SAF_Final Report_1005_Shirley

Campus Waste Sorting Improvement through Signages & Prompts Sustainability Action Fund Project Final Report Released 2020

Table of Content Executive Summary Plan overview Theory background – Community Based Social Marketing (CBSM) Selected Pilot Site Pre-phase Survey Observation Waste Audit Pre Phase Summary Sign design Post-phase Observation Waste Audit Assessment Assessment – Sign Design Assessment – Beyond Sign Design Conclusion/Closure Potential next steps Semi-CBSM plan Interactions with other initiatives

Excessive Summary Improving waste sorting has become an urgent The axis of this project matches the value of the matter in the global North since 2017 when No.12 SDG Goal: Responsible Consumption and China, the world’s largest waste importer, Production. Recycle, reduce, and reuse have announced to quit the game of importing highly already been widely accepted concepts, but now it contaminated waste for recycling is the matter of how to level it up. Diverting more manufacturing. Consequently, new strategies recyclable material and increasing the quality of for dealing with waste have been proposed in recycling accuracy is a beneficial and feasible step. both the private and public sectors. Similarly, Onsite waste sorting is close to the daily life of the the University of Waterloo (UW) has set a larger general public, which is a great opportunity to goal of becoming a Zero Waste campus by engage the campus community to take part in 2035 with a waste diversion rate over 90%. proceeding the sustainability of UW. To achieve the goal of zero waste, UW has 30.5% (2019) introduced new waste sorting receptacles on campus to facilitate waste sorting in 2018. 3,192 Despite rolling out these new waste stations, UW’s annual waste audit still struggled with Tonnes of waste sent to landfill high cross-contamination and low waste diversion rates. Further complexity was 60% (2025) added when a new sorting standard was released later in 2019 to comply with UW’s new waste management system. This situation presented an important opportunity to provide consistent and effective guidance for the campus community. UW Diversion Rate Goal 90% (2035) 100% Zero Waste Campus 80% Diversion Rate 60% The ratio of the waste, by mass, correctly diverted from disposal (garbage stream in this case) to the 40% recycling streams or the recycling programs 20% available at the facility. 0% ������������������������ℎ������ ������������ ������������������������������������������������������− ������������������������ℎ������ ������������ ������������������������������������������������������������������������ 2016 2019 2025 2035 ������������������������������ ������������������������ℎ������ X 100

Excessive Summary This project aims to improve correct waste Improvement of diversion rates and sorting sorting behaviour on the UW campus by attempts were noted at sites installed with leveraging the impact of altering signage at the experimental signs. Positive interactions new waste stations. Experimental signage between the experimental signs and the options that were more user-friendly, users were also observed. From the sign straightforward, and less confusing were created design perspective, it was found that not only and tested for effectiveness. Instead of focusing the visual design of the signage matters, but on the signage itself, and considered only the also the visual attraction and the overall numeric data changes, as a tentative action- visual experience which related to the based “living lab” project, we went beyond the installation surroundings can impact a user’s scope of pure sign design, and inspected users’ sorting behaviour. In terms of the users’ interactions with the signs and their sorting behaviour, misconceptions, which linked to behaviour on the UW campus. With an one’s past experiences in many cases, integration of the CBSM framework, we were follower effect and convenience are two able to understand users’ barriers and current main reasons believed to heavily affect users’ behaviours, which benefits the following sign sign reading and waste sorting habits. design and enabled the signs to fit closer to the true needs. Moreover, by adopting waste audits and onsite observations, we captured many genuine reactions and behaviours of users, and later extracted some implied but valuable findings from them. Altering the visual design of waste signage is seen to be influential in this project, but the effect is limited. We strongly believe additional initiatives and interventions are needed to address this issue, since signage is unlikely to trigger sharp behaviour shifts alone and gain significant improvement on sorting at once. Therefore, an array of ideas for potential next steps that also follow the CBSM framework are proposed in correspond to different challenges identified in this project.

Plan Overview With an intervention of sign alteration, this experiment project adopted the Community Based Social Marketing (CBSM) as its core theory background. In order to evaluate the changes of waste sorting situations before and after the installation of the experiment signs, this project is divided into phases. Survey, onsite observation, and waste audit are the three main methods used for data collection. Firstly, a survey is used as the main approach to learn the users’ sorting experience on campus. Secondly, onsite observations are adopted to gather interactions between the users and the sign and receptacles when they dispose their waste. Thirdly, waste audits are used for gathering sorting outcomes. Lastly, we further interpret the sorting changes of each selected pilot site by comparing and analyzing the data collected. The Pre and the Post Phase: An user survey Different aspects are used for the assessments, is first implemented in the Pre phase to from the quantitative and qualitative viewpoint to evaluate the users’ understanding toward the a viewpoint that reviewed all collected data in an new sorting standard, and the challenges and integrated way. For example, the data were motivations they faced when practicing waste assessed quantitatively with the broadly used sorting on the UW campus. Subsequently, the metric, diversion rate. While, the outcomes are first-round onsite observations and waste audit assessed qualitatively with explanations, such as were conducted to collect baseline data. After interpretations of observation records. In the experimental signs installed, the second addition, as multiple methods are adopted for round of onsite observation and waste audit are data collection, we can cross-validate the conducted to collect the experiment results. findings concluded from different methods, either supplement as an add-on or serve as supporting Sign Design: Experiment signs are designed evidence to one another. Assessing the collected based on a synthesized analysis of the results data from varied perspectives gives a more gathered from the Pre Phase. Furthermore, comprehensive view of how the experiment signs after referring to insights from other related impact the waste sorting on the UW campus. projects, the interventional experiment signs will be assigned into a large sign group, a small With its tentative and exploring feature, except sign group, and a control group. More details of for assessing the sorting outcomes related to the design process are further addressed in waste sign design, we also try to capture more later sections. opportunities for improving waste sorting on the UW campus. We also intend to develop potential Assessment: We evaluate the impact of the strategies for future operation needs based on experiment signage by comparing the baseline the assessments. data collected in the Pre Phase and the experiment data collected in the Post Phase.

