B.

 
 

 

  38 

 
Table 3: An Institutional Profile
A snapshot at each institution for the 2010-11 academic year (below).
Following the table, text elaborates in detail each institution’s profile.

Institutional Type
Total Enrollment
Residential Enrollment
# of Institutional Staff
# of Dining Staff
# of Meals Served/Day
Waste Handling Costs
Budget Type
Composting
Site/Hauler
Recycling Site/Hauler
LF3 Trash Site/Hauler
# of Years of
Composting
Talloires Declaration
AASHE STARS
ACUPCC
Recyclemania
Compost Client FW4
Compost Kitchen FW4
Compost Napkins
Compost Cups
Compost Plates
Compost Flatware
Compost Straws
Styrofoam Use
Sustainability
Language5
Sustainability
Group(s)6
Campus Participation7
Curriculum8

 
 

SPSCC

Evergreen

PLU

Two-year, public
~6,000
0
~300 FT, ~400 PT
23
~300
<$15,000
Single1
Off-site/City of
Olympia
Off-site/LeMay
Off-site/LeMay

Four-year, public
~4,300
~917
~500
35
~1,200
>$7,500/year
Multi2

Four-year, private
~3,650
~1,500
~825
~242
~3,000
>$4,000/year
Multi2

Off-site/LeMay
Off-site/LeMay
Off-site/LeMay

Off-site/LeMay
Off-site/LeMay
Off-site/LeMay

5
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No

3
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Sometimes

6
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Sometimes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes
Fac, Stud, Staff
Some

Yes
Fac, Stud, Staff
Yes

Yes
Fac, Stud, Staff
Yes

 

  39 

 
1

Budget type labeled as “single” refers to the program’s financial support
coming from one entity; for example, a recycling program being solely funded by
dining services rather than from more than one entity such as both dining services
as well as facilities.
2
Budget type labeled as “multi” refers to the program’s financial support coming
from more than one entity; for example, a recycling program being funded by
dining services as well as facilities, rather than being solely funded by dining
services only.
3
”LF” is an abbreviation used for “landfill”.
4
”FW” is an abbreviation used for “food waste”.
5
Sustainability language refers to an institution’s mission and value statements –
specifically if sustainability terminology/concepts are used or expressed.
6
Sustainability groups(s) refer to the existence of active groups dedicated to
efforts of sustainability on campus – whether made up of student, faculty and/or
staff.
7
Campus participation refers to faculty, student, and/or staff participation in oncampus efforts towards sustainability other than through dining service, as this is
an important part of campus culture. (Fac = faculty; Stud = student)
8
Curriculum refers to an institution’s commitment to environmental and
sustainability studies.
4.1.2. A Closer Look at South Puget Sound Community College
South Puget Sound Community College (SPSCC) is a public institution
that provides up to an Associate’s Degree as well as many professional/technical
degrees and certificates with an enrollment of approximately 6,000 students.
There are no residential students, as is typical of most community colleges. Total
campus enrollment is about 6,000 students. Approximately 300 institutional staff
members are full-time, while 400 are part-time. The dining staff consists of 23
members: 12 students, six assistants, and five full-time staff. The dining program
serves approximately 300 meals per day.
Institutionalized composting at SPSCC has been in place for the past five
years and will continue. The majority of composting takes place within dining
services, which coordinates with custodial staff for proper waste sorting
techniques. SPSCC dining is unique in that many of their employees are actually

 
 

 

  40 

 
students in a culinary arts program. Waste costs for the 2010-11 year were not
available; however, it is known that the budget for the 2011-12 year is about
$15,000. The program’s budget is funded solely by campus maintenance and
operations. Outside contracts make up a sizeable portion of program costs.
Compost, recyclables and landfill trash are all hauled to off-site locations.
Compost is hauled by the City of Olympia to a holding station then eventually to
Silver Springs Organics (located in Rainier, WA), or straight to Silver Springs
Organics. Recycling and landfill trash are hauled by LeMay, the major private
waste hauling company for the South Puget Sound region. Clients in the dining
area and dining staff in the back-kitchen take part in composting food waste.
Paper napkins are also composted. Compostable cups, plates, flatware, and
straws are not used. According to the program’s interviewee, styrofoam is not
used.
4.1.3. A Closer Look at The Evergreen State College
The Evergreen State College (Evergreen) is a public liberal arts and
science college that primarily serves undergraduate students, but also offers three
Master’s programs. There are over 900 residential students living on campus with
a total campus enrollment of about 4,300. The college employs about 500
institutional staff. The dining staff consists of 35 employees. In total, the dining
program serves approximately 1,200 meals a day.
Institutionalized composting at Evergreen has been in place for the past
three years and will continue. Additionally, composting has occurred on campus

 
 

 

  41 

 
for at least the past 10 years in the residence halls; however, this was inconsistent
and dependent on a number of factors such as dedication of students living in the
residence hall and the on-campus Organic Farm’s capacity for compostable waste
at any given time. Residential and Dining Services (RAD) pays for the waste
handling hauling fees. Job duties for dining staff include handling of all waste
materials, which cuts down on direct costs that would otherwise fund a position
solely focused on this service. In the 2009-10 academic year, dining paid $500 a
month for waste disposal while compost charges were approximately $210 a
month, totaling up to over $7,500 per year in RAD’s waste handling costs. Costs
for recycling were not available. The waste budget comes from multiple sources,
including RAD’s operating budget and campus’ facilities budget. Outside
contracts make up a sizeable portion of program costs. Compost, recyclables and
landfill trash are all hauled to off-site locations by LeMay. Composting is directly
transported to and takes place at Silver Springs Organics. Clients in the dining
area and dining staff in the back-kitchen take part in composting food waste.
Napkins, cups, plates, and flatware are also composted. Compostable straws are
not used. According to the program’s interviewee, styrofoam is a part of the
institution’s waste stream, as it is included in packaging from food suppliers.
4.1.4. A Closer Look at Pacific Lutheran University
Pacific Lutheran University (PLU) offers a unique blend of academically
rigorous liberal arts and professional programs that provide up to a Master’s
Degree. There are about 1,500 residential students living on campus with a total
campus enrollment of over 3,600. The college employs over 800 institutional
 
 

 

  42 

 
staff. In 2010-11, the dining staff was made up of 42 full-time staff and 200
student workers. In total, the dining program serves approximately 3,000 meals a
day.
Institutionalized composting at PLU has been in place for the past six
years and will continue. On average, $4,000 is spent a year just on food
composting. The university saves about $5,000 a year on landfill trash because of
waste diversion towards composting. Costs for recycling and landfill trash were
not available. The waste budget comes from multiple sources, including dining
and campus facilities. Campus facilities initially pays for all of the university’s
waste, then bills each respective department on campus. Dining pays for waste
costs in a total of two buildings on-campus. Compost, recyclables, and landfill
trash are all hauled by LeMay to LRI Landfill (located in Puyallup, WA). Clients
in the dining area and members of the dining staff in the back-kitchen take part in
composting food waste. Napkins, cups, plates, flatware, and straws are also
composted. According to the program’s interviewee, styrofoam is a part of the
institution’s waste stream, as it is included in packaging from food suppliers.
4.2. PHYSICAL ARTIFACTS AND TEXTS
In addition to the Descriptive Information Request, I had requested
physical artifacts and texts that included: plans, reports, signs, and handouts,
whether on paper or Internet from each institution on their program. None of the
sites provided physical artifacts or texts of any program plans. I personally
gathered most of the physical artifacts and texts, which all came in the form of

 
 

 

  43 

 
photo captures during my site visits. Photos were taken of compost, recycling,
and garbage (landfill trash) bins as well as the tray/dish return station. In
addition, photos of current signage were taken.
Similar as well as different themes exist among the physical artifacts and
texts across the three cases studied. Physical artifacts and texts are attributes of
their respective programs and thus, expressive of what is expected from all those
involved in dining’s recycling as well as composting. In this section, I describe
the expectations of clientele as they go through the waste sorting process. I then
follow up with data illustrating each program’s applied effort in getting clientele
to behave in such a way that meets waste sorting expectations.
4.2.1. SPSCC’s Food Composting System
SPSCC’s dining facility is a tray-use program, where students use a tray to
carry all purchased items to the dining area for consumption. Upon finishing a
meal, clientele are expected to take their trays to the waste sorting station and then
appropriately sort their waste, according to the prompts provided by illustrations,
texts and signs complementing bins. When clientele are done sorting waste, they
are expected to take their trays, reusable dishes and reusable flatware to the
tray/dish return station. They are also expected to sort reusable dishes and
flatware by soaking them in dining’s water-filled bins, all labeled, for dishwasher
preparation. SPSCC is the only dining center with two waste sorting stations, so
clientele’s first step in sorting waste is to go to Waste Sorting Station 1 or Waste
Sorting Station 2. Figure 1, below, shows Waste Sorting Station 1, located on an

 
 

 

  44 

 
island, in the middle of an open wall separating the commons from the dining
area.
Figure 1: Waste Sorting Station 1 – SPSCC
The first of two locations for clientele’s first step
in sorting waste at SPSCC dining.

Station 1’s setup consists of three bins for waste sorting in the follow order (left to
right): (1) compost, labeled “Food Recycling Plus!” (2) recyclables, labeled
“Plastic Bottles Aluminum Cans”; and (3) garbage, which is not labeled at all. A
PVC pipe structure serves as a stand for hanging laminated signs that complement
each waste bin. Three identical green-colored compost signs hang above a greencolored compost bin, a blue-colored recycling sign hangs above a blue-colored
recycling bin and a red-colored garbage sign hangs above a gray-colored garbage
bin. Station 1 experiences less frequent traffic from clientele sorting waste than

 
 

 

  45 

 
Station 2 because of its island location and greater distance from the tray/dish
return station.
Figure 2, below, shows Waste Sorting Station 2, located next to a wall, in
the dining area that is just several feet from the tray/dish return station.
Figure 2: Waste Sorting Station 2 – SPSCC
The second of two locations for clientele’s first step
in sorting waste at SPSCC dining.

Station 2 experiences more traffic due to its proximity to the tray/dish return
station and its setup is similar to Station 1 with the exception of the order of bins,
which is different. As seen above, the station has numerous potentially moving
parts, where bins and signs are set up next to but not attached to each other as one
unit. Waste bins are in the following order (left to right): (1) recyclables, labeled
“Plastic Bottles Aluminum Cans”; (2) compost, labeled “Food Recycling Plus!”;
and (3) garbage, which is not labeled at all. A PVC pipe structure serves as a
 
 

 

  46 

 
stand for hanging laminated signs that complement each waste bin. A bluecolored recycling sign hangs above a blue-colored recycling bin and three
identical green-colored compost signs hang above a green-colored compost bin;
however, there is no sign hanging above the garbage bin, as it is entirely
unlabeled. In addition, Station 2 includes two signs that Station 1 does not: a
hanging sign that says, “Please place items in correct bins” as well as a large bifold stand introducing the waste sorting station with, “Your cafeteria
RECYCLING PROGRAM is here!”
Once clientele stop at either Station 1 or Station 2, they face the next step:
a task of sorting multiple kinds of waste. Assuming that some clientele are not
familiar with how to sort their waste, the stations attempt to guide clientele
through the process with color-coded signs that also state what materials should
be put in each bin. Figure 3, below, shows the signage specifically
complementing compost bins. This is an example of an illustrated and text-rich
sign that prompt clientele to sort their waste appropriately, in this case – compost.

 
 

 

  47 

 
Figure 3: Signage Complementing Compost Bins – SPSCC
A look at the design and implementation
of compost bin signage at SPSCC.

The sign for compost is simple and green-colored. A set of three signs
accompanies each green-colored compost bin. Signs are laminated as well as
clean, free of stains and debris. As seen above, the sign is not cluttered nor filled
with so much information that it forces the font size to be miniscule. Clearly
stated is the bin’s acceptance of food scraps, including bones and paper of all
kinds for composting. The picture, which takes up the majority of the sign’s area
exhibits what the contents of the compost bin should look like: filled with various
compostable items including banana peels, strawberries, tomatoes, paper napkins,

 
 

 

  48 

 
and milk cartons. Signs are clear enough to expect a good level of compliance in
sorting waste, so long as clientele take the time to pay attention to signs. After the
sorting process, clientele move toward returning their dishes and flatware.
After sorting waste at Waste Sorting Station 1 OR Waste Sorting Station
2, the clientele’s final step in the waste sorting process is returning their dishes
and flatware, if any, to the tray/dish return station. Figure 4, below, shows the
tray/dish return station.
Figure 4: Tray/Dish Station – SPSCC
A look at SPSCC’s tray/dish return area.

SPSCC’s tray/dish return station, just several feet away from Waste Sorting
Station 2, is a simple and low-tech operation. Dishes, flatware and trays are
separated in preparation for being washed. According to information provided by

 
 

 

  49 

 
the interviewee during this research’s interview process, kitchen staff sort wastes
such as food scraps and paper napkins left on plates appropriately.
4.2.2. Evergreen’s Food Composting System
Evergreen’s dining facility, The Greenery, is a trayless program, where
students carry food by the plate to their tables for consumption. Food is buffet
style, marketed as “all-you-care-to-eat” and small plates are used to discourage
excess food waste. Upon finishing a meal, clientele are expected to take their
plates to the waste sorting station and then appropriately sort their waste,
according to the prompts provided by illustrations, texts and signs complementing
bins. When clientele are done sorting waste, they are expected to take their
reusable dishes and flatware to the dish return station. Evergreen’s program is
unique because their dining center, The Greenery, only has bins for compost as
part of their waste sorting station. Figure 5, below, shows Evergreen’s waste
sorting station, located in a corner of the dining center and directly next to the
dish return station.

