Archives

create an entry — 1 Comment
03
Feb 19

To Recycle or Not to Recycle?

Recycling, the solution to our landfill problems, or so we thought. “American recycling has stalled. And industry leaders warn that the situation is worse than it appears” (Davis, 2015). The problems started with having mixed recycling, an idea born in the 1990s in California, where anything recyclable goes in the bin and then somehow it is separated and reused (Davis, 2015). Unfortunately, with mixed recycling, and bigger bins, contamination has become a problem as people have started putting in as much garbage as they do recycling (Davis, 2015). This contamination has resulted in higher processing prices for recyclables, making it more cost effective to just dump the recycling in with the trash (Davis, 2015). Unfortunately, the contamination of recycling has affected more than just local recycling plants, it has affected the U.S.’s ability to export their waste to other countries as well.

China, one of the world’s largest importers of waste paper, used plastics, and scrap metal, made a decision last year to “tighten its standards for impurities in scrap bales” (Beitsch, 2019). Before the implementation of it’s new policy, China would accept bales with contamination levels between one and five percent, but now the standard is point five percent, a radical reduction (Beitsch, 2019). This change affects the cost of recycling, and this means that small towns must “scale back the types of recyclables they accept or start charging fees to cover the ballooning costs of their programs” (Beitsch, 2019). One town has had to start charging residents $50 to drop their recyclables off at the recycling center (Beitsch, 2019). This means that more plastics are put in the landfills, either because the recycling plant can not process it, or because people do not want to recycle due to the high costs.

Recycling may be less impactful on the environment, but “it is easier to adopt, and therefore is environmentally valuable” (Gifford, 2012, p. 297). This has made it an invaluable tool to help reduce our impact on the environment, but how do we fix the problems present in the recycling industry? In 1998, Schultz implemented an experimental intervention program in California to see if certain interventions would increase the amount people recycled (Gifford, 2012, p.307). Schultz discovered that people recycled more when they received individual feedback, information on one’s level of recycling compared with one’s past performance, or group feedback, information on one’s level of recycling compared to their neighborhood (Gifford, 2012, p. 307). Schultz even did a cost-benefit analysis at the end of his experimental intervention and determined that if the intervention was implemented citywide, the benefits of the program would outweigh the cost (Gifford, 2012, p. 307).

However, as Davis explains, increasing recycling is not necessarily beneficial as people are putting as much garbage as they are recyclables into the recycling bins (Davis, 2015). Maybe residents have good intensions, but a lack of education as to what is recyclable results in items such as shoes, Christmas lights, and garden hoses being put into recycling (Davis, 2015). Schultz’s experimental interventions have other applications than just increasing recycling though. Schultz based his experimental interventions on the idea of norms and highlighting the discrepancies between the norm and the actual behavior (Gifford, 2012, p. 307). A similar norm-based experimental intervention could be implemented to examine if feedback on individual performance might affect recycling behavior. If people stop putting garbage into their recycling, contamination would decrease allowing us to export our recycling to China which, in turn, would relieve the financial burden on small town recycling programs allowing them to start accepting more recyclables again.

 

References:

Beitsch, R. (2019, January 21). A move by China puts U.S. small-town recycling programs in the dumps. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/a-move-by-china-puts-us-small-town-recycling-programs-in-the-dumps/2019/01/18/6a043642-1825-11e9-8813-cb9dec761e73_story.html?utm_term=.4eeb7797465d

Davis, A. C. (2015, June 20). American recycling is stalling, and the big blue bin is one reason why. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/american-recycling-is-stalling-and-the-big-blue-bin-is-one-reason-why/2015/06/20/914735e4-1610-11e5-9ddc-e3353542100c_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.22a3b926740f

Gifford R. (2012). Applying Social Psychology to the Environment. In F. W. Schneider, Applied Social Psychology: Understanding and Addressing Social and Practical Problems (pp. 297-322). Los Angeles: Sage.