Selected Pilot Sites Nine new streamed waste stations in different buildings over the campus were selected as experiment sites [fig]. The selected waste stations all located on the main floor of each building, close to food outlets (café, cafeteria, or food providers) operated by the UW Food Services. Firstly, the nine selected experiment sites were divided into three groups based on the function of the buildings. The reason for doing so is because the available streams are different, and the composition of the users are also slightly different at these places. 1. Group A - Multi-function buildings: Student Life Centre (SLC); Dana Porter Library (DP) and Davis Centre (DC). The units selected in Group A are three-streamed, with recyclable materials and waste but no compost stream. [fig] 2. Group B - Faculty buildings: Environment 3 (EV3), Applied Health Science (AHS), and Student Teaching Centre (STC). The units selected in Group B are four-streamed waste stations that contain all categories of waste including compost [fig]. 3. Group C – Residences: Village 1 (V1), Claudette Millar Hall (CMH), and Ron Eydt Village (REV). The units selected in Group C are large four-streamed waste stations with two organic bins but no paper category [fig]. The selected waste stations have the largest waste capacity among all groups. Secondly, the selected sites were then assigned into two experimental groups (Large sign & Small sign) and a control group. One out of the three sites in each group A, B & C was assigned to the “Large sign group”, another to a “Small sign group”, and the remain one to the control group [fig]. The reason for separating the experiment sites into a larger and a smaller sign group is because we intend to know the influence of the eye-catching extent have on users’ sorting behaviours. This idea is inspired by reviewing related projects that indicate making the changes more attention-ceasing is believed to be more influential. Finally, to sum up, a 3 X 3 matrix is created [fig] for comparison purpose based on the function of the nine selected unties and the experiment need.

PRE PHASE – Survey – 1st Observation – 1st Waste Audit HIGHTLIGHTS ➢ The Pre Phase generally matched to the step of “Understanding the target group members” of the CBSM framework ➢ BASELINE DATA are collected, in order to later compare with the experiment data collected after the alteration of the waste signs ➢ The Pre Phase generally matches the step of “Understanding The Target Group Members” & “Identifying The Barriers And Benefits” of the CBSM framework

PRE-PHASE - Survey Why do a SURVEY? Purpose1: Purpose 2: To Evaluate Users’ To Understand Understanding of Users’ Sorting Sorting Standard Experience The Attribute of the SURVEY The survey questionnaire included four main sections with a total of 22 questions, which contain a mixture of open-ended and close questions. The survey duration is from the Mid March to the end of April, 2019. Nearly 300 Web-survey samples Respondents Status at UW Undergraduate # % Student 130 47.1 % Graduate Student 56 20.3 % 17 6.2 % Faculty Member and Lecturer 65 23.6 % 8 2.9 % University Staff 276 100.0% Others Total (N) Respondents Gender 1% (2) 27% (75) 72% (197) Male Female Genger Diverse

PRE-PHASE - Survey What is the SURVEY about? The survey questionnaire included four main sections with a total of 22 questions, which contain a mixture of open-ended and close questions. Sociodemographic Identifying users’ motivations and challenges (benefits and barriers) of waste We are interested in knowing if the survey sorting at UW results varied by sociodemographic attributes. In addition, since this is an anonymous survey, In this section, we asked the respondents a gathering sociodemographic data allow us to group of ‘top-of-mind’ questions, related to what ensure the samples collected have an enough reasons motivated and what challenges blocked variety to represent the population on campus. them from carrying out proper waste sorting on the UW campus. Evaluating user’s understanding toward the Understanding User’s waste sorting latest campus soring standard experience on campus All questions in this section are single-answer The five questions in this section asked users to questions with correct answers. In the first part, rank their responses. One major question asked we asked the users to differentiate the waste users to rank who or what impacts their sorting standards changes based on sorting decision on campus. Another question, different geographic scales with four using the Likert scale, asked the users to self- True/False questions. The second part was a assess how confident they were in their sorting quiz that displayed a list of 25 items sorting knowledge as well as their with corresponding images. The respondents satisfaction toward the waste management were asked to choose the answer they believe setting on UW campus. was the correct sorting option for the displayed waste [fig]. The results from the sorting quiz is an important source we referred to when designing the experimental signs later.

PRE-PHASE – Observation What is an OBSERVATION? Why do it? Observations in this project are watch, hear, and record users' waste sorting behaviours at the selected sites in a non-participatory way. We observed without joining the observed party or directly intervene in the observed actions during the observations. In addition, we observed in a way that is as less noticeable as possible, because many past experiences have pointed out that people tend to behave differently if they become aware of themselves being watched. By capturing then comparing users’ genuine sorting behaviours and interactions with the waste signs before & after the sign alteration, we can achieve the 4 objectives in the followings. 1 2 3 4 To Understand To Understand To Know To Examine Users’ Waste How Users Interactions The and Reactions Sorting make Sorting Before & After Effectiveness Experience Decisions of Waste Sign Signage Alteration Changes How is OBSERVATION done in this project? Pre phase: Mar.12 to 18 Post phase: Apr.1 to 4 The observation periods overlapped the waste audit sections Observed 2 times per site – 90 mins each time Each site is scheduled to be on the same two days of a week in both phases Group A & B: lunch hours (11:30 am to 1:00 pm) Group C : dinner hours (5:00 pm to 6:30 pm) Times were selected to observe higher user traffic periods with higher waste traffic The observers observed on designated spots and from a specific direction. An area of starting and ending a timer was also designated [fig]. Mainly due to ethnical considerations, observations in this project is done manually by hands rather than recorded with equipment such as camera or sound recorder. In general, what is virtually saw by the observer and what the users verbally spoken are recorded. There are 10 trained observers. To reduce variance and to assure the record reliability within the same location, observers were mostly assigned to repetitive study sites in the pre and post phase.

