Recycling Lost: Examining the Lack of Education and Low Reuse Rates Undermining Today’s Recycling Systems.

by Yejin Ha, Aziza Hussein, Maeve McGrath, Matthew Yao, Peihong Luo, and Yu Xia

Recycling is an act that everyone participates in almost every day, but how did everyone learn this habit? There is not a formal lesson that Americans take in order to be able to dispose of their waste. Recycling is just a social behavior that has become normal, and everyone assumes that they are helping the environment, however, this is not true. “Only about 5% of plastic waste gets recycled in the US” (Bennington College). This staggering statistic illustrates the vast difference between the practical implementation of consumer recycling vs. the “green” solution recycling poses. Americans need to be taught the correct way to recycle, in order to maximize the benefits of this program, but how? College students at University of California, San Diego, learn about the environment and how to do environmental writing, as well as learn about environmental justice, but never in the educational system were they taught about recycling. This leads to the question of: How can society rely on a system of recycling where no education is being spread, and the rates of what actually can be reused are so low?

The reality is that the recycling process in the United States is an inefficient process that has major losses in every step of the process. Starting at the consumer, the majority of the population is unsure of the internal processes that make up the recycling pipeline, leading to recycling contaminated items or non-recyclable products, causing damage, delays, and ultimately inefficiency. Conversely, many consumers trash recyclable goods due to many factors, such as lack of knowledge of recyclability and lack of accessibility of recycling infrastructure. Later in the recycling process, the task of sorting recycled materials at Materials Recovery Facilities (MRF) is still largely dependent on human labor, where workers manually sort through waste to determine what can and cannot be recycled, and how to recycle items that can be. Recycling technology is also quite archaic, in the sense that only the simplest items can be recycled. Complex products such as electronics cannot be handled at most MRFs due to their intricate construction, composition of a variety of materials, and the presence of toxins (National Geographic, 2019). Even plastic, one of the most produced materials, has many inefficiencies in its recycling process. In particular, there are 6 main types of plastic, and each different item must be sorted into its respective plastic type, where every type has its own recycling process (Stanford University, 2022). Therefore in order to increase recycling efficiency, this analysis is twofold: discussion of the relation of consumers and recycling, and then analysis of different country’s approaches to recycling to determine strengths and weaknesses.

[Accessibility in Countries/Comparative Analysis]

Countries focus:

• United States

Within the US, recycling rates are lower than a lot of other countries, despite being a very rich country. In America, the main obstacle for recycling is accessibility. For example, Juliet Fang, wrote an article on re-evaluating recycling in the United States in that emphasized that recycling is not a perfect solution but an important step towards reducing waste and conserving resources , this poses the argument that the United States needs to reassess its own system and make changes. The United States has exported over 700,000 tons of recycling to China in the past decades. A large number of the recyclables transported to China were contaminated and not recycled, which in turn caused environmental damage to oceans and land to go up in China. So in 2018, China adopted a Nation Sword Policy in an effort to combat environmental deterioration, prohibiting the import of plastic. The US recycling industry, which had relied for 25 years on Chinese market to dispose of plastic waste, was desperately looking for new markets

i) “Without someone else to take our trash for us, we’ve been left to confront the issues of our own recycling system: confusing labels, conflicting rules, and a lack of standardization in recycling practices across states.”

Recycling is confusing for residents in different states since they have different policies. The lack of standardized recycling programs across different states and local governments is a big challenge. There is a need for consistent guidelines and regulations to ensure that recycling efforts are aligned nationwide. “The way the system is configured right now, recycling is a service that competes — and unsurprisingly often loses — for local funding that is also needed for schools, policing, et cetera,” said Stephanie Kersten-Johnston, an adjunct professor in Columbia University’s Sustainability Management Master’s Program and director of circular ventures at The Recycling Partnership. “Without dedicated investment, recycling infrastructure won’t be sufficient. In addition, we need to resolve the simple math equation that currently exists — when it’s cheap to landfill, recycling will not be ‘worthwhile’ so we need to start to recognize what landfill really is: a waste of waste!” The United States lacks a system in which the accountability or rather the burnt of recycling is on a broad spectrum in which policies, local governments, and companies work on creating initiatives and systems that instigators people to activity engage with it rather than leaving the recycling efforts largely on the individual.