 
 

 

  50 

 
Figure 5: Waste Sorting Station – Evergreen
The first step in sorting waste at Evergreen dining
is bringing your wastes to this station.

The station’s setup consists of two bins for waste sorting. As seen above, the bins
are receptacles with circular openings within a countertop. This waste sorting
station is one unit, has no moving parts and the third would-be receptacle is
covered as it is not in use. Signs are not present at this station and bins are
completely unlabeled, giving a plain look to the overall aesthetics. As clientele
arrive at waste sorting station, there is no visual or instruction on what to do, so
they must use their own knowledge or be informed by someone nearby for a
prompt to appropriately sort waste.
Because compost is the only choice in waste sorting here, it seems simpler
than the other programs; however, it can be misleading as any clientele who are at
all knowledgeable of waste sorting most likely is familiar with multiple sorting

 
 

 

  51 

 
options, including compost, recyclables and garbage. Evergreen’s program has
been engineered in such a way that everything used and served are either reusable
or compostable, so in theory, compost bins tray/dish return should be sufficient.
However, because there are no dedicated bins for recyclables or landfill trash,
there is not an obvious way to control what might happen to non-compostable
products from outside the dining center that are brought in, such as plastic bottles
and styrofoam. Clientele most likely will do one of three things with these noncompostable products: contaminate compost bins with them, leave them in a
random location in the dining center or exit the dining center with them in hand.
Figure 6, below, shows the contents of The Greenery’s only type of waste sorting
bin – composting. As stated earlier, the program’s waste sorting is essentially a
single-stream system. Because signs are not used at the waste sorting station, I
instead took a look into the unlabeled compost bin:

 
 

 

  52 

 
Figure 6: A Glimpse Inside An Unlabeled Compost Bin – Evergreen
A look inside the unlabeled compost bin at
Evergreen’s dining center, The Greenery.

The contents of the compost bin included but were not limited to paper basket
liners, french fries, bread, lettuce, tomatoes, condiments, and soil paper napkins.
The second compost bin, not pictured, looked identical to what is seen in Figure
6. Contamination was not observed in these two instances; however, it was not
feasible to capture a profile of each bin. Additional data on potential instances of
contamination is provided in the Direct, Unobtrusive Observations section of this
chapter, which focuses on clientele compliance. After the sorting process,
clientele move toward returning their dishes and flatware. The Greenery uses

 
 

 

  53 

 
conveyer belt system that rotates alongside an open wall separating the dining
area and kitchen dish room. Figure 7 below, shows the tray/dish return station.
Figure 7: Tray/Dish Station – Evergreen
A look at Evergreen’s tray/dish return area.

Evergreen’s tray/dish return station is perpendicularly located next to the waste
sorting station in the same corner. Green trays move along the conveyer belt for
clients to set dishes, flatware and cups on. As Figure 7 shows, food scraps and
soiled paper napkins are also placed on the trays, even though the dining’s
program prefers these items to be sorted into the compost bin. According to
information provided by the interviewee during this research’s interview process,

 
 

 

  54 

 
members of the kitchen staff take leftover wastes such as food scraps and paper
napkins unsorted by clientele and put it into compost bins.
4.2.3. PLU’s Food Composting System
PLU’s dining facility is a tray-use program, where students use a tray to
carry all purchased items to the dining area for consumption. Upon finishing a
meal, clientele are expected to take their trays to the “Dish Return and Recycling
Station”, which is made up of bins for recyclables sorting and a conveyer belt
system for returning trays/dishes.
Figure 8, below, shows the large sign for PLU’s Dish Return and
Recycling Station, which is secluded in its own space and is accessible by two
doorless entryways, near the dining center’s exit. Upon entry into this station,
clientele will find themselves facing the conveyer belt system for returning
trays/dishes, while bins for recyclables sorting will be behind them. As the sign
states, clientele are expected to bus their own tables, thus, bringing all their meal
items including but not limited to: trays, food scraps, napkins, dishes, flatware and
recyclables, among others, to the station.
Figure 8: Sign for “Dish Return and Recycling Station” – PLU
The sign for PLU’s dedicated center to bussing your own dining tables.

 
 

 

  55 

 
Clientele’s first task at this station is to decide how they want to sort their
waste. PLU’s program is unique in that it actually encourages its clientele to
leave everything on their tray and staff in the dish room will “take care” of them
by doing the sorting, a message communicated to clientele by formal and informal
announcements as well as word of mouth. Signs in the dining center specifically
prompting this preference of clientele behavior were not found. However, Figure
9, below, shows the signage used in the Dish Return and Recycling Station
prompting clientele on what to specifically do with trash.

 
 

 

  56 

 
Figure 9: Signage Complementing the Station – PLU
A look at the sign giving clientele choices on what to do with trash at PLU dining.

Located adjacent and immediately to the right of the conveyer belt system (Figure
11, pictured further below) for returning trays/dishes, the sign prompts clientele
with the message: “Throw it away OR Leave on your tray.” In addition, finer
print provides details on what is considered trash for the landfill and what
materials are accepted for recycling. This sign implies that clientele have a choice
of having members of kitchen staff “take care” of their waste by leaving it all on
the tray or sorting it on their own. Clientele who reach this point of the waste
sorting and clean up process will more than likely leave their trash on trays along
with dishes, cups, flatware, and assorted wastes all on the conveyer belt, a

 
 

 

  57 

 
practice that the program prefers. In terms of clientele expectation, compliance is
met if they leave everything on their tray because of PLU dining’s unique
program. So long as dining employees sort wastes in the back dish room
correctly, compliance in terms kitchen staff is high and waste contamination will
be close to none, if any.
If clientele decide to sort their own wastes after seeing this sign, it would
require them to backtrack, making it a more inconvenient process. Recyclables
are self-sorted in the bins, pictured below in Figure 10, which are located
opposite of the tray/dish area in the station. Sorting trash at this point is even
more out of the way because their respective bins are located outside of the Dish
Return and Recycling Station and instead, in the main dining area.
Figure 10: Recyclables Sorting Area – PLU
The recyclables area for self-sorting clientele at PLU dining.

 
 

 

  58 

 
The setup of PLU dining’s recyclables area consists of five bins, each with
“Recycle Here” signs for sorting, in the follow order (left to right): two
consecutive plastics/glass, each labeled “Recycle all plastics #1-7” as well as
“Please remove lid = TRASH” cans; newspapers; and paper. As seen above, the
bins are receptacles with openings within a countertop. Plastics, glass and cans
have receptacles with circular openings while newspaper and paper have
elongated, rectangular openings. The recycling area is one unit and has no
moving parts. Signs are laminated, clean and clear in terms what items are
expected in each respective bin. While the program does not use pictures to
visually exhibit what items are accepted in each bin, the recyclables area remains
organized and aesthetically pleasing to look at. However, this area is seldom used
due to the convenient choice for clientele to “leave it on the tray.” Figure 11,
below, shows the tray/dish area where clientele “leave it on the tray.”
Figure 11: Tray/Dish Area – PLU
A look at PLU’s tray/dish return area, where clientele
are encouraged to “leave it on the tray”.

 
 

 

  59 

 
PLU’s tray/dish return area uses a conveyer belt to rotate trays in-between a wall
separating clientele’s drop off point, the Dish Return and Recycling Station from
the back dish room, where members of the kitchen staff retrieve items to “take
care” of by sorting wastes. As Figure 11 shows, items returned on the conveyer
belt system include soda cans, paper boxes, reusable plastic cups, soiled paper
napkins, paper liners, and food scraps, among others. According to information
provided by the interviewee during this research’s interview process, members of
the kitchen staff are well-trained in correctly sorting items and waste left on trays.
4.3. UNOBTRUSIVE, DIRECT OBSERVATIONS
At each research site, dining services’ clientele were observed during peak
lunch hour, 11:30AM-1:00PM, while they were performing post-consumer duties
such as returning their meal trays and ridding them of their leftover waste.
Leftover waste included but was not limited to: food, metals, plastics, and paper
items. The exact location for observation points varied among each site but none
were any more than 20 feet away from waste sorting stations. Observation points
were dependent on the location of recycling station and tray/dish return station,
areas that were adjacent to each other at all three institutions studied. I had a meal
in front of me during each observation session as an added effort to minimize my
research subjects’ sense of being observed and decreasing any likelihood of bias.
However organized, sporadic, developed, or undeveloped an
institutionalized program is, there is a vision of what it might look like once
implemented. Visions express the hoped-for outcomes and are unique to each

 
 

 

  60 

 
program based upon their intended goals. My objective was to observe clientele’s
level of compliance and behavior as they sorted their waste. Because programs
are unique and compliance has different meanings among them, observations
were based on each program’s definition of the term, compliance. It is important
to note that during the waste sorting process, certain clientele may have had all
types of wastes to sort (e.g. recyclables, compost and trash) while others may
have had only one to sort (e.g. trash). My observations addressed the following
questions: (1) How well do clientele sort waste? (2) Do clientele pay attention to
signs containing information and prompts on how to properly sort waste? (3)
What are the general behaviors of clientele as they sort their waste? Clientele’s
compliance in each program was described as one of the following: fully, partly,
or not at all. Table 2, below, describes each program’s definition of compliance.

 
 

 

  61 

 
Table 4: Levels of Compliance
Described are the various definitions of compliance by program.
Fully Comply

Partly Comply

Not At All

SPSCC
Sorting bin
options:
(1) Recycling
(2) Composting
(3) Trash

Sorting all waste
in their respective
bins correctly

Sorting at least
one item in its
respective bin
correctly
BUT
also failure to sort
at least one thing
in its respective
bin correctly

Doing no sorting
OR
failing to do any
correct waste
sorting

Evergreen
Sorting bin
options:
(1) Composting

Sorting all
compostable
waste in its
respective bin
correctly

Sorting at least
one compostable
waste item in its
respective bin
correctly
BUT
also failure to sort
at least one item
correctly

Doing no sorting
OR
failing to do any
correct waste
sorting

PLU
Sorting bin
options:
(1) Plastics/glass
(2) Cans
(3) Newspaper
(4) Mixed paper

Leaving all waste
on tray
AND/OR
sorting all waste
in their respective
bins correctly

Leaving some
waste on tray
AND/OR
sorting at least
one item in its
respective bin
correctly
BUT
also failure to sort
at least one item
correctly

Sorting all waste
on tray
HOWEVER
resulting in the
failure to do any
waste sorting
correctly

4.3.1. South Puget Sound Community College (SPSCC)
Post-consumer activity was observed in SPSCC’s dining center, which is a
square-shaped room with an open view. I was seated near both the recycling and
tray/dish station with clear views of activity for observations. An estimated 50

 
 

 

  62 

 
consumers were in the dining area at all times during this 90-minute observation
period. SPSCC observations were recorded only at Waste Sorting Station 2, as
Station 1 experienced very little traffic. While a table labeled “Recycling
Coordinator’s Work Station” was next to Station 1, it was unoccupied, leaving the
station unattended, the status quo of all sorting stations observed in my research
study. Twenty-six dining clients in total utilized Station 2 with mixed results in
their levels of compliance. All individuals utilizing Station 2 in the 90-minute
observation period are included in my sample; this was possible due to the slower
clientele traffic of SPSCC’s dining center. Recorded observations were analyzed
to quantify levels of compliance and find patterns of the general behavior
regarding each level of compliance. The following statistics resulted from
observing this sample of 26 clients:
1. Nineteen percent (19%), or 5 of the 26 clients, observed were fully in
compliance with SPSCC’s institutionalized recycling and composting
program.
Although all wastes were sorted correctly, each individual of the fully compliant
group did so without referring to the signs; in fact, they paid them no attention.
All these clients went straight to the bins they needed to, without any visible
external prompts or hesitation. While the pace among all clientele varied, the
recurring similarities leads me to believe that clients at SPSCC who sort all waste
correctly know how to do so on their own, or have been previously trained, as
they do not pay attention to signs.

 
 

 

  63 

 
2. Sixteen percent (16%), or 4 of the 26 clients, observed were partially in
compliance with SPSCC’s institutionalized recycling and composting
program.
Although the partly compliant group did pay attention and refer to the signs, they
only sorted a portion of their waste correctly. I found all these clients intentional
as they read signs and sorted their waste based on the information they gathered.
With the exception of one client, all people observed took their time. While
clientele seem to make an attempt at sorting waste properly by referring to the
bins’ complementary signs, this leads me to believe that signs have room for
improvement in terms of clarity in its information provided.
3. Sixty-five percent (65%), or 17 of the 26 clients, observed were not at all
in compliance with SPSCC’s institutionalized recycling and composting
program.
Each individual of this noncompliance group paid no attention to the signs as they
failed to do any correct sorting of waste. These clients went directly to garbage
bins at Station 2 as if recycling and/or composting were not available as options
and without any visible external prompts or hesitation. The general behavior of
everyone in this group could be described as hasty, nonchalant, and careless—
nothing in between. This all leads me to believe that they are either in a rush
and/or careless about properly sorting waste. Because signs were ignored or not
seen, no inference can be made in the effectiveness of information on signs.