What To Observe? Observed Variables Scale / Details Record Discarding time Codes Convenient random samples were timed. The extent of 1) sign reading Sec(s) Denoted using 1,2, and 3; with 1 represent the lowest extent, and 2)sorting intention 3 stands for the best extent. 3) sorting correctness Scale Discarding one item (1,2,3) DC, DP, STC, and EV3 have other bin(s) close by. Using other bins - What was the discarded items and which steam did they sorted. Yes / No - The users’ interaction with the waste station, especially the Other notes signs. text

PRE-PHASE – Waste Audit What is a WASTE AUDIT? Why do it? A waste audit is a handy and dominant way 1 2 to examine waste sorting. By collecting waste samples then analyze the composition To To Investigate of the samples, we can learn much about the Understand Effectiveness waste sorting situation. Users’ of Sign Sorting Change Situation How is WASTE AUDIT done in this project? Pre phase: Mar 13 and 14, 2019; Post phase: Apr 3 and 4, 2019 (Group A & B). Apr 11 and 12, 2019 (Group C) Collected, Labelled, and Gathered Weigh Waste samples were collected, labelled, then To analyze a bag of waste gathered for analysis. 48-hour samples were sample, we first weighed the total collected for each audit on selected Wednesday weight of the bag. & Thursday. Categorized Next, the auditors picked out the missorted items (contaminants) from the same bag, and then weighed the picked-out contaminants. Record: weights, counts, and notes With the weights, the metrics: diversion rates, cross- contamination rates, and capture rates were calculated. Aside from the weights, we also recorded the numbers (counts) of a certain type of wastes or contaminants, and added additional notes when need.

Pre Phase Results Summery Survey 16 25 To evaluate the users’ understanding of the new campus sorting standard, two Waste sorting criteria on the UW campus are different series of related questions were asked. One from the region of Waterloo is a sorting quiz with 25 items showed with pictures and asked the respondents to select the stream which they believe is the correct one. On average, survey participants scored 16 out of 25 on the sorting quiz. The other question tested how much the Sorting Quiz respondents know about the differences between the campus sorting standard to a Pizza Box / 11% variety of areas (on different geographic Cardboard Box / 15% scales). Although dominant shares of the survey respondents clearly know the sorting Coffee Cup / 16% standards vary between nations, provinces, Plastic Cutlery / 31% and regions, only slightly more than 50% of Fountain Drink Cup / 34% them were aware of the newly implemented campus sorting standard are different from the Plastic Bag / 38% regional sorting standard (Waterloo region). Paper Straw / 43% That is, nearly half of the users on campus Used Paper Plate / 53% were unaware of the launching of the new campus sorting standard. Tetra Pek / 63% Styrofoam Food Container / 68% To understand users’ sorting experience Used Napkin / 69% on UW campus, we asked the respondents Plastic Straw / 74% to answer (rank or write down) what are the difficulties and the motivations that either Milk Carton / 74% block or trigger them to do, improve, or Coffee Cup Lid / 74% maintain proper waste sorting on campus. Motivations nominated by a considerable Coffee Filter / 81% Cling Wrap / 82% number of respondents are environmental Chip Bag / 85% concerns, reduce waste going to landfills, Shredded Printing Paper / 88% personal principles, seeing recycling as Yogurt Tub / 88% collective responsibilities, reusing materials. Plastic Food Container / 89% Whereas, a verity of issues named and topped the challenge list include insufficient Plastic Beverage Cup / 90% receptacles; insufficient knowledge; Pop Can / 91% inconvenience; insufficient instructions; confusions caused by mixed information and Plastic Bottle / 93% Flyers / 95% inconsistency; the waste sorting on campus Food Scrap / 98% is different from their past experiences. 0% 50% 70% 100%

Pre Phase Results Summery 1st Onsite observation In the Pre Phase observations, we noticed that users’ sorting decisions can be heavily affected by others through interactions between users. The influences are stronger when the interactions are direct and from who the users know. While the influences can still take place when the interactions are less direct, and from strangers, which at many times resulted in a “Follower Effect”. We define a Follower Effect as a situation when a sorting process is done or a sorting decision is made by following previous users’ sorting decisions. It does not only happen when one witness the sorting process done by others onsite, but can be by noticing the outcomes such as looking into the bins and try to recognize if the same waste has already been discarded before making one’s own sorting. 1st Waste Audit: By looking into the number and the attribute of the collected waste samples, we have learned what are the items that users found troubled when sorting onsite. For example, a large number of reparative mis-sorted items are noticed, such as coffee cups, napkins/tissue, and plastic cutleries. While items that we later recognized they are As mentioned earlier, the multiple methods wrongly sorted likely because they fall into project design and synthesized analysis helps vague grey areas, which made users hard to cross-check and/or reinforce the results and differentiate which are the correct streams to findings gathered via the survey, observation, place them, such as, food soiled food and waste audit from different perspectives. containers and multi-material packaging. In One example is the reinforcement of the grey addition, a few special items were recorded, areas and the frequently mis-sorted items. mostly disposed by food outlet staff, such as Those items that troubled the users showed large baking sheets and milk bags for highly overlap in the results collected from all commercial coffee machines. Moreover, we three data collection methods. also noticed some sorting patterns users share in common that also affected the sorting Furthermore, we were able to further interpret quality. For instance, many straws were still the waste audit result with the results gathered attached to lids of beverage, or containers with from the survey and observation. Waste audits unfinished food or liquid remain. are considered as the dominant waste study method in sorting related waste management, however, it is limited by only showing the sorting outcomes but not the reasons. By implementing the survey and the observations, we were able to better infer the possible reasons behind the same sorting decision.

Pre Phase Results Summery According to the CBSM theory, we can proceed to identify Barriers and Benefits that either block or promote users toward better waste sorting, then develop solutions in accordance with the identified result, after gaining some understanding of users’ current waste sorting through the Pre phase. Identified Barriers Content 1. Insufficient No appropriate receptacles available. Receptacles 2. Receptacles at Users stated knowing where the appropriate receptacles are, but the location Inconvenient of the desire stream is too inconvenient to reach, while there are other Locations receptacles at relatively convenient locations. 3. Unclear Many responded that the original signage is too generic, it is hard to Signage recognize and understand in a glance. The signs do not offer sufficient guidance to assist users sort certain common discarded items. Sometimes even add more confusions. 4. Inconsistency The inconsistencies of available streams at each site; colour coding of the of The Waste receptacles and signs; outdated signage; and different shapes of the outlet all Collection add difficulties for users to conduct proper sorting. System 5. Misconception Users either did not notice the change of the campus sorting standard or did not notice the sorting standard is different from their past experience. 6. Lack of Users are either aware of or not aware of the fact that they do not know which Knowledge category to sort some items. Some said they are afraid of making mistakes that will cause contamination, so they place things they do not know all in 7. Perceived garbage stream. Attitude And Skeptical attitude and distrust are reported by some toward waste sorting on Lack of campus, they doubt the necessity of conducting proper sorting. The reasons Motivation lead to their attitudes include the not transparent waste dealing procedure; inconsistent colour of the waste bags; others’ reckless sorting behaviour and there often already has poorly sorted waste before them. In addition, lack of social pressure, and low to no motivation also contribute to individuals’ inconsistent sorting behaviours. 8. Insufficient Issues such as lack of instructions and guidelines, too many misleading Instructions/ information from different parties, and not knowing where to look up the latest Promotions and correct sorting standard. 9. Other External Expected or unexpected real-world challenges exist. For examples, Factor overflowing or occasional events that produced larger amount of waste than average. 10. Other Internal Other factors that can basically caused/ contribute mental impact that Factors influence one’s sorting behaviour. Examples include but not limit to the followings: a user is in a rush, influences from others, etc.

