Kola - Kadiri MSC Project

UNIVERSITY of GREENWICH
SCHOOL of SCIENCE
AN ASSESSMENT OF STUDENTS ENVIRONMENTAL BEHAVIOUR

TOWARDS RECYCLING
(UNIVERSITY OF GREENWICH, AVERY HILL CAMPUS)
Kolawole Kadiri
A dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the
requirements of the University of Greenwich
for the degree of MSc in Environmental Conservation
September 2012
Declaration
This dissertation entitled:
An Assessment of Students Environmental Behaviour towards

Recycling (University Of Greenwich, Avery Hill Campus)
was composed by me and is based on my own work. Where the work of others has
been used, it is fully acknowledged in the text and in captions to tables and
illustrations.
K
o
l
a
K
a
d
ir
i
Signed: ..
Digi
tally
sign
ed
by
Kola
Kadi
ri
DN:
cn=
Kola
Kadi
ri, o,
ou,
ema
il=k
k11
0@g
re.a
c.uk,
c=N
G
Dat
e:
201
2.09
.14
19:5
0:25
+01'
00'
Kola
Kadiri
Dated: ...
Digitally signed
by Kola Kadiri
DN: cn=Kola
Kadiri, o, ou,
email=kk110@gr
e.ac.uk, c=NG
Date: 2012.09.14
19:51:01 +01'00'
1|P a ge
ABSTRACT
Recycling has become one of the most important ways used to divert waste from
landfill. It is an important ingredient in tackling problems of municipal waste
management. Recycling is a voluntary action which involves the collective
encouragement of children, young people and adults. The participation in recycling
by everyone in an environment or an area helps the community or neighbourhood to
become a cleaner, safer environment to reside in. With this motive, coupled with the
fact that the University of Greenwich has a sustainability policy strictly adhered to for
the environment; the aim of this research was to try and understand students
behaviour towards recycling their waste at the University of Greenwich halls of
residence at the Avery Hill campus.
The importance of this research is to try and inspire good recycling behaviour among
students residing in the halls of residence, educating them to be good ambassadors
in order to achieve a more sustainable environment. Journals and textbooks were
used to review literatures relating to this research. Also, methods used for this
research include the use of questionnaires to obtain relevant information from
students, also audits of the waste generated by students in the halls was carried out
and observations were noted.
Lack of appropriate awareness on part of the students was concluded to be one of
the principal reasons affecting recycling participation on Avery Hill campus likewise
the lack of information on recycling bins within the halls of residence.
2|P a ge
Dedication
This thesis is dedicated to my parents Mr and Mrs Kadiri for their unending love and
support for my cause. I love you both.
3|P a ge
Contents
Declaration ................................................................................................................. 1
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................ 2
Dedication .................................................................................................................. 3
Acknowledgements .................................................................................................. 11
1.0
Introduction..................................................................................................... 12
1.1
Aim of Research.......................................................................................... 14
1.2
Objectives of Research ............................................................................... 14
1.3
Research Questions.................................................................................... 15
1.4
Rationale of Research................................................................................. 15
2.0
Literature Review ........................................................................................... 16
2.1
Life Cycle of Waste Generation.................................................................. 22
2.2.1
2.2
Water Pollution ..................................................................................... 23
Problems of Waste ..................................................................................... 24
2.2.2
Atmospheric Pollution ........................................................................... 27
2.2.3
Effects of Waste on the Marine Environment........................................ 27
2.3
Waste Management in selected countries................................................. 29
2.4
Waste Management in the United Kingdom ................................................ 31
2.5
Methods of Municipal Waste Management in the Europe ........................... 34
2.5.1
Landfilling ............................................................................................. 38
2.5.2
Waste Composting ............................................................................... 39
2.5.3
Incineration with Energy Recovery ....................................................... 39

4|P a ge
2.5.4
Waste Recycling ................................................................................... 40
2.6
Waste Hierarchy.......................................................................................... 41
2.7
Municipal Solid Waste Recycling ................................................................ 43
2.8
Environmental Sustainability and the Bin Cam Project................................ 48
3.0
Methodology ................................................................................................... 51
3.1
The Study Area ........................................................................................... 51
3.2
Survey to Determine Students Awareness of and Attitude to Recycling .... 53
3.2.1
Motive for Questionnaire Design .......................................................... 56
3.2.2
Method of Questionnaire Implementation ............................................. 58
3.3
Assessment of Waste Produced From Student Flats .................................. 60
3.3.1
Rationale .............................................................................................. 60
3.3.2
Sample Selection.................................................................................. 61
3.3.3
Risk Assessment .................................................................................. 62
3.4
Procedure.................................................................................................... 64
3.4.1
Summary of procedure ......................................................................... 65
3.4.2
Semi Structured Interviews ................................................................... 66
3.4.3
Observation .......................................................................................... 67
4.0
Data presentation and Analysis ...................................................................... 70
4.1 Questionnaires: ............................................................................................... 70

4.2
Waste Audits ............................................................................................... 83
4.3 Observations ................................................................................................... 93
5|P a ge
5.0
Discussion ...................................................................................................... 94
6.0
Conclusion.................................................................................................... 100
6.1
Recommendations .................................................................................... 101
6.2
Recommendation for further research....................................................... 103
REFERENCES ....................................................................................................... 104

Appendices ............................................................................................................ 114
6|P a ge
List of tables
Table 2.1 shows the different classes of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) .................. 19
Table 2.2 illustrates the different sources of municipal waste .................................. 20
Table 3.1 Schedule of semi interview ....................................................................... 67
7|P a ge
List of figures
Figure 2.1 Approximate Estimate of Annual Production of Agricultural Waste and
Residues in Selected Countries in the Region ......................................................... 21
Figure 2.2 illustrating the flow of materials in the environment ................................. 23
Figure 2.3 shows food waste transported by a camel in India .................................. 25
Figure 2.4 municipal waste generation in selected countries ................................... 26
Figure 2.5 Showing impacts of Various Categories of Wastes on Water, Soil and Air
in Selected Countries of Different Sub regions......................................................... 28
Figure 2.6 illustrates waste disposed of by the kerbside in Dhaka, Bangladesh ...... 30
Figure 2.7 Showing UKs waste production in 2001 ................................................. 32
Figure 2.8 municipal wastes Management in the UK, 2001 ..................................... 33
Figure 2.9 municipal wastes Management in the European Union .......................... 36
Figure 2.10 illustrating the waste hierarchy .............................................................. 42
Figure 2.11 illustrating a Bin Cam (Source: Weeden et al., 2011)............................ 48
Figure 2.12 illustrating the bin cam and its affiliation with facebook website (Source:
Weeden et al., 2011) ................................................................................................ 49
Figure 2.13 showing the new shared recycle bin at the University of Greenwich ..... 49
Figure 3.1 Shows location map of the University of Greenwich Avery Hill Southwood
campus (Source: Google Earth accessed July 26, 2012)......................................... 52
Figure 3.2 Site Plan of the University of Greenwich Avery Hill Accommodation
campus (Source: Google Earth accessed July 26, 2012)......................................... 52
Figure 3.3 Front view of the University of Greenwich Avery Hill Southwood campus
................................................................................................................................. 53
Figure 3.4 Recycling area in the Halls of Residence ................................................ 54
Figure 3.5 Waste bins for cigarette butts on campus ............................................... 55
8|P a ge
Figure 3.6 Recycling bins provided in and around the Avery Hill campus ................ 57
Figure 3.7 Bin stores provided for each flats in the Halls of residence ..................... 58
Figure 3.8 The illustration shows the poster used to promote this research
awareness at the Avery Hill Southwood campus ..................................................... 59
Figure 3.9 the pictures above shows weight scale to weigh waste. (Units are in g/kg)
................................................................................................................................. 60
Figure 3.10 Illustrating showing waste handpicked into different recyclables (bottles,
plastics, paper) set for weighing ............................................................................... 62
Figure 3.11 Illustrating protective equipment for health and safety showing nose
masks, gloves, scales, goggles and overalls............................................................ 63
Figure 3.12 illustrating separate bins provided for kitchens in the flats .................... 64
Figure 3.13 shows sorting waste into recyclable categories..................................... 65
Figure 3.14 cigarette butts found on the floor along windows at the halls of residence
................................................................................................................................. 68
Figure 3.15 recyclables and non-recyclables dumped around a hall of residence ... 69
Figure 4.1 illustrating the number of male and female respondents ......................... 70
Figure 4.2 The importance of recycling according to their categories ...................... 71
Figure 4.3 the total numbers of students showing importance of recycling .............. 72
Figure 4.4 Ratio of female and male students showing importance of recycling ...... 72
Figure 4.5 Ratio of the importance international and home students towards
recycling ................................................................................................................... 73
Figure 4.6 Relationship between undergraduates and postgraduates on the
importance of recycling ............................................................................................ 74
Figure 4.7 Respondents response to recycling waste ............................................. 75
Figure 4.8 Male and female students who recycle ................................................... 76
9|P a ge
Figure 4.9 International and home students who recycle ......................................... 76

Figure 4.10 Most Recycled Items ............................................................................. 77
Figure 4.11 How recycling can be made easier ....................................................... 78
Figure 4.12 Frequently disposed waste materials .................................................... 79
Figure 4.13 Statistics of smokers to non-smokers .................................................... 80
Figure 4.14 Statistics of home and international student smokers ........................... 81
Figure 4.15 Smoking relationship between international and home students........... 81
Figure 4.16 Smoking relationship between undergraduates and postgraduate
students.................................................................................................................... 82
Figure 4.17 Audits from Aragon flats 34 - 39 ............................................................ 84
Figure 4.18 Audits from Ann Boleyn flats 34 - 39 ..................................................... 85
Figure 4.28 Comparisons on the percentage composition of waste audits .............. 92
Figure 5.1 cigarette butts scattered on the floor ....................................................... 97
10 | P a g e
Acknowledgements
First and foremost, I acknowledge and give thanks to Almighty God through my Lord
Jesus Christ for protecting and guiding me throughout my entire life. It gives me
great pleasure in expressing my gratitude to everybody that supported me and had
their contributions in making this thesis possible.
I express my profound sense of reverence to my supervisor Dr Debbie Bartlett for
her unceasing support and guidance throughout my academic year at the University
of Greenwich.
I express my deepest gratitude to my friends and colleagues in the Environmental
Conservation programme 2011/2012 session; I thank them for their academic and
moral support throughout my study.
I finally want to thank my sisters, uncles, cousins and aunties for their love and
support.
11 | P a g e
1.0
Introduction
Most of the worlds waste is sent to municipal incinerators and landfill. The landfill
and dumping sites are filling up rapidly due to the amount of waste generated daily
thereby prompting new sites to be designated and developed (Environment Agency,
2006). In many other countries including the United Kingdom, the high rate of waste
generation and past decades of environmental obliviousness has led to the over
dependence on landfill as the principle waste disposal method (Lockwood et al.,
2004). Moreover, waste sent to landfill without effective supervision and
management has had adverse effects on the surrounding environment. Landfill is
known to generate toxic substances in the form of leachates (Lockwood et al., 2004).
These are formed from decomposed rubbish reacting with moisture in landfill and
can penetrate into water courses which cause harm to the soil and affects living
organisms within it (Environment Agency, 2006). Discarding materials or products
that were once useful is considered wasteful as these products or resources are no
longer easily accessible for reuse, recycling or manufacturing (Lockwood et al.,
2004). The primary objective in any waste management practice is the prevention of
waste materials; this means that the quantity and rate at which waste is generated
should be reduced while retaining any material with the potential for reuse or
recycling (Lockwood et al., 2004).
Currently, recycling programs have been implemented in various locations within the
United Kingdom such as the kerbside municipal waste collection scheme
implemented by most local councils in the UK (Defra, 2012). Nevertheless, millions
of tonnes of waste still find its way into landfill annually; this has brought about
questioning of the success of the programs set by local authorities in tackling waste
management (Kaseva et al., 2003). Recycling is not a compulsory practice; therefore
12 | P a g e
local councils have the responsibility of educating citizens residing in their areas,
raising awareness of people explaining the importance and effectives of recycling in
their homes and neighbourhood (Mrema, 2008). It is imperative that local council
share information (data and statistics) both short and long term, creating awareness
amongst individuals and society as a whole (Muhle et al., 2010; Kaseva et al., 2003).
Diverting large amount of waste from landfill will positively benefit communities
around it on a long term; this would be achieved by developing incentive
mechanisms in order to encourage a positive adjustment in the behaviour of
individuals in their homes and public places (Mrema, 2008).
According to Mrema (2008), there are a number of reasons for individuals not
engaging in an activity. They are;
Individuals who do not know about the activity or benefits of such activity.
People who are familiar with the activity but identify there are certain barriers
in carrying out the activity
Individuals who are familiar with an activity and know there are no barriers in
carrying out such activity but find it easier and prefer to continue with their
existing behaviour. An example of this is mixing recyclable waste with other
type of waste in the bins.
(Mrema, 2008)
13 | P a g e
1.1
Aim of Research
The purpose of this research is to try and understand student behaviour towards
recycling their waste.
If this is successful it is hoped that it will inform a more
effective approach to recycling in the Avery Hill halls of residence, Southwood site,
University of Greenwich. In the long-term, it is expected that practicing recycling will
reduce the litter on campus, as well as the volume of waste disposal to landfill. On a
larger scale this will save energy and reduce the depletion of earths natural
resources thereby resulting into a cleaner and a more ecologically sustainable
environment.
1.2
Objectives of Research
In order to come up with an accurate assessment and analysis, the following

objectives were considered;
To assess if the recycling facilities on campus are used frequently and

efficiently.
To weigh and identify the composition of waste generated by students

residing in the Avery Hill halls of residence.
To suggest recommendations on how to increase student participation in

recycling.
14 | P a g e
1.3
Research Questions
The research question on which this project is based includes:
Do students recycle their waste or not?
What affects recycling attitudes and behaviours among students residing at

the Avery Hill halls of residence?
1.4
Can this be changed and if so how?
Rationale of Research
The results derived from this research are important because they will help the
universitys facility management and sustainability team understand why students
engage or not in recycling activities at the University of Greenwich. This can be put
to an effective use by the management of the university in proposing programs or
incentives which might encourage students to be more positive towards recycling.
Furthermore, this research may be important for other students who are willing to
research further in waste and recycling studies.
15 | P a g e
2.0
Literature Review
Over the last decade developing environmental sustainable development policies

