Copyright is owned by the Author of the thesis.  Permission is given for 
a copy to be downloaded by an individual for the purpose of research and 
private study only.  The thesis may not be reproduced elsewhere without 
the permission of the Author. 
 
 Community Recycling Awareness and Participation 
at Massey University’s Turitea Campus 
 
 
 
 
A thesis presented in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of  
Master of Environmental Management  
at 
Massey University 
New Zealand  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Rony Joel Barreto Da Costa 
2011 
 i 
ABSTRACT  
 
In 1999 Massey University’s Turitea campus established a zero waste programme in 
response to concerns about the practical environmental management of the campus. A 
key part of this programme was the implementation of a recycling system to ensure 
valuable resources are not wasted. In order to monitor the effectiveness of this system 
and identify potential areas of improvement, a recycling and waste audit was conducted 
across the campus. Of the four trials undertaken three focused on the wider campus 
community, while the fourth focused on the student hostels. Trial I was conducted as a 
pilot study during summer school of 2009/10, Trial II during semester two of 2010, 
Trial III during summer school of 2010/11 and Trial IV during semester one of 2011. 
 
The audit quantified recycling and waste disposal choices made by the campus 
community. It was found that key issues that impact upon recycling practices include 
poor signage and inadequate recycling drop-off facilities.  Recommendations from the 
study included an upgrade of recyling infrastructure, a review of the recycling 
programme, a branding ‘make-over’ and an information-awareness campaign to raise 
the campus community’s understanding of the role thay can play in a zero waste 
programme. It is also recommeded that Massey’s Wellington and Auckland campuses 
be included in an institution-wide strategy for zero waste management.  
 
The findings of this research were submitted to Massey University’s Sustainablity 
Steering Group in order that the ideas and information relating to recycling and waste 
management could be considered along with other institutional sustaianblity issues.  
 
 
 
 
Keywords: zero waste, waste management, recycling management, recycling behaviour, 
campus sustainability, sustainable university practices.  
 
 ii 
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT  
 
Firstly I would like to thank my supervisor, Mr. Jonathan Hannon, for expertly 
supervising this thesis. He has assisted me from the first sketches of the project, right 
through to designing the final project. I am very grateful for his patience, guidance, 
continuous support and constructive comments. I would like also to express my sincere 
gratitude to Ass. Prof. John Holland for assisting me since I first started studying at 
Massey University, right through to the accomplishment of my masters degree. I am 
very thankful to him for the support, encouragement, and guidance during my studies in 
Palmerston North. This thesis would not have been possible without the generous 
assistance of many individuals who shared their knowledge and time with me. 
 
I appreciate and thank for all of their support my friends and fellow postgraduate 
students in the Environmental Management programme, Pitter Lee, Konchai Pimakong, 
Poula, Fleur Hirst, Naomi McBride, Jerry Teng, Camilla Reyes, Emi, Susi, and Chou 
who helped me in many ways. It was really a great pleasure being your friend.  
 
A special thank you and deepest indebtedness to my parents, especially to my beloved 
mom ‘Aurelia Da Costa’ who died in December 2010, for all the encouragement, 
support and prayer she had given to me during my study in New Zealand. She was such 
a wonderful mom and always be a great mom for my entire life. I am also grateful to my 
beloved dad and younger bother, who came all the way from East Timor to stay with me 
in New Zealand for a few weeks and to attend the graduation ceremony for my 
postgraduate diploma. I am also grateful to my big brother and sister Lino and Mimi, 
and the whole family in East Timor for the support and prayers during my time studying 
in New Zealand.  
 
I also express my sincere gratitude to my fellow Timorese who are studying in 
Palmerston North, New Zealand, Cornelia Ase and his family, Sandra Gusmao Martins, 
Celestina Fonseca and her family, Deonisio Do Santos, and Cipriana Soares for the 
support and encouragement, and being really good friends during my studies.  A special 
thank to my best friend Joao Paulo Rangel (JP) for being supportive and such a great 
friend during my first and second year in New Zealand. 
 
 iii 
I am indebted to the following individuals for their assistance in conducting this 
research: 
Ken McEwen (RFM) 
Andre (RFM) 
Yvonne (GBT) 
Sandra (GBT 
Ricky (GBT) 
Kerry Lee (RFM) 
Helen Mays (Enviropreneur) 
 
Finally, I would like to express my sincere indebtedness to NZAID for giving me this 
golden opportunity in the form of a ‘grant award’ to study at Massey University, 
Palmerston North, New Zealand. I am also indebted to the international student support 
office (ISSO), Sylvia Hooker, Olive Pimentel, Sue Flynn, Natalia Benquet, and Dianne 
Reilly for their support, encouragement and guidance during my study at Massey 
University. 
 
 iv 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS  
    
Abstract  i 
Acknowledgements  ii 
Table of Contents iv  
List of Tables ix 
List of Figures xi 
  
Chapter 1 Introduction  1 
 1.1. Introduction 1 
 1.2. Background 4 
 1.3. Aim  6 
 1.4. Research Questions and Objectives of the Study  6 
 1.5. Thesis Structure 7 
 
Chapter 2 Literature Review  
 
8 
 2.1. Literature Review Outline 8 
 2.2. An Overview of Solid Waste and Waste Management 8 
 2.3. Reduce, Re-use and Recycle 16 
 2.4. Zero waste 20 
 2.4.1. Zero Waste at the International Scale 21 
 2.4.2. Zero Waste in New Zealand 22 
 2.4.3. Zero Waste in Palmerston North 31 
 2.4.4. Zero Waste at Massey 34 
 2.5. Recycling Behaviour 36 
 2.6. Waste Auditing 40 
 2.6.1. The Method of Conducting a Waste Audit 41 
 2.6.1.1. Scoping 42 
 2.6.1.2. Health and Safety 42 
 2.6.1.3. Setting up a Waste Audit 43 
 2.6.1.4. Sorting out – Quantification of Waste Materials 44 
 2.6.1.5. Managing Data 45 
 2.6.1.6 Analysing the Data 45 
 
Chapter 3 Methodology  47 
 3.1. Introduction 47 
 3.2. Location of Study 48 
 3.2. Survey Period  49 
 3.4. Research Method 50 
 3.4.1. Waste Auditing 50 
 3.4.1.1. The Locations, Types and Sizes of the Bin Codes  50 
 3.4.1.2. Description of Bin Types 54 
 v 
 
3.4.1.3. 
Consultation with Key Staff Regarding the Waste and Recycling 
Audit at Massey 
67 
 3.4.1.4. Equipment 67 
 3.4.1.5 Site Requirements for Sorting  68 
 3.4.1.6. The Process of Auditing 68 
 3.4.1.7. Data Analysis 69 
 
Chapter 4 Results  70 
 4.1. Trial I 71 
 4.1.1. Auditing the Recycling Wheelie Bins (Code B) 71 
 4.1.2. Auditing the Small Waste Bins (Code C) 75 
 4.1.3. Auditing the Massey Dining Hall Recycling Bins (Code D) 76 
 4.2. Trial II 79 
 4.2.1. Auditing the Large Waste Bins and Recycling Cage Bins (Code A) 79 
 4.2.2. Auditing the Recycling Wheelie Bins (Code B) 86 
 4.2.3. Auditing the Small Waste Bins (Code C) 90 
 4.2.4. Auditing the Massey Dining Hall Recycle Bins (Code D) 92 
 