Pre Phase Results Summery All the identified barriers toward waste sorting on the UW campus in this project are shown in [fig]. Due to the nature of the project, the identification of barriers is more in depth than opportunities(benefits) in this project. Following the CBSM framework, once the barriers and benefits toward the promotion of a selected behaviour are identified, it is time to create CBSM campaigns according to them. To lower the input resources and maximize the output results, CBSM encouraged practitioners to address as many barriers or motivations as possible using the same campaign. As a result, we have come up with 5 campaigns. [Fig] illustrates how we match the barriers and campaigns in this project. Among these 5 campaigns, improving signage design is, however, the core subject of this project. Therefore, in the following parts, we mainly focus on details related to waste sign design, including the process of experimental sign design; the interpretation of experiment results; extraction of supporting evidence; and the findings.

SIGN DESIGN – The Design Guidelines – Sign Design Process HIGHLIGHTS ➢ A list of Design Guideline is formed and primarily followed as the core during the design process. The guidelines are formed based on a synthesis of the Pre phase results and review of related projects ➢ “What and How” are the contents on the signs “Selected and Displayed” are the main trunk of this section ➢ Colour images of items that are more commonly seen on campus are used for the experiment signs ➢ The sign design process matches the “Creating Interventions” step of the CBSM framework.

SIGN DESIGN The design process includes the decision of how the experimental signs will display their content, and what content to display on the signs. Due to the shift of the sorting standards, some of the items displayed on the original signs are to be redirected. However, based on the pre phase result, it is noticed that most users are not aware of the fact that UW has implemented a new sorting standard. Therefore, we purposely divided the experimental sites into a large sign group and a small sign group. According to the type variations of the waste stations, the size of the signs in each group is not uniformed. Instead, each group has 2 different sizes of signs [fig], adopted and installed according to the original frame. In general, signs in the large group are two times the height of the small sign group. The experimental signs are produced with different materials and vary in size, but all the installations fully cover the original signs. The large signs are larger than the original sign frames of the waste stations, and they are installed in a way that is hard to avoid noticing when approaching the waste stations; while the signs in the small group remain the same sizes as the original ones and fit exactly to the frame on the waste stations. In short, the large signs are two times the height of the small signs. Group A Group B Group C Multi-use building Faculty buildings Residence 3 – streams 3 - streams 4 - streams (2 organic outlets) Large sign Small 10” X 16” 20” X 16” sign 10” X 7” 20” X 7”

SIGN DESIGN How contents are displayed on a still waste sign is often presented in one of the three forms: images, texts, or a combination of both. The original design applied the combination form using icons with description words underneath, and an additional list of texts on the right (taking about 1/3 of the space). After reviewing related projects, we have also decided to adopt the combination form, i.e., images paired with text strings. Coloured images of practical items will be used to design the experimental signs, replacing the mono-coloured iconic image from the original design. In terms of the layout of the signs. The layout of the original signs of the study units are spatial consistent. However, the space and shapes for sign frames are different in types. To maximize the space of each frames, the arrangements of the experimental signs are not exactly special consistent, while the images remain the same. Listed in the following, we formed a number of guidelines as the design principles. These guidelines are synthesized from experiences gained from related projects and the analysis of the Pre Phase. They are the bases of deciding what item to display and what not to. Each displayed item is selected by matching at least one or more specific guidelines. Design Guidelines 3) Backgrounds 1) Text Pure colours but not images are The size and the sans-serif font adopted as the backgrounds. are chosen for easy reading from a distance. The colour They were designed a way that is (yellow and white) of the texts in high contrast with the text, are made sure to be in high contrast with the background neither distracting nor making the colours. displayed content losing focuses. 4) Keep the colour 5) Items more code consistent commonly seen on We adopt the colour coding campus used by the original system to Based on the frequency of an keep consistency. item’s appearance on campus, 11) Prevent message prioritize the more common over-load ones, and filter out the less To avoid displaying too many common ones. items in one big single cluster, 2) Description piling similar things together should be done reasonably Lay language is used and terms since space is too limited to are avoid for the descriptions, present each item individually,. which allows the public to easier understand

SIGN DESIGN 9) Large amount of repetitive waste 6) Frequent mis-sorted items E.g., compostable food containers, napkins. Based on the synthesized analysis of the Pre phase 10) Items Sorted results. Items with a correct Different From The sorting score lower than 70% in the Pre phase survey, or Waterloo Region recorded to be often mis-sorted Sorting Standard were selected. E.g., plastic cutlery, coffee cups. 7) Easily Confused Other Consideration Items, and Grey Areas To better clarify, emphasize, or Items with higher complexity remind purposes, some contents that users have issues to are to be specially arranged, differentiate the right stream, prioritized, or enlarged.. such as food soiled good containers, paper straws, and multi-material packaging. 8) Stream changed after the new standard applied E.g., plastic bags, plastic cutlery, coffee cups. 12) Alternative Options When the most appropriate stream is not provided Two “Oops signs” were exceptionally set at DP library (Group B, smaller sign). The selected waste station at DP does not come with an organic stream. However, since all sites are intentionally selected beside food outlets, we see the demand for a high volume of organic waste based on the pre phase results. A dilemma situation contributed to the generation of the Oops signs. The new sorting standard tries to divert users to throw organic items into alternative streams when no responding stream is available. Whereas it is concerned to cause unwanted confusion if presenting the same item on signs for different streams, the inconsistent and complicated messages may repeat the conflict of co-existing of new and old signs depicted in the beginning. Consequently, rather than displaying the items directly on the sign of the alternative option, we designed the external Oops signs with the same colour (green) background of the organic stream to indicate the alternative solution for the selected site (DP).