Uncategorized — 3 Comments
16
Sep 17

Using Cognitive Dissonance Without Knowing It: How Pictures of Animals Increased Recycling

My family has always believed in the importance of recycling in order to reduce waste and conserve our natural resources.  Growing up, both my sister and I assumed that most people shared these beliefs.  However, when she moved in with her fiancé (now husband), she learned that he, generally, did not recycle.  Incensed by this, my sister devised a plan to encourage him to participate in this environmentally friendly behavior.  Knowing that he has a soft spot for animals, my sister began to look up pictures of animals swimming through trash-filled water or harmed by coming into contact with garbage (i.e. heads or fins stuck through plastic soda holders).  She then told him how much of the trash causing the problems in these photos was recyclable and that many of these problems could be prevented.  Appalled by this new knowledge, my brother-in-law began recycling and now recycles regularly.  As my sister explained this method, I realized that, without even knowing it, she was using a form of cognitive dissonance to get him to change his behaviors.

Cognitive dissonance theory, as proposed by Leon Festinger in 1957, centers on the idea that people strive to maintain consistency across their opinions, attitudes, values, and knowledge, also known as their cognitions.  When this consistency is not maintained and two cognitions are in conflict with one another, it is unpleasant.  People attempt to reduce this unpleasantness by changing or devaluing one of the cognitions or adding a new cognition (Schneider, Gruman, & Coutts, 2012).  This theory has been shown to be remarkably effective in getting people to adopt more environmentally sound practices.  In one notable study, Dickerson, Thibodeau, Aronson, and Miller (1992) were able to encourage people to take significantly shorter showers, and thereby conserve water, by reminding them of past wasteful behavior and pairing this with a public commitment that implored others to take shorter showers.  The pairing of the negative past behaviors with the public commitment aroused dissonance in the subjects of this study which, in turn, motivated them to use less water, themselves.  In the case of my brother-in-law and his recycling behavior, my sister was utilizing a similar technique, though not exactly on purpose.

Without even realizing it, my sister was inducing dissonance in her husband.  He views himself as an animal lover and cares greatly about all different types of creatures.  By showing him pictures of animals harmed by a behavior in which he participates, my sister was creating conflicting cognitions within her husband.  He cares about animals, but is participating in behaviors that harm them.  In order to reduce this dissonance, my brother-in-law had to change one of his cognitions, in this case, his recycling behavior.  By now recycling, his cognitions have regained consistency and the unpleasantness of the dissonance was reduced.

Seeing how effective cognitive dissonance can be in inducing desired behaviors, on both large and small scales, is fascinating.  Dickerson et al.’s (1992) study is a great example of how inducing hypocrisy through cognitive dissonance in many people can be an effective mechanism in getting them to adopt environmentally friendly behaviors, while my sister’s use of animal pictures with her husband illustrates a simple cognitive dissonance technique that was similarly effective.  Overall, it seems that exploiting this principle is an ideal method for changing behaviors and should continue to be explored as the adoption of eco-friendly behaviors takes on increasingly great importance.

 

References

Dickerson, C.A., Thibodeau, R., Aronson, E., & Miller, D. (1992). Using cognitive dissonance to encourage water conservation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22. 841-854.

 

Schneider, F. W., Gruman, J. A., & Coutts, L. M. (2012). Applied Social Psychology: Understand and Addressing Social and Practical Problems (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Uncategorized — 1 Comment
24
Sep 15

Penn State University Park’s Recycling Initiatives

Environmental issues are at the forefront of a lot of people’s agenda, especially with the upcoming elections. College campuses such as Penn State University Park are making the proper changes to make it easier for students to reduce, reuse, and recycle without even thinking about it. I am such a huge proponent for sustainability causes, mainly because it can be accomplished so easily. In 2014 the National Recycling Coalition (NRC) gave Penn State the “Outstanding Higher Education Award” (National Recycling Coalition names Penn State ‘Best of the Best’) and last year alone of the 14,163 tons of solid waste we produced, 7,991 tons (56%) was diverted from landfills (Recycling and Composting). With the growing fear of the impact of global warming and societies ability to reduce methane production while also helping the community sustainability is a widely growing field of interest. Since my freshman year at University Park in 2011, I have seen the incredible changes that the school has been making and the impact these changes have had on the students.