 
 

 

  64 

 
Over fifty percent (>50%) of my sample make up the group of people
whom did not all attempt to comply with the program’s waste sorting process,
despite information and prompts provided by signage.
4.3.2. The Evergreen State College (Evergreen)
Post-consumer activity was observed at Evergreen’s dining center, The
Greenery, which is an L-shaped room with many blind spots for an observer – in
this case, me. I was seated near the recycling station consisting of only compost,
of which I had a clear view. However, the tray/dish station was behind an islandwall. I was not able to record observations beyond this island-wall but still
gathered data focused sorting waste at the recycling station. An estimated 100
consumers were in the dining area at all times during this 90-minute observation
period. Most of the individuals utilizing the recycling station in the 90-minute
observation period are included in my sample; just a handful of clientele were not
observed as it was not possible to keep up with each individual due to the fast,
clustered clientele traffic of Evergreen’s Greenery. Recorded observations were
analyzed to quantify levels of compliance and find patterns of the general
behavior regarding each level of compliance. The following statistics resulted
from observing this sample of 54 clients:
1. Seventy percent (70%), or 38 of the 54 clients, observed were fully in
compliance with Evergreen’s institutionalized recycling and composting
program, The Greenery.

 
 

 

  65 

 
Although there were no signs of information or prompts to sort waste, a good
portion of clientele were fully compliant and sorted all of their wastes correctly.
These clients went straight to the compost bin and cleared their plates of waste, all
of which was compostable. Their pace varied but most did it in an ordinary,
normal-paced manner with little to no visible thinking involved in the process and
promptly returned their non-compostables to the tray/dish return station. This
nonchalant behavior that produced compliance indicates that most clientele have
knowledge on how to properly sort waste at The Greenery. Clientele’s
knowledge of correct sorting may have come from a previous educational
program, through word-of-mouth, or from some other form of communication.
2. Eight percent (8%), or 4 of the 54 clients, observed were partially in
compliance with Evergreen’s institutionalized recycling and composting
program, The Greenery.
Clientele here sorted food scraps and soiled paper napkins into compost, but left
their plates and flatware on the counter of the receptacle bins. One of the four
clients additionally left a recyclable plastic soda bottle on the counter while all
clientele had a normal, nonchalant pace. These clientele’s similar behavior of
being nonchalant, normal-paced while doing their waste sorting while still leaving
dishes and flatware on the counter (when it is obvious that it is not the place to
leave such items), coupled with the tray/dish return center being located
immediately behind them, infers that they may just be careless.

 
 

 

  66 

 
3. Twenty-two percent (22%), or 12 of the 54 clients, observed were not at
all in compliance with Evergreen’s institutionalized recycling and
composting program, The Greenery.
Each and every one of these clients went straight to the tray/dish return station to
return their dishes and flatware along with leftover food scraps and soiled
napkins, leaving the sorting work for kitchen staff. All these clients went straight
to the station without any visible external prompts or hesitation. There was no
visibility of any rush-pace from these individuals; instead, they seemed rather
normal/nonchalant, leading me to think that they may just be careless.
Nearly eighty percent (80%) of my sample make up the group of people
whom sorted at least some of their waste, despite the lack of signage that are
traditionally used to provide information and prompts on how to do so. The
majority of this group sorted everything correctly.
4.3.3. Pacific Lutheran University (PLU)
As stated earlier, PLU’s Dish Return and Recycling Station is secluded in
its own space and is accessible by two doorless entryways, near the dining
center’s exit. Observing in this small room and in close proximity to my targets
of study would have greatly induced the Hawthorne Effect, the phenomenon that
describes human’s change of behavior in response to knowing they are being
watched. Instead, I was only able to focus my observations on dining service
clientele as they stepped out of the secluded station. Rather than input
observations from PLU dining, I have decided to omit them as to avoid any

 
 

 

  67 

 
unnecessary unparallel data in this thesis. However, I will mention that more than
100 consumers were present in the dining area at all times during this hour-and-ahalf observation period.
4.4. INTERVIEWS: VIEWING THE PROGRAM FROM INSIDE-OUT
My informants at each site held different position titles; however, all were
similar in that they serve an important role in their institution’s recycling
program. Responses to the 10 sets of questions are grouped by category (e.g.
background of interviewee, history of program, etc.) and presented by institution
to search for patterns in interviewees’ responses in terms of their own program as
well as other institutions’ programs. Each interview conducted had a length of
approximately one hour and was based on the interview guide, found in
Appendix A.
4.4.1. South Puget Sound Community College (SPSCC)
SPSCC Interviewee(s) Background
The semi-structured, qualitative interview at SPSCC included two
interviewees, who were the dean of facilities and operations (Interviewee 1) and
the campus-wide custodial services manager (Interviewee 2). Combined, the
interviewees have 20 years of working experience at SPSCC. Interviewee 1 has
previous experience managing capital projects on campus while Interviewee 2 has
worked directly under dining services as a custodian.

 
 

 

  68 

 
History of the SPSCC Program
SPSCC started its program 17 years ago, just following the State of
Washington’s mandate on recycling. Interviewee 2 explained that while it was
required to start a recycling program, the staff member who took the lead on
jumpstarting it was passionate about doing so. Interviewee 2 took over the
program once her predecessor moved on about 16 years ago. Composting was
voluntarily integrated into SPSCC’s recycling program 5 years ago through
collaboration with Thurston County and LeMay Inc. in a composting program
called Food Recycling Plus.
When asked about the campus’ extent of composting, I learned that Food
Recycling Plus is mainly practiced in the dining center but smaller bins for
composting have been finding their way into staff and faculty breakrooms. Both
interviewees volunteered additional information by bringing up the issue of
sustainability and how it is a part of the institution’s set of core values. They took
pride in SPSCC’s LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design)
certified buildings and use of EPA-approved, green cleaning products.
When asked about the initial goals of the program, Interviewee 2 referred
back to Washington’s mandate on recycling but also expressed the consensus of
SPSCC wanting to do the right thing. Interviewee 2 was a colleague with a
LeMay employee, which granted SPSCC the opportunity to integrate composting
into their program. Interviewee 2 expressed much joy when speaking about

 
 

 

  69 

 
SPSCC’s role in the collaboration, serving as the pilot site, which put a spotlight
on the institution for about a year.
Logistics of the SPSCC Program
Because materials go to the large-scale, thermophilic2 Silver Springs plant,
SPSCC is able to collect both pre- and post-consumer waste that is compostable.
Items collected for composting include but are not limited to: food scraps, pizza
boxes, paper napkins, paper cups, coffee cup sleeves, and cardboard. Locations
of bins for collecting compostable materials are the dining center and some
breakrooms on campus. Custodial staff takes compostable waste in each building
to one main area while two regular male volunteers pick these up and take them to
the centralized waste area on campus in preparation for hauling by City of
Olympia to take off-campus to Silver Springs, which takes place once a week.
As the program has improved in reducing and diverting wastes, costs have
decreased. Program costs consist of the following: garbage, about $1,200/month;
recycling, about $600/month; cardboard, about $100/container/month; and
compost, about $200/month. There is continued dialogue between my
interviewees and other administrative staff about strategic efforts to increase
savings and decrease program costs. One strategic effort currently in practice is
the investment and use of a recycling compactor to decrease loads, which
decreases the number of hauling trips needed. Interviewee 2 believes that the
                                                        
2 Thermophilic

refers to the temperatures between 113 and 252 °F – in this context, Silver Springs
practices thermophilic composting, where high temperatures kill off pathogens, producing
compost materials that are safe to apply. 

 
 

 

  70 

 
program is cost-effective and elaborated on this by reiterating the program’s
current success in diverting waste. Future plans include the removal of unutilized
waste containers that are being hauled and charged for, which will save even more
money. Explicit numbers were not provided in characterizing how monetarily
cost-effective SPSCC’s program is, as my interviewee had only comments in the
qualitative sense.
Success of the SPSCC Program and Evaluation
Interviewee 2 expressed the importance of being a great recycler and saw
success as diverting everything possible out of the waste stream. Increased
recycling and composting stood out in the conversation as the major means to
meet this kind of success. Waste education for student clientele is a hoped-for
strategy as college populations are transient, especially at a two-year institution
such as SPSCC.
Specific targets for success are not explicitly quantitative, although the
program does wish to lower its costs. The program also hopes to find more
success by garnering sustained support and interest through participation in events
such as Recyclemania, Earth Day, and the ACUPCC. The program wishes to
keep recycling in a constant spotlight rather than have it be an episodic endeavor
that peaks and wanes. Major challenges that the program experiences are dining
center clientele sorting waste incorrectly because of carelessness or lack of
attention to signage and the inability to expand composting practices campuswide due to lack of manpower.

 
 

 

  71 

 
Targets for success are tracked to a “certain extent”, said Interviewee 2.
Waste audits are done “every now and then,” including for Earth Day, which is
sometimes used in conjunction with the yearly report to the President’s Climate
Commitment.
When asked about the dissemination of information on the program such
as information about evaluation, both interviewees laughingly admitted, “We
communicate…to each other.” An education and outreach program is in the
works to provide both students and visitors to the campus with information on
SPSCC’s progressive efforts such as waste reduction. As program evaluations are
completed, the program would like to adopt more waste reduction practices that
will help manage items such as shrink-wrap and styrofoam.
Glitches and Challenges of the SPSCC Program
Thus far, the program seeks to improve itself after receiving evaluation
results by communicating primarily with SPSCC’s culinary arts students.
Because these students do everything from preparing to serving food as well as
cleaning up the dining center, Interviewee 2 finds that integrating proper recycling
and composting practices into the culinary arts’ beginning-of-the-quarter
orientation is most effective. If things were not being done right, Interviewee 2
would revisit the students first thing in the morning prior to their class starting to
review proper practices. However, these follow-up visits are reliant on
Interviewee 2’s work schedule. Otherwise, follow-up visits will not occur but

 
 

 

  72 

 
sometimes this information can be passed down to the kitchen manager who can
then communicate it to the students.
As the program has evolved, adjustments have been made to improve the
program and to keep things going as smoothly as possible. Five locations on
campus for waste pickup by LeMay have been lessened to two for a more
convenient hauling process. In addition, there are now two regular workers whom
the program relies on to operate an 18-foot trailer as a means to consolidate waste
at these two central pickup locations on campus. In the dining center, a student
volunteer serves as the “recycling coordinator” at SPSCC’s Waste Sorting Station
1 during the two-hour lunch rush. This 11-1PM monitoring period allows for the
student volunteer to ensure clientele are compliant with the recycling and
composting program by properly self-sorting wastes into composting, recycling
and trash bins. It is important to note that this interview took place in April 2011
and during my two subsequent visits to SPSCC’s dining center in September as
well as November 2011, a clearly labeled workstation for the recycling
coordinator was left unattended and the student volunteer mentioned in the
interview was not seen. In my follow-up communication with SPSCC dining, I
learned that the recycling coordinator position was left unfilled in the 2011-12
year.
Compliance Patterns Among the SPSCC Program’s Clientele
When asked about the compliance patterns among those utilizing
SPSCC’s dining center, Interviewee 2 believes dining staff do it best, followed by

 
 

 

  73 

 
campus faculty as well as other institutional staff, while students are the worst.
The gauge of dining staff is that the three head chefs are on board with the
program, provide a great level of compliance in proper sorting in terms of preconsumer waste and do a good job at trying to get other dining staff members to
do it correctly. It is believed that half of the students are compliant in sorting
waste and non-compliance is most likely due to people being in a rush as well as
thoughtlessness.
Staff and faculty are believed to comply more than students but less than
dining staff. By increasing the attention paid to recycling, the program plans to
integrate more compost bins in staff and faculty break-rooms. The hope is that
the strategy will create a greater sense of normalcy in sorting numerous types of
waste, make clientele more conscientious, and translate to greater compliance in
the dining center.
Regardless of the inconsistent compliance experienced from dining
clientele, the program does receive some positive comments from people on their
effort in partaking in composting. At the same time, the program sometimes also
receives e-mails and phone calls from clientele reporting excess contamination in
bins. These informal feedback comments shows that while some clients sort
waste incorrectly for a multitude of reasons including carelessness, there are also
people who care enough to report excess contamination in bins.

 
 

 

  74 

 
Communication of Composting and Sorting Food Waste
to SPSCC Staff, Faculty, and Students
To garner participation from dining clientele to properly sort waste, the
program uses advertising techniques with stickers and signs complementing waste
bins, all of which were seen during my periods of data collection by direct
observation. The program moves encouragement forward by participating in
educational events such as National Chemistry Week3 as opportunities to inform
more people about its efforts. Participation in the 2010 National Chemistry Week
was through a tabling event that highlighted composting as a practice on campus
and the chemistry principles along with it as a scientific process. In the future,
campus as well as faculty and staff newspapers will serve as outlets to encourage
more people to participate in the recycling program.
Marketing Techniques at SPSCC
While there was mention of advertising, a common tool in the broader
field of marketing, used in the program, interviewees did not seem too familiar
with the term social marketing. When asked if they knew what the term meant,
Interviewee 2 responded by saying “To a certain extent.” Per their request, I
briefed them through a handout providing an overview of social marketing (SM)
and also explained community-based social marketing (CBSM).