Post-phase – 2nd Observation results – 2nd Waste Audit results HIGHLIGHTS ➢ EXPERIMENT DATA are collected, then compared with the baseline data collected before the alteration of the waste signs (mainly through observation and waste audit). ➢ Not only the sorting results, but also the users’ interactions with the signage are analyzed and interpreted ➢ The sign design process matches the “Evaluation” step of the CBSM framework 圖:Some photos of installation

Post-phase – Observation With the experimental signs installed, genuine and meaningful reactions were captured onsite in the Post Phase observations between the users and the signs. In the following, we roughly divided the discussions of the observation results in 4 parts. Pause and Read Discussions Between Users The coloured experimental signs have quickly caught Synthesized from the Pre Phase and related projects, the users’ attention. We recorded many users it is clear that interactions between users can affect paused and carefully read the installed signs. one’s sorting behaviour, especially people they are familiar with. Similarly, with growing discussions, in It has already been pointed out by many studies and the Post Phase, users’ decisions were affected by projects that lots of waste sorting decisions were, in others, both prone or oppose to better waste sorting. fact, made before reaching the collection spots. CBSM has also highlighted that attracting the target Here are some examples. A number of users audience’s attention is the critical first step of discussed the items displayed on signs. Children behaviour changes. Therefore, we believed a followed parents’ guidance and do sorting. A girl number of users paused and read the signs is a persuaded her friend who took time reading the positive signal of waste sorting improvement. signs to dump everything in whichever stream without sorting. One record also stated a food service staff telling others the sign was wrong because he is confident with his previous experience of sorting off-campus without noticing UW now has a different sorting standard. Confused, Hesitant, and Surprised We witnessed and overheard increasing sign reading Growing Intention of Sorting and discussions, we also captured a variety of expressions from the users. However, not all were Although not all observed reactions and expressions positive. were positive, shifts of sorting behaviours that followed the signs have become noticeable at the Other than quickly react and follow the new signs, pilot sites shortly after the installation of the some users showed confusion and hesitation. A user experimental signs. shrugged his shoulder after he read the sign, and another said he was confused by the signs. Overall, in the Post Phase, we noticed improving Hesitations were observed especially when users trends of the recorded extents* of the sign reading tried to sort certain items, such as napkins and tissue and the practical sorting action at the sites installed papers. Interestingly enough, our records indicated with the experimental signs. Before the installations, some users only checked the signs \"AFTER\" their many users merely gave a glimpse or made nearly discard action, then figured out they either made a no eye-contact to the signs. While after the correct or an incorrect sorting. A lot of these users installation of the experimental signs, a higher share showed surprise. of observed users read the signs carefully. Meanwhile, the users' intention of practicing actual We infer there are several reasons lie behind these waste sorting action grew, too. When looking at the phenomena, such as differences between the compositions of the extents, we can see certain instructions and the users' perceived knowledge and proportions of users shifted from the lower levels (1 experiences; and unintentional but undesired or 2) to the higher levels (2 or 3) at most sites with inconsistency. We will further discuss these possible experimental signs. reasons in the later assessment section. *The extents of sign reading and sorting were recorded using a scale from 1 to 3, with 1 stands for the lowest level and 3 serves as the highest level.

Post-phase – Waste Audit Numeric Metric Changes The metric change outcomes we wish to see are increased capture rate, diversion rate, but decreased cross contamination rate. Two-thirds of the experimental sites showed progress of metric records in the Post Phase. Two of the three sites in the small sign group (DP & AHS) showed growing progress. Another two of the three sites installed with large signs, SLC and V1, experienced a grater growth of two-digit rate improvement on their diversion rate and capture rate. On the other hand, two of the sites in the control group (DC &REV) saw deterioration. Whereas, the other site in the control group, STC, has great metrics progresses. However, the audit result of STC was heavily skewed by a bag of household compost item in the organic stream. This provides a solid support to part of our conclusion that we should not merely rely metrics as the sole evaluation tool. Although only half of the sites with experimental signs showed improvements on cross-contamination rates, we believe this phenomenon is somewhat due to the nature of the project. The sites with experimental signs were assessed using different criteria between the pre and the post phase waste audit. The criteria used for the experimental sites in the post phase were stricter, which only allow sorting that follow the newer sign. While the control group were assessed using looser criteria in both phase, which allow sorting follows either the new or the old signs. To sum, the Post Phase waste audit results indicated that most of the sites installed with experimental signs experienced a certain level of waste sorting improvement. While the large signs contribute to a stronger push than the small signs on diverting waste to the correct streams. Cross-contamination Rate Capture Rate A ratio of material found in wrong streams. A high cross- The ratio of recyclables, by mass, removed from disposal contamination rate may lead to the material refused by the hauler (garbage stream in this case) to the total mass of all waste that that operates the diversion program and redirect the material for disposal, which eventually lower the amount of material truly and could have been diverted. successfully recycled. ������������������������ℎ������ ������������ ������������������������������������������������������������������������ ������������������������ℎ������ ������������ ������������������������������������������������������ − ������������ ������������������������������������������������������ ������������������������������������������ ������������������������ℎ������ ������������ ������������������������������������������������������������������������ ������������ ������������������ ������������������������������������������ X 100 X 100 ������������������������������ ������������������������ℎ������ ������������������������������ ������������������������ℎ������ Pre- Post Group A Group B Group C2 SLC EV3 V1 Large Diversion Rate +16.10% -14.33% +30.71% sign Cross contamination Rate -8.73% +1.18% -2.24% Capture Rate +20.88% -8.58% +23.22% DP AHS CMH Small Diversion Rate +5.34% +3.24% -10.21% sign Cross contamination Rate +5.84% -4.19% +1.58% Capture Rate +1.97% +3.30% -2.72% DC STC1 REV Control Diversion Rate -9.56% +29.03% +8.85% group Cross contamination Rate +22.02% -14.44% +9.10% Capture Rate -33.97% +19.20% -5.61% 1 A bag of household compost bag is found in the organic stream 2 The post phase waste audit of group C was conducted one week later than group A & B Table 6-17. Waste audit pre & post phase comparison