4.2.5. 
Auditing the Staff Common Room Organic and Recycling Bins 
(Code E) 
95 
 4.3. Trial III 96 
 4.3.1. Auditing the Large Waste Bins and Recycling Cage Bins (Code A) 96 
 4.3.2. Auditing the Recycling Wheelie Bins (Code B) 103 
 4.3.3. Auditing the Small Waste Bins (Code C) 107 
 
4.3.4 Discontinued Audit of the Massey Dining Hall Recycling Bins (Code 
D) 
109 
 
4.3.5. 
Auditing the Staff Common Room Waste, Organic and Recycling 
Bins (Code E) 
109 
 4.4. Trial IV 111 
 4.4.1. Auditing the Recycling Wheelie Bins (Code F1) 112 
 4.4.1.1. Moginie Hall 112 
 4.4.1.2. Tararua and Ruahine Halls 114 
 4.4.1.3. Bindaloe Hall 115 
 4.4.1.4. Colombo Hall 117 
 4.4.1.5. Tawa Hall 119 
 4.4.1.6. Matai Hall 120 
 4.4.1.7. City Court 122 
 4.4.1.8. Kairanga Court 124 
 4.4.1.9. Atawhai 125 
 4.4.1.10 Summary of Recycling Audit for Student Hostels - Code F1 Trial IV 127 
 4.4.2. Auditing the Large Waste Bins (Code F2) 131 
 4.4.2.1. Moginie Hall 133 
 4.4.2.2. Colombo Hall 134 
 vi 
 
 4.4.2.3. Tawa Hall 134 
 4.4.2.4. City and Egmont Courts 135 
 4.4.2.5 Contamination of Large Waste Bins Code F2 135 
 
Chapter 5 Discussion 139 
 
5.1. 
Large Waste Bins and Recycling Cage Bins (Code A and Sub-Code 
F2) 
140 
 5.1.1. Large Waste Bins (Sub-code A1 and F2) 140 
 5.1.2. Paper/Cardboard Recycling Cage Bins (Sub-code A2) 149 
 5.1.3. Recycling Wheelie Bins (Code B and Sub-code F1) 150 
 5.1.4. Small Waste Bins (Code C) 163 
 5.1.5. Massey Dining Hall Bins (Code D)  167 
 
5.1.6. Staff Common Room Waste, Organic and Recycling Bins (Code E)  172 
 5.2. Summary of Discussion 176 
 5.3. Implication and Recommendations 179 
 
Chapter 6 Conclusion 181 
 6.1 Introduction 181 
 6.2 Summary of Findings 181 
 6.3 Future Research 183 
    
References 184 
 
Appendix I 196 
 
 vii 
 
List of Tables 
   
Table 1 Bin code and location 53 
Table 2 The location and size of the large waste bins, Turitea campus 55 
Table 3 Recycling cage bins   56 
Table 4 
The locations of waste, organic and recycling bins in the staff 
common rooms, Turitea campus 
59 
Table 5 Student hostels at Massey University, Turitea campus 63 
Table 6 Massey’s conversion factor  66 
Table 7 The Auditing result, Code B Trial I 72 
Table 8 The Auditing result, Code C Trial I 75 
Table 9 The Auditing result, Code D Trial I 76 
Table 10 The Auditing result, Code A Trial II 81 
Table 11 
The Auditing result of the large waste bins based on three key waste 
streams, Sub-code A1 Trial II 
85 
Table 12 The Auditing result, Code B Trial II   87 
Table 13 The  Auditing result, Code C Trial II 90 
Table 14 The Auditing result, Code D Trial II 92 
Table 15 The Auditing result, Code E Trial II 95 
Table 16 The Auditing result, Code A Trial III 98 
Table 17 
The Auditing result of the large waste bins based on three key waste 
streams, Sub-code A1 Trial III  
102 
Table 18 The Auditing result, Code B Trial III   104 
Table 19 The Auditing result, Code C Trial III 107 
Table 20 The Auditing result, Code E Trial III 110 
Table 21 The  Auditing result for Moginie Hall, Code F1 Trial IV 112 
Table 22 The  Auditing result for Tararua and Ruahine Halls, Code F1 Trial IV  114 
Table 23 The  Auditing result for Bindaloe Hall, Code F1 Trial IV 116 
Table 24 The  Auditing result for Colombo Hall, Code F1 Trial IV 117 
Table 25 The  Auditing result for Tawa Hall, Code F1 Trial IV 119 
Table 26 The  Auditing result for Matai Hall, Code F1 Trial IV 120 
Table 27 The  Auditing result for City Court, Code F1 Trial IV 122 
Table 28 The  Auditing result for Kairanga Court, Code F1 Trial  124 
Table 29 The  Auditing result for Atawhai, Code F1 Trial IV 125 
Table 30 The Auditing result for Code F2, Trial IV 132 
Table 31 Categorisation into 3 waste streams for  Code F2 Trial IV 136 
Table 32 Categorisation of Sub-code A1 and F2 into recyclables, compostable 
and waste, Trial II, III and IV 
141 
Table 33 The Auditing result for Sub-code A2 Trial II and III 149 
Table 34 The Auditing results of correct vs. incorrect for the recycling wheelie 
bins (Code B & F1), Trial I, II, III and IV 
152 
 viii 
Table 35 
The comparison of average percentage, Code B and F1 Trial I, II, III 
and IV, without waste included 
155 
Table 36 
The comparison of average percentage, Code B and F1 Trial I, II, III 
and IV, with waste included 
155 
Table 37 
Total (kg) correct vs. incorrect and correct vs. incorrect percentage 
calculations for the student hostels, Code F1 Trial IV 
161 
Table 38 The Auditing result, Code C Trial I, II and III 164 
Table 39 The Auditing result for Code D, Trial I and II 169 
Table 40 The Auditing result for Code E Trial II and III 172 
 