I have seen the campus grow from having just one recycling can in the dorm rooms and simple can and bottle recycling in the dining areas and the HUB, to this year completely ridding the campus of polystyrene (Styrofoam). In 2015, University Park has taken several steps to making campus a sustainable environment. Instead of having just one recycling option in all the buildings on campus, there are now options for composite, glass, plastics (different subgroups which are specified on all of the containers), and paper. Not only does this promote recycling by almost forcing it, but it also educates with descriptive signs detailing which plastics are which. The lights in most campus buildings have been switched to more efficient LED lights that last longer, take lower wattage, mercury free, and cost effective (Energy Efficient Lighting). They are also motion activated to turn on and off when people exit or enter the room which yields 34% less energy than comparable buildings. The toilets in almost all the buildings are now also reducing the amount of water used for every single flush by 16.67% (Smeal LEED Certification Process).

Waste and Recycling information sheet_Page_1-580x751

There are several other sustainability initiatives taking place on campus like both interior and exterior features (native and/or adapted vegetation, storm water management, daylight and central staircases), sustainable purchasing and waste diversion, green cleaning, and other practices outlined in U.S. Green Building Council’s LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification process guidelines. My favorite new initiative applied this year is the elimination of Styrofoam from the South eating district on campus. Last school year alone, South eating commons used 279,400 Styrofoam containers (Penn State On Campus Living – University Park). That is only one of the eight eating establishments on campus. The new system gives customers a reusable Green2Go box that when returned 10 times warrants a free meal. If you do no return it, the individual is charged $5 until returned. If implemented throughout the campus, this could greatly impact and reduce Penn State’s footprint, all while setting an example for campuses throughout the country. This is just the beginning of a long process to make our planet healthier and will take the participation of communities everywhere. Attitudes about recycling need to be more positive rather than viewing it as a chore. Positive attitudes will result in positive behaviors.

11942295_935054926548897_1746089189464064849_o

References

National Recycling Coalition names Penn State ‘Best of the Best’ | Penn State University. (2014, October 9). Retrieved September 24, 2015, from http://news.psu.edu/story/329635/2014/10/09/campus-life/national-recycling-coalition-names-penn-state-best-best

Recycling and Composting. (n.d.). Retrieved September 24, 2015, from http://www.sustainability.psu.edu/recycling-and-composting#recycling-composting

Energy Efficient Lighting. (n.d.). Retrieved September 24, 2015, from http://eartheasy.com/live_energyeff_lighting.htm#led

Smeal LEED Certification Process. (n.d.). Retrieved September 24, 2015, from http://www.smeal.psu.edu/sustainability/leed-certification

Penn State On Campus Living – University Park. (2015, September 3). Retrieved September 24, 2015, from https://www.facebook.com/PennStateOnCampusLivingUP/posts/935060696548320?comment_id=935249216529468&reply_comment_id=935450543176002&total_comments=6&comment_tracking={“tn”:”R”}

Uncategorized — 3 Comments
12
Feb 15

Shhh, don’t say it: Climate Change

by Cynthia Roebuck

What a dilemma we find ourselves — shortages of water (USDA, 2014a), depletion of fish (main source of protein for billions) as a result of overfishing and ocean acidification (World Health Organization, n.d.), elimination of natural forests at alarming rates (Discovery, n.d.), large numbers of species on the critical endangered lists (IUCN, 2014), and land loss from rising sea levels and sinking lands (IPCC, 2008, p. 20).  These problems are not just in remote African villages or an island in the Philippines.  We are experiencing these tragedies here in the USA now, and it is irrefutably proven by thousands of global scientists working independently that human beings are largely to blame for the cause of these conditions through the excessive amounts of carbon input into the environment (IPCC, 2014).  It is also important to note the federal government made a firm stand on the recognition of climate change being a reality with the USDA (2014b) opening seven Climate Hubs for Risk Adaptation and Mitigation to Climate Change with two additional sub-hubs in the Southeast and Midwest to assist farmers and researchers to find ways to mitigate the changing environment.  Our Central Intelligence Agency as far back as 2009 has considered climate change as a national security issue, but all countries with resources do this also.

