Our Campus Recycles: Incorporating Student Opinion in the Recycling Discussion
By Kaleigh Kogler, Katie Simmons, Marissa Wood, Noah Bruns
University of Maine; School of Ecology and Environmental Sciences
UMaine’s average recycling rate has plummeted from 36% in 2019 to 10% in 2023. This is partially due to the introduction of China’s National Sword policy in 2018, which set major restrictions on the quality, type, and amount of recycling the United States previously sent to China. Additionally, the COVID-19 pandemic caused many Maine towns to stop recycling for fear of handling the materials, and unstable prices have halted the restarting of recycling programs. These widespread issues have created barriers to recycling at the University of Maine, and we attempt to uncover additional obstacles in our student survey. Reduced campus recycling participation is troubling, as previously recycled materials now end up landfilled or incinerated, adding to the University’s environmental impact. Based on our survey results, UMaine students are aware of the current recycling deficiencies and desire a more effective system. With changes in local waste facilities and new available technologies, there are opportunities for the University to adopt new recycling and waste management practices and invest in greater educational initiatives.
To gain an understanding of student opinion of recycling on campus, we randomly distributed a survey to 53 students in the Student Union. Results show students care about recycling, with 92% of respondents stating they believe recycling is important. That being said, only 69% of respondents recycle on campus and more concerningly, only 12% believe recycling on campus is effective. Commonly cited recycling barriers are the lack of convenient recycling bins and unclear labeling of accepted materials. Many respondents were unsure what happened to the recycling after it left campus and some believed it would end up in the landfill. Confusion about the recycling process leads to high contamination rates of recycling bins, which in extreme cases can cause entire dumpsters to be landfilled. Student disconnect with the current recycling system needs to be addressed in order to reduce UMaine’s environmental footprint.
The identified low level of trust in campus recycling has become a compounding issue that decreases the overall effectiveness of the system. These results reveal a wide value-action gap among UMaine students (Chaplin & Wyton, 2014). Students indicate high environmental values, but cite barriers to the physical action and the theoretical success of recycling as reasons why they do not recycle. To help solve this value-action gap, there is a clear need for better recycling education. Based on student feedback, successful educational campaigns would clarify what bins are for recycling, what can go in each bin, and what happens to the materials after they leave campus.
Currently, the University partners with the waste and recycling company Casella to dispose of municipal solid waste (MSW) and recyclables produced on campus. Casella utilizes a “Zero-Sort” recycling program, which allows for all recyclable materials to be disposed of in a single dumpster. After collection, the material is sorted and sent to their respective recycling streams. Despite the straightforward design, there is a substantial amount of student skepticism about its effectiveness. This is exacerbated by the halting of many educational programs about recycling on campus during the pandemic, and the University has not restarted these initiatives. As a result, UMaine’s confused and disconnected student body is contributing to the recent low average recycling rates, even if they care about recycling and the environment.
A potential alternative option for UMaine’s recycling involves a different approach to waste management. The recently remodeled Hampden materials recovery facility [MRF] will utilize a “one bin all in” system, mixing trash and recycling together, and will use optical sorters to pull out recyclables. The facility will also utilize an anaerobic digester, which turns organic materials into biofuel thereby reducing the amount of waste sent to the landfill. A previous MRF operated in Maine in 2019 and caused 115 towns to switch to the “one bin all in” system. The facility closed in 2020, leaving many of these towns without another recycling option. Planning to re-open in 2025 under a new model, the facility claims to expect a 15% landfill diversion rate using this technology and plans to expand its operations to reach 30-50% within the next 5-10 years. Until the MRF begins operations, we are unable to measure its success at reducing the amount of waste sent to the landfill or extracting recyclables from the single waste stream. Most survey respondents supported a switch to the Hampden facility assuming the high projected landfill diversion rates are attainable. This indicates students are willing to adopt an alternative method of recycling if there is sufficient evidence on its effectiveness.