 ix 
 
List of Figures 
   
Figure 1 R5 waste hierarchy 18 
Figure 2 R6 waste hierarchy 19 
Figure 3 Map of zero waste councils in New Zealand 23 
Figure 4  SWAP analysis  30 
Figure 5 The new collection of recycling bins in Palmerston North 33 
Figure 6 Site location of study 49 
Figure 7 Samples of bins audited in this study 51 
Figure 8 The locations of bins  52 
Figure 9 The picture of the organic waste bins in the Dining Hall area 58 
Figure 10 The four groups of student hostels 62 
Figure 11 Method one of the Massey conversion factor  64 
Figure 12 Method two of the Massey conversion factor 66 
Figure 13 Waste auditing facility 68 
Figure 14 The process of sorting out the waste 69 
Figure 15 The percentage of recycling and waste generated by Code B in Trial I 
by weight (kg) 
72 
Figure 16 The percentage of correct vs. incorrect for Code B Trial I 73 
Figure 17 The average percentage of correct vs. incorrect for Code B Trial I 74 
Figure 18 The percentage of waste-landfill to recyclables for Code C Trial I 76 
Figure 19 The percentage of recycling and waste for Code D in Trial I 77 
Figure 20 The percentage of correct vs. incorrect for Code D Trial I 78 
Figure 21 The average percentage of correct vs. incorrect for Code D Trial I 79 
Figure 22 The percentage of SWAP categories for Code A1 Trial II 83 
Figure 23 
The percentage composition of SWAP categories for Code A1 – 
Science Tower D Trial II 
84 
Figure 24 
The percentage composition of SWAP categories for Code A1 – 
Social Science Trial II 
84 
Figure 25 
The composition of waste, recyclables, and compostable by 
percentage of Science Tower D and the Social Science Building, Sub-
code A1 Trial II 
86 
Figure 26 The percentage of recycling and waste generated by Code B in Trial 
II by weight (kg) 
88 
Figure 27 The percentage of correct vs. incorrect for Code B Trial II 88 
Figure 28 The average percentage of correct vs. incorrect for Code B Trial II 89 
Figure 29 The percentage of waste-landfill, recyclables, and compostable for 
Code C Trial II 
91 
Figure 30 The percentage of waste-landfill to recyclables  for Code C Trial II 91 
Figure 31 The percentage of recycling and waste for Code D Trial II 93 
Figure 32 The percentage of correct vs. incorrect for Code D Trial II 93 
Figure 33 The average percentage of correct vs. incorrect for Code D Trial II 94 
 x 
Figure 34 The percentage of compostable and recyclables for Code E Trial II 96 
Figure 35 
The large waste bins and recycling cages at their locations; the Main 
building, adjacent to the old Registry building, and Riddet 2, off 
University Avenue, between Colombo & Riddet Roads 
97 
Figure 36 The percentages of SWAP categories for Code A1 Trial III 99 
Figure 37 
The percentage comparison of  recycling paper and cardboard for 
Main Building and Riddet,  Code A1 Trial III 
100 
Figure 38 
The percentage composition of SWAP categories for Code A1 – 
Main Building Trial III 
101 
Figure 39 
The percentage composition of SWAP categories for Code A1 – 
Riddet Trial III 
102 
Figure 40 
The composition of waste, recyclables, and compostable by 
percentage for Main Building and Riddet, Sub-code A1 Trial III 
103 
Figure 41 The percentage of recycling and waste generated by Code B in Trial 
III by weight (kg) 
105 
Figure 42 The percentage of correct vs. incorrect for Code B Trial III 105 
Figure 43 The average percentage of correct vs. incorrect for Code B Trial III 106 
Figure 44 The percentage of waste-landfill, recyclables, and compostable for 
Code C Trial III 
108 
Figure 45 The percentage of waste-landfill to recyclables  for Code C Trial III  109 
Figure 46 
The percentage of compostable and recyclables, and waste  for Code 
E Trial III 
110 
Figure 47 The percentage of correct vs. incorrect for Code E Trial III 111 
Figure 48 
The percentage of recyclable categories for Code F1 Trial IV 
(Moginie) 
113 
Figure 49 
The percentage of correct vs. incorrect recyclables disposal for Code 
F1 Trial IV (Moginie Hall)  
113 
Figure 50 
The percentage of recyclable categories for Code F1 Trial IV 
(Tararua & Ruahine Hall) 
114 
Figure 51 
The percentage of correct vs. incorrect recyclables disposal for Code 
F1 Trial IV (Tararua & Ruahine Hall) 
115 
Figure 52 
The percentage of recyclable categories for Code F1 Trial IV 
(Bindaloe Hall) 
116 
Figure 53 
The percentage of correct vs. incorrect recyclables disposal for Code 
F1 Trial IV (Bindaloe Hall)  
117 
Figure 54 
The percentage of recyclable categories for Code F1 Trial IV 
(Colombo Hall) 
118 
Figure 55 
The percentage of correct vs. incorrect recyclables disposal for Code 
F1 Trial IV (Colombo Hall) 
118 
Figure 56 
The percentage of recyclable categories for Code F1 Trial IV (Tawa 
Hall) 
119 
Figure 57 
The percentage of correct vs. incorrect recyclables disposal for Code 
F1 Trial IV (Tawa Hall) 
120 
 xi 
Figure 58 
The percentage of recyclable categories for Code F1 Trial IV (Matai 
Hall) 
121 
Figure 59 
The percentage of correct vs. incorrect recyclables disposal for Code 
F1 Trial IV (Matai Hall) 
122 
Figure 60 
The percentage of recyclable categories for Code F1 Trial IV (City 
Court) 
123 
Figure 61 
The percentage of correct vs. incorrect recyclables disposal for Code 
F1 Trial IV (City Court) 
123 
Figure 62 
The percentage of recyclable categories for Code F1 Trial IV 
(Kairanga Court) 
124 
Figure 63 
The percentage of correct vs. incorrect recyclables disposal for Code 
F1 Trial IV (Kairanga Court) 
125 
Figure 64 
The percentage of recyclable categories for Code F1 Trial IV 
(Atawhai) 
126 
Figure 65 
The percentage of correct vs. incorrect recyclables disposal for Code 
F1 Trial IV (Atawhai) 
127 
Figure 66 The total in kg for the four recyclable types at all nine hostels 128 
Figure 67 
The percentage of correct vs. incorrect in the recycling wheelie bins 
for the 9 hostels, Trial IV 
130 
Figure 68 The percentage composition of Moginie Hall into twelve categories 
Code F2 Trial IV 
133 
Figure 69 
The percentage composition of Colombo Hall into twelve categories 
Code F2 Trial IV 
134 
Figure 70 
The percentage composition of Tawa Hall into twelve categories 
Code F2 Trial IV 
134 
Figure 71 
The percentage composition of City & Egmont Courts Hall into 
twelve categories Code F2 Trial IV 
135 
Figure 72 The composition by percentage of 3 key waste streams for Moginie 
Hall, Code F2 Trial IV 
136 
Figure 73 The composition by percentage of 3 key waste streams for Colombo 
Hall, Code F2 Trial IV 
137 
Figure 74 The composition by percentage of 3 key waste streams for Tawa Hall, 
Code F2 Trial IV 
137 
Figure 75 
The composition by percentage of 3 key waste streams for City and 
Egmont Courts, Code F2 Trial IV 
138 
Figure 76 Examples of contamination of waste as found in the large waste bins 142 
Figure 77 
Examples of potentially hazardous substances as found in the large 
waste bins 
143 
Figure 78 The average total (kg) of material audited during Trial II, III and IV, 
Code A1 and F2 
144 
Figure 79 The comparison of totals (kg) for Code A1 and F2 Trial II, III and IV 145 
 xii 
Figure 80 
The comparison of the percentage of waste, recyclables and 
compostable waste for Code A1 and F2 across T II, III and IV 
146 
Figure 81 
The average percentage of recyclables, compostable and waste, Code 
A1 and F2 Trial II, III and IV  
147 
Figure 82 The overall percentage of recyclables, compostable and waste for 
Code A1 and F2, Trial III, III and IV 
149 
Figure 83 Contents of the mixed paper recycling cage bins 150 
Figure 84 Examples of contamination of the mixed paper (B3) wheelie bins 153 
Figure 85 
Examples of contamination of the waste (B5) wheelie bins (no 
signage)   
154 
Figure 86 The comparison of average contamination for Code B and F1 across 
Trial I, II, III and IV, both including and excluding waste category 
156 
Figure 87 
The average % of correct vs. incorrect for Code B, Trial I, II, III and 
Code F1, Trial IV 
157 
Figure 88 The comparison of totals per recyclable category for all 9 hostels by 
weight (kg), Code F1  Trial IV  
159 
Figure 89 The contribution of each hostel to the recyclables stream, Code F 
Trial IV 
159 
Figure 90 
The average percentage of correct vs. incorrect disposal per category 
across 9 hostels Code F1 Trial IV 
162 
Figure 91 The totals in kg for Code C, Trial I, II and III 165 
Figure 92 Examples of compostable and recyclable contamination found in the 
small waste bins 
166 
Figure 93 
The comparison of correct vs. incorrect percentages for Code C Trial 
II and III 
166 
Figure 94 The average correct vs. incorrect for Code C across Trial II and III 167 
Figure 95 
The comparison of the totals produced for each category for Code D 
Trial I and II 
170 
Figure 96 
Examples of contamination found in the Massey recycling bin 
(Landfill D1 and Plastic D2) 
170 
Figure 97 The comparison of correct vs. incorrect for Code D Trial I and II 171 
Figure 98 The comparison of compostable waste and recyclables for Code E 
Trial II and III 
173 
 