Non-metrical Changes Unintentional Inconsistency Numeric metrics, evolved from weights of the There are nine sites in total, but only one waste waste are important indexes when analyzing station is observed, audited, and installed with waste audit results; however, they do not signs at each site. In fact, there were sometimes always give a whole picture of the story. The other waste stations located in the same space. number of items directed to the right streams Even though these waste stations other than the also matters. Many items highlighted by the studied ones were not considered to distract the experimental signs, are in fact, quite light in users, eventually, unintentional but undesired weight, but one wrongly sorted thing can be inconsistent signage installations were created. heavy. For example, a handful of correctly sorted plastic utensils are lighter than a bottle of Among all sites, V1 was the one that we were unfinished drink in the wrong stream. Therefore, able to keep the best condition of sign if only considered the weight records of the consistency, with no other distracting bins nor waste audit results, the experimental signs other sorting instructions existed in close would seem less effective to direct waste to the distance. At V1, two waste stations same in type right streams. were placed side by side. Although only one of them was the studied unit, in consideration of While viewing from a quantity perspective, the consistency, we installed the large experiment experimental signs have successfully directed a signs on both. In addition, V1 has a higher waste considerable number of items to the right volume in general. Consequently, with a much stream. In other words, the results were smaller interference and good experiment promising. environment, V1 had the most considerable amount of sorting improvements. 30% Diversion Rate

ASSESSMENT – Assessment of the Visual Design – Assessments Beyond Sign Design HIGHLIGHTS ➢ ATTRACTIVENESS: Make the sign change noticeable ➢ Visual design: The levels of readability and self explanatory of a sign is critical, while trying to reach the most balanced status between comprehensiveness and simplification in the meantime. ➢ Overall visual experience: The installation surroundings of signs matter. The given messages should be consistent, and be cautious of the total amount of provided messages. ➢ Misconceptions: Often linked to one’s past experiences, subtle but influential. ➢ Convenience: Can be a powerful behaviour changing tool or a strong distracting factor. ➢ Interactions: Influence from others can have a strong impact on individuals’ sorting behaviour.

ASSESSMENT – Sign Design ATTRACTIVENESS: Make the sign change noticeable In this project, rather than installing new signs at where there was no sign, replacements were done to the original signs. We recognized that the more noticeable the changes of the sign are, the more likely they caught the users’ attention. Combining the results finding from the observations and the waste audits, we believe that The purposely enlarged signs in the large sign group have stronger attraction toward particularly attracted more users (support with 更 大幅度上漲的 capture rate and diversion rate). As a consequence, we believe eye-catching sign changes that can draw the attention of the user are more likely to attract the users to further interact with the signs, and then guide them to conduct correct sorting on site after reading the signs.

ASSESSMENT – Sign Design VISUAL DESIGN “What” to display and “How” to display are two Selecting what to display is one of the most major factors that impact challenging but vital part of this project. As waste sorting has become more detailed and complicated the Readability. than ever. Presenting a comprehensive but exhausting list has been tested and reported of not being very effective. On the other hand, a sign with high simplicity but displaying too general content is unlikely to be helpful as well. A balance needs to be made between sacrificing the comprehensiveness and compromising with simplicity. Moreover, a waste signage normally has a limited space. A careful consideration should be done before any content is selected and displayed. Therefore, according to the survey results, frequently mistaken items were especially included, while less problematic or uncommon items are eliminated. How contents are displayed on a still waste sign is often presented in one of the three forms: images, texts, or a combination of both. After the pre-phase, we have decided to adopt the combination form, i.e., images paired with texts/strings. We expect the signs to be self-explanatory in just a glance or a few seconds, which means they should be specific, vivid, and intuitive. Coloured pictures of the exact items collected from campus were used. In addition, we have also concluded that on a single sign, the designer should avoid too many clusters or reduce the number of items in one cluster. Too many items clustered in one bundle can overwhelm the users because too much information was given at once. Many other factors were also considered during the sign design process. For example, the colour and the font of the texts should be high contrast with the background, while the background should also be done with caution, because too colourful background can lead to a result with the signs losing its focus. To sum, the selection of what to display and how to display is highly influential.

ASSESSMENT – Sign Design OVERALL VISUAL EXPERIENCE Not only the sign itself, but also the installation surroundings should be considered as well. We noticed in this project, the overall visual experience maters, too. Likewise, there are several factors affecting the overall visual experiences, in the following paragraphs, we will further discuss 2 selected ones. Firstly, keeping the CONSISTENCY of the instructions, i.e., signs, is believed to make a great difference. During the project, it was noticed that there were other existing waste receptacles placed at different times in the past, which also have signs and instructions attached to them. As a result, users may receive mixing messages, because the sorting criteria have changed over time, but outdated signs and instructions are likely to give misleading information. In short, giving consistent and clear messages to the users are important. Secondly, the number of signs at presence also worthwhile notice. A piece of sign with good design is desired. However, if many signs were installed and placed side-by- side, it is possible to overwhelm the users, because too much information was provided at once. Pouring too much information to the users at once can lead to an adverse effect rather than proper sorting.

ASSESSMENT – Beyond Sign Design A sign, even a fine-designed and well-installed one, does not work alone. Creating good interactions between signs and their users is the key. In order to create good communication between the sign and the users, understanding the users in the early stage is important. This project has greatly benefited from the step of understanding the users at the first place. MISCONCEPTION Misconception is a subtle but important factor. We find it significantly impact users’ behaviours toward waste sorting on campus. Many users on UW campus have different past experiences toward what they considered a proper sorting, which often lead to misconception and resulted in unintentional wrong sorting. That is, people do not know that they don’t know, or people were simply unaware of the occurred change. Moreover, the latest campus waste sorting standard are now different from the off-campus one that practiced by the regional waste management. As a result, it can be confusing for users who are used to the former sorting standard. This also links to what was mentioned earlier, where we highlighted the importance of making the sign changes noticeable. CONVENIENCE Convenience was also noticed to be one influential factor that can heavily impact users’ waste sorting behaviour. This was not only testified in this project, but many reviewed projects have pointed out that other existing receptacles that offer more convenient and easy options can affect users’ intention of sorting. Particularly, if an existing receptacle provides higher convenience, chances are users will turn to these convenient options. Single waste receptacle that stand alone, or those receptacles in classrooms that are a type of common distractor we find on the UW campus. They are often single stream and most of the time, garbage stream, even though a streamed waste station is in a few steps. INFLUENCE OF OTHERS Finally, the influence of others is another powerful factor that often shapes one’s sorting decisions, other than tangible things. The influence of others can come from direct or indirect interactions. A direct interaction can be visually spotting others’ sorting behaviours at site, while an indirect interaction can be only seeing the sorting results done by others instead of witnessing the actual actions. Subsequently, if one follows others’ sorting decisions, it can lead to what we define as a “Follower effect”. Being directed by others when making sorting decisions is another source of gaining influence of others. Guidance giving is seen in this project between parents and children, and between acquaintances. Lastly, word of mouth also bring a considerable and profound impact on one’s sorting behaviour. The influence of others is generated when users discussed sorting. It is not necessary for the directions or the discussions about sorting happen at the meantime when sorting takes place. However, influences from others can be positive or negative based on the context.