                                                        
3 National

Chemistry Week refers to the annual event that takes place in the United States to raise
public awareness of the importance of chemistry in everyday life. It is coordinated by the
American Chemistry Society (ACS) and brings together businesses, schools, and individuals 

 
 

 

  75 

 
Social marketing techniques have not been necessarily practiced in a
conscious manner to encourage participation in SPSCC’s recycling and
composting program. However, Interviewee 1 believes it is something they need
to do (use more SM in their program) and elaborated on this by expressing the
need to “get it out there,” “talk about it more,” and “get people talking to us
more.” Once SM allows for this increased dialogue regarding SPSCC’s recycling
and composting program, Interviewee 1 said, “There is going to be a lot of culture
change happening.” Interviewee 2 sees the potential of practicing SM to a
“certain extent with guilt” where dining clientele can be shamed with their
noncompliance by looking at the level contamination in waste bins and being
notified that even kids in SPSCC’s Head Start program are on board with the
recycling and composting program.
As our conversation in regards to SM was coming to a close, Interviewee
2 assured me of their confidence in the potential of using SM as well as CBSM to
break down barriers for better compliance, especially through education.
Other Forms of Sustainability Practiced
Interviewee 1 was honest to me about the need for the dining program to
be financially self-sustaining. Consequently, the program has a small budget so it
is not feasible to purchase the more expensive biodegradable plates, cups, and
utensils. However, the program uses other best practices where they can, such as
recycling shipping materials and repurposing as well as reusing non-recyclables
(i.e. styrofoam). SPSCC dining does use napkins that are compostable and serves

 
 

 

  76 

 
smaller food portions on smaller plates. Interviewee 1 indicated that marketing
and cost-reduction are the program’s intentions for smaller food portions on
smaller plates and he admitted that the production of less food waste is a positive,
unintended consequence.
Final Comment at SPSCC
“Keep your eye on it (SPSCC’s composting program) because we are going to do
good in the future – I can guarantee it.”
–Interviewee 2’s response when asked about any additional comments on
their program.
4.4.2. The Evergreen State College (Evergreen)
Evergreen Interviewee Background
The semi-structured, qualitative interview at Evergreen was with the
director of dining and residential services. The interviewee has been a staff
member at Evergreen for four years and serves solely in this position. The
interviewee’s experience included serving as the assistant dean of residence life at
Reed College in Portland, OR, a small and private liberal arts school.
History of the Evergreen Program
Recycling has been taking place for some time now at Evergreen and
composting unofficially began 10 years ago through interested students who
resided on campus, “in the back of the house” with dining and the campus’
organic farm (OF). Practicing composting during this initial phase was not
 
 

 

  77 

 
optimal as successful operations were heavily reliant on the OF’s waste load
capacity and concurrent students’ level of interest for investing time in such
efforts. Several years ago, a student in Evergreen’s Practicing Sustainable
Agriculture academic program served as an intern for Aramark. Aramark is the
food service provider for Evergreen and their contract includes funding for a
student sustainability internship.
The student intern located a small, local farm that would use dining
services’ pre-consumer food waste as food for their pigs; however, this was
during the same time period that dining services integrated biodegradable corn
silverware and paper plates. This ended up not being a good solution because
these biodegradable products would be co-mingled with food waste. Pigs could
have a difficult time with digestion of the biodegradable utensils made of corn
products.
Shortly after this predicament occurred and after continued explorations
on how to manage compost waste, Evergreen’s official institutionalized
composting program started, which is now just over three years old. Evergreen
took advantage of Thurston County’s implementation of the Food Plus Recycling
program, of which SPSCC is also a part, by joining in on the collaboration.
Evergreen’s sustainability initiatives, the student intern’s dedication and the hope
to save money on garbage, among other factors, all played a role in establishing
this composting program.

 
 

 

  78 

 
Because residential and dining services, not campus facilities, are in
charge of the program, composting bins are confined to dining services facilities
and residential halls. It is not feasible to integrate composting everywhere on
campus because that would require major program expansion and additional staff
to transport compost from other campus buildings to a central campus location for
hauling by LeMay. On-campus students benefit most from the program, as they
are able compost during their meals in the dining centers and at home, in the
residential halls.
The program’s initial goals were informally shared based on waste
reduction and to simply see if they could “do it.” By do it, the interviewee meant
successful coordination in getting wastes to centralized locations on campus and
prepared for LeMay to haul away as well as minimal contamination in compost
bins that are also neither too wet nor too dry. Despite the program’s success in
reaching these goals to a certain extent, the interview sees composting as a labor
or love, adding, “…composting is a lot of containers and a lot of time.”
Logistics of the Evergreen Program
My interviewee believes that participating in Thurston County’s Food
Recycling Plus program is especially advantageous for the ease of composting
because materials such as bones, normally not accepted in other programs, are
acceptable. Compostable items at Evergreen also include but are not limited to
biodegradable utensils, paper all kinds so long as it is not wax-lined, food scraps,
and liquids.

 
 

 

  79 

 
As stated earlier, compostable items are collected in residence halls and
dining services facilities. Compost bins are in each on-campus apartment while
they are on every other floor in residence halls and if students wish, they may
have a bin for their room. Compost is also collected in dining services facilities
including cafes and the main dining center, The Greenery, for pre- as well as postconsumer waste. Those on campus who would like to compost while in an area
lacking compost bins have to be dedicated, because they need to hold onto
compostables until they find a bin in a residence hall or dining center facility.
The group of individuals who handle compost at Evergreen varies and is
dependent on where bins are located. Residents of apartments and those who
have personal compost bins in residence hall rooms are responsible in
transporting their waste to a centralized location that is designated for their
building. Student volunteers who reside in the halls are responsible for handling
compost bins located on every other floor. Staff members take care of all
compost bins within the dining service facilities. LeMay then hauls Evergreen’s
compostables directly from the centralized, on campus locations to Silver Springs
once a week.
My interviewee expressed the unfortunate fact that the program is
currently not cost-effective, but it is “definitely the right and great thing to do.”
Because compost is cheaper than garbage to handle, it has the potential to create
cost-savings for Evergreen. However, garbage fees are charged per container, of
which there are many in dining services’ facilities. If the number of garbage

 
 

 

  80 

 
containers is lessened and more waste can be diverted to recycling and
composting, the interviewee believes cost savings is more attainable.
Success of the Evergreen Program and Evaluation
While the program does not have a lot of written goals, sustainability has
always been a part of the institution’s mission. My interviewee saw program
success as having compost bins everywhere on campus, a waste stream that is
truly integrated and a population that is knowledgeable on how to comply with
proper sorting. Because food is being produced and consumed beyond residence
halls and dining services facilities, this vision will help the campus divert more
waste away from the landfill.
In lieu of having the funding to fill an ideal position dedicated to
evaluative measures, the program relies on interns and volunteers. Waste audits
are performed during Recyclemania to check both the compliance and
contamination levels of each bin. These results are reported back to the college in
both formal and informal settings. In particular, on-campus resident populations
receive this information as feedback on their ability to sort waste correctly.
My interviewee believes that a cyclical system, where people are
constantly being educated on how to manage waste, is needed. The program’s
targets for success change over time as it gains experience of progress as well as
setbacks. Results from the previous year’s waste audit showed that about 70
percent of items in garbage bins were either recyclable or compostable. During

 
 

 

  81 

 
the time of interview, my interviewee’s overall goal was to reduce this
contamination level of waste from 70 down to 10 percent.
Glitches and Challenges of the Evergreen Program
Informal and continuous evaluations take place as my interviewee
continually focuses on the program’s daily happenings through qualitative
measures. A strategy of minimizing the number of waste bins in The Greenery
has found some success but has continued to bring on some confusion as how to
properly sort waste despite there being only one compost bin available. Oncampus events that use catering through dining services also pose a challenge as
clientele there may be large groups of transients who are unfamiliar with sorting
wastes.
With resources in mind, the program looks for feasible means of
improvement based on results from the continuous evaluations. Education
continues to be a huge leverage point, especially for on-campus residents who
may lead the way, serve as assertive “new eyes” and try to fix improper sorting
behavior. It is in the program’s best interest to assume clientele do not have any
knowledge about waste sorting to ensure everyone is receiving identical
information and prompts. An ideal would be to designate a position to monitor
waste bins to ensure proper waste sorting, but this is very expensive. My
interviewee admits to being a “do-er” and when time allows, volunteers to
monitor waste bins during large catering events.

 
 

 

  82 

 
Compliance Patterns Among the Evergreen Program’s Clientele
When asked about the compliance patterns among those utilizing The
Greenery, my interviewee believes dining staff does it best followed by everyone
else on campus. This difference in compliance patterns among clientele exists
despite the majority of all waste being compostable. While far from perfect,
dining clientele as a whole is continuously improving in terms of their compliance
with the composting program. My interviewee observed that dining staff is easier
to train in proper sorting behavior because they are a smaller clientele group than
institutional faculty, staff and students.
My interviewee has noticed that even though institutional faculty and staff
members’ proclaim their confidence in proper waste sorting, they are
noncompliant at campus events. Continuous reminders and waste bin monitors
during large events, such as those hosted by catering, seem to have improved the
compliance of clientele. Students, on the other hand, seem to improve with time
after the school year begins and are more likely to put compostable materials in
the landfill trash bin rather than landfill trash materials in the compost bin.
The program continues to receive informal feedback that indicates the
clientele’s support of its recycling and composting practices. Beyond the
program’s likeability, many clientele wonder why compost bins are not
everywhere on campus, while my interviewee said, “Zealots wished the campus

 
 

 

  83 

 
had a closed-loop waste system4.” As stated earlier, these ideals are not currently
feasible due to resource limitations of such a large program expansion. For
instance, finding a market for the excess soil amendment produced in the form of
compost on campus would be a challenge, an issue that businesses like Silver
Springs Organics continues to face, my interviewee informed me.
Communication of Composting and Sorting Food Waste
to Evergreen Staff, Faculty, and Students
Residential and Dining (RAD) practices sustainability by integrating
composting whenever and wherever possible. “How-to” posters are in
residential-dining facilities and e-mails are sent to faculty as well as staff. In
addition, admissions counselors inform prospective students about the college’s
composting program. My interviewee ensures dissemination of RAD’s campus
sustainability progress as part of their work as chair of Evergreen’s student affairs
division.
The program uses feedback from informal evaluations and waste audits to
move the program forward. LeMay provides informal evaluations, which serve as
warnings, to the program in instances of particularly high levels of contamination
in a given waste stream. Waste audits conducted during Recyclemania also focus
on contamination levels in each waste stream. The difference between LeMay’s
evaluations and Evergreen’s Recylemania waste audits is that the former can be a
                                                        
4 Closed-loop

waste system in this context refers to a system where recyclables and compostables
on-campus are maintained on campus during their lifecycle(s). For instance, recyclables are
recycled or reused through repurpose and an on-campus composting system would process and
breakdown compostable materials to create compost product; none of these materials would leave
the campus (in which case, it would be a “open-loop waste system” – the majority of all waste
systems for institutions). 

 
 

 

  84 

 
factor in LeMay no longer accepting waste from Evergreen due to an excess in
contamination while the latter is a completely voluntary, institutional activity.
Results from evaluations and waste audits completed are used as baselines for
points of improvement.
Marketing Techniques at Evergreen
My interviewee showed that the program has used social marketing and
social media as strategies to get clientele to participate in waste sorting
compliantly; however, she admitted that they were not quite familiar with the
term “community-based social marketing.” My interviewee said that
brainstorming has been an ongoing activity in which staff try to think of new
ways to “…make programs more conducive to different crowds” by
“…break(ing) down some of those barriers.” Hearing these two statements from
my interviewee indicated that while “CBSM” was an unfamiliar term, its tools
were unconsciously being used.
Freshman students are strong targets for the program because the majority
of them reside on campus. In addition, freshmen are seen as the infants of
college, holding the greatest potential for learning and sticking with proper waste
sorting behavior. Students living in residence halls, primarily freshmen, are
regularly given informal report cards with letter grades from their resident
advisors on how they are doing in sorting recyclables and compostables. My
interviewee stated that although Evergreen as an educational institution does not
give letter grades in their academic programs, residential students enjoy receiving

 
 

 

  85 

 
them in terms of waste sorting compliance and seem to become more accountable
given the feedback. The hopes of targeting freshmen are that they will move out
to apartments or houses with strong intentions to continue properly sorting
compostables, recyclables and other wastes.
Social marketing and CBSM thinking has helped the program in a number
of ways but there is room for improvement. Results from a survey conducted by a
past student intern reports that about 80 percent of residential students rated
sustainability as of high importance to them. However, the high importance was
not reflected in their behavior as contamination of compost as well as recycle bins
were high and compliance was low. The lack of information or ignorance of
signage serves as barriers to better compliance. My interviewee believes that
however informative, clear, and flashy a sign is, it serves no purpose if clientele
decide to ignore it altogether. Barriers to better compliance must continue to be
uncovered and addressed.
Other Forms of Sustainability Practiced at Evergreen
RAD has integrated many cutting edge products for their program,
including biodegradable utensils, plates, cups, and paper napkins. Styrofoam is
not purchased but sometimes is a byproduct of package shipments. Because The
Greenery is a buffet-style facility, food is served with reusable utensils, plates and
cups. However, biodegradable materials are used at other facilities, such as
RAD’s numerous on-campus cafes and a la carte markets. Compostable paper
napkins are used at all of RAD’s facilities. Additional sustainable efforts

 
 

 