To compare the economic costs of these two systems, Table 1 breaks down the fees per ton of recycling and trash for the current Casella Zero-Sort contract and the tentative pricing scheme for the Hampden MRF. The Hampden MRF has a provisional tipping fee of ~$110 per ton of recycling and ~$85 per ton for trash. This additional recycling cost premium of $25 per ton is associated with the higher difficulty of handling large amounts of lower-density materials. However, as seen below, this extra $4,000 is still lower than what the University is currently paying for its waste services.
| Facility | Trash Cost per ton | Recycling Cost per ton | Cost of Trash Collection | Cost of Recycling Collection | Total Cost |
| Casella | $85 | $225 | $136,000 | $36,000 | $172,000 |
| Hampden (“one bin all in”- combined materials) | $85 | – | $149,600 | – | $149,600 |
| Hampden separate trash and recycling | $85 | $110 | $136,000 | $17,600 | $153,600 |
The University has four options to rebuild its recycling program: 1) retain Casella’s Zero-Sort, 2) switch to a “one bin all in” contract with the new Hampden facility, 3) choose the base Hampden contract but continue sorting recycling on campus, or 4) pay an additional recycling fee with the Hampden facility. If the University switches to the less-costly Hampden facility, students will require information about its operation and its potential to revitalize campus recycling. With the novel “one bin all in” option, student understanding of an alternative sustainable waste system is critical.
86.5% of polled students possess high environmental concern and would therefore support the system with the highest landfill diversion rate. However, is a higher recycling rate the University’s only goal? As an institution of higher education, the University of Maine has an obligation to cultivate student learning in a diverse range of subjects, including sustainability (Pike et al., 2003). Encouraging pro-environmental habits and social norms through visible recycling methods can be influential for long-term sustainable behaviors after students graduate (Farrow et al., 2017; Linder et al., 2021). Therefore, the continued requirement of sorting recycling on campus reinforces positive environmental actions, and may be lessened if the University switches to a “one bin all in” system. The identified solvable weaknesses of the current Zero-Sort system is a lack of student understanding and participation. Asking students to continue or begin to sort their waste for any system must be thoroughly explained through an educational lens emphasizing why their individual action is an important contribution to reducing the University’s larger environmental impact.
In conclusion, the University of Maine must take steps to improve student confidence in campus recycling. This involves investing in widespread recycling education and the consideration of an innovative but untested waste management system with high projected landfill diversion rates and potentially high social costs. If the University of Maine can encourage students to participate in its recycling program and foster a culture of environmental stewardship, it will be one step closer to addressing its underlying waste problem. However, UMaine must first demonstrate its willingness to invest in and support sustainability initiatives, consequently allowing its student body to view their environmental actions as valuable and worth taking.
Works Cited
Carroll, Michael. “MRC Hampden Projections.” Municipal Review Committee, 2024. https://www.mrcmaine.org/.
Chaplin, Gareth, and Paul Wyton. “Student Engagement with Sustainability: Understanding the Value–Action Gap.” International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 15, no. 4 (August 26, 2014): 404–17. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijshe-04-2012-0029.
Dixon, Dan. “Recycling & MSW Data” University of Maine Office of Sustainability. (2023) https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1lb0ZDUeajQTbzOuR1LkH5i-tAV0-n7lW/edit?gid=978271068#gid=978271068
Dixon, Joseph, and Jonathan Parker. “Don’t Be a Waster! Student Perceptions of Recycling Strategies at an English University’s Halls of Residence.” International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 23, no. 3 (August 5, 2021): 461–77. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijshe-10-2020-0383.
Farrow, Katherine, Gilles Grolleau, and Lisette Ibanez. “Social Norms and Pro-Environmental Behavior: A Review of the Evidence.” Ecological Economics 140 (October 2017): 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.04.017.
Linder, Noah, Matteo Giusti, Karl Samuelsson, and Stephan Barthel. “Pro-Environmental Habits: An Underexplored Research Agenda in Sustainability Science.” Ambio -A Journal of the Human Environment 51, no. 3 (2022): 546–56. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-021-01619-6.
Pike, Lisa, Tim Shannon, Kay Lawrimore, April McGee, Martin Taylor, and Gary Lamoreaux. “Science Education and Sustainability Initiatives.” International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 4, no. 3 (September 1, 2003): 218–29. https://doi.org/10.1108/14676370310485410.