has been one of the major instruments used to tackle environmental pollution in
different parts of the world (Rathi, 2005). The rapid growth of industrialisation and the
migration of people from rural and countryside settlements to big urban cities led to
drastic increase in municipal solid waste generated (Kaseva et al., 2003; BernachPerez et al., 2001). Waste is generally regarded as any material or substance that is
useless and unwanted generated from any animal or human activity (Kaseva et al.,
2003). The European Union legislation (Directive 75/442/EEC) defined waste as any
substance or object stated in the European Union waste category which the holder
discards, intends or is required to discard (UNESCAP, 2000).
The need to minimize the waste sent to landfill is necessary, this include using less
materials and recovering used products (Moar, 2007). Although, methane gas
generated from landfill was used to provide continuous electricity supply for over two
thousand homes for fifteen years but in contrast can prove harmful to homes around
the area (Moar, 2007). According to U.S. EPA (2006), methane gas is a very
dangerous gas which has the ability to travel underground, store itself in confined
structures igniting on both private residences and landfill property. Furthermore,
methane gas released to the atmosphere is one of the major environmental and
health concerns, it also contributes to the depletion of the ozone layer and global
warming (U.S. EPA, 2006; Moar, 2007). Environmental pollutions from landfill such
as air and water pollutions caused the town of Nova Scotia to be partially evacuated
and landfill activities in the area shut down. This was due to the high volume of
methane gases emitted from the landfill site, Sackville landfill in the town had
16 | P a g e
accumulated almost four million tonnes of both recyclable and non-recyclable

materials within the period of twenty years it was constructed (Moear, 2007).
According to Simpson et al. (2002), the need to encourage people to recycle is very
important. Educating people from young age groups and providing them information
on the essentials of recycling, its importance and usefulness. Students should be
aware that rubbish sent landfill mostly consists of magazines, phonebooks and other
recyclables which shows ignorance on recycling techniques presently being
practiced (Simpson, et al., 2002). If the young generations are better educated on
the positive and negative effects on caring for the environment, they tend to make
better environmental decisions while growing up and also as adults (Simpson, et al.,
2002). More also, environmental programs organised in schools for students also
has positive environmental effects on other participants such as the general public,
parents and staff (Bradley et al., 1999). In addition, a study carried out by Malgorzata
et al. (2003) suggested that environmental knowledge acquired by students can be
easily transferred to their friends and parents around them. From the study it shows
that of the 70% of students who discussed environmental program with their family
members, only 34% of these students actually provided options on how their families
can improve their waste management strategy at home (Malgorzata et al., 2003).
34% represents a one third of the students which suggests knowledge has seems to
have a positive attitude towards environmental conservation and protection.
Furthermore, people who have environmental knowledge on how to manage
environmental issues are more likely to be engaged in decent environmental
behaviours more than people who do not such as good waste management
practices like recycling (Malgorzata et al., 2003).
17 | P a g e
Another study carried out by Clay (2005) compared University students who recycled
at home and at their University, results showed that those who do not recycle at
home also do not recycle at their Universities. It is advised that environmental
education is serious and has active effects on younger generations who do not have
well established lifestyles (Clay, 2005). Malgorzata et al. (2003) added that recycling
can become part of the humans day to day life and must be added to the
educational curriculum of the society. Several other studies have recognised
education as an important factor in raising environmental awareness and developing
environmental policies among youths (Malgorzata et al., 2003). Additionally, a study
was carried out by Navarro (2002) to study students behaviours and attitudes to
recycling in the halls of residence at the Illinois State University. Findings from the
research pointed out that those students who had been involved in recycling
practices before gaining admission into the University were more likely to partake in
recycling platforms within the University (Navarro, 2002). Results from this research
signifies the further signifies the importance of educating the younger generation on
recycling, encouraging and teaching them good culture and attitudes on waste
management (Navarro, 2002).
Sharholy et al. (2008) categorizes the different types of municipal waste into
-
Sanitation waste
Commercial waste
Food waste
Street sweeping waste
Demolition waste
Industrial waste
Rubbish
18 | P a g e
Furthermore, all municipal waste contains compostable organic matter, soiled waste,
toxic waste and recyclables (Kaushal et al., 2012; Jha et al., 2003).
Table 2.1 shows the different classes of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW)
Recyclables
Toxic Substances
Compostable
Soiled Waste
Organic matter
Paper, Plastics,
Paints, Pesticides,
Food and
Blood stained
Glass, Metals
Medicines, Used
vegetable peels,
cotton, Sanitary
batteries
Food waste
napkins,
Disposable
syringes
(Jha et al., 2003).
According to UNESCAP (2000), human activities produces five main type of waste,
their sources include;
a. Municipal Waste; they are waste generated from offices, households, open
areas, treatment plants sites and shops. The sources of municipal waste are
expanded in the table below
19 | P a g e
Table 2.2 illustrates the different sources of municipal waste

Sources
Types of Solid waste
Locations where waste

are generated
Open spaces
Roadside litter, street
Street alleys, playgrounds,
sweepings, rubbish and
highways, recreational
other special kind of
areas, vacant lots.
waste,
Treatment plant sites
Treatment plant sludge
Water, sewage and

industrial waste water
treatment processes
Residential areas
food waste, special waste,
low, medium and high
rubbish and ashes
residential housing areas
Commercial and
Construction waste,
Hotels, medical institution,
Institutional areas
occasional hazardous
office buildings,
waste, ashes, rubbish,
restaurants and stores,
food waste, demolition
markets
waste
Source: UNESCAP (2000).
b. Agricultural waste; this include forestry and horticultural waste, animal
manure, empty containers of agrochemicals, diseased carcasses and crop
residues. Agricultural waste is known to be of increase due to intense farming
systems especially when disposing animal manure and crop residues.
20 | P a g e
Figure 2.1 Approximate Estimate of Annual Production of Agricultural Waste

and Residues in Selected Countries in the Region
Source: UNESCAP (2000)
c. Industrial Waste; they include a mixture of various range of chemical
substances such as alkalis, acids, waste from food processing, tarry residues,
metallic sludge. They are mostly hazardous and usually require kind of
treatment before being disposed of.
d. Mining and Quarrying Waste; these are mostly mine tailings, waste
generated from mining and ore extraction. They include rocks, topsoil and dirt
materials. They are mostly inert and contaminated with chemicals or metals
used for mineral separation. Underground mining activity reaches the surface
of the soil which causes a considerable amount of pollution and visible
environmental hazards.
e. Energy Production Waste; waste generated from thermal power plants such
as fly ash is a major environmental pollutant especially in developing nations.
21 | P a g e
It is used mostly in developed countries as an ingredient in making cements

for building constructions (UNESCAP, 2000).
Bernache-Perez et al. (2001) acknowledged that waste generation in urban areas is
partly caused by insufficient provision of basic infrastructural amenities such as
water and sewage supply, waste collection facilities and affluent lifestyle of people.
Increase in worlds population, quick technological developments, rising standards of
living and the fast rate of urbanisation all contributes to the total amount of solid
waste generated through domestic and industrial facilities at different parts of the
world (UNESCAP, 2000).
2.1
Life Cycle of Waste Generation
The life cycle of waste generation refers to the way waste is generated through to its
end stage. It considers the way waste is to be generated, the disposal and treatment
of municipal waste (Defra, 2000). According to Del Borghi et al. (2009), the life cycle
approach to waste management is geared towards attaining environmental
sustainability in most European countries such as Germany and the United Kingdom.
It is based on the waste hierarchy i.e. prevention of waste, recycling and the reuse,
this also include monitoring and improving final methods of disposal (Del Borghi et
al., 2009).
Waste hierarchy in life cycle refers to how waste should be prioritised during waste
management. From the waste hierarchy, landfill should be the last option, prevention
should be the first option followed by reuse and recycling (Wilson et al., 2006; Del
Borghi et al., 2009). Waste management includes the life cycle of how waste is
processed, such as ashes from incinerators, construction debris, institutional waste,
septic tank sludge and street sweepings, their storage process to collection,
22 | P a g e
transport, disposal and treatment stages are considered (UNESCAP, 2000; Defra
2000).
Figure 1 below shows flow of materials, it explains how materials are been used from
the state of production to the end stage of treatment and disposal to the environment
(UNESCAP, 2000). From the diagram, waste materials originate from three different
sources; raw materials extracted from the earths surface for production; scrap
materials produced during manufacturing operations and materials generated after
consumed products are utilized (UNESCAP, 2000).
Figure 2.2 illustrating the flow of materials in the environment

2.2.1 Water Pollution

High concentration of waste carelessly or accidentally disposed in rivers, the
penetration of contaminated surface water or rainfall into landfill along with
different agro-chemical substances of disposed waste produces a leachate which
has abundant level of inorganic and organic solid waste. It is inevitable that all
household waste produces leachate. Contamination occurs if leachate penetrates
23 | P a g e
into ground water, this type of scenario leads to fish kill and it is liable to increase
toxic levels which acts as threat to human and animal life. Leachate from waste
infiltrate into groundwater and shallow aquifers are major problems it has high
concentration of chemicals that has the potential to damage soil and make areas
affected inhabitable for both animal and human use. An example is the Love
Canal area declared a disaster zone, where people living next to the disposal site
had to be evacuated due to disease outbreak from the waste site.
Furthermore, manure used for fertilizers and sewage sludge rich in nutrients can
be a source of water pollution when they are over applied on soil and flows into
nearby river bodies. This applies to both developing and developing nations,
especially in areas with high livestock activities such as rearing cattle and pigs.
2.2
Problems of Waste
The adverse effects of waste disposal to the environment can be harmful causing
water, air and soil pollution (Del Borghi et al., 2009). The slow process of rainfall into
landfill, chemical and agro chemical treatments of waste and incineration procedures
can cause serious environmental hazards if they are not well managed
(Daskalopoulos et al., 1998).
24 | P a g e
Figure 2.3 shows food waste transported by a camel in India

Source: Courtesy of Dr Debbie Bartlett
Poulsen et al. (1995) stated that burning and indiscriminate disposal of waste
causes stain to the environment that includes washing of improper waste
disposed into nearby lakes and rivers and carbon dioxide released into the
atmosphere. Most countries are coming up with new strategies in controlling
waste using the waste hierarchy which prioritises waste prevention and recycling
used waste materials (Gentil et al., 2011). Waste management strategies are set
up by national governments in different countries through waste regulations such
as the EU Landfill Directive (99/31/EC) which was created in order to divert waste
from landfill (Medway Waste Management Strategy, 2005).
25 | P a g e
Source: Organisation for Cooperation and Development (OECD), 2009

Figure 2.4 municipal waste generation in selected countries
26 | P a g e
UNESCAP (2000) described the 3 major problems associated with waste, which are;
2.2.2 Atmospheric Pollution
The dumping of solid waste into landfill produces greenhouse gases such as
methane and carbon dioxide which depletes the ozone layer. It is acknowledged
that man activity on landfill process about 7% of methane gas to the atmosphere.
Atmospheric pollution contains emissions from unburnt waste materials, organic
compounds, heavy metals, acidic gases. Emissions from waste incinerators
contribute to air pollution which has direct negative impacts to human health.
Although stricter regulations are put in place to control air pollution mainly in the
developed countries, developing countries are still victims of atmospheric
pollution mainly through incinerating processes which forms dioxins that are
hazardous to human health. Modern incinerating plants are recommended to be
situated outside urban areas.
2.2.3 Effects of Waste on the Marine Environment
Disposing dredged spoils, industrial waste and sewage sludge can have harmful
and direct negative impact to the marine environment, animal and human health.
The disposals of inert materials particularly in areas where waste products are
frequently dumped are known to have adverse effect on the ecological features. It
causes reduction in fauna species while altering character of sediments present
in the riverine area.
27 | P a g e

Figure 2.5 Showing impacts of Various Categories of Wastes on Water, Soil
and Air in Selected Countries of Different Sub regions
Moreover, decrease in fish population can occur when the species feed on micro
fauna formed by excess nutrients and carbons in phytoplankton blooms that are
created by sewage sludge. Industrial waste containing toxic substances released
into the marine environment negatively affects aquatic life and causes disease
outbreak to animal or human in contact with the water body (UNESCAP, 2000).
28 | P a g e
2.3
Waste Management in selected countries

Waste management in developed countries are different from those in the
developing world. It is a fact that high consumption rates and high rate of
production leads to the vast amount of waste generated daily (Oguntoyinbo,
2012). The more advanced nations have working strategies of tackling waste
issues by regularly collecting, recovering and treating waste while there are
indirect ways of managing waste in developing nations such as the unavailability
or low quality of secondary waste equipment, unclean method of waste collection
and disposal (Oguntoyinbo, 2012; Wilson et al., 2006). Waste management in
developing countries are ill-equipped to properly collect and dispose waste. They
have little or no experience in waste conversion to energy (Wilson et al., 2006).
Globally, China is the largest generator of municipal waste in the world. Chinas
waste is projected at 190,000,000 tonnes produced in a year, this is expected to
increase to about 480,000,000 in the year 2030 (Urban Development Working
Papers, 2005). China produces about 29% of the worlds municipal waste
annually. In comparison, Increase in population in India has led to increase in
proportion to municipal waste generation. With a population of over 1.2billion,
municipal solid waste is a serious environmental concern in India's urban areas
(Kaushal et al., 2012). In India there visible indications of municipal solid waste in
low lying areas within the major cities/mega cities without relevant authorities
taking necessary precautions to control waste storage, collection and disposal
(Sharholy et al., 2008; Kaushal et al., 2012).
The adverse effects of Chinas high waste generation are the overbearing
capacity of landfill sites and incineration plants. This has the potential to cause
environmental hazards such as disease outbreak (suocheng et al., 2001). In
29 | P a g e
China, municipal waste management policies are established to ensure efficient

waste management strategies in recovery, collection and treatment of waste
(Suocheng et al., 2001). Government policies such as building municipal solid
waste incineration plants in different parts of the country were proposed in India
and parts of China. These plants have the capacity to treat over 400tons of waste
daily; these are part of policies and strategies put in place in achieving a
sustainable environment in both countries (Suocheng et al., 2001; Bundela et al.,
2010).
Figure 2.6 illustrates waste disposed of by the kerbside in Dhaka, Bangladesh