  86 

 
practiced by RAD are promoting less food waste, sourcing more local as well as
organic, and being strategic on ordering food with containers that are recyclable
or reusable.
Final Comment at Evergreen
“No, I think that covered it.”
–My interviewee’s response when asked about any additional comments
on their program.
4.4.3. Pacific Lutheran University (PLU)
PLU Interviewee Background
The semi-structured, qualitative interview at PLU was with its sole
manager of The Commons, the institution’s main dining facility operated by
Dining & Culinary Services. My interviewee has been employed by PLU’s
Dining & Culinary Services for 21 years and been in her current managerial
position for just over a year. Prior to working at PLU, the interviewee served as
director for Marriott at the Frank Russell building and as bookkeeper for
Weyerhaeuser. My interviewee’s current job as sole manager is her first position
in dining services management.
History of the Program
Six years ago, the building that houses PLU’s main dining facility went
through a five-month renovation that forced The Commons to serve food in an
older building with no dishroom. Dining & Culinary Services learned that
 
 

 

  87 

 
reusable wares could not be utilized under the guide of the health department due
to their lack of access to a dishroom. The most quick and logical response that
came to mind was utilizing all paper and plastic wares but the thought of
increased landfill trash deterred PLU from settling on this solution.
As a consequence, PLU collaborated with their waste management
company, LeMay, to start a composting program as a remedy to avoid the
increase in landfill trash. A small, temporary dishwashing machine was installed
for washing reusable cups and silverware. Compostable coffee cups, plates and
napkins were used, serving as inputs for the newly integrated compost bins. For
dining clientele who wish to take their food to go, compostable boxes and plastic
flatware were provided. PLU permanently adopted these composting practices
when Dining and Culinary Services returned The Commons’ back to its newly
renovated building.
Composting has now been in place at PLU for over six years. The
program’s initial goals were formal: to simply limit landfill trash produced in The
Commons’ temporary facility. The increase in composting waste has led to
landfill trash being emptied from PLU’s loading dock every week to about once
every four weeks. This decrease in number of trash pick-ups has also been
credited to PLU’s investment in a trash compactor. Over time, program goals
have changed and PLU is currently seeking to keep their progressive nature by
adopting new products as they become available. Using compostable paper
straws and being strategic by ridding of unnecessary items such as stir-sticks for
coffee are examples of PLU’s efforts in adopting new products.
 
 

 

  88 

 
Logistics of the Program
PLU participates in Pierce County’s recycling program, led by the local
waste management company, LeMay. The county program collects landfill,
recyclable, yard, and other compostable wastes from residential as well as
business establishments. Compostable waste is collected five days a week from
PLU’s loading dock and hauled to Land Recovery, Inc. (LRI) in unincorporated
Pierce County.
Numerous items are collected for composting, which include but are
limited to: food scraps, biodegradable wares, paper straws, soiled paper napkins,
paper soufflé cups, pizza boxes, corrugated cardboard, and milk cartons.
Compost on PLU’s campus is relatively widespread with receptacle bins available
in each campus buildings’ break-room, select offices and select residence halls in
addition to the dining center’s food preparation, serving, tray return, and dishroom
areas. Events such as conferences hosted by catering also integrate these
composting practices.
A combination of staff, student, volunteers and LeMay contractors handle
the compost materials at PLU. Designated students and staff members bring
compostable waste from their respective residence halls as well as building units
to PLU’s loading dock. Members of dining and environmental services staffs
handle the waste from all dining facilities across campus while environmental
services solely handle the compostable coffee grounds from break-rooms.

 
 

 

  89 

 
The costs of PLU’s composting program mainly come from pick-up fees,
which are overall less expensive than pick-up costs of landfill trash. Because
compost handling relies on volunteers and on-campus staff members who do it as
a part of their normal position duties, there are no extra costs paid to staff
personnel. My interviewee believes that the program is cost-effective as it is in
place now. After asking for elaboration, I received a response emphasizing the
diversion of compostable materials from landfills and the monetary savings of at
least $5,000 a year.
Success of the Program and Evaluation
The program’s success in terms of its goals is reflected in waste reduction
and high-compliance in the process of sorting waste. Diverting substantial waste
from the landfill, staff members’ ability to sort waste correctly and the reduction
of food waste were identified by my interviewee as current indicators of program
success. My interviewee also highlighted the campus’ established culture among
student, staff, and faculty on sustainability issues including composting practices.
Regular walk-throughs are conducted in dining facilities to ensure members of the
dining staff are correctly sorting waste. If non-compliance is observed, my
interviewee personally follows up with individuals to serve as a reminder and
keep them accountable. My interviewee continually evaluates the program daily
in an informal manner to bring out new information and points of improvement
through the feedback gained. Recyclemania, run through the campus’
sustainability office, conducts audits on contamination levels of each waste
stream while my interviewee informally evaluates garbage bins for potential
 
 

 

  90 

 
compostables and recyclables. Both of the audits and informal evaluations
provide a snapshot of progress in terms of successes as well as challenges, which
then can serve as a guide for future improvement of the program.
Based on the program challenges learned, targets for success might change
over time to ensure future incremental and achievable progress. In some
instances, targets for success are efforts that work towards the larger university
sustainability mission, such as reducing the production of landfill trash. As stated
earlier, PLU has signed a number of sustainability documents including the
Talloires Declaration and the President’s Climate Commitment and participates
actively in the STARS program, which in part serves as a guide for Dining and
Culinary Services’ own sustainability objectives. My interviewee sits on the
sustainability committee and expressed the fact that Dining and Culinary Services
as a whole entity collaborates closely with the rest of the campus.
The program has experienced numerous changes since my interviewee
started her work at PLU. Just 20 years ago, the program included only recycling
of paper, plastics, and cans, while reducing and reusing were not yet adopted
practices. Although reusing, reducing and composting are all now practiced, the
program continually seeks incremental but important improvements such as can
crushers to compact recyclable loads and reuses for plastic bottle caps.
Glitches and Challenges of the PLU Program
When asked about the challenges experienced by the program, my
interviewee focused on the “customer” end. The focus was specifically on

 
 

 

  91 

 
clientele who were visitors to PLU. Because recycling and composting is so
ingrained in the campus’ culture, most on-campus clientele are believed to not
pose a significant barrier to compliance. In order to be proactive and avoid noncompliance from campus visitors, my interviewee or a PLU student ambassador
usually takes a couple minutes to inform them about Dining and Culinary
Services’ sustainability efforts. Campus visitors are asked to leave all their waste
on dining trays so members of the dining staff in the dishroom can take care of all
the waste sorting for them. My interviewee believes that informing visitors of
PLU’s overall sustainability efforts may bring on inspiration and even be an
important factor in a prospective student’s decision on what institution to attend.
Food waste is also a challenge for Dining and Culinary Services. My
interviewee expressed the need to be strategic in producing enough food to meet
demand without creating excess. The program’s daily observations for evaluative
purposes are helpful on the quantity of a certain food item to produce. For
instance, if 30 chicken breasts were produced with only a demand of 20, the
dining staff may decide to produce just 25 the next day to minimize food waste.
Like other facets of the program, my interviewee relies on daily evaluation and
follow-ups through verbal communication as well as education as a means of
improvement.
Compliance Patterns Among the PLU Program’s Clientele
When asked about the compliance patterns among dining clientele, my
interviewee reiterated and continued to emphasize that PLU has developed a

 
 

 

  92 

 
composting and recycling culture. While there is no quantitative gauge of overall
compliance, the tone of the interview implied that compliance is very good
because of the perceived strong cultural on campus. My interviewee commented
that the culture tends to be cyclical and in part spread by knowledgeable students
who graduate, become admissions counselors, and spread PLU’s sustainable
efforts to prospective as well as new students.
While the majority of work done by members of the dining staff, mostly
student workers, is behind-the-scenes, they play a large role in making this culture
significant. Because clientele are prompted to leave all their waste on trays,
allowing for all members of the dining staff to “take care” of it for them, the
program ensures their employees are compliant with waste sorting techniques. As
stated earlier, non-compliance by members of the dining staff results in follow-up
reminders carried out by my interviewee. The program receives informal
feedback in the form of notes and verbal comments from clientele, especially
from campus visitors who express their enjoyment and pride in such good work.
Communication of Composting and Sorting Food Waste
to PLU Staff, Faculty, and Students
The PLU program initially focused on spreading the word about its
composting practices through general advertising, tabling events and the
institution’s website, among other communication outlets. Now that those efforts
have paid off, reliance leans on the campus’ established culture as the spearhead
of communication to clientele. Temporary adjustments are applied as needed
such as in the instance that a large group of visitors dine at The Commons where

 
 

 

  93 

 
landfill trash bins are blocked off and in their place, extra signs serve as a
reminder to prompt clientele to leave all waste on trays. As mentioned earlier,
encouragement is moved forward as needed through follow-up reminders.
Marketing Techniques at PLU
My interviewee was not familiar with the standalone term “social
marketing” but quickly understood what it was after I briefly presented a handout
on the concept’s overview. From this, there was a realization that PLU Dining
and Culinary Services’ program was unconsciously using both social marketing
and CBSM as strategies to garner participation. The program’s major captive
audience is a student so my interviewee has been strategic on how to make it
easiest for them to adopt composting and recycling behavior whether on campus
or at home.
PLU has a community gardens program that serves as an outreach and
education program for residential populations around campus. Students who live
off campus are welcomed and encouraged to bring their compostables to the
community garden for backyard composting. This service helps address the
barrier in instances where clientele perceive composting off campus is
inconvenient or not possible. In addition, my interviewee grants student requests
to bring in their compostable materials, adding it to Dining and Culinary Services’
compost waste stream.
When asked about social marketing and CBSM’s effectiveness, my
interviewee expressed her belief in it as a tool to get clientele to adopt sustainable

 
 

 

  94 

 
behavior, especially if they are incoming students. Thus far, many students have
complied with composting practices on campus and taken up offers to compost
off campus materials, but room for improvement remains. My interviewee
believes that lack of education and carelessness are two issues that continue to
pose as barriers in the program’s hope to reach a higher potential.
Other Forms of Sustainability Practiced at PLU
Dining and Culinary Services at PLU works hard to stay up to date as well
as be a leader in terms of sustainable practices. The program continues to test and
invest on cutting edge products such as biodegradable gloves for members of the
kitchen staff. As stated earlier, biodegradable cups, to-go boxes and napkins are
already being used on campus. My interviewee works with LRI Landfill to
ensure that the facility’s compost technology is able to handle and break down
new biodegradable products with ease. Package-shipment of foods has been
improved by coordinating with vendors to pack food in recyclable or reusable
plastic boxes when possible. However, the program has an unavoidable but small
presence of styrofoam from the shipment of certain products, an occurrence for
every program studied in this research.
The value of food is also a focus of the overall program as best practices
are sought in terms of its sourcing and serving. My interviewee emphasized
PLU’s efforts in trying stay seasonal with produce and sourcing food from local
companies. Members of the dining staff are strategic in serving food such as
keeping the salad bar sufficiently stocked but not overfilled to avoid a case where

 
 

 

  95 

 
clientele sees food in excess, which may increase the occurrence of food waste.
Continuous evaluations on all of the program’s practices take place as my
interviewee said future plans are: “To always look forward and to always do
better.”
Final Comment at PLU
“I guess it’s great when a student comes back and tells you ‘thank you’ for
making their life better.”
–My interviewee’s response when asked about any additional comments
on their program.

 
 

 

  96 

 

5. DISCUSSION
The phenomenon of institutionalized composting programs at college and
university campuses is an emerging one. My thesis research to better understand
composting programs has revealed the reality of their diverse applications.
Composting programs vary in focus, metrics, and expansiveness, among other
factors. Using knowledge learned from my literature review, observations, and
interviews, I have identified thematic components in which I feel are significant
in a composting program to create a theoretical, idealized vision of one. The three
cases studied in this research were then compared to my envisioned ideal of a
composting program. Given the envisioned ideal, I conclude this section with
recommendations to the cases studied.
5.1. ENVISIONING THE IDEAL
While it is clear that context plays a major role in the success of
composting programs, I believe that there are essential components, or “themes”,
in the design and implementation among the practical applications of them.
Below, I have listed the essential components and my rationale as to why each
was chosen as a significant element of the envisioned, idealized composting
program.
Sustainability Culture
The sustainability culture on a college or university campus with an
institutionalized composting program is extremely important and should be
thriving. A strong sustainability culture on campus seems to be strongly

 
 

 

  97 

 
correlated with greater instances of sustainable behavior practiced and adopted by
those individuals occupying the college.
Behavior-changing Strategies
As we have learned, attitudes do not necessarily reflect behavior; thus, it is
important for composting programs to have intentional and organized efforts to
get people on their college campus to adopt sustainable behaviors that include
acting in such a manner that is in compliance with their recycling and composting
process.
Prompts for Action
Waste sorting stations used in programs include receptacle bins such as
recyclables and composting. As clientele sort their waste between numerous
receptacle bins, they find that the desired actions expected from them are not so
intuitive. The integration of prompts for action, usually in the form of
photographs and text, can guide individuals on how to sort their waste
compliantly and in a manner that is simple, minimizing the level of cognition
required.
Compliance
The visible cue of a composting program, apparent through the
observation of waste sorting stations, brings a sense of celebration for
sustainability, but, too often, questions of its success and efficacy are not raised.
Composting programs can be unique and the measures of success are defined

 
 

 

  98 

 
within its own entity. In order to produce an effect, composting programs must
have high compliance from the individuals who play a role in their processes such
as faculty, staff, and students. Compliance is dependent on what a composting
program desires from its clientele and the defined measures of its success.
Program Evaluation and Metrics
Continued evaluation and well-established metrics are important for
composting programs to define their targets for success as well as improve
efficacy. Not only are qualitative measures important but also quantitative
targets. The lack of such components would leave a program to simply exist with
no sense of intended direction. While an implemented program with no intended
direction can produce positive outcomes, it is not in the best interest of an
institution to fund such a large effort that lacks a well-thought out plan.
5.2. THE REALITY OF CASES UP AGAINST THE “ENVISIONED
IDEAL”
The cases studied in my thesis research were individually unique in that
they each met certain elemental components of the “Envisioned Ideal,” but they
also revealed instances of where specific elemental components were not met. As
a promising practice, composting programs must be thoughtful and well crafted.
Their directors must take into consideration the components listed in the tables
below. Each component and element proved to be complex, and it is their
effective integration that achieves results. For instance, the creation of signs that
prompt action and proper waste sorting is a simple activity; however, ensuring

 
 

 

  99 

 
that the content of texts and photos used on signs will decrease the cognition
needed to comply with waste sorting and thus, result in high compliance, is much
more difficult. As my research to define the “Envisioned Ideal” accumulated, I
developed and used ideal program characteristics to evaluate the actual realities of
three composting programs, represented by the cases studies presented here.
Below is a set of tables that lay out the five components as well as their
respective elements of the “Envisioned Ideal” composting program. The tables
show instances where individual cases meet as well as fail to meet certain
elemental components that are characteristic of and reflect the “Envisioned Ideal”
composting program.