 
 xiii 
ABBREVIATION  
 
ASDC    Awapuni Sustainable Development Centre  
DEFRA   Department For Environment, Food and Rural Affairs of England  
GBT    Green Bike Trust  
ISWM    Integrated Solid Waste Management 
MfE    Ministry for the Environment, NZ  
MSW    Municipal Solid Waste 
MUSA    Massey University Student Association 
NZWS    New Zealand Waste Strategy  
OECD    Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development  
PNCC    Palmerston North City Council 
RFM    Regional Facilities Management  
RMA    Resource Management Act  
SWAP    Solid Waste Analysis Protocol  
USEPA   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 
ZERI    Zero Emissions Research Initiative 
ZWA    Zero Waste Academy  
ZWIA    Zero Waste International Alliance  
ZWNZ Trust   Zero Waste New Zealand Trust  
 1 
 
CHAPTER ONE 
 
INTRODUCTION 
 
 
1.1 Introduction  
Continuous growth in waste production combined with sometimes inadequate waste 
management policies and practices poses a serious issue impacting on both an 
international and national scale. Over the last few decades, waste has become an 
increasing concern and is recognised as a threat to the sustainability of our 
environment, and as having a negative impact on human health (Manga, Forton et al., 
2008; Watson, 2009). It has been estimated that across all categories 3000 million 
tonnes of waste is generated throughout Europe each year (Williams, 2005). In the 
US, the quantity of municipal solid waste (MSW) generated is estimated to be 230 
million tonnes per year and industrial solid waste generation, 400 million tonnes per 
year (Williams, 2005). In New Zealand in 2006, 3.156 million tonnes of waste was 
generated to landfill and the majority of this waste is not recycled (Ministry for the 
Environment (MfE), 2007). In terms of waste generation per capita, New Zealand 
produced 400kg/capita which is relatively less in comparison to other countries such 
as Australia (690kg/capita), Switzerland (660kg/capita), Netherlands (600kg/capita), 
Sweden (470kg/capita) and England (403kg/capita) (OECD, 2007; DEFRA, 2009). 
However, successive national governments in cooperation with Non-Governmental 
Organisations (NGOs) have been exploring ways to achieve the goals of the Waste 
Minimisation Act 2008, which sets “the Government's long-term priorities for waste 
management and minimisation in New Zealand” (MfE, 2011f). 
 
As key teaching and research organisations who seek to exhibit leadership, 
“universities have an important role to play in demonstrating environmentally 
sustainable practices on campus” (ARIES, 2009) and “promoting education and 
research on environmental impact of sustainability by building students and staff 
awareness” (UC Santa Barbara, 2008, p. 4). A framework can be a suitable approach 
to achieve campus sustainability by remedying the limitations of the current 
environmental management practices in universities. This can ensure increased 
 2 
sustainability through the integration of “three strategies, namely: university 
Environmental Management System (EMS); public participation and social 
responsibility; and promoting sustainability in teaching and research” (Alshuwaikhat 
& Abubakar, 2008). The development of innovative waste management systems are a 
way of incorporating both the environmental management system of the university 
with raising awareness of the staff and students about the importance of their 
participation and acting socially responsibly in order to contribute to campus 
sustainability.  
 
In relation to environmental sustainability development, Agenda 21 is a UN global 
action for environmental sustainability globally (UNESA, 1992) that highlights 
resource conservation, pollution control and waste minimisation as key priorities in 
the achievement of sustainable development. In synergy with such international 
policy trends, zero waste has become a worldwide movement seeking environmental 
sustainability (Kollikkathara et al., 2008; Matete & Trois, 2008). In New Zealand, the 
national waste strategy, New Zealand Waste Strategy (NZWS) 2002, worked toward 
the goal of “zero waste and a sustainable New Zealand” and set in place a policy 
framework for implementing the vision of zero waste (New Zealand Waste Strategy, 
2002, p. 3). In 2010 the subsequent NZWS 2010 adopted the twin goals of zero waste 
minimisation. These goals are “reducing the harmful effects of waste and improving 
the efficiency of resource use” (New Zealand Waste Strategy, 2010, p. 2). 
 
Zero waste is both a philosophy and practice of reducing waste generation in an 
optimal way (Zero Waste Inc, n.d). The practice of zero waste can be achieved by 
maximising recycling, minimising waste, reducing consumption (Clay, Gibson et al., 
2007), and ensuring that products are made to be reduced, re-used and recycled back 
into nature or the productive economy without being discarded or wasted (Clay, 
Gibson et al., 2007; Matete and Trois, 2008). As a preventive approach, the concept 
of zero waste is designed to work toward the minimisation of residual disposal to 
landfill, and increase the initiative of recycling and the re-use of materials in an 
environmentally sustainable manner (Greyson, 2007; ZWNZ Trust, 1999). The Zero 
Waste International Alliance (ZWIA) is an international organisation that was 
established “to promote positive alternatives to landfill and incineration and to raise 
community awareness of the social and economic benefits to be gained when waste is 
 3 
regarded as a resource base” (ZWIA, 2010). National, regional and local zero waste 
initiatives are allied with this global vision. The target of zero waste has been taken on 
by numerous jurisdictions in various countries such as America (California and San 
Francisco), Canada (Nova Scotia), China (Taiwan), New Zealand, and Australia 
(South Australia, Victoria, and Western Australia) (Greyson, 2007). In Australia zero 
waste programmes are initiated by both government institutions and non-profit 
organisations and incorporate research, education and policy development for national 
and local sustainability (Zero Waste New Zealand (ZWNZ) Trust, 2011a).  
 