Source: Courtesy of Dr Debbie Bartlett
According to Muhle et al. (2010) added that in contrast to developing nations,
developed nations such as Germany and the United Kingdom, strategies used to
manage municipal waste management are far more efficient and well managed.
30 | P a g e
In 2007, 572kg of waste was generated per capita income in the UK while in
Germany municipal solid waste generated was 564kg per capita income (Muhle
et al., 2010). Germanys waste management has one of the best strategies in
recycling and reusing waste materials. It has the highest recycling rates in
Europe and has facilities to transfer energy from residual waste through the
process of combustion (Muhle et al., 2010). Although, the UK waste strategy is
effective in collecting and disposing waste produce by increased recycling rates,
it is still highly dependent on landfill (Defra 2000).
In the year 2007, the UK recycled about 30% of its waste materials, 55% was
transferred to landfill and just 10% converted to energy. This is more than the
recommended European Union (EU) landfill average which is 15% (Muhle et al.,
2010). Compared to Germany which recycled more than 60% of its waste
products, converted about 30% of waste for energy usage and just 1% was sent
to landfill (Muhle et al., 2010).
2.4
Waste Management in the United Kingdom
Waste generation in the UK increases yearly. Household wastes increased by 1.8%

from 28million tonnes to 30million tonnes in 2003 (Medway waste Strategy, 2005).
Stricter laws are incorporated into national and regional laws to help curb the
adverse effects of waste pollutions (such as the Environmental Protection Act).
These laws help prevent pollutions (emissions to air, water and land) and tackle
problems of environmental sustainability such as global warming and greenhouse
gases (Medway Waste Strategy, 2005; Gentil et al., 2011).
31 | P a g e
Landfill is still widely used for dumping waste in the UK and it consumes 84% of
municipal solid waste. This practice is expected to reduce because of the European
Union (EU) Landfill Directive (1999) which requires most waste materials be diverted
from landfill (Slater et al., 2001).
The Environment Agency through the
Environmental Protection Act 1990 made local authorities responsible to collect and
dispose waste responsibly, either by collecting directly or hiring a contractor for
collection and disposal (Morris et al., 1998). Waste strategies in the UK prioritize the
need to treat solid waste instead of sending them into landfill. Waste treatment
businesses in conjunction with the Environment Agency encourage local authorities
to work closer with adjacent or neighbouring development agencies and local
authorities in developing technology for treating waste (Bates et al., 2008; Medway
Waste Strategy, 2005).
Source:
Defra, 2004
Figure 2.7 Showing UKs waste production in 2001

32 | P a g e
The pie chart above shows that most generated in the UK are from quarrying,
agriculture and commercial activities (Defra, 2004). Woodward et al. (2004) added
that in the year 1996 the UK Government introduced a tax system imposed on the
waste directed towards landfill. This aimed at reducing the amount of waste for
landfill by reducing household waste from local authorities and industrial waste; it
also helps promote sustainability in the environment (Woodward et al., 2004).
Discouraging the habit of waste to landfill led to other methods of waste
management such as incineration, composting, reuse and recycling (Mohan et al.,
2006). More also, waste management sites in the UK are subject to having
Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) permit which is enforced by the
Environment Agency in Wales and England, the Environment and Heritage Service
in Ireland and in Scotland by the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency (Mohan
et al., 2006). This permit regulates waste management activities on all landfill and
incinerating sites in the UK, this further encourages the minimization, reuse and
recycling of waste products (Woodward et al., 2004).
Source: Defra, 2004

Figure 2.8 municipal wastes Management in the UK, 2001
33 | P a g e
From the figure above, more than half of municipal waste generated were sent to
landfill, 9% was converted to energy and 13% were recycled (Defra, 2004). Due to
the unsustainable practice of waste disposal to landfill, local authorities had the
responsibility of developing waste management strategies which detailed treating
municipal waste such as collecting municipal waste from kerbside, clinical waste,
street cleaning waste and other recyclable items (Medway Waste Strategy, 2005;
Defra, 2004).
According to Muhle et al. (2010), waste management target strategies are outlined in
England which highlights the importance of meeting the Landfill Directive for
biodegradable municipal solid waste. It prioritizes recycling and reuse of waste
materials and the conversion of waste materials for energy (Muhle et al., 2010). Part
of the targets set in the Waste Strategy for England published in 1997 by the
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) include household
waste reuse, composting and recycling should be at 40% by 2010, 45% by 2015 and
50% by 2020. Recovery targets for municipal solid waste are at 53% by 2010, 67%
by 2015 and 75% by 2020 (Muhle et al., 2010; Defra 2007).
2.5
Methods of Municipal Waste Management in the Europe
Municipal waste management involves the role of collecting, transferring and

recovery of useful materials, waste treatment and recycling (Henry, et al., 2006).
Waste management is aimed at protecting human and public health, to maintain
sustainability development, to enhance economic productivity and providing
environmental quality (Henry, et al., 2006). Waste management methodology usually
involves different stakeholders such as the local authorities and the private sector in
partnership with the general public (Henry, et al., 2006).
34 | P a g e
Recovery and recycling are two of the best and effective approaches used to reduce
waste. According to Defra (2011), the 4Rs (Reduce, Reuse, Recycle and Recovery)
should be incorporated into waste management plan and policies. Recycling is
useful by allowing natural resources available for human use be further preserved
and managed. It also helps reduce the amount of waste sent to landfill and save
energy needed for manufacturing and production (Rogers, 2005). Recycling is also
effective in reducing our ecological footprint and helps a country like the United
Kingdom meets its pledge to the Kyoto Protocol by reducing emissions of
greenhouse gases (Environment Agency, 2006). However, recycling entails waste
materials needs to be transported, sorted and renewed. This means that it requires
resources such as water, fossil fuel and electricity. Despite these limitations,
recycling has more advantage when compared to burning or burying waste materials
(Rogers, 2005). General awareness and education is important on promoting
recycling. Recycling is everybodys responsibility including the old, rich, poor and
young, it is alleged that through education, existing and future waste originators will
conserve and respect natures resources by making knowledgeable waste
prevention choices (David Suzuki Foundation, 2012). It is imperative that the
younger generation should be taught the importance of contributing and be involved
in recycling activities. They should be involved helping their environment by reducing
waste and diminish the demand on existing and almost packed landfills (David
Suzuki Foundation, 2012). In the absence of these kinds of education or awareness
programs, the continuation of landfill activities will lead to the degradation of the
environment causing adverse environmental impacts as well as affecting climate
change and the further diminution of the ozone layer (David Suzuki Foundation,
2012).
35 | P a g e
In addition, the UK sends its municipal waste to landfill which is about 15% more
than the twenty seven European Union countries which is about 40%. The UKs
recycling rate is also lower to that of other European Union countries at 34% to 39%
(Defra 2012).
Source: Defra 2012

Figure 2.9 municipal wastes Management in the European Union
The table above shows municipal waste management in the European Union in
2007. The illustration shows Malta and Lithuania are the countries with highest rate
of landfill with low recycling activity. While Germany and the Netherlands engage
and have recycling rates of more than 65%, the UK landfills more than 60% of its
municipal waste (Defra, 2012). In addition to disposing potentially valuable
resources, emissions from methane gas generated from landfill adds up to total
greenhouse gas emissions and is predicted to double by the year 2020 (David
36 | P a g e
Suzuki Foundation, 2012). Additional main problems associate with landfills include
the release of leachate including the fact that the disposal of rubbish into landfill is a
waste of resources that could be reused or recycled (Environment Agency, 2012).
According to the Medway Waste Management Strategy (2006), the amount of waste
produced in the UK increases daily, both domestically and nationally. Waste
generated in England is said to increase from 28.8 million tonnes in 2001 to 29.3
million tonnes in 2003, this is predicted to drastically increase in the year 2020
(Medway Waste Management Strategy, 2006). In 1999, the European Union sets out
ambitious targets for the reduction of waste to be sent to landfill, this was on the
wake of the EU Landfill Directive (99/31/EC). This prompted the UK government set
out waste management plans in the year 2000; this gave a higher priority to waste
prevention, recovery, composting and recycling and setting out targets for local
planning authorities (Medway Waste Management Strategy, 2006). Furthermore,
recent concerns about environmental degradation and sustainability at the global
level which includes rapid depletion of natural resources, methane gases emitted
from landfill sites and its pollution to water, air and land has led to stringent rules
implemented into UK regulations and laws (Medway Waste Management Strategy,
2006).
Daskalopoulos et al. (1998) stated that there are major methods of treating and
managing municipal wastes. They are;
Landfilling;
Waste composting;
Incineration with energy recovery; and
Waste recycling
37 | P a g e
Other methods of managing and treating waste materials are pyrolysis, gasification
and fluidised-bed combustion methods (Daskalopoulos et al., 1998).
2.5.1 Landfilling
This is an area of land where waste is to be deposited. It is aimed at separating
waste from surrounding environment especially avoiding groundwater contamination
(kaushal et al., 2012). This method of managing waste is widely used to store waste.
It is the only waste disposal method that can contain piles of solid waste (Sabbas et
al., 2003).
In developing a site for landfill, modern engineering design and
construction is applied to avoid any possible leakages of leachate and evaporation of

dangerous gases to the atmosphere (Sabbas et al., 2003).
A standard landfill specification includes covering with layers of soil, compacting in
order to reduce volume of waste deposited and it should be confined to a smallest
area possible (Daskalopoulos et al., 1998). More recent landfill technology to curb
exposure of gases to the atmosphere and groundwater contamination is the
bioreactor landfill design. The bioreactor landfill technology is designed to boost the
level of anaerobic biodegradation and optimise moisture content within the landfill
(Kaushal et al., 2012). According to UNESCAP (2002), landfill is still widely used by
most industrialized and developing countries in the world. Western Europe and
Northern America transports 70% of its municipal waste to landfill. Waste sent to
landfill are pre-treated in order to reduce hazardous substances and it also help
reduce the volume of waste (UNESCAP, 2000).
38 | P a g e
2.5.2 Waste Composting

This is important in achieving a sustainable method of waste management.
Composting involves aerobically or anaerobically converting organic materials
existing in municipal waste to a stable form (Slater et al., 2001). In aerobic
decomposition process, aerobic micro-organisms in waste oxidises organic
compounds to form gases such as Nitrogen Oxide and Carbon dioxide (UNESCAP,
2000). Nitrogen produced from this process is recycled while carbon from organic
compound is used as a source of energy (UNESCAP, 2000). Composting is also
useful for soil amendments, fertilizer in organic farming, landscaping and horticulture.
It is also useful for land and water reclamation, landfill cover, construction of wetland
and controlling erosion (Slater et al., 2001; UNESCAP, 2000). Sorting of waste
produce before composting helps remove unwanted hazardous substances such as
plastics and heavy metals; this prevents hazardous substances from been used for
agricultural use and consumption (UNESCAP, 2000).
2.5.3 Incineration with Energy Recovery

Incineration is the process of combusting organic elements waste materials. It is also
referred to as a thermal waste treatment, converting waste materials into heat, ash
and flue gases (UNESCAP, 2000). Through this process, heat from the waste
generated is converted to energy (Waste to energy) which has the potential to
reduce solid waste materials by 85% (Slater et al., 2001). All kinds of waste
(industrial, hazardous, sewage or municipal) are suitable for incineration process. It
helps reduce waste deposited at landfill sites and has the potential eradicate highly
toxic waste products (UNESCAP, 2000). Most European countries such as Germany
and the United Kingdom are constructing more incineration plants due to the ban of
39 | P a g e
sending untreated waste to landfill; the incineration process provides electricity to

most parts of Europe which is known as Renewable Energy Source (RES) (Bates et
al., 2008). According to Bates et al. (2008), the UK is very much behind in waste
incineration due to the popular availability of landfill sites. This led to the creation of
Landfill Allowance Trading Scheme and the landfill tax system (Bates et al., 2008).
2.5.4 Waste Recycling
The collection and reuse of waste materials such as plastics and cans is a resource
recovery practice referred to as recycling. Recycling is aimed at reusing useful
materials from discarded waste materials (Wilson, et al., 2006). Recycled materials
are reprocessed for new products. Materials such as plastic, paper, tins, glass,
cardboard and polythene are usually collected separately from other types of waste
using designated bins (UNESCAP, 2000). The processes of recycling also help
reduce the volume of waste being produced by transferring some reusable items to
industries. These include
industrial processing of used bottles to manufacture new
ones and recycling newspapers and magazines to sanitary paper products

(UNESCAP, 2000).
Recycling is a major strategy in municipal waste management in developed
countries such as the Unites states and Unites kingdom. It is actively implemented
through different political campaigns and educational awareness programmes
(UNESCAP, 2000). Wilson et al. (2006) added that recycling strategies such as curb
side collections, waste drop off centres, collection and sorting are strategies used by
most recycling agencies in order to further encourage the culture of recycling. Also,
public participation is a major aspect as a strategy in recycling so as to encourage
more individuals to actively participate (Menikpura et al., 2011).
40 | P a g e
2.6
Waste Hierarchy
The European Waste Framework Directive explained five different methods in

associating with waste which is referred to as the waste hierarchy. In a priority order
they are Prevention, Preparation for reuse, Recycling, Other recovery and Disposal
methods (Defra, 2011; The Manufacturers Organisation, 2011). In Article 4 of the
Waste framework Directive, member states including the United Kingdom
implements the waste hierarchy system into their waste prevention and management
strategy policy (Defra, 2011). According to the European Commission (2010) reuse
in the waste hierarchy refers to the repeated usage of materials for the same
functions for they were originally made, products such as printers, cartridges and
refrigerators (European Commission, 2010).
The reuse of other materials such as furniture and clothes has environmental and
economic benefit by providing resources to other people who need them but unable
to afford them (European Commission, 2010). The waste hierarchy management
system is a strategy used to avert waste creation.
It supports the concept of
preventing rather than treating waste being generated (Gertsakis et al., 2003).
Hierarchy in waste means its reduction, reduce and recycle. Waste should be treated
differently because they are made out of different materials (Gertsakis et al., 2003;
Pires et al., 2011). Avoiding the creation of waste is prioritized higher than reducing,
reusing, recycling or composting and disposal of waste materials (to incineration or
landfilled). The idea of waste management hierarchy supports the idea of
sustainability, ensuring the rate at which waste is generated does not surpass
assimilative capability of the environment (Gertsakis et al., 2003).
41 | P a g e
Figure 2.10 illustrating the waste hierarchy