CLOSURE – Conclusion – Potential next steps: what could be done next? – Connections: past & future initiatives To achieve UW’s larger campus sustainability goal, Sign Design is NOT the one-way solution toward better waste sorting, additional strategies are in need for improvement and long term maintenance. HIGHLIGHTS ➢ Potential next steps: Some Ideas to Apply We proposed several potential ideas cover the four remain CBSM campaigns other than sign design, which also target to decrease the barriers identified in this project. These campaigns are add or eliminate receptacles, rearranging receptacles, optimizing waste management, and promotion and education. ➢ Connections: Past & Future Initiative Extracted ideas and findings from this project have been carried on to the later initiatives, Shift Zero Action Plan, and implemented at a larger scale. Under the scope of the plan, more waste stations with new signs and separated other stream bins are settled; table brochures and handouts are distributed; and many more. All in all, a positive and exciting trend is foreseen.

Conclusion By replacing the waste signage with a visual design having higher level of readability and self- explanatory, this project has demonstrated the potential of how sign alteration can improve the waste sorting behaviour on the UW campus. To summarize, from the perspective of altering waste sign design, we have concluded 3 key takeaways. 1) Attractiveness - making the alteration noticeable; 2) Visual design - ensuring the sign is easy to understand and fitting the users’ need; 3) The overall visual experience - including the experience given by the installation surroundings into considerations. In terms of factors that impact users’ behaviour, 3 factors are also highlighted. 1) Misconception - often tie up with one’s past sorting experiences; 2) Influence of others – one’s sorting decision can be affected by others; and 3) Convenience – waste disposal option that are shorter in distance or easier. The above are noticed to be the influential factors that can heavily affect the effect of signs toward the targeted behaviour in this project. Although promising results are noticed, it is believed sign alteration cannot be relied on as the sole mean for improving waste sorting behaviour. The adoption of CBSM framework not only enabled us to optimize the signage design process, but also lead us to identify the challenges and opportunities toward improving waste sorting on the UW campus. However, the identified barriers which block the improvement of waste sorting in this project are multiple and compounded. We have also pointed out changing waste signs were only capable of tackling part of the recognized challenges. In other words, merely rely on one strategy may not result in a push strong enough to see a desirable level of waste sorting improvement. That is, to make all the effort put into waste sorting count, other interventions are in need for this issue. As mentioned earlier, several challenges and opportunities that can also affect the improvement of waste sorting on the UW campus identified in this project were not yet addressed. We have proposed an array of ideas also using CBSM approaches in accordance to the remain barriers and opportunities in the next section.

Potential next steps What could be done next? As concluded and highlighted, to achieve UW’s sustainability goal related to waste management, signage alteration should not be relied on as the only solution, additional strategies are in need to gain more improvement on waste sorting. Following the CBSM framework, earlier in the Pre Phase summary section, we have identified an array of barriers that we recognized that are blocking the community on the UW campus toward better waste sorting. In addition, 5 campaigns were created according to these barriers: add or eliminate receptacles; replace and rearrange existing receptacles; promotion and education; optimize waste management; and improve signage design. We believe continuously decreasing the identified barriers and exercising the other campaigns could be influential and feasible next steps to improve waste sorting on the UW campus. Therefore, we propose this potential plan to stakeholders for reference purpose. We will further discuss the campaigns other than improving signage design in this potential plan. The content of the potential strategies for the campaigns in this plan also adopt CBSM approaches.

To promote adoptions of a selected behaviour, CBSM theory has 7 approaches to help create campaigns. With short description given in the following, the 7 approaches are commitments, social norms, social diffusion, prompts, communication, incentives, and convenience. 1. Convenience: Making it Easy to Act. Make the desire behaviour easy to act, and the undesired behaviour inconvenient to do so. 2. Commitment: Good Intentions to Action. The target audience is encouraged to set a personal goal, commit to act, and/or maintain a behaviour. The forms of commitments can be verbal, written, or posted on social media. Based on social pressure and self-discipline, the more people are aware of one’s commitment, the stronger push toward behaviour change can be expected. 3. Communications: Creating Effective Messages. Vivid messages are the key to effective communications. Forming vivid messages heavily relies on understanding the target audience at an early stage. In terms of delivering messages, in-person contact is highly encouraged by CBSM to have a more solid impact on behaviour change. However, in-person contact is not always applicable in this project. Although not in-person contact may have a milder effect, we believe it can reach a larger audience size, which can be more cost-effective. Avoid becoming information-intensive campaigns. 4. Social Norms: Building Community Support. Social Norms exercise the connection among community members to trigger behavioural changes. Practitioners can set the selected behaviour as a right, good, or an expected way to act. As long as a considerable proportion of community members or role models that have taken action, the rest would often tend to act the same to align with others. 5. Social Diffusion: Speeding Adoption. Leveraging the influence of networks of the users to boost the selected behaviour, including their friends, colleagues, classmates, family, dining partners, etc. One may change their behaviour either because they were told, or they noticed how their acquaintances act. 6. Prompts: Remembering to Act. To serve as a reminder, prompts should be eye-catchy and placed close to where the target behaviour (i.e., waste sorting in this case) takes place. Potential Potential CBSM Tools & Content Intervention Add or - Convenience: Add more receptacles and rearrange existing receptacles with evaluation. Eliminate Some users commented that the current existing waste stations are not placed within a fair Receptacles distance toward them. Even if placing a new streamed station is unavailable, by rearranging the existing receptacles we can still create a streamed sorting situation. Rearranging Receptacles - Prompts: Signal the location of a nearby receptacles and indicate its available categories if possible. - Communication: How a waste management staff at the front end dealing with the waste could also pass on vivid message or serve as the role model to the public. - Convenience: Optimizing 1. Take away the convenient single garbage bins, such as those placed in the classrooms, can Waste be one way to make the desirable option easy, and the undesirable option inconvenient. It can then further stimulate users to approach receptacles with other sorting options. Management To avoid overflowing, optimizing the collection schedule to address overflowing; creating 2. special protocols for occasional events that may produce a larger amount of waste than normal. - Prompts: Signaling where to reach the closest available recycling/compost bins, since we are unable to place them everywhere because of limited budget or collection capacity/operational concerns.