Zero waste targets apply to all sectors of society including government, educational 
institution, communities, businesses and individuals (Wilson et al., 2003; Suttibak & 
Nitivattananon, 2008), and can involve both policy development and the creation or 
modification of waste management practices. In order for widespread behaviour 
change to take place across all parts of society in relation to sustainable waste 
management there needs to be collaboration between the various institutions involved. 
These collaborations typically involve the agencies or businesses that dispose of the 
waste and the institutions, groups and communities that are producing the waste. An 
example of this is the collaboration involving Massey University in the Zero Waste 
Academy (ZWA) for the development of a programme that focuses on both training 
and research as well as on-campus waste management practices (Massey University, 
2003a).The ZWA is a partnered initiative among a number of stakeholders, these 
being the Zero Waste New Zealand Trust (ZWNZ Trust), the Palmerston North City 
Council (PNCC), and Massey University.  
 
Massey University’s zero waste initiatives are an ongoing commitment, and further 
monitoring is required to identify waste and recycling volumes and contamination 
levels, which are indicative of the recycling related awareness and participation of the 
campus community (Mason, Brooking et al., 2003; Mason, Oberender et al., 2004). 
Therefore, the Massey University has established the steering group on sustainability 
with the aim of bringing together academics and professional services from across 
disciplines and campuses to work on sustainability issues. The Massey University 
Road to 2020 report, which was updated in 2011, reiterates the aim “to reduce 
Massey’s environmental impact by increasing sustainability practices and behaviour” 
and to “further integrate sustainability issues into our research and teaching 
 4 
programme” (Massey University, 2011, p. 12). With respect to the effort to increase 
sustainability practices on campus through zero waste management programme, this 
research project investigates how to enhance the zero waste management programmes 
by using waste and recycling audit information alongside the finding of previous 
research undertaken on campus to design and report on waste and recycling 
infrastructure changes with a view to increase the awareness and participation of the 
Turitea campus community. By quantifying levels of contamination in the disposal of 
waste and recyclables the findings of the waste and recycling audit conducted will 
directly indicate areas of the current waste management system that need 
improvement.  
 
During a meeting with Regional Facilities Management (RFM) in February 2011 they 
expressed interest in auditing the waste and recycling at the student hostels on 
campus. They were concerned about the volume of waste and recycling produced by 
the student hostels, and contamination of non-recyclable and recyclable waste due to 
incorrect disposal. As a result of this interest the student hostels was added into the 
auditing process as the final trial of this study. A key part of this research was the 
reporting of the results and findings of this waste and recycling audit and 
recommendations to RFM.  
 
1.2 Background  
In 1999, a zero waste programme was established at Massey University, Palmerston 
North by the School for Environmental Engineering (Mason, Brooking et al., 2003; 
Mason, Oberender et al., 2004). The main objective of the established zero waste 
programme was “to provide a way of responding to the growing interest and concern 
relating to practical environmental management of the campus” (Mason, Brooking et 
al., 2003). A secondary objective was to promote ongoing research, education for 
sustainability (EFS) and more broadly, environmental awareness and responsibility in 
the campus community. As such, according to Mason, Oberender et al., (2004), the 
original programme of the study comprised two main projects, 1) original solid waste 
generation/composting and, 2) recycling/source separation behaviour. Further detailed 
information regarding these projects can be found in the Literature Review chapter.   
 
 5 
In addition to this, since 2002 Massey University has also officially collaborated with 
the ZWNZ Trust and PNCC to establish the Zero Waste Academy (ZWA). The 
partnership between Massey University, PNCC, and ZWNZ involved creating a 
proactive interaction to: “assist PNCC develop an economically and socially viable 
Zero Waste strategy, a key component of which will be the development of a model 
resource recovery park. This will provide a working training model for the Zero 
Waste Academy and position the city as a world-recognized model Zero Waste 
community.” and “make Massey University, Palmerston North campus, the premier 
tertiary institution in the Asia-Pacific region for Zero Waste research, training and 
practice.” (Massey University, 2003b). The mission statement of ZWA is “to be the 
facilitator of excellence for training, education and research of zero waste principles 
and practices” (Hannon, 2009, p. 11). 
 
The ZWA has also proposed the establishment of an ongoing programme with the 
objective of “promoting an ongoing commitment to demonstrably sound 
environmental management in the areas of both physical and energy resources, in 
accordance with the university environmental policy and the university commitment 
to environmental responsibility in tertiary education” (ZWNZ Trust, 1999). This was 
an intentionally broader statement than that of the ZWNZ Trust charter, which stated 
the objective of “working towards the elimination of landfill as a disposal method and 
the re-use of all materials in an environmentally sustainable manner” (ZWNZ Trust, 
1999). The opportunity to eventually establish Massey University at Turitea, 
Palmerston North as a model “zero waste” campus existed and this aligned with long 
term goals to implement and continuously improve good environmental management 
practices in sustainable campus management (Hannon, 2009). 
 
Recycling and proper waste disposal is the responsibility of all members of the 
campus community, and makes both economic and environmental contributions to a 
sustainable campus. This research draws upon the previous studies undertaken by 
Mason, Brooking et al., (2003) and  Mason, Oberender et al., (2004) which indicated 
that there were challenges with regard to the recycling system in the amenities areas 
and buildings. An additional challenge that had been identified was the presence of 
international students who are not familiar with the recycling system both on campus 
and in public areas, as well as the dynamic nature of the student population in general. 
 6 
Therefore, due to the constantly changing campus population (i.e. student graduates 
(international and domestic students), moving on into employment, and new students 
enrolling) on going work is required to grow both an understanding of and 
participation in the recycling programme so as to improve recycling volumes and 
minimise the costs associated with contamination. The improvement of recycling 
infrastructure, such as signage, to provide a simpler and more user friendly system 
may potentially address these issues.   
  
1.3 Aim 
The proposed study will undertake waste and recycling audits in order to provide 
detailed and up to date information on the performance of the zero waste programmes 
at Massey University’s Turitea Campus, Palmerston North. Given that performance 
measures such as quantities of recycling vs. waste, and the percentages of 
contamination in recycling (or conversely the percentage of contamination in waste) 
are a reflection of staff and student attitude and behaviours toward recycling, and in a 
broader sense zero waste sustainability, the findings may support improved 
communication on environmental matters among the university community. The 
research findings can be used to support the design of future changes in infrastructure 
and collection system to make this work more effectively. 
 
Therefore, the aim of this study is to analyse the existing recycling program in order 
to design improvements in campus zero waste management and provide a report 
which includes key findings and a number of recommendations for RFM. 
 
1.4 Research Questions and Objectives of the Study  
In order to achieve the above aim, two research questions are proposed 
1. How effective is the existing waste programme system at Massey University? 
2. What are the opportunities for redesigning the recycling infrastructure so this 
is more effective in delivering on the goals of the zero waste programmes at 
Massey University? 
 