Source: Defra, 2011
The figure above shows the waste hierarchy set by the Waste Framework Directive.
It explains the five stages in the waste hierarchy process (Defra, 2011). Prevention in
the hierarchy means reducing materials used in design and manufacturing
processes, products designed should be able to be durable and last longer and the
option to reuse old items either by exchanging or donating them for other purposes
(Defra 2011; The Manufacturers Organisation, 2011).
Eco design is one of the major instruments used to encourage waste prevention, this
helps to make products from design stage be environmental friendly and sustainable
(Defra, 2011). Products designed should be created or manufactured from recycled
raw materials. Waste prevention campaigns are organised to promote awareness
within educational institutions and the general public (The Manufacturers
Organisation, 2011). Recycling in the hierarchy helps cut down the amount waste to
be disposed of. Waste materials such as glass, cardboard, plastics and metals can
be recycled and used for other purposes (Defra, 2011). 95% of energy is saved from
42 | P a g e
using a recycled product to manufacture a product; it also saves the volume of

materials to be cut down from the natural environment (The Manufacturers
Organisation, 2011).
The intentions of the European Union through its policies aims to make sure member
states uses waste products for manufacturing such as using electronic equipment,
old vehicles, batteries as well as demolition waste (The Manufacturers Organisation,
2011). Countries such as Germany and the United Kingdom set out strategies to
meet this targets such as the Extended Producer Responsibility systems which
ensures that companies are held accountable for the packaging and life cycle of their
products produced (Defra, 2011; Muhle et al., 2010; The Manufacturers
Organisation, 2011). Energy recovery simply involves using waste materials for
energy generation. Incineration plants are capable of producing steam, electricity,
heating and fuel for industrial functions (The Manufacturers Organisation, 2011).
Energy recovery is not totally sustainable in treating waste due to incomplete burning
of waste materials and releasing high toxic substances to the atmosphere, due to
these effect stringent rules are set to control pollution released from incineration
plants (The Manufacturers Organisation, 2011).
According to Defra (2011),
municipal waste incineration has doubled energy produced since the year 1995 in
Europe.
2.7
Municipal Solid Waste Recycling
According to Elliot (2007), humans have been involved in recycling unwanted and
used materials as at the 400BC. Scrap metals and bronze were recovered and
melted for other uses such as pottery, hand tools and ash (Elliot, 2007). In Britain
ash and dust were gathered from coal and wood were used for making bricks, this
type of practice was easy to achieve than acquiring new materials and it saved
43 | P a g e
money (Elliot, 2007). Major constructions such as railroads benefited from acquiring
scrap metals as well as the automobile industries, creating menial jobs for people
through the collection of unwanted items on streets (Elliot, 2007). More also,
recycling became massive after the world wars. There was limited availability of
resources after the war period; this made recycling popular (The Dallas Sierra Club,
2008). Government of various countries such as the United States and Japan
campaigned to citizens giving out unwanted items, such as pots and other metals for
recycling in order to support war reliefs (Federal Environmental Executive, 2012).
The British also initiated the Paper Salvage programme in order to further inspire
recycling among the people (Elliot, 2007).
Recycled feedstock were ever available to be acquired, this helped to reduce the
amount of waste to be disposed in public areas (Elliot, 2007). This event started in
the 1970s due to high cost through energy consumption, different methods of
collection such as the curb side waste collection was initiated (Federal
Environmental Executive, 2012). Recycling continued to grow in the 1980s due to
the shortages of landfill which occurred mostly in high population areas. This led to
the ban of some certain materials for manufacturing such as polystyrene used for
packaging (Elliot, 2007). Also, more methods of recycling were introduced by
privately owned recycling establishments and governmental agencies such as
weekly collection of solid municipal waste materials from kerb sides (The Dallas
Sierra Club, 2008). This also include the segregation of different waste materials
such as separating used glass milk from newspapers, which improved in the 1990s
when the first plastic waste materials were recycled (The Dallas Sierra Club, 2008).
Recycling is renowned when compared to other waste treatment methods as the
most efficient way in treating municipal solid waste. It is the process of converting
44 | P a g e
used and unwanted materials into new and usable products (Merrild, et al., 2012).
Recycling is the third element in the waste hierarchy, it is important in achieving a
sustainable environment by helping to reduce, preserve and sustain the consumption
of earths natural raw resources (Agarwal, et al., 2005). It is useful in reducing the
rate of air pollution (through incineration), reduction in the rate of water pollution
(through landfill), fights climate change such as greenhouse gas and assists in the
reduction in the use of energy (Merrild, et al., 2012). Recycling is also recognised for
the
International
Organisation
for
Standardization
(ISO)
for
environmental
management control in practicing recycling under ISO 14001:2004 and plastic waste
under ISO 15270:2008 (Olmsted, 2007).
The act of recycling helps waste being migrated away from landfill practices. The
United Kingdom still sends over 65% of its waste materials to landfill sites compared
to Japan which directs merely 16% of its municipal solid waste to landfill (Defra,
2011; Olmsted, 2007). District and county councils in the UK are obligated to meet
the EU Landfill Directive which requires the amount of biodegradable waste sent to
landfill be reduced (Friends of the Earth, 2008). Also the introduction of the Landfill
Allowance Trading Scheme (LATS) which was originated by the UK government in
2004 has made councils find more efficient ways in carrying out their recycling
strategies (Friends of the Earth, 2008). This resulted in councils improving on their
door step waste collection system as a strategy from diverting waste away from
landfill (Friends of the Earth, 2008).
According to Defra (2011), 27% of the UKs municipal solid waste was recycled in
2006/2007. When compared to other European nations this is relatively small,
countries such as Germany and Netherlands which recycles more than half of their
waste generated and Belgium which recycles up to 70% of its municipal solid waste
45 | P a g e
(Friends of the Earth, 2008). Recycling rates still set by the UK government are
relatively small and not encouraging when compared to what other countries are
achieving (Friends of the Earth, 2008). According to Defra (2011), the UK
government set its recycling rate at 45% by 2015 and 50% by 2020; this is
unambitious and should be increased so as to make councils increase rates of
recycling within the community (Friends of the Earth, 2008).
According to Friends of the Earth (2008), some of the major advantages of why
recycling should continue and become part of everyday activity include;
-
Reduction of humans impact on climate change; recycling helps reduce

carbon emission to the atmosphere as compared to the process of
manufacturing new products. Recent studies such as the Waste and
Resources Action Programme (WRAP) had proof to conclude that recycling
rates in the UK has a positive effect on the low greenhouse gas recorded. It
was confirmed that current recycling rates in the UK saves about 15million
tonnes of CO2 which is equivalent to almost removing 4million cars off roads
in the UK.
It is cheaper compared to manufacturing new products; when compares

to landfill and incineration, recycling is cheaper and easy to execute and its
end products are environmentally sustainable. Moreover, the method of
recycling avoids the possibility of paying the Landfill Allowance Trading
Scheme (LATS) meant for landfill and it is also relatively cheap compared to
incineration.
It generates extra cash; recyclables are collected and transported to waste

recycling centres where they are processed and treated. Materials such as
46 | P a g e
glass, paper and plastics are segregated and sold to willing buyers. Although,
money is spent for the recycling process but profit can be generated from the
sale of the recycled products.
It creates more revenues and jobs; collecting waste from roadside, its
treatment and processing requires a certain amount of work force. It is
estimated that six jobs are created for every tonne of waste recycled.
Recycling creates more jobs than both landfill and incineration, there is a
huge potential for investment in the sector.
It helps develop a more sustainable environment; recycling is one of the

simplest methods in reducing carbon emissions, saving energy and any
negative impact on the environment. Recycling helps preserve energy
because of its cyclic nature; this help the environment develop sustainably.
It saves raw materials; it helps reserve earths natural resources such as oil,
forests and metals. Paper, plastics and tins are recycled to make new
products rather than burning energy to cut down new raw materials for
productivity. A good example is glass which can be reused over and over
again for years.
47 | P a g e
2.8
Environmental Sustainability and the Bin Cam Project
According to Weeden et al. (2011), the bin cam project is a project invented by
postgraduate students at the University of Newcastle; it aims at encouraging people
in recycling Weeden et al., 2011; Thieme et al., 2011). The project involves attaching
a mobile phone camera to the lid of a bin equipped with censors which allows
pictures be captured after rubbish is put into the bin (Weeden et al., 2011).
Figure 2.11 illustrating a Bin Cam (Source: Weeden et al., 2011)

Photos retrieved from the bin will later be transferred to social network sites such as
facebook for friends and neighbours to see. Furthermore, Weeden et al. (2011)
added that graph charts are also put up so participants of the bin cam can monitor
the recycling rate of other partakers.
48 | P a g e
Figure 2.12 illustrating the bin cam and its affiliation with facebook website
(Source: Weeden et al., 2011)
This innovative project if adopted by other universities should encourage students to

recycle their waste (Weeden et al., 2011). The University of Greenwich has taken
further steps in making sure recycling rates on all three campuses are increased.
New shared recyclable bins are installed on all three campuses and under desk bins
are being removed (University of Greenwich Sustainability Blog, 2012).
Figure 2.13 showing the new shared recycle bin at the University of Greenwich
49 | P a g e
The bin in the figure above is a duo bin; one side is for non-recycling and food
waste while the other side of the bin is for mixed recycling. The installation of these
new recyclable bins is hoped to improve the visibility of recycling bins for students
and staffs. Also, to improve the universitys reputation in the Green league table
(University of Greenwich Sustainability Blog, 2012).
50 | P a g e
3.0
Methodology
The collections of both primary and secondary data were methods used in carrying
out this research. Secondary data such as literature from journals, e-books,
publications, papers and other library facilities has been used to inform acquisition of
primary data including recycling related questionnaires, personal observation,
interviews and the weighing municipal of waste in the study area. These sources
were important in gathering relevant data to provide more evidence and authenticity
on existing situation in the study area.
3.1
The Study Area
The Avery Hill campus consisting of two sites (Mansion Site and Southwood site) are
located in Eltham, south east London in the UK is one of three accommodation
campuses managed by the University of Greenwich. It has land area of 86 acre;
some of the buildings existing on the site are listed by the English Heritage
(University of Greenwich, 2012).
The area consists of accommodation comprising of maisonettes and shared flats for
students at the University of Greenwich Avery Hill Southwood campus. There are
arranged in courtyards occupied by students, these are the Aragon, Ann Boleyn,
Cleves, Howard, Parr, Tudor and Seymour Courts.
51 | P a g e
Figure 3.1 Shows location map of the University of Greenwich Avery Hill
Southwood campus (Source: Google Earth accessed July 26, 2012)
Figure 3.2 Site Plan of the University of Greenwich Avery Hill Accommodation
campus (Source: Google Earth accessed July 26, 2012)
52 | P a g e
The study area comprises of different student facilities such as laboratories, lecture
theatres and libraries. There is also a social meeting place for students to meet and
associate among themselves called The Village. It comprises of sporting amenities
for football, tennis, cricket and rugby and other sporting activities.
Figure 3.3 Front view of the University of Greenwich Avery Hill Southwood
campus
3.2
Survey to Determine Students Awareness of and Attitude to Recycling
According to Jajko et al. (2003) and Mrema (2008) in their research used several
sampling methods to obtain relevant information on students attitudes and
behaviours towards recycling. These methods include the use of questionnaires,
waste audits, face to face interviews and personal observations. The use of literature
reviews were also revised to examine past projects on recycling, this is to develop
modern ways in raising recycling awareness on University campuses (Jajko et al.,
2003). Jajko et al. (2003) added that past WATgreen projects were reviewed to
determine best practice to be adapted for student residents at the St. Jeromes
53 | P a g e
University. The WATgreen projects were projects used on Waste Reduction

Projects, Environmental Education Assessment, Recycling Education at the
University of Waterloo and On Campus Recycling Knowledge of Environmental
Studies (Jajko, et al., 2003).
Figure 3.4 Recycling area in the Halls of Residence

Information resulting from these projects was used to develop questionnaires for
student residents at St. Jeromes University. One hundred questionnaires were
administered
which consisted of eight questions including both open and close
ended questions to students, the questionnaires were aimed at finding out how
educated the students of St. Jeromes University are towards recycling (Jajko, et al.,
2003). The waste audit methods were to determine the amount of waste generated
and examine the volume of recyclables in these waste materials. This was also
essential in comparing the results from questionnaires administered and the waste
disposal habit of the students through weighing the recyclables. The recyclables
were divided into three categories which are newspapers and papers, cans and
54 | P a g e
bottles and cardboards (Jajko, et al., 2003). Mrema (2008) also added that
questionnaires are important in getting relevant information from students although
there are existing limitations in this type of research. Face-to-face interviews are
relevant in finding out what types of programs are available to promote awareness
towards recycling on campuses (Mrema, 2008).
Figure 3.5 Waste bins for cigarette butts on campus

For the purpose of this research, questionnaires are shared to different students in
these different accommodations. Although some of the questionnaires were
administered to students in other areas within the study area such as the cafeteria
and the student relaxations spots like the gym. It is also important to note that there
are several limitations to be considered during administering questionnaires such as
55 | P a g e
students degree of honesty which means students filling what they think are right as
opposed to what is practised when it comes to recycling.
3.2.1 Motive for Questionnaire Design

The questionnaire design was executed to accomplish the objectives of this
research. A total of 127 questionnaires were distributed to student residents living in
the Avery Hill halls of residence on recycling. The questionnaires were geared
towards getting information on how students feel about recycling, their awareness
towards it and their contribution to making it more effective within their halls of
residence. It also include asking about the importance of recycling to their personal
life, knowing what sort of waste they recycle frequently and what sort of items are
mostly disposed of (such as paper, food waste, glass or batteries). More also,
information on why they recycle, nationality and gender were as well included in the
distributed questionnaires. Nationality was included in the questionnaire because the
research is trying to find out if recycling or waste management in general is cultural,
ethnic or comes naturally to the human mind. Gender and education level were also
included to find out if the behavioural pattern towards recycling is learning or training
based and gender based respectively.
56 | P a g e
Figure 3.6 Recycling bins provided in and around the Avery Hill campus
Due to the current situation in the study area, where cigarettes buds are usually
found on the floor in public places and mostly at the back of accommodation
buildings dumped through windows from the flats, the questionnaires included a
section about smoking. This is to have an idea of how many smokers are residing
within the halls of residence and also to find out about their attitude towards
effectively disposing the buds after smoking. These questions were included in the
questionnaires to help solve waste management issues within the campus, raise
recycling awareness and find out reasons why most students seem not interested in
effective waste disposal practices.
57 | P a g e
3.2.2 Method of Questionnaire Implementation

The waste weighing exercise was carried out in the flats of Aragon and Ann Boleyn
Courts. Furthermore, an A2 paper poster was printed and pasted at the
accommodation office at the Aragon reception raising awareness about this
research. The poster had an 50 amazon voucher on it which was put to encourage
students to fill in the recycle questionnaires.
Figure 3.7 Bin stores provided for each flats in the Halls of residence
58 | P a g e
Figure 3.8 The illustration shows the poster used to promote this research
awareness at the Avery Hill Southwood campus
Other necessary information was also included in the poster such as name, contact
detail and the University of Greenwichs logo identifying the authenticity of the
research project. Also, another method of data collection was personal interviewing
group of students, getting first-hand information from students which allows them
explain why they engage in recycling activities or vice versa. These interviews are
written and recorded; these interviews are relevant due to the crystal clear waste
materials and litters seen around campus especially in the early hours of the day.
59 | P a g e
3.3
Assessment of Waste Produced From Student Flats
Waste examined in the study area for this project consists to a large amount of
waste generated by current students in the Avery Hill halls of residence for the
2011/2012 session. For the purpose of primary data collection, two main methods
were executed. They are the distribution of questionnaires and weighing waste
generated by students in each of the flats in the study area.
3.3.1 Rationale
Another primary method of data collection executed was weighing waste generated
in the study area. Two sets of accommodation were selected in the Avery Hill halls of
residence (Aragon and Ann Boleyn Courts). These Courts were selected because
the University of Greenwich just concluded its end of session exams which made
students vacate halls of residence immediately.
Figure 3.9 the pictures above shows weight scale to weigh waste. (Units are in
g/kg)
60 | P a g e
But from personal observation, students in the Aragon and Ann Boleyn halls were
still occupied and signs of active activities were present such as students writing last
minute exams and other social activities (partying). Moreover, other halls of
residence were less occupied when compared to these two halls (Aragon and Ann
Boleyn Courts).
3.3.2 Sample Selection