Promotion - Communication: Communications could be great ways to clarify users’ misconception; lack of And understanding of waste sorting; and address the preconceived distrust attitudes. Education 1. In-person contact can be done on occasions, such as orientations, staff meetings, and events boots. The communications could be highlighting the importance of proper sorting; giving personal and collective waste sorting goals; and providing suitable information. The communicated information could be provided based on the group of people, because different users may be more concerned about different types of waste. For instance, staff working in offices may produce different waste than students or food outlet workers. Possible methods could be having orientation leaders to emphasize the importance of waste sorting on campus to newcomers, or having volunteers to guide the newcomers do hands-on sorting onsite. 2. Let the users know where to access the latest sorting instructions can facilitate waste sorting. Changes are hard to avoid. Sorting standards may vary through times, and detailed waste sorting onsite can be trivial and complicated. Since frequently update signage or printed hardcopies in time is not always possible, it is suggested to direct the users to know where to access the latest sorting info rather than always telling them which is right or wrong. A potential way can be adding QR codes on the waste signs to direct the users to access the website where the latest waste collection information is posted. Even if the sorting standard does not change, as stated earlier, signs aim to provide general use, it is unlikely to list every detail on the signs in this project. Therefore, we encourage to have the details shown somewhere else. Moreover, to increase interactions and strengthen the connection of communications. An interacting board or forum can be settled, which gives the users a place to bring up what they find troubled when sorting waste on the campus. A FAQ list can also be added. 3. Offering vivid messages and feedbacks are great communications as well. An example of a vivid message is using metaphors when presenting or explaining numeric data to the public. In addition, making the waste dealing process more transferable can alleviate the distrust attitude some users hold, and in turns bring positive impact. In terms of giving feedback, releasing the waste sorting results regularly or setting dynamic stat databases are potentials ways to offer waste sorting feedbacks and engage users to adopt or maintain proper waste sorting behaviour. 4. Well communications can not only address the follower effect itself, but also help set a good foundation for other approaches. Concluded from the pre-phase, sometimes, people experienced much trouble with which category to sort their waste, so they follow others, which however, can end up with many got wrong. 5. Setting role models for different groups of people on campus, and forming communication messages with careful use of injunctive or descriptive messages can be influential methods, too. - Social diffusion: Leveraging the influence between friends, colleagues, classmates, family, dining partners, and more to boost onsite waste sorting. - Commitment: Pins or stickers (with logo or campaign words stated on them) are some common ways to show one’s commitment to others. - Prompts: Handy small items such as table brochure and handouts can be adopted, but they should be used with caution to avoid becoming a mere information-based campaign. - Social norm: We believe Social Norms are effective approaches to address the follower effect, the frustration attitude, and other internal factors caused by witnessing inappropriate sorting on campus.

CONNECTIONS: PAST & FUTURE INITIATIVES Like how this project conducted based on the introduction of the waste stations, some ideas and findings extracted from this project have been carried on and integrated into later initiatives. This project sets a good foundation to later initiatives by revealing certain implicit factors that block waste sorting improvement on the UW campus. It also gives several clear directions of what could be accurately targeted and what are some issues awaited to be addressed. Shift Zero Action Plan, a campaign brand for a series of waste management approaches of UW was released in later 2019. The plan responds to the call of this project by taking further steps on many aspects mentioned by this project, which generates a strong connection between the two. The plan includes five approaches with more resources to engage the users, upgrade infrastructures; and optimize the services. It is expected to generate influences from different levels and sectors, and encourage the users to take simple but tangible actions in daily life, then eventually have the entire campus community take part in the waste-related affairs of UW. (UW Sustainability Office, 2020) More Waste Stations “Other Stream” Bins Table Brochure with New Signs & Hand-outs Clearly emphasize and pass New signage adapted from the on the message to the Delivering and highlighting the design of this projects are general public that “other” is message about the alteration implemented with another wave a stream alone under the of the new sorting standard as of waste station settlements. new campus sorting a simple heads-up. Stating Colour images are used and standard. the collective campus-level the displayed items are some waste diversion goal to the commonly seen things on UW campus community. campus. Connections between these examples and this project are in many ways. The launch of separated other stream bins and waste stations with new signs can help alleviate misconceptions and address a number of confusing frequent missorted items. Particularly, the new signs are updated following the new sorting standard and utilized the result of this project. In addition, adding more receptacles is believed to make sorting more convenient to the users. Moreover, hand-outs and table brochures are handy and tangible prompts for communication. Meantime, these examples indicates the flexibility UW have on waste management toward the changing demand. To sum, these examples highly correspond to what were noted in potential plan earlier in this project.

PROJECT TEAM Jennifer Lynes - Associate Professor, School of Environment, Enterprise and Development (SEED) Shirley Yang – Master of Environment Science, School of Environment, Enterprise and Development (SEED) ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Mat Thijssen - Sustainability Manager Andrea Bale - Sustainability Office Giovanna Zinken – Plant Operation Tom Graham – Plant Operation UW Food Service Plant Operation DATA and OPERATIONAL CONTRIBUTORS Zhuoyuan Zhang Suzanna Tempest Guneet Sandhu Rachel Liu Maicy Lim Parul Tambe Lucia Huang Ariel Gershon Renee Lau