 
 

 

 
100 

 

Table 5: Sustainability Culture
Components of the
“Envisioned Ideal”
Transparency through
diverse means such as the
use of sustainability
terminology, website,
handouts, etc.

SPSCC

Evergreen

•

Sustainability
language is nonexistent in the
mission and values
page of the
institutional website
but found on the
library’s page
referring to
minimizing paper
use as an effort to
contribute to the
“college’s goal of
sustainability”

•

A Spring 2008 issue
of the campus
magazine was found
on an online archive
with a focus on
sustainability on
campus

 
 

•

PLU

Sustainability
language is present
in much of the
institutional website;
“environmental
stewardship” and
“sustainability” are
used twice on the
mission page of
Evergreen’s website;
the concept of
sustainability is also
on the institution’s
Office of
Sustainability as
well as Residential
and Dining
webpages; in
addition, a webpage
is dedicated to
sustainability
resources at
Evergreen, in higher
education, and also
at regional, national,
as well as

 

•

Sustainability
language is present
in much of the
institutional website;
“environment” in
reference to the
natural world is used
twice in the
educational
philosophy, mission,
and vision page of
the website; a
webpage I dedicated
to sustainability on
campus in terms of
the initiatives,
campus groups that
are currently active,
events, and even the
academic courses
that have a focus on
sustainability

•

Electronic copies of
the campus
newsletter,
Sustainability, were

 
101 

 

international levels

Commitments such as
being a signatory of the
Talloires Declaration and
active participant in
ACUPCC, STARS,
Recyclemania

Staying current with
developing technologies
and practices in term of
waste reduction

•

A signatory and
participant in
ACUPCC;
participates in
Recyclemania

•

Not a signatory of
the Talloires
Declaration; not a
participant of
AASHE STARS

A Fall 2007 issue of
the campus
magazine was found
on an online archive
with Evergreen’s
sustainability efforts
in focus

•

A signatory and
participant in
ACUPCC; a
participant of
AASHE STARS;
participates in
Recyclemania

•

Not a signatory of
the Talloires
Declaration

•

A signatory of the
Talloires
Declaration; a
participant of
AASHE STARS; a
signatory and
participant in
ACUPCC;
participates in
Recyclemania

•

Composting program
in dining began 5
years ago

•

Composting
program in dining
began 3 years ago

•

Composting
program in dining
began 6 years ago

•

Small dining budget
does not allow
program to integrate
cutting edge,
biodegradable
utensils and

•

Has integrated
biodegradable
napkins, cups,
plates, and flatware
for composting

•

Has integrated
biodegradable
napkins, cups,
plates, flatware, and
straws for

 
 

•

available online; at
least 5 issues were
published in 2010

 

 
102 

 

materials; however,
all paper is accepted
for composting
Participation from
faculty, staff, and students
in sustainability efforts

Commitments in the
curriculum to
environmental and
sustainability studies

•

•

Environmental
Sustainability
Committee – a group
of interested and
passionate staff,
faculty and students
formed in 2007;
recent activity has
been limited to
students due to the
economic climate for
staff and faculty

•

•

Clean Energy
Committee – led by
students and is still
active

Regularly offers
environmental
science courses

•

Diverse curriculum
offerings with
environmental and
sustainability themes

•

Commitment to
academic programs
with themes of
ecological
agriculture, design,
energy, and systems
within the context of
sustainability since
the institution’s

 
 

composting

Sustainable Task
Force – made up of
faculty as well as
staff and is still
active

 

•

GREAN – student
group dedicated to
environmental issues

•

University
Sustainability
Committee – led by
faculty and staff

•

Offers an
environmental
studies major

•

Many courses have a
focus on
sustainability
concepts

•

Participates and
hosted South Sound
Sustainability
Summit – Pierce
County college and
university students,

 
103 

 

inception
•

 
 

Recent
establishment of
faculty planning unit
called
“Sustainability and
Justice”

 

faculty, staff were
invited; a conference
on sustainability
issues in higher
education

 
104 

 

Table 6: Behavior-changing Strategies
Components of the
“Envisioned Ideal”
Utilizing multi-disciplinary
tools such as SM and
CBSM to garner
participation and achieve
behavior change

Make explicit, targeted
efforts to learn what the
largest barriers are to oncampus clientele
complying with waste
sorting and break down
those barriers by
increasing simplicity of
doing the behavior

SPSCC

Evergreen

•

Program has
familiarity with the
concepts SM and
CBSM

•

While the SPSCC
program believes
these multidisciplinary tools
have the potential to
garner greater
participation and
achieve behavior
change, they have
not yet been
practiced

•

This component was
not apparent during
my research of
SPSCC

 
 

•

PLU

Program was
familiar with SM but
not CBSM;
however, Evergreen
was unconsciously
practicing these
tools to garner
greater participation
but believes there is
room for
improvement in their
efforts

•

See box below for
Evergreen’s
application of these
tools

•

Targeting freshman
students by
integrating
composting in the
residence halls as a
learning tool and
catalyst for them to
be compliant with
composting outside

 

•

Program was
familiar with the
concepts of SM and
CBSM but not their
technical terms as
both were
unconsciously being
practiced to garner
greater participation

•

See box below for
PLU’s application of
these tools

•

Targeting offcampus students by
offering them the
opportunity to bring
compostable items
from home to
campus as
residential areas are
not offered curbside

 
105 

 

the residence hall –
in this case, the
dining center
•

Increasing incentives to
desired behavior; showing
the impact value of such
desired behavior

•

This component was
not apparent during
my research of
SPSCC

 
 

•

Having specialized
programs that
educate foreign
exchange students
on composting
practices at the
dining center, as the
language as been
identified as a
barrier to
compliance

Freshman students
in residence halls
were given weekly
letter grades from
their resident
advisor, which made
composting a larger
point of interest to
students as to gain
the incentive of
getting a positive
grade

 

composting in
addition; recyclables
that are otherwise
not accepted in
curbside programs
can be brought oncampus for recycling
•

The program uses
the above strategies
to catalyze students
in better complying
with on-campus
waste sorting, as
well as fostering
sustainable behavior
in their clientele’s
everyday life

•

While more tangible
incentives such as
letter grades were
not given, high
program compliance
contributed to the
strong sustainability
culture on campus,
which the institution
takes pride in

 
106 

 

Table 7: Prompts for Action
Components of the
“Envisioned Ideal”
Using signs and
illustrations that are clear,
simple, and decrease the
degree of cognition
required from clientele to
comply with sorting waste

Color coding and
specialized lids such as
circles for cans, widened

SPSCC

Evergreen

•

Stickers, photos, and
texts are used as to
garner participation
as one sign states:
“Please place items
in correct bins”;
signs for each waste
type had text stating
which items were
expected in the
respective bin along
with a photo for
illustrative and
clarification
purposes

•

General “how-to”
signs are dispersed
throughout the
dining facility on the
program’s recycling
and composting
efforts as well as
what items are
accepted respective
to each type of waste
to garner
participation;
however, this
information is absent
at the main dining
area’s waste sorting
station – The
Greenery, where
only composting is
available

•

Signs on the
program’s
preference of having
clientele leave their
waste on the tray
(for dining staff to
sort for them) are
dispersed throughout
the dining center,
along with other
messages regarding
sustainability efforts
practiced by dining
such as composting
and recycling; the
waste sorting station
is makes it clear
with signs of “leave
it on the tray” in
reference to
clientele’s waste

•

Receptacle bins and
their complementing
signs were color

•

The two receptacle
bins were both for
composting, located

•

In the case that
clientele wanted to
sort their own waste,

 
 

PLU

 

 
107 

 

slits for paper, etc. to help
clientele visualize the type
of waste expected in each
receptacle bin,
contributing to greater
compliance

coded for each type
of waste and
identical in both
waste sorting
stations at the dining
center: green for
compost, blue for
plastic
bottle/aluminum can
recycling, green for
composting, and
gray for garbage
(which however, did
not have a
complementing
sign)
•

•

A specialized, circle
lid was used for
plastic
bottle/aluminum can
recycling receptacle
bin

•

The receptacle
openings were
circular

•

Color coding and
specialized lids were
not used as only one
type of waste –
composting was
accepted as it was
the only type of
waste produced by
the dining center

Compost and
garbage bins were
left uncovered
without any type of
lid; the compost bin
had a large
rectangular opening

 
 

within a black
countertop, and did
not have any
complementing
signs

 

receptacle bins are
available for:
plastics/glass, cans,
and newspaper;
however, garbage
and compost items
still need to be left
on trays as those
materials are
handled by dining
staff in the back
kitchen
•

While signs
complementing the
receptacle bins are
neat and clear, they
are not color coded
and do not include
photos

•

Receptacle bins had
specialized lids:
circles for
plastics/glass as well
as cans and widened
slits for newspaper

 
108 

 

and the garbage had
a large square
opening

 
 

 

 
109 

 

Table 8: Compliance
Components of the
“Envisioned Ideal”
Experience high
compliance with little to
no contamination in the
respective waste
sorting/receptacle bins

Compliance is great
enough where no more
than 10% contamination is
experienced in receptacle
bins dedicated to compost

SPSCC

Evergreen

•

Interviewee believes
that dining staff do it
best, followed by
faculty, then students;
also believes that 50%
of students are
compliant with waste
sorting

•

Interviewee
believes that dining
staff do it best,
followed by
everyone else; also
believes that
faculty and staff are
not as good as they
think in being
compliant with
waste sorting

•

Interviewee
believes that there
is a strong
sustainability
culture on campus,
which includes the
compliance of
waste sorting at
dining, primarily by
dining staff
(student works)
because of the
program’s request
of clientele to leave
their waste on trays

•

While there is no data
on % contamination in
compost receptacle
bin, I gathered
observational data on
clientele’s general
behavior during the
waste sorting process,
results are described
below

•

While there is no
data on %
contamination in
compost receptacle
bin, I gathered
observational data
on clientele’s
general behavior
during the waste
sorting process,
results are

•

There is no data on
% contamination in
compost receptacle
bins

•

No data was
gathered on
clientele behavior
as the location of
PLU’s waste
sorting station did

 
 

PLU

 

 
110 

 

•

•

19% (5/26) clients
observed were fully in
compliance with
SPSCC’s
institutionalized
recycling and
composting program;
this group was
compliant without
needing to refer to the
signs/prompts,
implying that most
clients at SPSCC who
sort waste correctly
know how to do so on
their own/from
previous accords
16% (4/26) observed
were partially in
compliance with
SPSCC’s
institutionalized
recycling and
composting program;
this group tended to
pay attention to the
signs and prompts that
complemented bins;
however, their ability
to sort correctly was

 
 

described below
•

70% (38/54) clients
observed were fully
in compliance with
PLU’s
institutionalized
recycling and
composting
program; this group
was nonchalant
during their waste
sorting process and
compliance with
the program (no
signs/prompts
used), implying that
most clients at
Evergreen who sort
waste correctly
know how to do so
on their own/from
previous accords

•

8% (4/54) observed
were partially in
compliance with
PLU’s
institutionalized
recycling and
composting

 

not allow for
unobtrusive
observation

 
111 

 

mixed; this implies
that signs and prompts
have room for
improvement in terms
of getting people to
sort waste correctly
•

•

65% (17/26) observed
were not at all in
compliance with
SPSCC’s
institutionalized
recycling and
composting program;
this group tended to be
in a rush and/or
careless as they
ignored signs and
recycling/compost bins
as they went straight to
the garbage to input all
their waste (even if it
was a material that
could be
recycled/composted)
Overall, bad
compliance as over
50% of my sample
make up the group
who did not at all

 
 

program; this group
sorted waste into
the compost bin but
also left items
around such as
plastic bottles or
left items on the
tray; the dining
center does not
have bins for items
such as recyclables
because they do not
sell such items;
however, may
consider
signs/prompts or
infrastructure for
recycling such
items because they
cannot control it is
clientele bring them
from outside the
dinging center
•

22% (12/54)
observed were not
at all in compliance
with PLU’s
institutionalized
recycling and
composting

 

 
112 

 

attempt to comply
with the program’s
waste sorting process

program; this group
tended to be
careless as they
ignored compost
bins as they went
straight to the tray
center to place their
trays on the
conveyer belt
containing all their
waste
•

 
 

Overall, as full
compliance was
met by nearly 80%
of my sample
despite their being
no signs or
prompts; this
success could be
due to sense of
campus culture?