Furthermore, a total of 5days were selected for weighing waste generated, this is
partly caused by the little time slots available during the Universitys term time.
Wastes disposed from an average of 12flats within the halls of residence were
weighed from the Aragon and Ann Boleyn Courts on each day. Waste weighed in
units are in grams/kilograms (g/kg), the weight of bags are recorded and thereby
subtracted from the waste weighed.
This means that the exact weight from the measured waste are acquired and
recorded. Wastes in bins were classified into 6 major recyclables. They are;
-
Cans/Tins
Nylons/Wrappers
Food waste and Packages
Cardboard/Paper
Plastics and
Glass.
61 | P a g e
Figure 3.10 Illustrating showing waste handpicked into different recyclables

(bottles, plastics, paper) set for weighing
These waste classifications would be separated into different bags and weighed
using a weight scale (with units g/kg). This process was done on each of the five
different days. Personal observation was also used to collect data, such as looking at
the way students in Avery Hill campus dispose of their waste materials in their flats
and in public areas such as the caf and open spaces.
3.3.3 Risk Assessment
An appropriate risk assessment was carried out for the different methods to be used
in data collection identifying potential hazards. Hazards such as the availability of
sharp objects in bins, contagious objects and unpleasant fumes from waste bins are
put into consideration.
62 | P a g e
Figure 3.11 Illustrating protective equipment for health and safety showing
nose masks, gloves, scales, goggles and overalls
Personal protective equipment were provided by the University of Greenwich in order

to reduce the probability of any potential harm such as
the availability of eye
protective goggles, hand gloves, an overall laboratory coat, nose masks and
appropriate shoes. These pieces of equipment are worn appropriately during data
collection exercises and are kept safely for subsequent use. A risk assessment form
was also filled listing the potential hazards and providing preventive measures to be
used in reducing hazards for record reasons.
63 | P a g e
Figure 3.12 illustrating separate bins provided for kitchens in the flats
3.4
Procedure
The facility management team of the Avery Hill campus helped in providing waste
management equipment such as wheel bins for transporting waste bags to the waste
collection point. Also, the team helped in making sure waste bins are not emptied
before the weighing exercise took place. For personal safety and from the risk
assessment, waste bins were wheeled to the central waste collection point in the
Avery Hill Campus. Waste are separated and weighed in this section only with
appropriate personal protective equipment worn. Data collected are stored
electronically using Microsoft Excel software, a database is developed to store daily
records of waste weighed and also used to generate a database for the received
questionnaires from respondents. The collected questionnaires and weighing are
inputted in a tabular form. These inputs are further represented for easy explanation
and clarity using bar graphs and pie charts.
64 | P a g e
Figure 3.13 shows sorting waste into recyclable categories
3.4.1 Summary of procedure

1.
A poster was designed and posted at the accommodation office to raise

awareness about the research topic which included a 50 amazon voucher
2.
A questionnaire was developed for students which included necessary

questions to help accomplish and answer research questions which enable
the research objectives to be met
3.
Questionnaires and the poster was approved by the supervising lecturer and
sent for mass copying
4.
Questionnaires were made available at the accommodation office for students

to comfortably fill in and return to the designated box provided
65 | P a g e
5.
Random days were selected for personal distribution of questionnaires to

students and personal observation were also recorded from the month of
May, 2012
6.
The facility management team of the Avery Hill campus helped in making sure
waste from accommodation halls were not disposed of in early mornings
7.
The waste weighing activity began on the 17th of May till the 13th 0f June 2012
which included extra observation, questionnaire distribution and informal
interviews with students.
8.
Compilations of the questionnaires were completed in the month of July, while

analysis from questionnaires and weighing was completed in the month of
July 2012.
3.4.2 Semi Structured Interviews

Semi structured interviews are usually made up of open questions which can be little
or much. They are brought to the interview situation in the form of a discussion guide
(Dahle et al., 2001). Semi structured Interviews are aimed at invoking the
interviewees perspectives when compared to standardised questionnaires and
interviews, which may misinterpret, rather than point out the interviewees standpoint
(Dahle et al., 2001).
Dahle et al (2001) used semi structured interview method to conduct a research in
six higher institutions in London, UK. The semi structured interview was described as
an expert-interview; a situation where the interviewee is of insignificant than his
area of interest, which in this case is about recycling (Dahle et al., (2001).
66 | P a g e
Schedule
The interview was targeted at extracting solid information on how the interviewees
truly feel about recycling. It was felt that there was no need to collect names as the
interviewees wished to be nameless. The two main focuses of the interviews were
asking their honest opinion about recycling and if they really think recycling is
important as being pronounced or publicised.
Table 3.1 Schedule of semi interview
Name
Respondent
Respondent 1
Requested for more bins to be provided

around campus
Respondent 2
Requested for easy accessibility to bins

and more awareness should be raised
Respondent 3
More awareness should be raised and

change the type of bins in the flats to be
more efficient for recycling
3.4.3 Observation
Furthermore, personal observations such as locating bin areas, posters and
recycling facilities are important. This helps to see a students reaction to the position
such bins and their attitudes to decent waste disposal after consumption such as
wrappers and food waste (Mrema, 2008; Jajko, et al., 2003).
67 | P a g e
Figure 3.14 cigarette butts found on the floor along windows at the halls of
residence
Bins are visibly seen around the Avery Hill halls of campus, there are bins at
strategic locations as well as recyclables provided in the cafeteria and around the
accommodation halls. Waste bins are present in each of the kitchen of flats within
the halls of residence, as for recycling bins some are positioned within hall premises.
Bin bags are also provided to students (black for non-recyclables and white for
recyclable materials) by cleaners assigned to the halls.
68 | P a g e
Figure 3.15 recyclables and non-recyclables dumped around a hall of

residence
69 | P a g e
4.0
Data presentation and Analysis
4.1 Questionnaires:
A total of 127 questionnaires were received. 44 of the questionnaires were filled out
by males and 83 were filled out by females (figure 4.1).
Gender
35%
Male
65%
Female
Figure 4.1 illustrating the number of male and female respondents
It was noted that during questionnaire distribution, females were more ready to
respond positively in filling the questionnaires and also having little chats about what
they felt about recycling on campus than their male counterparts.
The total number of questionnaires filled in face to face is 62. Females completed 37
of the questionnaires while males completed 25 questionnaires. Furthermore, out of
the 65 questionnaires that were posted in the accommodation office, 24 of them
were filled by males and 41 females.
The results are described below for each question in order.
70 | P a g e
Question 1:
The first question in the questionnaire asked students how important recycling is to
them. There were five options giving respondents the choice of saying if recycling
was extremely important, very important, slightly important, not- important or that
they were not sure.
Results from the questionnaires represented in the chart below (Figure 4.2), 45
responses which represents 35.4% of the respondents acknowledged that recycling
is very important. 26.7% of the respondents revealed that recycling was slightly
important and extremely important respectively while 8.7% said recycling was not
important and 2.7% were not sure.
45
45
40
35
34
34
30
25
20
15
11
10
3
5
0
Extremely
Important
Very important
Slightly
Important
Not Important
Not sure
Figure 4.2 The importance of recycling according to their categories
71 | P a g e
Overall, from a total of 127 respondents, 113 students which represents 88.9% of the
questionnaires felt recycling was important as opposed to 8.9% which represents 14
students who felt recycling was not important (Figure 4.3).
14
Important
Not Sure
113
Figure 4.3 the total numbers of students showing importance of recycling

In figure 4.4, 70 female and 43 male students felt recycling was important while 8
female and 6 male students felt recycling was not important.
70
70
60
43
50
Important
40
Not important
30
20
10
0
Females
Males
Figure 4.4 Ratio of female and male students showing importance of recycling
72 | P a g e
From these results, it is showed that more females felt recycling was important than
males. 62% of females felt recycling is important when compared to 38% of male
students (Figure 4.4).
Results also showed that 43 home students and 22 international students think
recycling is important while only 6 home and 4 international students think recycling
is not important (Figure 4.5).
43
45
40
35
30
25
Important
22
Not important
20
15
10
5
0
International students
Home students
Figure 4.5 Ratio of the importance international and home students towards
recycling
From this result, 66 % of home students feel recycling is important as compared to
34% of international students. Also, the percentage of home students who is feel
recycling is not important is more than that of the international students (Figure 4.5).
Also, more than 90% of undergraduate and postgraduate students agreed that
recycling is important (Figure 4.6).
73 | P a g e
94
100
90
80
70
60
Important
50
Not important
40
30
20
10
0
15
1
postgraduates
2
undergraduates
Figure 4.6 Relationship between undergraduates and postgraduates on the

importance of recycling
From this outcome, it can be concluded that there is a general awareness among
students on how important recycling is while it can also be said that some dont think
it is important and some students are not too sure about it.
Question 2:
Furthermore, the second question asked if they recycled their waste, 63% claimed to
recycle their waste materials, 35% confessing they recycle sometimes but only 2%
admitted to not recycling their waste. The pie chart below represents the percentage
of respondents that said to recycle their waste, those that sometimes recycle and the
rest claiming not recycle at all.
74 | P a g e
3
45
Yes
80
Sometimes
No
Figure 4.7 Respondents response to recycling waste
The rate of recycling from this result is impressive and shows great participation on
part of those students who completed the questionnaires which is about 10.5% of the
total student population at Avery Hill campus. On the other hand, students who
claimed to sometimes recycle their waste were 35% which is a third the sample size.
According to further results derived, more female students recycle their waste. 74
female students claim to recycle their waste materials while 50 male students
recycle. On the other hand, only 1 male and 2 female student does not recycle their
waste materials (Figure 4.8).
75 | P a g e
40%
60%
Males
Females
Figure 4.8 Male and female students who recycle

Also, there is no much variance in the responses relating to nationality, from the
results 26 international students claim they recycle their waste while 96 home
students also recycle their waste. This is about 79% to 21% ratio relating to figure
4.9 below.
26
96
Home students
Figure 4.9 International and home students who recycle
76 | P a g e
Question 3:
However, when asked about what items they recycled mostly 26% claimed to mostly
recycle plastics while paper came next at 23%. 18% recycles cans, 15% mostly
recycle bottles and 9% mostly recycle their cloths. Also, 6% mostly recycle batteries
and 3% mostly recycle electrical equipment (Figure 4.10).
90
81
80
72
70
57
60
50
45
40
28
30
19
20
10
0
Glass
Paper
Plastics
Cans
Battery
Electrical
equipments
Clothes
Figure 4.10 Most Recycled Items
From the chart above, the rate at which recyclables are managed is encouraging.
With most of the respondents recycling paper, glass and plastics frequently, the
percentage of these recyclables combines is almost 60%. This is an average statistic
and a lot can be done to improve this; especially considering that just 6% mostly
recycle batteries and 3% recycle electronic waste (Figure 4.10).
77 | P a g e
Question 4:
Also, questions on how they think recycling can be made easier on campus was
asked, most of the responses retrieved included 52% suggesting providing extra bins
for different recyclables would be much more easier for recycling while 25% believes
easy accessibility to recycling bins would ease recycling and 23% suggested raising
more awareness campaigns and programs will make recycling easier (Figure 4.11).
How recycling can be made easier?

53
60
50
40
30
26
23
20
10
0
Easy accessibility to bins
To raise more awareness

about recycling
Provide extra bins for

different recyclables
Figure 4.11 How recycling can be made easier
From the chart above where more than half of respondents suggesting that providing
extra bins will ease recycling on campus is a good step, shows that students and the
schools facility management team can work together in making recycling easier. The
high rate of responses for this question is also a positive step in student involvement
in the schools sustainability project and ensuring that students should be considered
when making any waste management decision.
78 | P a g e
Question 5:
Also, the question of what type of waste do they frequently dispose of was asked. It
was interesting to know that 33% of the respondents admitted that they dispose
plastics more often; while 28% of the respondents claim to dispose paper more
often, 21% dispose cans often, 12% claimed to dispose glass materials often, 4% of
the respondents dispose of batteries and just 2% claim to frequently dispose crisps
and packets (Figure 4.12).
98
100
90
85
80
64
70
60
50
37
40
30
20
13
4
10
0
Paper
Plastics
Cans
Glass
Crisps and
packets
Batteries
Figure 4.12 Frequently disposed waste materials

From the chart above, the most commonly disposed of by recycling material is
plastic which closely corresponds with the response received in figure 4.10 where
26% claim to recycle plastics more than other mostly recycled materials. This shows
that students are actively participating into recycling on campus and are interested in
seeing the recycling culture grow. Although, some students some materials such as
79 | P a g e
batteries and crisp packets are frequently disposed and do not statistically match up
items mostly recycled.
Question 6:
Due to the current situation on campus especially around the halls of residence,
questions about smoking were included. The questionnaire was to know if the
respondents smoke.
35
Yes
92
No
Figure 4.13 Statistics of smokers to non-smokers
From the chart above just 28% of the respondents claim to smoke while 72% said
they do not smoke. The real aim of this question was to find out how the percentage
of the smokers actually disposes of their cigarette butts responsibly. More also, 23
respondents who claims to smoke are home students while the remaining 12 are
international students (figure 4.14).
80 | P a g e
12
international students
23
home students
Figure 4.14 Statistics of home and international student smokers
Furthermore, from the results international students smoke lesser than home
students, 34% of the smokers are international students while the remaining 66% are
home students (Figure 4.14). 44% of male smokers are home students and 56% are
international students but conversely more female smokers are home students with
84% and international female smokers are 16% (Figure 4.15).
16
16
14
12
10
9
7
8
6
4
males
females
2
0
Home students
Figure 4.15 Smoking relationship between international and home students
81 | P a g e
The question continued by asking how and where the smokers dispose their waste,
this revealed that cigarette butts were discarded on the floor, in glass bottles, in any
bin found and in coffee cups. These are the four top responses written down in the
questionnaires received.
Undergraduates
Postgraduates
29
Figure 4.16 Smoking relationship between undergraduates and postgraduate

students
The percentages of undergraduate respondents were 86% while postgraduate
students were 14%. From the table above, 17% are postgraduate student smokers
while 83 & are home student smokers (Figure 4.16). This statistics is useful for the
sustainability team in knowing what level of student to target during any awareness
program.
From the data presented, result to show if recycling is ethical or cultural, questions
on what country each respondent comes from was asked, but most respondents
avoided the questions with only 5% of the responded to the question.
82 | P a g e
4.2
Waste Audits
The waste audits were conducted on five different days between 17th of May and 13th
of June, 2012. The charts below illustrate recyclables found amongst the waste
generated by students residing in the halls of residence at the Avery Hill campus.
They represent the waste materials found in the rubbish sacks sorted into categories
with both amount and weight recorded.
However, it should be noted that the weight of the bin bag had been subtracted from
the original weight of the rubbish. The waste materials were handpicked, categorized
and weighed according to the following different waste categories;
Cans/Tins
Nylons/Wrappers
Food waste and Packages
Cardboard/Papers
Plastics and Glass.
The first waste Audits were from flats 34 39 from Ann Boleyn and Aragon
Courts respectively on the 13th of May, 2012; the results are shown in figure 4.17
below.
83 | P a g e
3%
16%
18%
Cans/Tins
24%
39%
Nylons/Wrappers
Foodwaste &
Packages
Cardboard/Paper
Plastics
Figure 4.17 Audits from Aragon flats 34 - 39