• United Kingdom

Within the UK, there have been many efforts made in order to promote recycling within communities. Some of these efforts include marketing strategies in Rushcliffe, UK. Effective implementation of a marketing communications strategy for kerbside recycling: a case study from Rushcliffe, UK, by Mee, Nicky, et al, studies researched community members in Rushcliffe to discover their recycling habits. Self-reported studies showed that in 2002, 60% of participants recycle regularly, however, 10–15% do not recycle at all. Other surveys done by The Environment Agency Household Waste Survey (2002) showed that 20–25% of participants from Wales and England are not willing to recycle. In order to change attitudes about recycling Rushcliffe officials launched a campaign called Recycling2Go which took a multifaceted approach to recycling awareness. They had a website, newspaper ads, direct mail, branding and a newsletter, which caused the public to increase their recycling rates from 9.7% to 48% (Mee, et al.). The most popular and effective method of awareness in this study were leaflets, or flyers with information about recycling. In another study done in the UK, Nudging student recycling behavior: An experimental study in Kazakhstan and UK higher education, written by Lakshmi, Geeta, et al. showed that the most effective way of increasing recycling rates was by peer influence. Rather than giving people more information about recycling, the most effective way to get people to recycle was by having their peers nudge them.

• South Korea

Many countries have implemented policies and programs to increase recycling rates and improve waste management. For example, this study from Korea examines the impact of unit pricing policies on household recycling. In 1995, Korea implemented a volume-based waste fee system that required households to purchase certified bags for waste disposal. After this policy, municipal solid waste (MSW) decreased substantially and recycling increased. By 2008, recycling made up 59.8% of MSW management in Korea compared to only 15.4% in 1994 before the policy (Lee at el. 2011).

The success of Korea’s unit pricing system demonstrates how national policies can dramatically increase recycling rates. In contrast, recycling rates in the US remain low. In 2015, the US EPA reported a recycling rate of 34.7%(United States Environmental Protection Agency), much lower than many European and Asian countries. To improve recycling in the US, policies and programs similar to unit pricing could be implemented at the local or national level. Charging households based on the amount of non-recycled waste disposed could create an economic incentive to recycle more.

Beyond unit pricing, expanding access to curbside recycling collection could increase US recycling rates. Many rural and low-income areas lack easy access to recycling. Improving recycling infrastructure and education campaigns may also boost participation. Cultural factors likely contribute to higher recycling in countries like Korea. Appeals to environmental values and stewardship could promote more intrinsic motivation to recycle. To reach national goals and reduce waste, the US must explore policy, infrastructure, and educational strategies successfully implanted in other countries. Applying lessons from abroad can help improve the US recycling system.

• China

figure 1

For a long time, China was the world’s largest importer of garbage. Up to 2018, China was still receiving garbage from other countries for treatment. However, as the national economy began to prosper and the accumulation of garbage began to increase, China decided to effectively ban the import of recyclable plastics from other countries. China produces over 60 million tons of plastic annually, but only 30% of it is recycled. In order to improve the efficiency of recycling, China has taken a series of measures. First, China has encouraged major cities to introduce garbage classification policies, build industrial scale recycling factories, and prohibit restaurants and e-commerce platforms from using disposable products such as plastic straws and shopping bags. For example, the Shanghai Government has implemented the “Domestic Waste Management Law”, which stipulates that all citizens and enterprises must be classified into four categories at designated times every day. Individuals who do not comply with the regulations will face a maximum fine of 200 RMB ($30). “Starting with Shanghai, the government imposed its first domestic garbage management regulations. According to the rules, household waste has to be sorted into one of the four color-coded bins: dry, wet, recyclable and hazardous.”(Pitt) , However, there are still many people who are unsure of which type of garbage to put, and the government still lacks proper recycling education.