In order to answer these above questions, the following objectives of the study are set: 
1. Designing and trialling a suitable waste and recycling audit system for the 
campus.  
 7 
2. Identifying the contamination levels in the waste and recycling bins selected 
for the study.  
3. Reporting on the overall quantity of waste disposed of and the general 
recyclables and organic resources recycled on campus during each trial.   
4. Having quantified, then advise Massey University Regional Facilities 
Management (RFM) on the effectiveness of the existing model for on campus 
collection and recycling.   
5. Develop a set of recommendations for RFM (i.e. infrastructure design 
considerations, planning and implementation collections and processing) for a 
redeveloped campus recycling system. 
6. Present these recommendations to RFM in way which mirrors a professional 
context and liaise and respond regarding queries and or follow-up actions. 
7. Document this process as a model / pilot for the proposed Massey University 
‘sustainability internship’ in which the campus is utilised as a living laboratory 
for addressing real world research problems through integrated learning. 
 
1.5 Thesis Structure 
Following this first introductory chapter is chapter two, which presents a review of the 
literature relevant to zero waste management and campus sustainability development. 
Chapter three presents the methodology used in this  research project and describes in 
detail the location of the recycling and waste audit study, types of bins and other 
collection equipment and processes that were used in this study. Chapter four presents 
the results of the research project. In chapter five is the detailed discussion based on 
the results findings and recommendations.  Finally is the conclusion in chapter six. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 8 
 
CHAPTER 2 
LITERATURE REVIEW 
 
 
2.1 Literature Review Outline 
In order to conduct this research it was first necessary to create a knowledge base of 
solid waste and waste management in general, which includes the definitions of 
relevant terms including different categories of waste. This also provides a context for 
the development of waste management concepts that include recycling, as this has 
grown out of the categorisation of different types of waste. The 3 R’s or R3 concept 
(reduce, re-use, recycle) has become a model that is used globally across many 
countries, and attempts to address waste minimisation through these 3 approaches. 
Over time this concept has evolved to include other approaches and as such has 
branched out to R5 and R6, which will also be explained in more detail. Another 
important concept that has had worldwide application is zero waste. This initiative 
operates at a global, national and regional levels, and can also be employed at an 
organisational or institutional level as is the case with Massey University. This is the 
context within which this research took place. In order to improve current waste 
management practices it is necessary to conduct waste and recycling audits which can 
evaluate the performance of recycling programmes. This can also identify areas, such 
as infrastructure, in which improvements can be made which can potentially enhance 
the participation of communities in recycling.  
 
2.2 An Overview of Solid Waste and Waste Management 
Solid waste is commonly defined as unwanted or unusable substances or materials 
that are identified as no longer being of value and are thrown out (Annegrete, 2001; 
OECD, 2002; Environment Waikato Regional Council, 2010). According to Pichtel 
(2005), solid waste is trash or garbage, refuse, and other discarded solid materials 
resulting from industry, commercial operations and from community activities. Solid 
waste is commonly made up of household waste such as plastics, plastic bottles, tins, 
cans, paper, and glass (Al-Salem, Lettieri et al, 2009; Taufiq, 2010), waste from 
manufacturing activities, packaging items and discarded electronic devices,  as well as 
 9 
garden waste and sewage sludge (Ngoc and Schnitzer, 2009; Taufiq, 2010). Three 
main categories of waste have been identified which are based on the source of the 
waste and the level of care that needs to be taken in disposal.  
 
Firstly, the term ‘municipal solid waste’ (MSW) means all waste materials discarded 
for disposal by householders and is also known as domestic waste or household waste 
e.g. kitchen and yard waste (Eriksson, Carlsson Reich et al., 2005). This also includes 
waste materials generated by commercial and trade business; small business; office 
buildings and trade institutions such as schools, hospitals, government buildings; and 
industrial sources (Parizeau, Maclaren et al., 2006; Hristovski, Olson et al., 2007; 
Hargreaves, Adl et al., 2008). A key characteristic of MSW is that it is highly 
heterogeneous and includes both durable and nondurable materials (Demirbas, 2011). 
Durable materials include appliances, and residues from automobile and electronic 
advices, whilst nondurable materials include paper, food waste, and yard waste 
(Pichtel, 2005). Nondurable waste typically can be composted and will break down in 
the short to medium term. By separating these from durable or non-compostable 
waste they can be managed in a more sustainable way and be diverted from landfill. 
Additionally appropriate processing and management of nondurable waste such as 
green waste and food waste can result in the production of compost products, and 
paper can re-enter the production chain through recycling.  
 
Municipal waste has become a significant environmental problem, particularly in 
metropolitan cities such as the lower Grande Valley, Texas, Los Angeles, Nova Scotia 
(Canada), and in Turkey (Chang & Davila, 2008; Phillips, Tudor et al., 2011). The 
amount of waste generated increases each year and this makes it difficult to create 
solutions (Gómez, Meneses et al., 2009). An additional challenge is having to identify 
a solution that will have a minimum impact on the environment (Chowdhury, 2009). 
The challenge of municipal solid waste management has become a priority for the 
governments all over the world (Bai & Sutanto, 2002; Lu, Hsiao et al., 2006). As a 
result, a number of developed countries such as Germany, the United States and 
Japan, have achieved reductions in the amount of waste going into landfill. The 
achievement of MSW minimisation is primarily attained by a landfill-based waste 
management system. Furthermore, there is a move from a landfill-based waste 
management system to a more integrated one. Integrated waste management is now 
 10 
considered to be the key towards successful MSW treatment (Slater, Frederickson et 
al., 2007; Chang & Davila, 2008; Zhuang, Wu et al, 2008).  
 
As waste has become an increasingly important issue, a number of methods and 
approaches have been undertaken. Sanitary landfill is a method of disposal that 
involves the isolation of the waste from the environment around it (Thurgood, 1999). 
This isolation should last as long as it takes for the waste to no longer be a threat 
biologically, chemically or physically, although the high levels of isolation that may 
be needed to do this can be costly to implement. As governments and communities 
have become more aware of sustainability there has been a move away from this 
method and sustainable waste management has evolved as an approach. Audit 
Scotland (2007, p. 4) describes sustainable waste management as having “less 
reliance on landfill and greater amounts of recycling and composting”. This approach 
focuses on a reduction in waste production as the key, followed by re-use, recycling 
and composting and energy recovery, with landfill disposal as a final option (ibid.). A 
similar approach is Integrated Solid Waste Management (ISWM), which also 
incorporates waste reduction, recycling and composting, and disposal methods such as 
landfill and incineration (US EPA, 2002). There are also similarities between these 
two approaches and zero waste which aims to change behaviour in order to reduce 
waste, as well as re-use, recycle, recover and rethink.    
 