From the graph above, results from the five different waste categories shows that
students in flats 34-39 in Aragon court dispose more of food waste and packaging
which weighed 595g, cardboard/paper weighed 375g, nylons/wrappers weighed
270g, plastics weighed 250g and cans/tins weighed 48g. From these results
students tend to dispose more of food waste, cardboards, papers and plastics.
Also, weighing from the flats 34 39 in the Ann Boleyn reveals that food waste and
packages weighed 675g. Cardboard/paper weighed 304g, plastic weighed 260g,
nylons/wrappers weighed 240g and cans/tins weighed 144g (Figure 4.18). It is clear
that from this days result that students dispose more of food packaging, these
include food remains in packages and wrappers of other products.
84 | P a g e
16%
19%
9%
15%
41%
Cans/Tins
Nylons/Wrappers
Foodwaste & Packages
Cardboard/Paper
Plastics
Figure 4.18 Audits from Ann Boleyn flats 34 - 39

Also from this result, a reasonable amount of recyclables such as cardboards/papers
and plastic materials were found mixed with non-biodegrade materials or nonrecyclable materials. Results from the two separate blocks are similar in terms of
waste generated; the weight of plastics from Ann Boleyn Court at 260g is closely
similar to plastics weighed in Aragon Court which was 250g. Also, food waste
weighed in Ann Boleyn Court is 675g is similar to food waste in Aragon which
weighed 595g. On the other hand, cans/tins weighed in Ann Boleyn court which is at
144g is relatively higher than tins/cans weighed in Aragon Court which is just 48g.
The second day waste audits were conducted on the 31st of May 2012. Waste from
three flats was weighed in Aragon and Ann Boleyn Courts. From the graph below,
weighing from flats 19 24 at Aragon shows that glass weighed 1.75kg, food waste
and packaging was 1.25kg, plastic weighed 1.02kg and cardboard/paper weighed
1kg.
85 | P a g e
8%
29%
9%
21%
17%
16%
Cans/Tins
Nylons/Wrappers
Cardboard/Paper
Plastics
Glass

Also, nylons/wrappers weighed 525g and cans/tins weighed 475g (Figure 4.19). The
second weighing was carried out at Ann Boleyn in flats 16 21 (Figure 4.20). Food
waste and packages was the highest weighing 1.5kg, glass weighed 1.25kg and
cardboard/paper weighed 675g.
26%
11%
14%
6%
12%
31%
Cans/Tins
Nylons/Wrappers
Cardboard/Paper
Plastics
Glass
86 | P a g e
Furthermore, nylons/wrappers weighed 575g; plastics weighed 525g and cans/tins

weighed 325g (Figure 4.20). The last audit carried out was at Ann Boleyn flats 28
33.
3%
5%
9%
14%
67%
2%
Cans/Tins
Nylons/Wrappers
Cardboard/Paper
Plastics
Glass

The highest weighed was used glass which weighed 10.01kg, cardboard/paper
weighed 2.025kg, food waste and packages weighed 1.3kg, nylons/wrappers
weighed 725g, cans/tins weighed 475g and plastics in the bin bag weighed 375g. It
can also be noted that overnight activities such as partying in the Ann Boleyn was
the main reason why there was a high volume of bottles (10.1kg) found in the waste
bin (Figure 4.21).
The third waste audit on the 6th June 2012 involved flats 16-21 in Ann Boleyn court
and flats 19-24 in Aragon court. From the illustration in the chart below, flats 16 21
in
Ann
Boleyn
showed
that food waste
and packages
weighed
1.1kg,
nylons/wrappers weighed 925g, glass weighed 720g, cans/tins weighed 420g,

cardboard/paper weighed 325g and plastics weighed 175g.
87 | P a g e
11%
20%
5%
25%
9%
30%
Cans/Tins
Nylons/Wrappers
Cardboard/Paper
Plastics
Glass

On the contrary, audits in flats 19-24 had less waste output with no glass waste
recorded, cans/tins weighed 65g, plastics weighed 80g, cardboard/paper weighed
125g, nylons/wrappers weighed 300g and food waste and packages weighing the
highest with 960g as shown in figure 4.23.
63%
20%
4%
5%
8%
Cans/Tins
Nylons/Wrappers
0%

Cardboard/Paper
Plastics
Glass
88 | P a g e
From the two waste audits in the separate flats, it is noticeable that food waste and
packages were the highest with 1.1kg and 960g in Ann Boleyn and Aragon Courts
respectively. There was a high activity of waste in the flats at Ann Boleyn which
included mostly nylons/wrappers, food waste and packaging and glass. This is in
contrast to the results in flats at Aragon court with records showing low amount of
waste disposed.
The fourth waste audit took place on the 11th of June, 2012 which took on flats 40 45 in Aragon court and flats 16 - 21 in Ann Boleyn court. The figure below illustrates
audits carried out on flats 40 - 45 in Aragon.
13%
40%
8%
21%
10%
8%
Cans/Tins
Nylons/Wrappers
Cardboard/Paper
Plastics
Glass

Results shows that glass weighed 2kg, food waste and packages weighed 1.025kg,
cans/tins weighed 650g, plastics weighed 500g, cardboard/paper weighed 380g and
nylons/wrappers weighed 375g.
89 | P a g e
The second audit was at flats 16 21 in Ann Boleyn court. As shown in the figure
below, cans/tins weighed the lowest with 175g, plastics was 325g, cardboard/paper
was 425g, nylons/wrapper was 495g. Glass weighed 725g and food waste and
packages weighed the highest in Ann Boleyn with 1.875kg (Figure 4.25).
11%
8%
18%
4%
12%
47%
Cans/Tins
Nylons/Wrappers
Cardboard/Paper
Plastics
Glass

From the results derived on the fourth day, there was a sharp contrast in the amount
of waste generated. Glass waste produced from flats 40 45 in Aragon was at 2kg
compared to 725g that was disposed at flats 16 25 in Ann Boleyn. Also, there was
a high amount food waste recorded at the flats in Ann Boleyn weighing 1.875kg
(Figure 4.25).
The final day of waste audit was carried out on the 13th of June, 2012 for Flats 16-21
and flats 22-27 of Ann Boleyn and Aragon Courts. The results of flats 16 21 are
illustrated in figure 4.20 below, food waste and packages weighed 825g,
nylons/wrappers weighed 625g, plastics weighed 420g, cans/tins weighed155g there
was no glass waste recorded and cardboard/paper weighed 125g (Figure 4.26).
90 | P a g e
0%
20%
7%
29%
6%
38%
Cans/Tins
Nylons/Wrappers
Cardboard/Paper
Plastics
Glass

Results from the second weighing from flats 22 27 showed that food waste and
packages weighed 1kg, nylons/wrappers 925g, glass weighed 325g, cans/tins
weighed 175g, plastics weighed 125g and cardboard/paper weighed 75g.
3%
5%
12%
7%
35%
38%
Cans/Tins
Nylons/Wrappers
Cardboard/Paper
Plastics
Glass

Although, the waste is from Ann Boleyn court, there are variances in the number of
waste produced such as glass waste from flats 22 27 and nothing disposed at flats
16 21. Food waste and packages has the highest from both flats followed by
91 | P a g e
nylons/wrappers. The quantity of cans/tins in both flats are similar; 175g in flats 2227 and 155g in flats 16 21.generally, it can be said that results for this flats have
similar outputs.
45%
41%
40%
35%
29%
30%
24%
25%
23%
20%
15%
10%
13% 12%
9%
5%
12% 12%
14%
6%
5%
0%
ARAGON COURT
ANN BOLEYN COURT
Figure 4.28 Comparisons on the percentage composition of waste audits
Results from the summation of each audit in the accommodation halls shows that
there is a high percentage of students dispose of glass and food waste often. Total
glass waste from Aragon court weighed 3.75kg while total glass waste from Ann
Boleyn weighed 13.kg at 41% as represented in the figure 4. 28. More also, there
are high percentages of 29% and 24% of food waste disposed with a total weight of
4.6kg and 7.5kg at Aragon and Ann Boleyn court respectively (Figure 4.28).
Furthermore, results shows that low level of cans and tins disposed of in both
Courts, cardboards and paper weighed in both Courts equals 12% of the overall
waste weighed. Overall, it can be concluded that from the waste categorized and
92 | P a g e
weighed, glass, food waste and packaging has the highest number of quantity
produced, some of the food waste include non-biodegradable waste such as
synthetic and packaged food. More also, some of the glass found was as a result of
social gatherings and activities such as partying. Not a lot of plastics and cans are
being recycled, recyclables are found in these bins, this shows the behaviour of
students towards recycling, and recyclables are always found mixed with nonrecyclable materials.
4.3 Observations
Even with the presence of waste bins in certain locations in the campus, within the
halls of residence and in cafeterias, some students are seen ignorantly littering the
campus. Waste bins are present in each of the kitchen of flats within the halls of
residence, as for recycling bins some are positioned within hall premises. Bin bags
are also provided to students (black for non-recyclables and white for recyclable
materials) by cleaners assigned to the halls. But mixtures of different waste materials
are still seen in black bags, just a fraction of recyclables are disposed into white
bags. Appropriate bins are also provided at open areas, some of which are labelled
and easily accessible.
With all these facilities, students are seen flickering cigarettes butts on the floor after
smoking or from the balcony and through the room window. Evidences of waste
these waste are also visible in and around the campus and hall vicinity.
93 | P a g e
5.0
Discussion
The purpose of this research is to try and understand student behaviour towards
recycling their waste. If this is successful it is hoped that it will inform a more
effective approach to recycling in the Avery Hill halls of residence, Southwood site,
University of Greenwich. In the long-term, it is expected that practicing recycling will
reduce the litter on campus, as well as the volume of waste disposal to landfill. On a
larger scale this will save energy and reduce the depletion of earths natural
resources thereby resulting into a cleaner and a more ecologically sustainable
environment.
It is relevant to understand how students within the campus show if recycling
activities are important to them or not. This helps in finding out the level of
awareness amongst students, it also help the management team in raising their
waste management standards and policies either by directly educating students or
providing alternative ideas in encouraging students to recycle more such as
organising social events.
Overall results from the questionnaires suggested that students are generally mindful
about the importance of recycling, although results from the waste audits slightly
oppose it. 88.9% of students in the questionnaire survey agreed that recycling was
important. Most of these were female (62% compared to 38% who were male).
Educating this type of student on the effectiveness of recycling their waste can be
important even though only 2% claim not to recycle their waste at all (Figure 4.4).
The outcome of this result is inconsistent with a research on recycling behaviour of
university students carried out by Clay (2005) which concluded that male students
are more likely to recycle their waste materials both at the university and at home
than their female counterparts (Clay, 2005). Furthermore, home students felt
94 | P a g e
recycling was more important compared to international students while postgraduate

and undergraduates of these equally felt recycling was very important. Different
research have drawn conclusions that educating the younger generations on
recycling at an early stage is helpful to achieve sustainable development in the
environment (Simpson, et al., 2002; Malgorzata et al., 2003).
The number of students recycling their waste is impressive; on the other hand waste
generated in the halls of residence is notably large. People who recycle their waste
regularly would have a positive effect on the diversion rate of waste from landfill sites
(Thomas, 2001).
Of all the respondents to the questionnaires distributed, 125
students claim to be involved in recycling which is about 10% of the student

population at the halls of residences (Figure 4.7). 80 students out of the 125 students
that always recycle show that they have the recycling habit; this is a good thing for
the university management and society at large. More people participating in
recycling will definitely lead to a decrease in the quantity of waste sent to landfill
(Thomas, 2001). Moreover, students that recycle are generally aware of the different
recyclable materials. Plastics are the highest in the number of recyclable items at the
halls of residence, other recyclables such as paper, glass and cans are also recycled
in large quantities. These categories of recyclables have the maximum response rate
from the questionnaires and are also among the top five most frequently recycled
materials (Clay, 2005).
Recyclables which had a low response rate in the questionnaires were electrical
equipment and batteries. It is also fascinating to note that the percentage of
respondents who recycle more waste materials such as glass and plastics (see
figure 4.10) corresponded to the amount of frequently disposed materials by
students from the questionnaires (figure 4.12).
95 | P a g e
Furthermore, the percentages of waste recyclable materials audited in the halls of