figure 2

According to Zheng, the Beijing government plans to address recycling challenges by introducing “reverse” vending machines in primary and secondary schools. This innovative approach involves students depositing used bottles or books into the machines, which utilize imaging cameras to identify and subsequently compress and categorize the items (Figure 1, 2). Li Yongkai from the Beijing Education Commission stated that over 1.5 million students stand to benefit from this program, cultivating habits of waste classification and recycling. Despite their usefulness, it is noted that these machines come with a significant cost.

• Denmark

“In 2020, Denmark achieved a municipal waste recycling rate of 53.9% (Figure 2.1). But how did Denmark accomplish this feat?

Hill notes that since the 1970s, Denmark has been dedicated to strategic waste management planning and has heavily invested in waste infrastructure, with a particular emphasis on expanding incineration while reducing landfill use. In line with this approach, Denmark has emerged as a global leader in household waste incineration, incinerating around 80% of its generated waste. This unique strategy has led to a situation where a substantial portion of household waste is not separately collected, resulting in a recycling rate as low as 22%. To address this, Denmark transitioned from its conventional waste strategy to a resource-oriented approach, setting an ambitious target of achieving a 50% recycling rate by 2020. Hill points out that the Waste Framework Directive (WFD) also plays a role in shaping these goals, mandating that 50% of municipal solid waste should be recycled by 2020.”

Denmark has been consistently refining its comprehensive waste management policy in recent years, reflecting a commitment to sustainable practices. The country employs two primary methods of recycling. Firstly, there’s the method of recycling through melting bottles and cans. In Denmark, a significant portion, approximately 86%, of packaging takes the form of one-way containers. In the recycling process for these single-use bottles and cans, the original materials undergo melting and transformation into new packaging units. Secondly, there’s the practice of bottle reusability, which involves the collection, thorough cleaning, and subsequent refilling of bottles. This practice is notably adopted by breweries. Notably, the Danish population excels at returning their empty bottles and cans, with an impressive rate of 92% of these items re-entering the system. This facilitates the melting and reformation of aluminum, plastic, and glass materials into fresh bottles and cans (Dansk Retursystem).

In addition to these recycling methods, Denmark employs a taxation system for waste management. This includes the implementation of a “green tax” that extends to packaging, plastic bags, and nickel-cadmium batteries. Importantly, recycling remains exempt from taxation. Furthermore, Denmark has implemented deposit return schemes specifically tailored to beverages like beer and soft drinks. These strategies collectively contribute to Denmark’s commendable waste management practices, emphasizing both resource conservation and environmental sustainability.

[Criticism]

Although recycling has been regarded as a measure to ensure environmental sustainability and reduce the impacts of pollution, there are arguments against the practice. In an analytical response by University of Colorado researchers, it can be inferred that some of the reasons behind anti-recycling arguments include that recycling costs too much (University of Colorado). Some critics also argue that landfills and incinerators are safe methods of waste disposal. While critics argue that there is no landfill crisis, most states have less than 20 years of landfill capacity left. This implies that recycling has played a significant role in averting a landfill crisis in the U.S. (University of Colorado). The research from this study also points out that critics may also argue that people are already recycling as much as they can. Further, some critics also argue that there are no markets for recyclables.