 

 
113 

 

Table 9: Program Evaluation and Metrics
Components of the
“Envisioned Ideal”
Targets (quantitative
metrics) set for program
success such as: largest
maximum % of
contamination allowed in
each type of waste
receptacle bin
(composting, recycling,
landfill trash, etc.)

SPSCC

Periodic audit or
evaluation exercise to
measure program success,
and then to consciously
use program evaluation
data as a means for

Evergreen

•

Targets (quantitative
metrics) for program
success were not
established and/or
disclosed

•

Targets (quantitative
metrics) for program
success were not
established and/or
disclosed

•

Targets (quantitative
metrics) for program
success were not
established and/or
disclosed

•

Qualitatively,
success was
envisioned as
“diverting
everything possible
out of the waste
(landfill garbage)
stream by increasing
recycling and
composting

•

Qualitatively,
success was
envisioned as having
compost bins
everywhere on
campus, a waste
stream that is truly
integrated and a
population that is
knowledgeable on
how to comply with
proper waste sorting

•

Qualitatively,
success was
envisioned as
diverting waste from
the landfill, food
waste reduction,
high compliance in
the process of
sorting waste by
dining staff, and a
strong culture of
sustainability by all
those on the PLU
campus

•

Intentional, periodic
audits/evaluation
exercises to lay out
metrics achieved/not
achieved relative to
program goals are

•

Intentional, periodic
audits/evaluation
exercises to lay out
metrics achieved/not
achieved relative to
program goals are

•

Intentional, periodic
audits/evaluation
exercises to lay out
metrics achieved/not
achieved relative to
program goals are

 
 

PLU

 

 
114 

 

improvement

Observe clientele’s
general behavior when
sorting waste and conduct
surveys to get a gauge of
the complementary

nonexistent

nonexistent

•

Waste audits are
done “every now
and then” in
conjunction with
Earth Day and helps
gauge compliance
and waste patterns
on campus;
however, it is not
clear how the
resulting information
is disseminated or
used

•

Interns and
volunteers are relied
on for more
quantifying metrics
during
Recyclemania to
check compliance
and contamination
levels of each waste
bin and the resulting
information is
reported back to
college in both
formal and informal
settings, then used as
a catalyst to
encourage program
improvements

•

My interviewee
conducts
walkthroughs
frequently, usually
several times a week
to qualitatively
gauge dining staff’s
waste sorting and
verbally follow-up
with them should
glitches such as
contamination
occurs;
Recyclemania is the
outlet used to check
compliance and
contamination levels
of waste in terms of
quantitative metrics
and these results are
reported back then
used as a baseline to
improve the program

•

No data found on
this elemental
component

•

No data found on
this elemental
component

•

No data found o this
elemental
component

 
 

nonexistent

 

 
115 

 

prompts for action
(photos, text, etc) or lack
thereof next to bins to
specifically find if they are
a barrier or not to
compliance
Experience no more than
10% contamination in
compost (10% was the
number revealed in my
research that represents
the maximum percentage
of contamination allowed
by LeMay in Evergreen’s
composting stream)

•

No data found on
this elemental
component

 
 

•

No data found on
this elemental
component;
however,
interviewee stated
that 2009-10 year
experienced garbage
bins with up to 70%
of the materials
being compostable
or recyclable

 

•

No data found on
this elemental
component

 
116 

 
5.3. PROGRAMS COMPARED
As represented in the above tables, both similarities and differences exist
across the three campuses studied as well as between each campus and the
envisioned ideal. This section elaborates further on these characteristics and
provides a clearer understanding of how these composting programs are
phenomenologically occurring. Some components are carried out well by all
campuses, but in some cases, one campus does much better than the two others.
Finally, in the context of the envisioned ideal as defined by my research, I make
recommendations for how each campus could improve their composting program.
5.3.1. Comparing Components Across the Three Cases Studied
Sustainability Culture
Sustainability culture across all three cases was evident in that each
campus has made numerous conscious efforts that contribute to sustainable
thinking and practices. All cases have had on-campus magazine issues dedicated
solely to sustainability; have had three years of experience of implementing an
institutionalized composting program; participate in Recyclemania; are
signatories of the American College & University Presidents’ Climate
Commitment (ACUPCC); have dedication from faculty, students, and staff in
campus sustainability efforts through organizations as well as committees; and
have regularly offered courses in environmental studies.
While there were great similarities across all cases, there were also some
great differences in terms of campus sustainability culture. In particular, I found

 
 

 

 
117 

 
Evergreen and PLU to be further along than SPSCC in terms of deepening their
commitment to building a sustainability culture on campus as they have had
sustainability terminology integrated into multiple areas of their institutional
website; have participated in the Sustainability Tracking Assessment & Rating
System (STARS) through the Association for the Advancement of Sustainability
in Higher Education (AASHE); have integrated biodegradable materials into their
dining program; and have made the commitment to integrate themes of
sustainability into all academic courses.
In conclusion, I found PLU to have a slight edge over Evergreen because
of the institution’s additional commitment to the Talloires Declaration, followed
by SPSCC in terms of sustainability culture.
Behavior-changing Strategies
Behavior-changing strategies seem to be one of the more complex
components to integrate into composting programs. While the concepts of social
marketing (SM) and community-based social marketing (CBSM) were familiar to
all interviewees within each case, only Evergreen and PLU utilized these tools to
promote the adoption of specific compliance behaviors with their respective
recycling and composting processes. Both Evergreen and PLU mainly targeted
students to get them to improve their ability to properly sort waste by marketing
strategies such as lowering barriers and increasing incentives to partake in such
behavior. While SPSCC sees the potential of behavior-changing strategies such
as SM and CBSM, their program has not yet been able to invest in these practices.

 
 

 

 
118 

 
In conclusion, I found that both Evergreen and PLU are further along than SPSCC
in terms of consciously practicing behavior-changing strategies in their programs.
Prompts for Action
While each case studied has a composting program that requires specific
actions and behaviors in terms of complying with their waste sorting process,
prompts for action were an evident component only at SPSCC and PLU. Signage
in the form of stickers, photos, and texts are used throughout their dining centers,
in particular around the waste sorting stations within those dining centers. The
posted signs all attempt to prompt dining clientele to properly sort and handle
their waste according to each respective program. Evergreen most likely did not
dedicate the use of signage to prompt clientele on how to sort their waste because
their program only provides the option for compost at their main dining center,
The Greenery.
While SPSCC and PLU had different expectations in terms of action as
well as behavior from their dining clientele, both case’s use of signage in respect
to their unique programs was appropriate. Furthermore, SPSCC used color codes
for their assorted waste bins and complementing signage as well as some
specialized lids to further strengthen their prompts for action. While PLU did not
use color codes, their bins were very organized, clean, and utilized specialized
lids.

 
 

 

 
119 

 
I could not conclude that any one campus stood out over the others
because each program expected different actions and behaviors from their
respective dining clientele.
Compliance
Compliance in this research was viewed from the perspective of each
case’s interviewee and my own perspective through direct observation. From the
interviews conducted, the dining staff from each campus was believed to be the
most compliant with their respective recycling and composting sorting processes,
followed by faculty and then students. This common perspective made sense
because of dining staff’s daily exposure to their respective campus’ waste
handling goals and strategies, and for some, a means to their livelihoods.
Through my observation, dining clientele at each campus exhibited a
variety in levels of compliance. Compliance in each case was different and
defined in respect to their dining center’s expectations of clientele. Observations
from PLU were omitted because of the unique circumstances of the waste sorting
station as well as the expectation of dining clientele to simply leave their waste on
trays rather than sort it themselves. Overall, compliance was impressive at
Evergreen, with nearly 70% of the clientele observed being fully compliant with
the composting program. Compliance at SPSCC was much less impressive, with
only 19% observed to be fully compliant.
While PLU produced no direct observations, I conclude that PLU
experiences the best compliance out of all cases, followed by Evergreen and then

 
 

 

 
120 

 
SPSCC. This is based on the assumption that dining clientele at PLU simply
leave their wastes on trays for dining staff to sort. PLU’s request for dining
clientele to leave their wastes on trays is a much less complex expectation than for
the self-sorting of wastes taking place at SPSCC and Evergreen. The request for
clientele to leave wastes on trays is unique to PLU’s program. By definition,
compliance in the composting program is met when clientele follows the simple
task of leaving their wastes on trays. While compliance at PLU is high, it was not
clear to me in terms of how much of a monetary investment is made towards
funding positions dedicated to properly sorting waste.
Program Evaluation and Metrics
In terms of program evaluation and metrics component of composting
programs, all cases seemed to struggle. Diverting as much waste as possible from
landfill garbage to recycling and composting streams was part of the vision
towards success in all cases. The interviews revealed that waste audits are done
sporadically, usually when it is convenient, such as in conjunction with Earth Day
or Recyclemania. In addition, my interviewee from PLU was dedicated in her
periodic walkthroughs to qualitatively gauge the dining staff’s compliance and
conduct follow-ups if necessary.
However, well-established quantitative metrics were not evident in any of
the cases in terms of defining targets for success such as setting a maximum
percentage of contamination allowed within a specific waste receptacle bin.
While prompts for action are an important component for programs to get dining

 
 

 

 
121 

 
clientele to behave a specific way with waste, there was also no evidence of
attempts to evaluate the effectiveness of signage used to complement waste
receptacle bins.
Although this component required composting programs to integrate
quantitative metrics as targets for success which is absent in all cases, I found
PLU’s dedication to conduct walkthroughs periodically, several times a week,
respectable, a practice that neither Evergreen nor SPSCC carry out.
5.3.2. Approaching the “Envisioned Ideal”:
Final Thoughts and Recommendations
In this section, I briefly summarize the efforts of each case’s composting
program and made recommendations based on the “Envisioned Ideal” defined in
this thesis research. While some cases fare better than others, I applaud any
institution that takes on the effort to implement a waste-minimizing program, as it
is a complex ordeal often with dynamics beyond one’s control. My
recommendations focus on what I found to be the leverage points for each case
towards the “Envisioned Ideal.” A list of recommendations for any of the cases
had the potential to become long and arduous, so I was selective in the concluding
suggestions regarding each program’s next steps.
South Puget Sound Community College (SPSCC)
SPSCC was a leader of colleges in its local region in terms of waste
management as it piloted Thurston County’s composting program over five years
ago. This two-year college has integrated good infrastructure for their dining
 
 

 

 
122 

 
clientele to sort their leftover wastes. Waste receptacle bins were separated by
compostables, recyclables, and garbage. Bins were color coded by waste type and
have complementing signs with identical color codes that serve as prompts for
action.
Despite the limitations such as having a more transient student population
and the smaller budget it experiences as a two-year institution, SPSCC’s efforts in
improving its waste stream through increased composting are admirable.
However, the gap between my interviewee’s perception of at least 50 percent of
students being fully compliant and my direct observations of a combined only 35
percent of students being fully or partly compliant was strikingly large. Given
what I have learned about SPSCC’s composting program in respect to its budget, I
first recommend that more attention be paid to the compliance of waste sorting by
evaluating the contents of receptacle bins. From there, the composting program
can polish its current infrastructure and logistical processes and then work on
being strategic in the next steps for improved compliance and overall program
expansion. In the case that SPSCC dining’s budget grows, other changes can be
implemented such as the investment in biodegradable flatware as well as the
research and development of SM and CBSM programs that could help improve
the sustainability culture on campus and waste sorting behavior of dining
clientele, particularly that of the transient student population.