residence (figure 4.28) are very similar to the number of frequently disposed of
materials identified by those who filled in the questionnaires (figure 4.12) but slightly
different to most frequently recycled items by students (figure 4.10). This shows that
a lot of potentially recyclable materials are still not recycled and a lot has to be done
to improve this type of statistic. Further research by Clay (2005) pointed out that
making recycling easier is one of the effective methods to encourage more people to
participate in recycling.
Most students identified three major ways to make recycling much easier on
campus. They are;
Easy accessibility to bins
Raising awareness about recycling; and
Providing extra bins for recyclables
Students suggesting that providing extra bins will increase recycling on campus and
so will be a good step, this shows that students and the universitys facility
management team can work together to make recycling easier. The high rate of
responses to what will make recycling easier is a positive step in student
involvement in the universitys sustainability project. It also shows further evidence
that students should be considered when making any waste management decision
which is a vital component in any waste management strategy. From other
observations and informal interviews with students, it is motivating to note that
students claim to see clearly labelled recycling bins around the halls and the campus
in general. Conversely, some students (about 2%) made it clear that they were not
96 | P a g e
too bothered about recycling and will continue to dispose of waste indiscriminately
even though bins are labelled and positioned clearly.
From the questionnaires, it appears that there are more home student smokers
compared to international students. Up to 85% of the smokers living in the halls of
residence admitted to throwing their cigarette butts on the floor, in bottles, in bin cups
or the bins nearest to them. Results from the questionnaires indicate that there are
19 females and 16males who are smokers, 29 of them were undergraduates while 6
were postgraduate students. This statistic is relevant for the sustainability team in
acquiring information on the gender and study level of active smokers within the halls
of residence. It can also assist the relevant authorities in the accommodation office
to see if special bins for cigarette butts should be provided within the halls of
residence. There are special bins provided around the campuses for cigarette butts
as shown in figure 5.1 but these are continually seen on the floor and behind
windows of the halls of residence.
Figure 5.1 cigarette butts scattered on the floor
97 | P a g e
With this type of evidence, more awareness can be raised on good behaviour in
disposing waste materials especially cigarette butts.
Recycling facilities on the Avery Hill campus are easy to locate and utilize, and
students residing in the halls of residence are always provided with both recyclable
and non-recyclable bags. It is easier to recycle plastics, glass bottles and rubbish as
there is a general recycling area situated within the halls of residence (Figure 3.4).
Moreover, apart from the bins provided for the students within their individual flats,
there are also recycling bins provided around the campus. Places such as the
cafeteria (figure 3.5) and other strategic locations make it easy for students to
recycle their waste at almost any point in time. Students participation in recycling
their waste materials is essential to the environment and cost effective for the
university, the absence of difficulty in disposing waste is relevant as it is likely to
result in high recycling participation by students. In addition, Clay (2005) added that
aiming for the smaller amount of important recyclables might be very advantageous
in diverting waste from landfill.
Hornik et al. (1995) emphasised the relevance of educating students about the
benefits and effectiveness of recycling. This could result to students who had
previously not recycled to begin recycling after learning about its benefits for the
environment and its usefulness for sustainability. Other students who sometimes
recycle could also start to recycle more frequently and maintaining a good waste
management attitude and behaviour. To achieve frequent recycling participation,
accurate and straightforward information on recycling needs to be conveyed directly
to students.
98 | P a g e
The limits of this research are listed below:
Time constraints were the major limit to this research; it was carried out for a
period of three months
There was a very limited time to carry out waste audits as the term was
getting to an end and students were moving out of the halls of residence
The sample size of the distributed questionnaires (127 students) was only one
tenth of the student population residing at the halls of residence (about 1200
students)
There was not enough time to conduct more multiple waste audits for different
courtyards within the Avery Hill campus.
99 | P a g e
6.0
Conclusion
Although good environmental waste management initiatives have been developed to

diverting municipal solid waste from landfill in the UK, there is still a lot to be done
and achieved. While providing recyclable bins in and around the campus in Avery
Hill is a head start in motivating students to recycle. It will not be as effective as to
also raise their awareness towards recycling by educating them about the
effectiveness of municipal waste management. This also changes their attitudes and
behaviour towards recycling. This research has pointed out some reasons such as
the lack of appropriate awareness on part of the students which cause students not
to fully participate in any recycling activity. It is hoped that this research will help
provide enlightenments in order to encourage recycling among students in the Avery
Hill halls of residence.
Conclusions can also be drawn from the volume of recyclables recorded on the
waste audits that there is a general lack of knowledge for recycling techniques. It is
apparent that students recycling behaviour and attitudes are determined by certain
factors such as the lack of recycling knowledge; these factors need to be minimized
or totally eradicated in order to increase students recycling participation on campus.
Overall, students are generally aware of the significances of recycling but the need
to put the average knowledge of recycling into definite action is important (Clay,
2005). Students ought to know the reason why recycling is an effective way to
achieve a cleaner and safer environment to live in. They should be aware of the
benefits of participating in any recycling activity, this is essential because students
might only be involved in the practice but it might not necessarily change their
attitudes or behaviour towards recycling. Moreover, just placing recycling bins even
100 | P a g e
with labels without simple description or information around hall premises does not
dictate the rate or pace at which students engage in recycling.
6.1
Recommendations
Research has shown that practical experiences have the capacity to develop ones
knowledge. Recommendations are prioritised according to their importance as stated
below;
Social events can be occasionally organised for students during term time to
learn and help them adopt the habit of recycling their waste. For instance, the
university should have a green day event which can be themed on recycling;
aimed to raise recycling awareness among students and staff alike. Events
could take place which includes students and staff to be nominated for
recycling excellence. During this event, the effectiveness of practicing
recycling can be established such as invited environmental practitioners
explaining the preservation of the earths natural resources and saving
energy. Also explaining the impact of not recycling will increase rate of waste
in landfill.
It is recommended that the university management should employ staff and

student volunteers who will encourage and educate other students to recycle.
This can be achieved by inviting other professionals in the field explaining
their research views on recycling. By also involving university staff in any
awareness program, it could encourage students more interested in the
campaign.
101 | P a g e
Suggestions in the comment section of the questionnaires on making

recycling easy were providing extra bins (Chapter 4). Existing waste bins on
campus should have extra recyclable bins nearby. The waste bins should be
clearly labelled with instructions and illustrations about recycling; this could
make recycling very easy and attractive to students.
Information on recycling should be posted around the Avery Hill campus

especially the busy areas such as the cafeteria, the student union shop, main
lecture halls and the accommodation office.
Prints reminding students to recycle should be put on university materials and

equipment such as vending machines, magazine stands, key holders and the
student union counter. This will remind students to recycle when they are
done with their material purchased.
The cashiers at the cafeteria should be made to give a verbal message

towards student after their purchases. If this kind of activity becomes
consistent, it could help remind students recycle their waste irrespective of
their location.
Recycling behaviours are a complex mixture of numerous factors; they must be

taken into consideration and must be well implemented and monitored. It is important
to note that education is crucial in attempting to increase students participation in
recycling in order to achieve a more sustainable environment.
102 | P a g e
6.2
Recommendation for further research
Future studies could be conducted using the same methods of the waste audits
carried out. Also, further research can be done in auditing waste generated by
covering wider sample size. For example, carrying out waste audits on campus for a
period of two weeks without interruption during term time; this would give the
researcher a broader understanding of the student response to any recommended
program set aside for recycling awareness. Furthermore, a larger scale study of
students studying on the Avery Hill campus could be surveyed either by
questionnaires or direct interviews allowing them express their personal views on the
effectiveness of recycling and its problems. It is recommended that any further
research should be carried out during term time when students are available in their
halls of residence. This is essential because waste audits can be effectively carried
out, first hand interviews would be easier to conduct and first class observations also
could be witnessed and documented.
103 | P a g e
REFERENCES
Agarwal, A., Singhmar, A., Kulshrestha, M. and Mittal, K. (2005). Municipal solid
waste recycling and associated markets in Delhi, India. Resources, Conservation
and Recycling, 44: 73-90.
Bates, M., Paul, S., Lawrence, O., Waleed, M., Anthony, C. and Alban, F. (2008).
Key recommendations for waste management policy decision-makers: A case study
of future opportunities for non-municipal waste facilities in Northamptonshire, UK.
Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 52: 909-919.
Bernache-Prez, G., Snchez-Coln, S. and Ana Mara, G. (2001). Solid waste

characterisation study in the Guadalajara Metropolitan Zone, Mexico. Waste
Management & Research, 19: 413-424.
Bradley, C., Waliczek, T. and Zajicek, J. (1999). Relationship between environmental

knowledge and environmental attitude of high school students. J Environ
Education, 30 (3): 73-89.
Bundela, P., Gautam, S., Pandey, A., Awasthi, M. and Sarsaiya, S. (2010). Municipal
solid waste management in Indian cities. International Journal of Environmental
Sciences, 1 (4): 591-606.
Clay, S. (2005). Increasing University recycling: factors influencing recycling
behaviour among students at Leeds University. Earth & Environment, 1: 186-228.
104 | P a g e
Daskalopoulos, E., Badr, O. and Probert, S. (1998).
An integrated approach to
municipal solid waste management. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 24: 3350.
David Suzuki Foundation. (2007). Landfills. Solving Global

Warming. http://www.davidsuzuki.org/Climate_Change/Solutions/Landfills.asp,
accessed 16th June, 2012.
Del Borghi, A., Michela, G. and Marco, D. (2009). A survey of life cycle approaches
in waste management. International Journal Life Cycle Assess, 14: 597-610.
Department for Environment Food & Rural Affairs. (2000). A review of Englands
waste
strategy. http://archive.defra.gov.uk/environmnt/waste/strategy/documents/reviewconsult.pdf, accessed 16th July, 2012.
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. (2004). Review of

Environmental and Health Effects of Waste Management: Municipal Solid Waste and
Similar Wastes. Defra Publications. pp. 420.
Department for Environment Food & Rural Affairs. (2007). Waste strategy for
England
2007.
www.waste/strategy/strategy07/documents/waste07-strategy.pdf,
accessed 16th July, 2012.
105 | P a g e
Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs. (2011). National

Archives. http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/,
accessed 13th July, 2012.
Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs. (2012). Waste

Recycling. http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/waste , accessed 19th July, 2012.
Elliot, A. (2012). A Brief History of Recycling: A Story of Trash and

Treasure. http://www.deltacountyrecycling.org/recycling-articles/a-brief-history-ofrecycling-a-story-of-trash-and-treasure/, accessed 29th June, 2012.
Environment Agency. (2006). Improving environmental performance. Sector plan for

the waste management industry. pp. 24.
European Commission. (2010). Being wise with waste: the EUs approach to waste
management. pp. 20.
Federal Environmental Executive. (2012). Recycling for the future. Consider the
benefits. Office of the Federal Environmental Executive. pp. 19.
Friends of the Earth. (2008). Recycling: Why its important and how to do it. Briefing.
pp. 14.
106 | P a g e
Gentil, C., Daniele, G. and Christensen, T. (2011). Environmental evaluation of

municipal waste prevention. Waste Management, 31: 2371-2379.
Gertsakis, J. and Lewis, H. (2003). Sustainability and the Waste Management

Hierarchy. A discussion paper on the waste management hierarchy and its
relationship to sustainability. pp. 16.
Henry, K., Zhao, Y. and Dong, J. (2006). Municipal solid waste management
challenges in developing countries Kenyan case study. Waste Management, 26:
92-100.
Hornik, J. and Cherian, J. (1995). Determinants of recycling behaviour: a synthesis

of research results. Journal of Socio-Economics, 24: 105-127.
Jajko, M., Stephanie, D., Desiree, D. and Laurie, C. (2003). Recycling Education of
St. Jeromes University Residents. pp. 31.
Jha, M., Sondhi, O. and Pansare, M. (2003). Solid waste management a case
study. Indian Journal of Environmental Protection, 23 (10): 11531160.
Kaseva, E. and Mbuligwe, E. (2003). Appraisal of solid waste collection following

private sector involvement in Dar es Salaam city, Tanzania. Habitat International, 29:
353-366.
107 | P a g e
Kaushal, R., George, K. and Chabukdhara, M. (2012). Municipal Solid Waste

Management in India-Current State and Future Challenges: A Review. International
Journal of Engineering Science and Technology, 4 (4): 1473-1489.
Lockwood, S., Mirsky, S., Titaro, B., and Coenye, Y. (2004). Waste management.
WATgreen Student
Library. http://www.adm.uwaterloo.ca/infowast/watgreen/projects/library/f04wastemg
mt.pdf, accessed on 26th May 2012.
Malgorzata, G., Bartosiewicz, A., and Twardowska, A. (2003). Evaluating the impact
of a school waste education program upon students', parents' and teachers'
environmental knowledge, attitude and behavior. Institute of Environmental
Sciences, Jagiellonian University, Gronostajowa.
Medway Waste Management Strategy. (2005). Medway Council Municipal Waste

Management Strategy 2005 2020. pp. 98.
Menikpura, M., Shabbir, H. and Sebastien, B. (2011). Sustainability assessment of

municipal solid waste management in Sri Lanka: problems and prospects. Journal
Mater Cycles Waste Management, 10: 1-12.
108 | P a g e
Merrild, H., Anna, W. and Christensen, T. (2012). Assessing recycling versus

incineration of key materials in municipal waste: The importance of efficient energy
recovery and transport distances. waste Management, 32: 1009-1018.
Moar, K. (2007). Theres Gas in that Dump: Methane from rotting garbage is burned
to create electricity. The Daily
News. http://www.hfxnews.ca/index.cfm?sid=68403&sc=89, accessed 12th
November 2012.
Mohan, R., Spiby, J., Leonardi, S., Robins, A. and Jefferis, S. (2006). Sustainable
waste management in the UK: the public health role. Public Health, 120: 908-914.
Morris, R., Paul, S. and Adam, D. (1998). The UK Landfill Tax: an analysis of its
contribution to sustainable waste management.
Resources, Conservation and
Recycling, 23: 259-270.
Mrema, K. (2008). An assessment of students environmental attitudes and

behaviours and the effectiveness of their school recycling programs. Dalhousie
University. pp. 54.
Mhle, S., Balsamb, I. and Cheesemana, C. (2010). Comparison of carbon

emissions associated with municipal solid waste management in Germany and the
UK. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 54: 793-801.
Navarro, Jr. (2002). Students' attitudes and behaviours toward residence hall
recycling. Ph.D. dissertation, Illinois State University, United States -- Illinois.
109 | P a g e
Oguntoyinbo, O. (2012). Informal waste management system in Nigeria and barriers

to an inclusive modern waste management system: A review. Public Health, 126:
441-447.
Olmsted, J. (2007). Japans recycling: More Efficient than U.S.A. Packaging

Engineering. pp. 7.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2009). OECD Work on

Environment. http://www.oecd.org/env/47058547.pdf, accessed 12th July, 2012.
Paulsen, M., Niels, O., Niels, E., Hansena, U., Ivensa, D., Malmrosc, L., Birgitte, H.,
Eva, M. Nielsena, B., Torsten, S., Stenbaeka, I. and Wilkins, C. (1995). Collection of
domestic waste. Review of occupational health problems and their possible causes.
The Science of the Total Environment, 170: 1-19.
Pires, A., Graa, M. and Ni-Bin, C. (2011). Solid waste management in European
countries: A review of systems analysis techniques. Journal of Environmental
Management, 92: 1033-1050.
Rathi, S. (2005). Alternative approaches for better municipal solid waste

management in Mumbai, India. International Research Institute for Climate
Prediction, Columbia University. pp 9.
110 | P a g e
Rogers, H. (2005). Recycling: The Politics of Containment. Gone Tomorrow: The