Criticisms of recycling are justified, while the methods have significant benefits, it is not a perfect solution to the environmental challenges humanity faces today. According to an article written by Conserve Energy Future on the limitations of recycling, it is undeniable that recycling requires high upfront capital to establish waste recycling units (Conserve Energy Future. a). Other costs such as purchasing utility vehicles, upgrading the waste and chemical disposal, and other costs make it expensive. Another limitation associated with recycling is that it consumes more energy and may lead to pollution in the long-run. Conserve Energy Future indicates that recycling large amounts of garbage requires waste to be transported, sorted, cleaned, and processed; processes that are energy-intensive and pollute the environment (Conserve Energy Future. a). Products made from recycled waste are not durable. This means that more waste will be generated from recycled materials, which may neutralize the impact of recycling.

Nevertheless, the public can still use recycling but instead make changes to make it more sustainable and viable. Conserve Energy Future recommends several strategies that can be employed to ensure sustainability in recycling. One of the recommendations is ensuring the ease of use, such as through making recycling convenient by placing labeled bins in easily accessible locations, especially in adverse weather conditions (Conserve Energy Future. b). The article also recommends that people should be educated about what can or cannot be recycled. Thirdly, organizations and institutions are responsible for encouraging the purchasing of recycled products to support a cyclical materials economy and reduce demand for unused materials. The recommendations also include expanding the “Rs” of recycling. Beyond “Reduce, Reuse, Recycle,” waste management agencies can introduce “Rethink, Refuse, Repurpose, and Rot” to encourage a broader, more sustainable approach to resource management (Conserve Energy Future. b). Proper implementation of these strategies can enhance positive outcomes associated with recycling.

[Initiatives/Informative]

Recycling is a crucial component of sustainability and environmental preservation, however frequently the goals of recycling programs don’t correspond to the situations as they actually are. The goals behind recycling frequently differ from reality due to a number of obstacles that impede its efficiency. Several aspects must be examined in order to comprehend this gap and propose methods to enhance recycling and boost public awareness.

Intentions:

1. Environmental Concern: Recycling is a way of reducing the negative impact on the environment from waste. People have the belief that recycling will conserve resources and reduce pollution while preventing a need for additional trash that fills landfills.
2. Sustainability: Recycling is considered to be one of the main components of a sustainable lifestyle. People recycle to help create and contribute to a more sustainable future by reducing waste and encouraging the usage of recycling resources
3. Cities and local programs often implement recycling programs to inspire residents to recycle and provide convenient recycling facilities
4. Certain industries and businesses employ methods to adopt sustainable practices such as paper straws, and using recycled materials in their manufacturing process.

Reality:

1. While the intentions towards recycling are positive, the reality of the situation is that the US recycling system has a number of obstacles and limitations
2. Contamination: Many recyclable materials become contaminated with food trash, plastic bags, or greasy residue. This causes the actual recyclable material to be unrecyclable as well as increases processing costs.

i) when you put your coffee cup into the recycling bin but it still has coffee residue or something left over in it, when you drop it into the recycling bin it contaminates a lot of the other items which causes the materials to lose value or completely destroy them.

3. Recycling Infrastructure is limited in certain regions due to a lack of recycling facilities and collection programs, recyclable items are directed to landfills instead.

4. Access to reliable recycling facilities is also another hindrance, especially in rural or low-income communities.

5. Recycling rules are not constant. In different counties, cities, and states, the US has different recycling policies. This makes it harder for the consumer to comply with the waste system.

These issues are just a few of the realities that face recycling efforts and the actual impact they have or can have.

Implementing Changes and Improving Recycling Methods

Lack of Education & Awareness:

1. Despite the growing emphasis on recycling, many individuals still do not completely comprehend the significance or rather the reality of what happens to things they do put into recycling bins or are they even aware of what they are putting into recycling bins and how that affects how it’s recycled or not recycled
2. This knowledge gap may be bridged by education programs that explain the impact of recycling, the correct sorting processes, and the availability of recycling facilities.

i )As part of a project for University of California, San Diego Seventh College program, a group of students created posters to display at different recycling bins on campus in order to encourage students to be educated on the recycling rules in their area.

3. Accurate and widespread education campaigns about recycling practices to improve the effectiveness of recycling is essential.