In comparison, industrial solid waste is produced and can be managed on-site at 
industrial facilities and generally includes waste generated in any process of industries 
and manufacturing, including mining (Juhasz, Magesan & Naidu, 2004; Pichtel, 
2005). The amount of industrial solid waste produced is approximately four times 
greater than the amount of municipal solid waste produced (Tammemagi, 1999). It is 
estimated that 740 million tonnes of waste from the manufacturing industries is 
generated each year throughout Europe (European Environment Agency, 2003). In the 
late 1980s, New Zealand generated approximately 300,000 tonnes of industrial waste 
annually, equivalent to 15 tonnes per US$1 m GDP (OECD, 1991). On the other 
hand, Australia generates about 20 Million tonnes annually, equivalent to 146 tonnes 
per US$ 1 m GDP, which is the OECD average. The emission of some aspects of 
industrial waste began to create concerns in the 1980s and as a result a number of 
international agreements were developed.  
 11 
 
During the 1980s two key international agreements were developed and adopted as 
concerns increased about specific aspects of hazardous waste disposal and the impact 
of releasing chlorofluorocarbons into the atmosphere. The first of these, the Montreal 
Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer was negotiated and signed by 
24 countries in 1987 (The Ozone Hole Inc, ND). As of April 2011 the protocol had 
been ratified by 196 countries. Since creation this protocol has had four major 
amendments and the most recent of these, the Beijing Amendment has been ratified 
by 167 countries (UNEP, Ozone Secretariat, 2004). The Montreal Protocol originally 
required parties to “reduce chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) use to 50% below 1986 levels 
by 1998 and to freeze halon consumption at 1986 levels from 1992” and the 
amendments that have taken place have led to the phasing out of these two 
substances, as well as developing phase-out schedules for additional substances once 
their detrimental effects on the ozone layer were better understood (MfE, 2011c). In a 
similar manner the Basel Convention on Control of Transboundary Movements of 
Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal aims “to both reduce the amount of waste 
produced by signatories, and regulate the international traffic in hazardous wastes 
(especially to developing countries)” (MfE, 2011b). It was adopted in 1989 and as of 
September 2010 had 175 signatory countries. The convention developed the necessary 
framework to control the transboundary movements and necessary criteria for 
“environmentally sound management” (ESM) of hazardous wastes, and has since 
evolved to the stage where the focus is “the full implementation and enforcement of 
treaty commitments” (UNEP – Secretariat of the Basel Convention, ND). An 
additional focus is the minimisation of hazardous waste generation which recognises 
that this is the long term solution to dealing with hazardous waste disposal. The aim 
of ESM is to “protect human health and the environment by minimising hazardous 
waste production whenever possible” and uses an “integrated life-cycle approach”, 
which highlights the importance of all aspects from generation to storage, transport, 
treatment, reuse, recycling, recovery and final disposal (ibid.). A final key multilateral 
environmental agreement that relates to the generation, and therefore disposal of 
harmful and toxic substances is the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic 
Pollutants (POPs). This is a global treaty which aims “to protect human health and the 
environment from chemicals that remain intact in the environment for long periods, 
become widely distributed geographically, accumulate in the fatty tissue of humans 
 12 
and wildlife, and have adverse effects to human health or to the environment” (UNEP 
– Stockholm Convention Secretariat, 2008). This agreement was adopted in 2001 and 
entered into “force” in 2004, and “requires Parties to take measures to eliminate or 
reduce the release of POPs into the environment” (ibid.). As more up to date 
knowledge is discovered about pollutants amendments continue to be made. This 
convention shares a common goal with the Basel Convention, that of protecting 
human health and the environment from hazardous chemicals and waste, and so there 
has been an effort to coordinate the future development of these (ibid.). However a 
number of other types of industrial waste are not included in these agreements and 
still need to be considered as described below.  
 
The composition of industrial waste varies, depending on the industrial structure of a 
country or region. It comprises of general rubbish, packaging, food waste, acids, 
alkalis, oils, solvents, resins, paints, mine spoils and sludge. Examples of an industrial 
waste stream are coal combustion solids, including ash and flue gas, meat and dairy 
processing, textiles, clothing and footwear, chemical and petroleum products, and 
machinery and equipment (Juhasz, Magesan & Naidu, 2004; Pichtel, 2005). Industrial 
waste may have a high risk of toxicity and be classified as hazardous waste due to 
containing materials that are actually or potentially hazardous to humans and other 
living organisms (Hu, Hipel et al., 2009).  
 
Subsequently, hazardous waste is defined as a waste or a combination of waste of a 
solid, semisolid, liquid, contained gaseous or sludge form, which can pose a 
substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the environment (Tsai & 
Chou, 2004). It may cause or contribute to increases in mortality, serious illness and 
environmental depletion, especially toxic chemical and heavy metal pollutions 
discharged from factories (Duan, Huang et al., 2008; Hu, Hipel et al., 2009). In some 
case environmental depletion may result from a discharge to a waterway which would 
result in a lethal habitat and death of aquatic species such as fish and invertebrates. 
Hazardous wastes are mostly generated by industrial and commercial sources, or as 
the by-product of manufacturing processes which can release gasses and particles into 
the atmosphere (Delgado, Ojeda-Benítez et al., 2007). However cleaning fluids or 
pesticides used in households can also result in a potential residential source of 
hazardous waste (ibid.).  
 13 
 
Consequently, hazardous waste has become one of the most serious environmental 
issues and is a significant concern for the health of human beings and other organisms 
(TalInlI, Yamantürk et al., 2005; Hu, Hipel et al., 2009). Furthermore, hazardous 
waste has created many problems and dangers that have not gone unnoticed.  Despite 
the fact that the problem receives less attention than many other environmental threats 
some successful solutions to the problem of hazardous have been suggested and 
implemented. As with air pollution and many other environmental problems, 
hazardous waste can be controlled through both input and output controls. These 
controls can include the government increasing regulations on the disposal of 
hazardous waste to ensure that problems do not occur (Tsai & Chou, 2004).  
Government measures can also limit the amount of waste industries are allowed to 
produce, or provide incentives to create less waste. After hazardous waste has been 
created there are several actions that can be taken.  Industries can break down 
chemical compounds into less dangerous forms, or store waste in ways that protect the 
environment from being exposed to the waste. 
 
It is important to be aware of the potential contamination problems that can arise from 
each different type of waste (Lu, Hsiao et al., 2006). For example, industrial wastes 
such as oil and natural gas refinery by-products, municipal waste, chemical by- 
products, agricultural waste, and radioactive water used as coolants in nuclear power 
plants have all been identified as having potential disposal issues (USEPA, 2001). 
Additionally, when improperly handled and disposed of, hazardous liquid waste poses 
a serious threat to human health and the environment because of its ability to enter 
watersheds through the ground water system, and pollute ground water and drinking 
water. Poorly managed waste disposal could also be a source potential growth of 
disease-carrying organisms (Kollikkathara, Feng et al., 2009), and result in land 
scarcity as new landfills need to be created (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
2006). While traditional waste management has focused on the disposal aspect it has 
been recognised that some waste types may in fact be seen in a different way. It is 
important to consider that this ‘so called waste’ stream is actually made up of 
potential resources from a wide range of community types (Juhasz, Magesan, & 
Naidu, 2004), for instance, a significant proportion of waste to landfill in NZ is either 
 14 
compostable or organic waste, and recyclables such as plastics, paper, rubble, 
concrete, timber (MfE, 2009a).  
 