Hidden Life of Garbage. The New Press. New York, NY.
Sabbas, T., Polettinib, S., Pomib, R., Astrupc, T., Hjelmard, O., Mostbauera, P.,
Cappaie, G., Magelf, G., Salhofera, S., Speiserg, S. and Heuss-Assbichlerf, S.
(2003). Management of municipal solid waste incineration residues. Waste
management, 23: 61-88.
Sharholy, M., Kafeel, A., Gauhar, M. and Trivedi, R. (2008). Municipal solid waste
management in Indian cities A review. Waste management, 28: 459-467.
Simpson, F. and Java, R. (2002). New State Law Promotes School Recycling and
Better K-12 Environmental Education: Sen. Torlakson, Cal/EPA honor Concord
Highs
recycling
efforts.
California
Integrated
Waste
Management
Board. http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/Pressroom/2002/April/033.htm, accessed 27th April,

2012.
Slater, R. and Frederickson, J. (2001). Composting municipal waste in the UK: some
lessons from Europe. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 32: 359374.
Suocheng, D., Kurt, W. and Yuping, W. (2001). Municipal solid waste management
in China: using commercial management to solve a growing problem. Utilities
Policy, 10: 7-11.
111 | P a g e
The Dallas Sierra Club. (2008). Take Action Recycling. pp. 5.
The Manufacturers Organisation. (2011). Ascending the Waste Hierarchy. Practical

issues in manufacturing. pp. 22.
Thomas, C. (2001). Public understanding and its effect on recycling performance in

Hampshire and Milton Keynes. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 32: 259274.
Thieme, A., Weeden, J., Krmer, N., Lawson, S. and Olivier, P. (2011). BinCam:
Waste Logging for Behavioural Change. CHI Workshop Personal Informatics and
HCI: Design, Theory, and Social Implications, May 7-12, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
U.S. EPA. (2006). Frequently Asked Questions about Landfill Gas and how it affects
Public Health, Safety, and the Environment. US Environmental Protection
Agency. http://www.epa.gov/lmop/faq-3.htm#5, accessed 22nd May, 2012.
United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific. (2000).
Cities and Sustainable Development: Waste. pp. 41.
University of Greenwich. (2012). About the Avery Hill

Campus. http://www2.gre.ac.uk/about/campus/Averyhill , accessed 10th June, 2012.
University of Greenwich Sustainability Blog. (2002). Sustainability:

Recycling. http://blogs.gre.ac.uk/greengreenwich/ , accessed 18th July, 2012.
112 | P a g e
Urban Development Working Papers. (2005). Waste Management in China: Issues

and Recommendations. www.unescap.org/stat/envstat/stwes-2waste.02.pdfWorking,
accessed 25th June, 2012.
Weeden, J., Thieme, A. and Miebach, J. (2011). BinCam - Waste Logging for
Behavioural Change. BSC HCI 2011 Interactive Experience, July 4-8, Newcastle
upon Tyne, UK.
Wilson, D., Costas, V. and Chris, C. (2006). Role Of Informal Sector Recycling In
Waste Management In Developing Countries. Habitat International, 30: 797-808.
Woodard, R., Bench, M., Harder, K. and Stantzos, N. (2004). The optimisation of
household waste recycling centres for increased recyclinga case study in Sussex,
UK. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 43: 75-93.
113 | P a g e
Appendices
Appendix 1
Questionnaire:
Campus Recycling Project Questionnaire

1. How important is recycling to you?
[ ] Extremely important
[ ] Very important
[ ] slightly important
[ ] Not important
[ ] Not sure
2. Do you recycle your waste?

[ ] Yes
[ ] Sometimes
[ ] No
(If you answered No to the above question, continue with question 5)

3. Which of the following do you recycle? You can check more than one item.
[ ] Glass
[ ] Paper
[ ] Plastic containers [ ] Batteries
[ ] Cans
[ ] Clothes
[ ] Electrical equipments [ ] Other................................
4. Why you do not recycle your waste?

[ ] I dont have time to recycle
[ ] I dont understand what to recycle
[ ] I dont have sufficient facilities to recycle

5. Do you smoke?
[ ] Yes
[ ] I dont care about recycling
[ ] No
If Yes, Where do you dispose the cigarettes

buds............................................................
6. How can recycling your waste be made easier?
7. Which of these items do you frequently dispose of? You can check more than one item.
[ ] Paper
[ ] Plastic containers [ ] Batteries
[ ] Cans
[ ] Clothes
[ ] Glass
[ ] Other (Please state) ........................................
Please check which of these apply;

8. Gender?
[ ] Male
[ ] Female
9. Nationality?
[ ] Domestic
[ ] International
If international, what is your country of origin? ...........
114 | P a g e
10. Student level?
[ ] Undergraduate
[ ] Post Graduate
11. What is your program? .........

To be entered for the prize draw, give your email address below
..................................................................
Return this questionnaire to Accommodation office, Aragon Reception
THANK YOU
115 | P a g e
Appendix 2
RISK ASSESSMENT FORM

School/Office
SCIENCE
Title of risk assessment/work being assessed
MSc thesis project KOLAWOLE KADIRI
Location of work being assessed (Campus, building, room)
Avery Hill Campus accommodation blocks
Brief description of work being assessed

Include brief details of stages of the process, numbers of people involved, scale of operation, duration, timing and frequency of work (attach protocol or method if preferred)
116 | P a g e
This project will involve an audit of the waste produced in a sample of student flats on the Avery Hill campus. Sorting out waste at selected flats within the halls of residence.
Waste will be separated into different categories and these fractions will be weighed.
It will be carried out during the second half of May and it is envisaged that this activity will be completed by the end of June 2012.
117 | P a g e
Hazards inherent in the Task or

Process
Person(s) at
Risk
Precautions (Control measures) to be

followed
Include all the significant hazards that are

expected or are foreseeable in the context of
the work or process that is being undertaken
and where it will be done.
e.g. Staff,
students,
collaborators,
passers by,
trainees on
courses
Include precautions for all individuals/groups who

may be affected by the hazards you have identified.
ONLY SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS NEED TO BE

RECORDED
Residual risks
if all precautions are
followed
Additional
precautions required
for future work
High/Medium/Low
Action by whom
and when
(name and
date)?
If residual risk is judged to

be medium or high,
additional precautions must
be considered for future
work
Personal safety
e.g. Physical or verbal attack; disability or health problems; delayed access to personal or medical assistance; failure of routine or emergency communications; security of accommodation and support; getting lost,
or stranded by transport; cultural or legal differences
List aspects of the work with significant hazards, and give brief details of how foreseeable harm/injuries could occur (add more space or rows if necessary)
Broken glass and jagged tin cans could

cause cuts
Materials contaminated with bodily

fluids
KK
KK
hand gloves, goggles, and a lab coat will be

worn and waste will be sorted and
transferred using a litter picker,
no material will be touched by hand
Low
low
Equipment hazards - Storage, handling and use of equipment and materials

e.g. Tools; machinery; vehicles; manual handling; noise; work at height; electricity; fire; vacuum; high pressure; high temperature; ultra violet; laser; vibration
List equipment and materials with significant hazards, and give brief details of how foreseeable harm/injuries could occur (add more space or rows if necessary)
118 | P a g e

Process
Person(s) at
Risk

followed

e.g. Staff,
students,
collaborators,
passers by,
trainees on
courses

KK
Care will be taken not to let any rubbish

blow away or to remain in the sorting area
(to be confirmed in consultation with FM)

RECORDED
Creating a mess within the vicinity
Residual risks
followed
Additional
for future work
High/Medium/Low
Action by whom
and when
(name and
date)?

be medium or high,
work
low
Chemical hazards - Storage, handling, use, and disposal of chemical reagents, intermediates, products and waste
e.g. Toxic by inhalation or ingestion; irritant; corrosive, flammable; explosive; oxidising; radioactive
Include routes of exposure e.g. skin contact; skin sensitisation; sensitisation by inhalation; toxic by ingestion or inhalation
List chemicals with significant hazards, and give brief details of hazard classification and foreseeable harm/injuries (add more space or rows if necessary)
All work with radioactive materials MUST be approved by the Radiation Protection Supervisor
119 | P a g e

Process
Person(s) at
Risk

followed

e.g. Staff,
students,
collaborators,
passers by,
trainees on
courses


RECORDED
Residual risks
followed
Additional
for future work
High/Medium/Low
Action by whom
and when
(name and
date)?

be medium or high,
work
N/A
Biological hazards - Storage, handling, use, and disposal of biological agents, intermediates, products and waste
"any micro-organism, cell culture or human endoparasite including any which have been genetically modified, which may cause infection, allergy, toxicity and other hazards to human health". This includes bacteria,
viruses, fungi and parasites
Include routes of exposure e.g. Blood borne infection; skin contact, skin sensitisation; sensitisation by inhalation; toxic by ingestion or inhalation
List biological agents with significant hazards, and give brief details of hazard classification and foreseeable harm/injuries (add more space or rows if necessary)
Work involving Class 2 agents or above must be approved by the University Biological and Genetic Modification Safety Committee before materials are obtained and work commences.
If work involves genetically modified organisms, GMO Risk Assessment form must be completed.
120 | P a g e

Process
Person(s) at
Risk

followed

e.g. Staff,
students,
collaborators,
passers by,
trainees on
courses


RECORDED
Please see comment above regarding

material contaminated with bodily
fluids
Residual risks
followed
Additional
for future work
High/Medium/Low
Action by whom
and when
(name and
date)?

be medium or high,
work
Low
Natural physical hazards - Effects of the natural environment, climate, landscape, plants, animals
e.g. Extreme weather; earthquakes and volcanoes; mountains, cliffs and rock falls; glaciers, crevasses and icefalls; caves, mines and quarries; forests including fire; marshes and quicksand; fresh or seawater, tidal
surges
121 | P a g e

Process
Person(s) at
Risk

followed

e.g. Staff,
students,
collaborators,
passers by,
trainees on
courses


RECORDED
N/A
Residual risks
followed
Additional
for future work
High/Medium/Low
Action by whom
and when
(name and
date)?

be medium or high,
work
Environmental impact
e.g. Pollution and waste, deposition of rubbish, disturbance of eco-systems, trampling, harm to animals or plants
122 | P a g e

Process
Person(s) at
Risk

followed

e.g. Staff,
students,
collaborators,
passers by,
trainees on
courses

All
The inter campus bus service will be used

RECORDED
Travel to the site
Residual risks
followed
Additional
for future work
High/Medium/Low
Action by whom
and when
(name and
date)?

be medium or high,
work
Other hazards
123 | P a g e

Process
Person(s) at
Risk

followed

e.g. Staff,
students,
collaborators,
passers by,
trainees on
courses


RECORDED
Residual risks
followed
High/Medium/Low
Additional
for future work
Action by whom
and when
(name and
date)?

be medium or high,
work
n/a/
Sources of information used for this assessment eg manuals and handbooks/suppliers information/Internet/colleagues
Include source details eg version date, web address, colleague name for ease of future reference.)
Consultation with programme leader
124 | P a g e
Person(s) completing this assessment:

(Person carrying out or managing the activity day-to-day)
Name
Kolawole Kadiri
Title
MSc Environmental conservation

student
Signature
Date
14/5/12
Other person(s) commenting on this assessment (where required under School/Office arrangements)
(Line Manager or Supervisor responsible for the activity, others involved in the decision-making process, others advising on the activity eg Local Safety Officer)
Name
Debbie Bartlett
Title
Program Leader
Signature
Date
14/5/12
Person approving this assessment:

(Person with overall responsibility for the activity eg Head of School/Office, Senior Academic or Manager)
Name
Title
Signature
Date
Review of assessment, and revision if necessary

(For continuing work: the assessment must be reviewed for each visit in a series; when there are significant changes to work materials, equipment, methods, location or
people involved; and if there are accidents, near misses or complaints associated with the work. If none of these apply, the assessment must be reviewed at least annually)
125 | P a g e
REVIEW DATE
--/--/----
--/--/----
--/--/----
--/--/----
Name of reviewer
Signature
No revisions made
Changes to activity, hazards, precautions or risks noted

in text.
The trip schedules for 4th

5 December was
cancelled and reth
scheduled for 19-20
February 2011
126 | P a g e

Kola - Kadiri MSC Project

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Kola - Kadiri MSC Project

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UNIVERSITY of GREENWICH

AN ASSESSMENT OF STUDENTS ENVIRONMENTAL BEHAVIOUR

This dissertation entitled:

An Assessment of Students Environmental Behaviour towards

Objectives of Research ............................................................................... 14

Literature Review ........................................................................................... 16

Life Cycle of Waste Generation.................................................................. 22

Water Pollution ..................................................................................... 23

Problems of Waste ..................................................................................... 24

Atmospheric Pollution ........................................................................... 27

Effects of Waste on the Marine Environment........................................ 27

Waste Management in selected countries................................................. 29

Waste Management in the United Kingdom ................................................ 31

Methods of Municipal Waste Management in the Europe ........................... 34

Waste Composting ............................................................................... 39

Incineration with Energy Recovery ....................................................... 39

Waste Recycling ................................................................................... 40

Municipal Solid Waste Recycling ................................................................ 43

Environmental Sustainability and the Bin Cam Project................................ 48

The Study Area ........................................................................................... 51

Survey to Determine Students Awareness of and Attitude to Recycling .... 53

Motive for Questionnaire Design .......................................................... 56

Method of Questionnaire Implementation ............................................. 58

Assessment of Waste Produced From Student Flats .................................. 60

Risk Assessment .................................................................................. 62

Summary of procedure ......................................................................... 65

Semi Structured Interviews ................................................................... 66

Data presentation and Analysis ...................................................................... 70

4.1 Questionnaires: ............................................................................................... 70

Waste Audits ............................................................................................... 83

4.3 Observations ................................................................................................... 93

Recommendations .................................................................................... 101

Recommendation for further research....................................................... 103

REFERENCES ....................................................................................................... 104

Figure 4.9 International and home students who recycle ......................................... 76

If this is successful it is hoped that it will inform a more

In order to come up with an accurate assessment and analysis, the following

To assess if the recycling facilities on campus are used frequently and

To weigh and identify the composition of waste generated by students

To suggest recommendations on how to increase student participation in

The research question on which this project is based includes:

Do students recycle their waste or not?

What affects recycling attitudes and behaviours among students residing at

Can this be changed and if so how?

Over the last decade developing environmental sustainable development policies

accumulated almost four million tonnes of both recyclable and non-recyclable

Street sweeping waste

Table 2.2 illustrates the different sources of municipal waste

Types of Solid waste

Locations where waste

Roadside litter, street

Street alleys, playgrounds,

sweepings, rubbish and

other special kind of

areas, vacant lots.

Treatment plant sludge

Water, sewage and

food waste, special waste,

low, medium and high

rubbish and ashes

residential housing areas

Hotels, medical institution,

waste, ashes, rubbish,