4. Social encouragement and compliance with policies

5. Standardization and streamlining: Simplifying the recycling process for individuals and businesses could help reduce confusion by means of standardizing symbols, labeling as well as collection systems

Ways to Enhance Recycling:

1. Investments should be made by governments and cities in the expansion of recycling infrastructure, which includes easily accessible collection points and process facilities. In addition, with the aim of increasing collection programs, the establishment of recycling centers and installation of advanced screening technologies in order to limit contamination

a) The technological advancements do not need to be complex. One example could be by having washing stations near the recycling bins so people can rinse what they recycle to limit contamination

2. Only when the demand for recycled materials is high will recycling programs be effective. Sustainable cycles that promote recycling efforts could be created by developing markets for waste products and encouraging their use in industries.

a) It is difficult or even impossible to recycle many products because they are not designed with recycling in mind. In order to promote eco-friendly designs and help improve the recyclability of products, implementing EPR policies that require manufacturers to bear responsibility for the lifecycle of their products can be helpful

3. Improving waste management systems: In order to ensure recycling materials are collected, sorted, and processed in an effective manner, strengthening the waste management system is crucial. Cooperation between local governments and waste management companies enveloping policies and standards would work best.

By addressing these challenges, the gap can be closed between the intentions and reality of recycling. It requires a combination of education, infrastructure development, public-private partnerships, and policy changes. Efforts to improve the recycling situation in the US should concentrate on better training and raising awareness of good recycling practices, investing in waste infrastructure, strengthening environmental regulations against contaminations, and improving access to services in a way that people can actively engage in recycling the correct way.

[UCSD Student Data Analysis/ Initiatives — Survey]

A survey was conducted to assess student perspectives, behaviors, and attitudes related to recycling at the university. The questionnaire asked students about their recycling habits, knowledge, motivations, and suggestions for improvement. It also collected demographic information to understand the profile of respondents. The survey was distributed to undergraduate students in order to gauge the recycling culture on campus. This study aims to identify strengths and weaknesses in the university’s current recycling system based on insights from the student population. By examining student recycling practices, beliefs, and needs, the university can work to advance sustainability education and infrastructure on campus. The survey provides an opportunity for students to share their experiences and ideas for creating an environmentally-conscious community. The results will inform strategic initiatives to increase recycling participation, accuracy, and positive impact.

#1. What college are you in?

The survey included a question assessing respondents’ college affiliation at the university. The results indicated that Seventh College students represented the highest percentage of respondents at 46.2%. This finding is likely attributable to the fact that the survey was administered as part of a Seventh College project. With nearly half of respondents coming from Seventh College, the sample demonstrates substantial representation from this subgroup of the university population.

#2. What age group are you in?

The survey asked students to indicate their age group. The results found that 46.2% of respondents were aged 18–20 years old, making this the most common age group. The second largest age group was 21–23 years old at 38.5% of respondents. Together, these younger age groups comprised nearly 85% of total respondents. Older age groups were far less represented, with only small portions of respondents aged 27 years or older.

#3. Where is your place of origin?

The survey also asked respondents to indicate their place of origin. The results revealed that 59% of respondents were from North America, while 28.2% were from Asia. This breakdown provides useful demographic context, showing that the majority of students surveyed were from North America, followed by a sizeable segment from Asia. Only small portions of respondents reported other world regions as their place of origin. The predominance of students from North America and Asia reflects wider university and community demographics. However, it suggests the perspectives of students from other global backgrounds may be underrepresented in the sample. Ensuring participation from a truly diverse cross-section of geographic and cultural origins would provide a richer understanding of the full range of viewpoints on campus. Targeted outreach to engage students from underrepresented world regions could help achieve a more balanced respondent pool in future surveys.

#4. Have you ever been educated about recycling? If so, where?