The problem is so vast and so serious that it should be considered a public health risk and interventions should be considered on this merit.  This is why the stages of change model that is usually used to address addictions may be able if applied to this problem help in sorting through the confusion of people’s addiction to behaviors that are harmful to the environment they live in, e.g. not recycling.  According to Lafreniere & Cramer (2012), the five stages are precontemplation, contemplation, preparation, action, and maintenance with each stage being interchangeable (p. 181).  This post only considers one pro and con example for each stage as it has been experienced in the USA with specific attention given to efforts at Pennsylvania State University (PSU).

The first stage is precontemplation; and, looking at the surrounding communities around University Park in Pennsylvania or any area in the USA, it can be realized not all communities have decided to be guided by scientific proof of the need for reducing individual household’s carbon footprint.  The second stage involves contemplating the problem and considering how to mitigate and adapt to these changes.  This contemplation is currently facilitated in American institutes brought about through drought that is so severe in eight states that specific areas were declared disaster areas last year (USDA, 2014a; USDA, 2014b).  Also prompting research and contemplation is the 80% reductions in oyster populations in Oregon and Washington (Barton, Hales, Waldbusser, Langdon & Feely, 2006), extreme weather causing devastation across the nation (New Jersey and New Orleans), and red tides at Florida beaches (Stein, 2014) to name a few specific areas of scientific research; but, there are also segments within society refusing to contemplate the future beyond their lifetime.  How do you reach this niche?  This is when contemplation needs to consider enacting penalties to bring about compliance, e.g. emission tests.  The third stage of this model is preparation.  This is when communities have made a commitment to lessen their carbon output; but, then, there are those industries that cannot or will not lessen their carbon release without sanctions.  The fourth stage is action.  This is happening now with new standards for electrical suppliers requiring an accountability for their carbon emissions.  It is also happening in national businesses developing national recycling programs.  But, without the right resources for implementing these programs some communities discontinue their environmental services of this nature, and some branches of a business will ignore the national policy.  How can you change this attitude?  A whole new set of schemas need to be introduced so that new social norms can be established.

This may be happening right now through Pennsylvania State University’s Sustainability Institute’s zero waste campaign conducted through the green team, Mobius, at the University Park campus (PSU, 2013).  This program has the possibility of fulfilling the fifth stage of the stages of change model — maintenance.

The reasoning for viewing Pennsylvania State University’s Sustainability Institute at having possible success in the maintenance stage is because the recycling program enacted on PSU’s University campus targets changing students’ behavior that may possibly change students’ social norms off of campus.  This is attempted through recycling and composting programs introduced on campus that utilize peripheral routes to persuasion through placing signs and recycle and compost bins in all university buildings.  Central routes to persuasion have also been developed through Mobius introducing sound reasoning and facts to students to help with an understanding of how a thrown out pizza box consumes energy.  This knowledge should help students comply with recycling to relieve dissonance that may occur when recycling is ignored, and it has potential for staying with the student when they graduate because of the years of practicing this routine while they are at school.

Of course, it cannot be known if Mobius’ sustainability efforts can alter social norm without a way to measure it.  But, we do know students at University Park are embracing recycling.  In 2013, PSU generated 14,204 tons of waste at University Park with 60% of it recycled, and it was 1,248 tons less than in 2012 (PSU, 2014a).  It should also be noted composting efforts implemented last year resulted in 850 tons of food waste being turned into 2,305 tons of mulch for campus grounds (PSU, 2014a).  This tells us Mobius is effective in the here and now at changing students’ behavior, but will students carry this behavior with them off of campus as their implicit attitude?