 
 

 

 
123 

 
The Evergreen State College (Evergreen)
As an institution, Evergreen has been a leader in environmental studies
and sustainability education and continues to make transparent efforts toward
sustainability. The Greenery, Evergreen’s main dining center, has implemented a
composting program that leaves the choice only for composting. The program is
systematic by producing only compostable food items as well as utilizing only
biodegradable or reusable plates and utensils. This strategy is consistent with and
rationalizes their choice of only providing composting bins and a tray/dish return
station to their dining clientele. The Greenery’s plan not only encourages
increased composting but also promotes less waste because disposable materials
are not available for dining clientele to use. As dining clientele sort their leftover
food waste as well as soiled napkins in the provided composting bins and then
return their reusable plastic trays, they find themselves being fully compliant with
the composting program.
While the strategy to serve only compostable items and to provide just
compost bins for handling waste is well intended, it is not without its drawbacks.
The Greenery has no control over dining clientele’s freedom to bring in items
such as cans of soda, plastic bottles of water, and glass bottles of juice; this is a
problem. There seems to be an assumption by The Greenery’s composting
program that these occurrences are negligible or that it is an exogenous variable,
which can be overlooked. Compliance with the composting program is more
difficult for dining clientele who bring in outside items such as plastic bottles and
aluminum cans because once they sort their leftover food waste in composting,
 
 

 

 
124 

 
there is so place for recyclables. This lack of choice forces dining clientele to
dedicate themselves to hold onto recyclable items until they find a bin for them.
Furthermore, this situation has the potential to promote greater landfill waste or
contamination of compost bins.
Evergreen seems to have a good degree of sustainability culture within its
campus but I would like to see some improvements made in the composting
program in The Greenery. I recommend that the Greenery integrate signs that
complement compost bins, which would include the prompt for “compost only”
as well as a sign that informs dining clientele on where to sort recycling and
garbage, should those items be brought into the dining center. As an alternative,
The Greenery can also continue to produce as well as provide items that are
compostable and biodegradable to dining clientele while introducing smaller
receptacle bins dedicated to recycling and garbage to address the sorting of those
items as they inevitably make their way into the dining center.
Pacific Lutheran University (PLU)
PLU has a great history in the commitment to sustainability, including its
role in the Talloires Declaration, a less transparent yet important commitment
created by university administrators that set the stage for PLU to become an
environmental sustainability leader in higher education. The campus continued
its momentum by signing other sustainability commitments such as American
College & University Presidents’ Climate Commitment (ACUPCC). During my
research, I found that the composting program implemented by PLU is well-

 
 

 

 
125 

 
integrated, with support from faculty, staff, and students. Dining staff who are
students particularly play a large role in keeping compliance of waste sorting high
because they are specially trained to do so and because waste sorting is part of
their livelihood duties. Efforts at PLU go as far as inviting students who reside
off-campus to bring in items for sorting into the campus’ recycling and
composting stream.
While the presence of the sustainability culture at PLU is undeniable, I
would like to see some evaluation of it on the dining clientele side. The
composting program is set up so clientele simply leave their wastes on trays to
meet compliance; there is little to no opportunity for clientele to not comply with
the program. With PLU dining’s strong focus on creating a sustainability culture
on campus, I find it important to not only see how well dining clientele comply
with the “leave waste on trays” prompt but to also get a gauge of their
understanding of how to appropriately sort waste, in the case that they had to do
so on their own as most recycling and composting programs in any setting is a
self-sorting system.
I recommend that PLU dining invest in learning if their dining clientele
are able to properly sort waste on their own. This process will not necessarily
improve compliance in the composting program as it is set up now, but create an
understanding of how much depth there is in the campus sustainability culture in
terms of waste handling. In addition, I recommend that PLU establish specific
quantitative metrics as targets for success. In the case that compliance becomes

 
 

 

 
126 

 
nearly perfect after continually meeting high standards of targets for success, the
composting program can move on to identify other methods to improve.

 
 

 

 
127 

 

6. CONCLUSION
Efforts towards environmental sustainability on the local, national, and
international levels continue to grow steadfastly, regardless of sector. From the
implementation of recycling programs to initiatives on green power and
manufacturing of more efficient automobiles, sustainability comes in all forms
and on all scales. While my research was on the relatively small-scale
sustainability effort of composting programs on college and university campuses,
it revealed some points of positive recognition as well as of concern.
College and universities are institutions of higher education that can have
considerable influence not only on their faculty, staff, and students, but also on
the broader population. As implied by the Report and Declaration of the
Presidents Conference in 1990 (known as the Talloires Declaration), institutions
of higher education serve as a catalyst and vessel for creating an environmentally
sustainable future. The culture of a college campus is an important factor as well
as indicator of the institution’s scope of sustainability practices but, as I have
learned in this case of composting programs, the story is much more complex.
Composting programs on college campuses serve as a model for
integrating new waste practices as a sustainability effort, but I did not find an
ideal program in any of the three cases studied. Through my research, I gathered
a vision of an ideal composting program, which is characterized by a campuswide culture of sustainability; commitment to environmental and sustainability
studies in the curriculum; as well as a waste sorting system that successfully uses
behavior-changing strategies through social marketing, effective prompts for

 
 

 

 
128 

 
action, and realizes its targets of high compliance. While I do not believe there is
an exact, one-type-fits-all solution, each ideal component listed is important for
doing the right thing and establishing the success of any composting program,
regardless of its context.

 
 

 

 
129 

 
WORKS CITED

AASHE. (2012). Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in
Higher Education. <http://www.aashe.org>.
ASTM. (2011). ASTM D6400-04/D6868-03. American Society for Testing
and Materials. Accessed December 8, 2011. <http://www.astm.com>.
Bartlett, P.F. and Chase, G.W. (2004). Sustainability on Campus: Stories and
Strategies for Change. The MIT Press: Cambridge.
Bastioli, C. (2000). Global status of the production of biobased packaging
materials. Conference Proceedings: The Food Biopack Conference.
Denmark (Copenhagen). p 2-7.
Blunt, Leah. (2011). Infographic: The History of Recycling. Earth911.
Accessed December 11, 2011.
< http://earth911.com/news/2011/11/15/infographic-the-history-ofrecycling/>.
Bogdan, R.C., & Biklen, S.K. (2006). Qualitative research for education: An
introduction to theories and methods (5th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education
Group.
Castle, D. (2001). A sustainable vision for the automotive services industry: using
The Natural Step Framework to develop a plan toward sustainable for
automotive mechanical and collision repair shops. Oregon DEQ.
Cohen, D. and Crabtree, B. (2006). Qualitative Research Guidelines Project.
Accessed July 10, 2011. <http://www.qualres.org/HomeAnal-3596.htm>.
Coyle, K.J. (2004). Understanding environmental literacy in America and making
it a reality. National Environmental Education Foundation.
Accessed July 28, 2011. <http://www.neefusa.org>.
CRI. (2010). Bottle Bills. Container Recycling Institute.
Accessed August 19, 2011. <http://www.container-recycling.org>.
Denzin, N.K. (1970). The Research Act: A Theoretical Introduction to
Sociological Methods. Chicago: Aldine.
Duffy, S. and Verges, M. (2008). It matters a hole lot: perceptual affordances of
waste containers influence recycling compliance. Environment and
Behavior. 41(5): 741-749.

 
 

 

 
130 

 
EPA. (2009). Environmental Education. Environmental Protection Agency.
Accessed July 25, 2011. <http://www.epa.gov>.
EPA. (2010). Recycling. Environmental Protection Agency.
Accessed July 20, 2011. <http://www.epa.gov>.
Hovland, I. (2005). Successful Community: A Toolkit for Researchers and Civil
Society Organisations. Overseas Development Institute.
Accessed September 20, 2011. <http:// http://www.odi.org.uk>.
Husserl, E. (1970) trans D Carr Logical investigations. New York:
Humanities Press.
Jick, T.D. (1979). Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods:
Triangulation in action. Administrative Science Quarterly. 24: 602-611.
Keep American Beautiful. (2006). Keep America Beautiful.
Accessed June 25, 2011. <http://www.kab.org>.
King County. (2011). Green schools program. King County.
Accessed July 22, 2011. <http://www.your.kingcounty.gov>.
Kotler, P. and Roberto, E.L. (1989). Social Marketing. New York: The Free Press.
Kvale, S. (1996). Interviews: An Introduction to Qualitative Research.
London: Sage Publications.
Lee, R.L. (2000). Unobtrusive Methods in Social Research.
Philadelphia: Open University Press.
Lester, S. (1999). An introduction to phenomenological research.
Stan Lester Developments. Accessed April 5, 2011.
<http://www.sld.demon.co.uk>.
Maibach, E. (1993). Social marketing for the environment: using information
campaigns to promote environmental awareness and behavior change.
Health Promotion International. The Oxford Press. 8(3): 209-244.
McDonough, W. and Braungart. (2003). The Cradle-to-Cradle alternative.
Worldwatch Institute of the World 2004. Accessed December 1, 2011.
<http://www.mcdonough.com>
McKenzie-Mohr, D. and Smith, W. (1999). Fostering Sustainable Behavior: An
Introduction to Community-Based Social Marketing.
Grabriola Island, B.C.: New Society Publishers.

 
 

 

 
131 

 
National Research Council. (1999). Our Common Journey: A Transition Toward
Sustainability. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
Natural Step, The. (2011). The Natural Step. Accessed October 10, 2011.
<http://www.naturalstep.org>.
Recyclemania. (2011). Recyclemania.
Accessed July 18, 2011. <http://www.recyclemaniacs.org>.
Monterey Bay Aquarium. (2011). Seafood Watch. Monterey Bay Aquarium.
Accessed September 1, 2011. <http://www.montereybayaquarium.org>
Silverman, D. (2006). Interpreting Qualitative Data: Methods for Analyzing Talk,
Text and Interaction. University of London, UK: Sage Publications.
Stake, R. (1995). The Art of Case Study Research. Thousand Oaks:
Sage Publications, Inc.
ULSF. (2001). Talloires Declaration. Association of University Leaders for a
Sustainable Future. Accessed January 17, 2012. <http://www.ulsf.org>.
TC Public Works Department. (2011). Food to flowers food waste program.
Thurston County WA. Accessed July 22, 2011.
<http://www.co.thurston.wa.us>.
Thompson, R.C., Moore, J.C., vom Saal, F.S., and Swan S.H. (2009). Plastics, the
environment and human health: current consensus and future trends.
The Royal Society. 354(1526): 2153-2166.
Vanden Boss, P. (2010). How to Start an Office Recycling Program.
Inc. Magazine – April 20, 2010 Issue. Accessed July 21, 2011.
<http://www.inc.com>.
WCED. (1987). Our common future. World Commission on Environment and
Development – United Nations. London: Oxford University Press.
Weinrech, N.K. (2010). What is Social Marketing?. Weinrech Communications.
Accessed September 3, 2011. <http://www.social-marketing.com>.
Wengraf, Tom. (2004). Qualitative Research Interviewing. Sage Publications.
Yin, R.K. (1984). Case Study Research: Design and Methods.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

 
 

 

 
132 

 
APPENDIX A
Interview Guide:
1. Interviewee Background
a. How long have you worked here in the job that you have now?
b. Did you have a previous position in the dining services program here
before taking on your current job?
2. History of the Program
a. When did your institution begin the program?
b. Who jumpstarted the program?
c. In what context did this program develop? In other words, were waste
reduction efforts on campus part of a larger college/university
sustainability initiative, or was it something else?
d. Is the composting program just in the dining centers, or is it part of a
larger campus-wide waste stream reduction effort?
e. What were the initial goals of the program? Were they formally
written goals, or just informally shared goals?
3. Logistics of the Program
a. What items are collected for composting?
b. Where are the compostable items collected (bins?)?
c. Where do the compostable items go after being collected?
d. How often are the compostable items collected?
e. Where are the compostable items transported to undergo the
composting process (on-campus composter, off-site composter)?
f. Who handles the compost material (staff, volunteers, compost
contractors, etc.)?
g. What are the program costs like in terms of infrastructure and staff
personnel?
h. Is the program, as it is in place now, cost-effective?
4. Success of the Program and Evaluation
a. What does success look like in terms of the goals you have for the
program?
b. Do you have specific targets for success and if so, what are they?
c. Have these targets changed over time?
d. How is the program evaluated? Are certain targets measured?
e. What steps follow program evaluation and how are results used or
communicated?
5. Glitches and Challenges of the Program
a. What challenges or problems have you encountered?
b. What is done with this information?
c. What adjustments have you had to make as the program has evolved?

 
 

 

 
133 

 
6. Compliance Patterns Among the Program’s Clientele
a. How well do dining staffs perform in sorting food waste (pre and postconsumer)?
b. Do you have a gauge of how well faculty and staff perform in sorting
food waste and if so, what is it like?
c. Do you have a gauge of how well students perform in sorting food
waste and if so, what is it like?
d. Have you gotten any informal feedback from people who use your
dining services about the composting program and if so, what has it
been?
7. Communication of Composting and Sorting Foot Waste to Staff, Faculty and
Students
a. How is participation garnered?
b. How is encouragement moved forward?
8. Marketing Techniques
a. Do you know what the term social marketing or community-based
social marketing (CBSM) means?
b. Has your program consciously used social marketing techniques to
encourage participation in the composting program?
c. Has your program consciously used CBSM?
d. What have you seen as barriers to better compliance in composting
and properly sorted food wastes?
e. Has using social marketing (and CBSM) thinking helped your program
in any way?
9. Does the food service program practice other forms of sustainability?
a. Are biodegradable utensils used?
b. Are biodegradable plates used?
c. Are biodegradable cups used?
d. Are special napkins used?
e. Is Styrofoam used?
f. Are there any other sustainability-practices in place in the dining
service?
g. Are there any other sustainability related practices in your future
plans?
10. Miscellaneous/Other
a. Is there anything else you would like to tell me about the program?

 
 

 

 
134 

 
APPENDIX B
Descriptive Information Request
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

•
•
•

# of enrolled students
# of residential (on-campus living) students
# of staff (faculty members) at each campus
# of staff (faculty members) eating at food service center(s)
# of meals served/day
size of dinging services staff
waste handling cost
o Does money come from dining services or elsewhere to pay for
waste handling?
o Do you have specific details on the budge for waste handling
(budgest from residential and dining services, facilities, campus)?
Landfill (non-compostable) waste contractor
o Who hauls it and how often?
Compostable waste contractor
o Who hauls it and how often?
Recyclable waste contractor
o Who hauls it and how often?
ARTIFACTS REQUEST

•
•
•
•

Written Plan(s) – on paper or on a website
Report(s) – on paper or on a website
Sign(s)
Handout(s)

 

 
 

 

 
135 

Item sets

The Evergreen State College Masters Theses: Environmental Studies

Media

Keodara_AMESthesis2012.pdf