The survey asked respondents whether they had ever received education about recycling, and if so, where that education took place. The results showed that 51.3% of respondents reported receiving recycling education through school curriculum or programs. The second most common source of recycling education was community workshops and events. Together, these findings indicate that for most students, recycling education has occurred in academic or community settings prior to their university experience. However, 12.8% of respondents indicated no formal recycling education at all. This suggests a need for more recycling education initiatives targeting students who may not have been exposed to these topics in their previous schooling or communities. Providing foundational recycling education could help fill knowledge gaps among a portion of the student population. As an institution that values sustainability, the university may consider incorporating more mandatory recycling education for all incoming students to establish a common base of knowledge and skills.

#5. How frequently do you engage in recycling?

The survey asked students to report how often they engage in recycling. 43.6% of respondents indicated they recycle daily, making this the most common frequency. 33.3% said they recycle weekly. Together, about 77% of students recycle at least weekly. 10.3% recycle monthly, while no one said they never recycle. These results reveal that recycling is a regular habit for a large majority of the student population surveyed. The high percentage that recycle daily or weekly demonstrates an existing culture and infrastructure on campus that enables frequent recycling behaviors among students. The university appears successful in providing accessible recycling options and motivating participation through education and values alignment. However, there is still an opportunity to convert the one in ten students who only recycle monthly to more regular recycling habits. Ongoing promotion of recycling and checks on barriers to access could help increase the overall recycling engagement on campus.

#6. Do you think about what you are recycling?

The survey asked students whether they consciously think about the items they are recycling. 84.6% of respondents answered yes, they do think about what they are recycling. In contrast, 15.4% admitted to not thinking about what they put in recycling bins. This large majority that give consideration to their recycling habits reflects substantial awareness and concern around proper recycling practices. However, the segment that does not think about their recycling presents an area for improvement. Lack of consideration can lead to wishful or aspirational recycling, where non-recyclable materials are tossed in bins hoping they can be recycled. Educational campaigns that remind students to double check recycling eligibility and outline what can cause contamination could help reduce wish cycling behaviors. Messaging about the impact of proper recycling may also motivate more conscious habits among the minority not currently thinking through their recycling choices.

#7. How comfortable are you with recycling?

The survey asked students to rate their comfort level with recycling practices. 66.7% of respondents said they are comfortable, indicating an understanding of recycling basics and effort to participate when possible. 25.6% were neutral, suggesting some recycling knowledge but inconsistent follow-through. Together, over 90% of students expressed at least moderate comfort with recycling. There is room to move more students into the very comfortable category through education to deepen recycling knowledge and motivational messaging to inspire diligent recycling habits. With recycling fundamentals in place for many students, the university can build on this base to advance recycling excellence on campus.

#8. Do you believe recycling is beneficial for the environment?

The survey asked students whether they believe recycling is beneficial for the environment. 43.6% agreed that recycling is generally helpful, while 33.3% strongly agreed it has clear benefits and is essential. This indicates most students view recycling as positive for the environment, though the level of conviction varies. However, 15.4% were neutral, suggesting they are uncertain about the extent of recycling’s impact. With the survey presenting positive aspects of recycling upfront, social desirability bias may be inflating agreement and downplaying neutral views. The neutral stance of some students shows there is still progress to be made in demonstrating the definitive and imperative environmental advantages of recycling. Hard evidence of recycling’s benefits from waste reduction to resource conservation could help convert more passive neutrals into active advocates. Fostering a culture of recycling enthusiasm on campus requires continuing education on its scientific merits.

#9. What percentage of recycled materials do you estimate actually get recycled?

The survey asked respondents to estimate the percentage of materials placed in recycling bins that truly get recycled in the end. 43.6% estimated a recycling rate of 21–40%, while 35.9% estimated 0–20%. Together, nearly 80% of students believe a rather low percentage, less than 40%, of items put in recycling bins ultimately get recycled. This perception indicates many students are skeptical about the efficacy and reliability of recycling systems. They may have heard claims that certain recycled materials end up in landfills regardless. However, local recycling programs may be more effective than students realize. Providing facts on true recycling rates, explaining where materials go, and clarifying myths could help align perceptions with reality. Boosting confidence in recycling’s success may further motivate student behaviors and advocacy. More transparency around end destinations for recycled materials can demonstrate good intentions do lead to positive outcomes.