Given these points of its success, there needs to be evaluations to determine the effectiveness of Mobius’ platform in bringing about an attitude change.  This type of an evaluation will also provide quantitative data that other institutions can consider in creating programs of similar design.  Now is the time to do this.  It can be accomplished with administering a questionnaire to incoming freshman students’ to gauge their attitudes on recycling and energy consumption, and it does not have to involve costs of the whole student body.  It can be done with a good stratified sample of the student body.  Questionnaires should be completed at the beginning of incoming freshmen’s first semester, repeated each year before graduation, and ideally two years after graduation.  This could document if intrinsic attitudes will change when students interact with Mobius’ sustainability programs at University Park, and it can reveal what the length of time it takes to effect attitude with this approach.  But, the real test of Mobius’ effectiveness will be revealed in the administering of the same questionnaire two years after graduation to the same sample.  I believe because the students are immersed in an environment that considers recycling in all areas of professional and personal life during their four years on campus that it will have an impact on their implicit attitudes resulting in recycling and sustainability considerations becoming second nature.  But, we will have to wait to see for this, but we do know that it is effective in the here and now.  And, it is exciting to consider the large student body of international and rural American students taking these healthy practices home with them and changing the behaviors of their hometowns.

References

Barton, A., Hales, B., Waldbusser, G.F., Langdon, C. & Feely, R.A. (2006). The Pacific oyster, Crassostrea gigas, shows negative correlation to naturally elevated carbon dioxide levels: Implications for near-term ocean acidification effects. Limnology Oceanographer, 57(3), 2012, 698-710. DOI: 10.4319/lo.2012.57.3.0698.

Central Intelligence Agency. (2009). CIA Opens Center on Climate Change and National Security. Central Intelligence Agency. Retrieved from https://www.cia.gov/news-information/press-releases-statements/center-on-climate-change-and-national-security.html.

Discovery. (n.d.) Threats to Biodiversity. Curiosity, Discovery. Retrieved from http://curiosity.discovery.com/question/deforestation-biggest-threat-biodiversity.

IPCC. (2008). Chapter 2 Observed and projected changes in climate as they relate to water.  International Panel for Climate Change. Retrieved from https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_technical_papers.shtml

IPCC. (2014). Organization. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Retrieved from http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization.shtml.

IUCN. (2014). International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, Red List of threatened Species. Retrieved from http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/4967/0.

Lafreniera, K.D. & Cramer, K.M. (2015). Applying Social Psychology to Health, in Applied Social Psychology: Understanding and Addressing Social and Practical Problems. (2nd ed.) F.W. Schnedier, J.A. Gruman, & L.M. Coutts (Eds.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. ISBN 978-1412976381.

Pennsylvania State University (2013). green.psu.edu. Retrieved from http://www.green.psu.edu/.

Pennsylvania State University. (2014a). Recycling and Waste Management. Retrieved online at: http://www.green.psu.edu/ or http://sustainability.psu.edu/live/faculty-researchers/recycling-waste-management/recycle#stats.

Stein, L. (2014). Massive red tide bloom washing off Florida’s Gulf of Mexico coast. Reuters. Retrieved 7 February 2015 from http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/08/07/us-usa-florida-redtide-idUSKBN0G72FG20140807.

USDA. (2014a). Disaster and Drought Information. United States Department of Agriculture.  Retrieved from http://usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?navid=DISASTER_ASSISTANCE.CC.

USDA. (2014b). Office of the Chief Economist. United States Department of Agriculture. Retrieved from http://www.usda.gov/oce/climate_change/regional_hubs.htm.

World Health Organization. (n.d.). Global and regional food consumption patterns and trends. World Health Organization. http://www.who.int/nutrition/topics/3_foodconsumption/en/index4.html.

Skip to toolbar