#10. Do you have any suggestions for improving the current recycling system?

-All resident students should have a small compost bin.

-i’m not sure

-More transparency about how much material actually gets recycled and promoting the use of recycled materials more

-Not about the recycling system but some of the form should’ve allowed multiple checkboxes (not multiple choice) (like the question about how we’ve been educated about recycling). I think it’s easy to recycle on campus when you see the trash cans w/ the different pictures of what should be recycles, so maybe those stickers/posters could be on the trash/recycling cans of campus housing trash cans too. I noticed that my suitemates don’t really care/know what’s supposed to go in each trash can in the dorm.

-In San Diego, they need a stronger compost system. In the Bay Area I can toss a pizza box in the compost while in San Diego it goes in the landfill instead

-more education/signs/common knowledge about what can be recycled and how it should be recycled (ie rinsing before recycling)

-No

-Yes many students throw away food scraps maybe make it easier to compose

-I think people first need to be educated more on what should and shouldn’t be recycled, because I see people recycling things that are actually trash, which means the whole pile might end up in the trash just because there was a bit of trash in it. Or they throw away things that could be recycled, just because they don’t wash or rinse the item (like certain containers).

-Make information about recycling to be more clear and more abundant, not just on some website.

Make it illegal to make products that are too wasteful.

-Raising awareness and readily available, separated public trash cans. Most people don’t separate because they haven’t developed a habit of recycling (or don’t care) or no access to recycle bins.

-Recycling companies should advertise through social media, commercials, and more to inform the public on the benefits of recycling and where recycled materials are being used. I feel like I only learn about recycling through school, not through any other source.

The final survey question asked for any suggestions to improve the current recycling system. Responses covered several key themes. A common recommendation was increasing education and awareness about proper recycling habits. Students proposed more signage, social media promotion, and transparency around end destinations for recycled materials. Some noted confusion around recyclable items and suggested more clarity was needed.

The need for expanded composting infrastructure was another theme, with calls for more compost bins, especially in residential areas. Concerns about contamination and wish cycling also emerged. Recommendations included better rinsing of containers and deterring overly wishful recycling that ruins batches. Finally, respondents suggested more abundance and convenience of recycling receptacles, incentives and mandates from administrators, and company advertising to share recycling success stories.

Overall, the open-ended responses indicate students see room for growth through education, infrastructure enhancements, and innovative policies and partnerships. Their constructive feedback provides stakeholder insights to guide university recycling improvements. Further mining this qualitative data could continue extracting valuable student perspectives on the campus recycling experience.

While the United States can still say that the recycling system in the States works, they cannot say that it is the most efficient. The intentions versus current reality of the systems illustrate the issues within the system, however the US does not seem to be doing anything to mitigate these issues. One way that they could do such is by increasing formal education about the recycling systems and how consumers can limit the waste that they make. Many other countries such as South Korea, the UK, Denmark, and China have implemented such infrastructure and saw great rates of increased recycling. If more citizens were knowledgeable about the rules and limitations of recycling, then maybe the issue of contamination would not be so prominent. Additionally, the lack of unification within the recycling system in the US is a major issue. If citizens have to know the specific rules of the city they are driving through in order to recycle effectively, then the system will never be foolproof. In order to fix this system, investments to the infrastructure would need to be made. These could be educational investments, or physical ones such as having washing stations next to recycling centers and bins.

Works Cited

“Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: 2015 Fact Sheet.” United States Environmental Protection Agency, Nov. 2016, www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-11/documents/2015_smm_msw_factsheet_07242017_fnl_508_002.pdf. Accessed 4 Mar. 2023.

Cho, Renee. “Recycling in the U.S. is broken. How do we fix it?” State of the Planet, 13 Mar. 2020, https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2020/03/13/fix-recycling-america/.

Conserve Energy Future. (a) “Various Advantages and Disadvantages of Recycling.” https://www.conserve-energy-future.com/advantages-and-disadvantages-of-recycling.php. Accessed 29 Aug. 2023.

Conserve Energy Future. (b) “How Can Recycling Materials Lead To Environmental Sustainability?” https://www.conserve-energy-future.com/recycling-materials-lead-environmental-sustainability.php. Accessed 29 Aug. 2023.

Dansk Retursystem. “95% of aluminum from returned cans can be recycled and reused.” https://danskretursystem.dk/en/sustainability/. Accessed 29 Aug. 2023.

Fang, Jennifer. “Re-evaluating recycling in the United States.” Brown Political Review, 19 Nov. 2022, https://brownpoliticalreview.org/2022/11/recycling-in-the-united-states/.

Fox, Eve. “The Real Truth about the U.S. Plastics Recycling Rate.” Beyond Plastics, 15 Feb. 2023, www.beyondplastics.org/publications/us-plastics-recycling-rate.

Hill, A.L., Dall, O.L. and Andersen, F.M. (2014) Modelling Recycling Targets: Achieving a 50% Recycling Rate for Household Waste in Denmark. Journal of Environmental Protection, 5, 627–636. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/jep.2014.57064

Lakshmi, Geeta, et al. “Nudging student recycling behaviour: An experimental study in Kazakhstan and UK higher education.” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 377, 2022, p. 134164, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.134164.

Lee, Seunghae, and Hae Sun Paik. “Korean household waste management and recycling behavior.” Building and Environment 46.5 (2011): 1159–1166.

Mee, Nicky, et al. “Effective Implementation of a Marketing Communications Strategy for Kerbside Recycling: A Case Study from Rushcliffe, UK.” Resources, Conservation and Recycling, vol. 42, no. 1, 2004, pp. 1–26, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2003.12.003Links to an external site..

National Geographic. “Where Does Your Plastic Recycling Go? Fix Recycling Science & Environment.” 1 Feb. 2019, https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/where-does-your-plastic-recycling-go-fix-recycling-science-environment.

Pitt, Juliette. “China’s recycling system — a welcome environmental step?” 5 May 2021, https://daoinsights.com/opinions/chinas-recycling-system-a-welcome-environmental-step/.

“Recycling Infrastructure.” EPA, Environmental Protection Agency, www.epa.gov/circulareconomy/recycling-infrastructure-and-market-opportunities-map. Accessed 29 Aug. 2023.

Rachelson, David. “What Is Recycling Contamination, and Why Does It Matter?” Rubicon: Smart Waste and Recycling Technology Company, 4 Dec. 2017, www.rubicon.com/blog/recycling-contamination/.

Ramasubramanian, Brindha. “Recent Advances in Extended Producer Responsibility Initiatives for Plastic Waste Management in Germany and UK.” Resources, Conservation and Recycling, vol. 5, no. 1, 12 May 2023, https://doi.org/10.1007/s42824-023-00076-8.

Stanford University. “What happens to materials I place in the blue recycling bins?” https://lbre.stanford.edu/pssistanford-recycling/frequently-asked-questions/what-happens-materials-i-place-blue-recycling-bins. Accessed 29 Aug. 2023.

University of Colorado. Responses to 10 Common Anti-Recycling Arguments. n.d. Available at https://www.colorado.edu/ecenter/sites/default/files/attached-files/responses_to_common_anti-recycling_arguments_.pdf

Zheng,Xin. “‘Reverse’ vending machine sells idea of recycling” China Daily, 15 Nov. 2013, https://usa.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2013-11/15/content_17106776.htm