In response to such issues many communities have begun implementing recycling 
programmes which are an effective way to divert resources from landfill or 
incineration, and to lessen the residual solid waste which then requires treatment and 
disposal (Agapitidis & Frantzis, 1998; Bai & Sutanto, 2002; Tinmaz & Demir, 2006). 
Recycling of resources currently in the waste stream is an option that many 
municipalities have implemented in recent years. For example, in England, 37.6% of 
total waste going to landfill has been diverted from landfill through recycling 
programmes (DEFRA, 2009 as cited in Zhang, Williams et al., 2011). The percentage 
of waste diversion from landfill in England is still relatively low in comparison with 
many other countries such as Netherlands, Austria and Belgium; which have achieved 
more than 50% in some cases (Eurostat, 2009; Zhang, Williams et al., 2011). In New 
Zealand much progress in recycling has been made since the mid-1990s. The number 
of territorial authorities providing kerbside collection of recyclable materials has more 
than quadrupled since 1996, with over 75% of councils providing such services in 
2005 (OECD, 2007). This means that the positive benefits of an increase of recycling 
programmes that can not only reduce facilities required for disposal but conserve 
energy, cut pollution, and preserve natural resources (Tsai & Chou, 2004) are being 
more widely felt. Similarly, recycling unused products would save environmental and 
natural resources as well as minimising greenhouse gas emissions (Hasome, Tachio et 
al., 2001; Wilson, 2002). Burning and burying our waste results in large releases of 
carbon dioxide and methane into the ‘commons’ of our atmosphere, thus resulting in 
an increasing rate of Climate Change; whereas re-using resources is more efficient, 
and results in fewer greenhouse gas emissions. Re-using the aluminium in drink cans 
is a great example: recycling avoids the mining of four tonnes of bauxite and 
overburden for each tonne of new aluminium, and after re-manufacturing the cans the 
overall outcome is an energy saving of 70-90% (ZWNZ Trust, 2008).  
 
In addition to the recycling programmes mentioned above it is recognised that 
“gaining a comprehension of what type of waste materials are being disposed of is 
also very essential to identify priority waste for resource efficiency and waste 
minimisation programmes” (MFE, 2009b). Because the environmental and health 
 15 
impacts of waste are driven by waste types, better waste composition information can 
also improve the management of high impact waste types. The waste composition 
information can directly help develop waste minimisation policies, targeted waste 
minimisation programmes and improve recycling schemes.   
 
The effectiveness of waste management systems plays an essential role in the 
minimisation of waste production (Manga, Forton et al., 2008). Waste management is 
the process of collection, recycling, transport, disposal, and monitoring of waste 
materials. The term generally correlates with materials generated by human activity, 
and is commonly undertaken to reduce their effect on health and the environment. 
Waste management is a complex process because it involves many technologies and 
disciplines. These include technologies associated with generation (including source 
reduction), on-site handling and storage, collection, transfer and transportation, 
processing, and disposal of solid waste (Wei & Huang, 2001; Khoo, 2009; Seadon, 
2010). All of these processes have to be carried out within existing legal, social and 
environmental guidelines that protect the public health and the environment and are 
aesthetically and economically acceptable (Magrinho, Didelet et al., 2006). To be 
responsive to public attitudes, the disciplines that must be considered in integrated 
solid waste management include administrative, financial, legal, planning, 
environmental and engineering functions (Eichner & Pethig, 2001; Samakovlis, 
2004). For a successful integrated solid waste management plan, it is necessary that 
all the disciplines communicate and interact with each other in a positive 
interdisciplinary relationship.  
 
The purpose of implementing waste management is to address the adverse impact of 
waste and to achieve environmental sustainability (Seadon, 2010). Waste 
management programmes such as recycling are part of the key solution in achieving 
the goal of zero waste minimisation, as well as raising awareness about behaviour 
change for sustainable development. Looking at these aspects parts of sustainable 
waste management it is clear that the single components are not only dependent on 
technology but to a great deal on human behavioural action. Just like the 
environmental problems we are suffering from are due to maladaptive human 
behaviour (Chan, 1998) the solution of these cannot be achieved by technology alone, 
but needs to include environmentally conscious behaviour. 
 16 
 
To sum up, waste is generated by all manner of human activity; that which is 
produced from the basic functions of our metabolism to the production process of 
highly sophisticated consumer goods (Van Der Ryn & Cowan, 1996). Consequently, 
as humanity has found out, waste cannot totally be removed. However, many of the 
adverse impacts waste has on our environment can be minimised. Commonly what is 
called waste is actually a combination of readily recyclable resources. Currently our 
system is only in early stages of evolution to one which maximises, conserves, 
recovers and recycles. The process of waste minimisation can be achieved in three 
key ways; namely, Reduce, Re-use and Recycle. 
 
2.3  Reduce, Re-use and Recycle  
Waste management is underpinned by the waste hierarchy which has been an 
evolving concept. The purpose of the waste hierarchy is to extract the most 
advantageous benefit from products and to generate the minimum amount of waste 
(meaning that which cannot be avoided being disposed of) (Belkin, 1995; Laustsen, 
2007). This hierarchy incorporates R3, R5 and R6 approaches which have built upon 
each other as research and experience has led to improvements. The primary 
approach, R3, focused on reduce, re-use and recycle in order to minimise waste going 
to landfill. Reduction of waste was the first priority, followed by re-use, and then 
recycling. Firstly, reduce means for the consumer to use fewer products (do without) 
or to buy products that have less packaging, and for the manufacturer this approach 
means source reduction. Secondly, re-use means the direct re-use of products, in 
contrast to the indirect, materials based re-use of recycling. Examples for re-use are 
second-hand clothes, refillable bottles or the use of printouts as draft paper. Finally, 
recycle is a process to recover all reusable waste that can be transferred to other 
beneficial applications. Examples of things that are often recycled are glass, plastic, 
newspaper, aluminium cans and batteries.  
 
Reduce, re-use and recycle was applied as an appropriate way to minimise the solid 
waste within households, and consequently contributed significant benefits for 
communities (Evison & Read, 2001; Matsumoto, 2011). These benefits included the 
minimisation of the amount of waste materials going into landfill, lessening the 
pollution that may result from waste disposal, the reduction of material consumption 
 17 
and the recycling and re-use of waste materials contributing to resource conservation 
by preserving raw materials and energy that manufacturers would otherwise use in 
producing new products.  
 
Even though recycling is only one of the three R's, nevertheless it is of great 
importance, which can be seen by the huge amount of research and development 
dedicated to this approach. Like reduction and re-use, recycling serves the 
environment in several ways: 
 Recycling reduces the solid waste stream, which extends the lifespan of 
landfill sites (Vencatasawmy et al., 2000; Hassan et al., 2000).  
 Recycling saves natural resources and energy, which would otherwise be used 
in the production of new goods (Vencatasawmy et al., 2000; Hassan et al., 
2000; Oskamp, 1995). Because of this recycling helps to lower pollution 
levels. Manufacturing goods using raw materials normally creates a higher 
level of pollution than using recycled materials, and incineration also has a 
higher level of pollutant output than a recycling process (Vencatasawmy et al., 
2000; Oskamp, 1995). The lowered levels of pollution can aid in reductions of 
greenhouse gas emissions and acid rain (Oskamp, 1995).  
 Recycling can also create new businesses and the participants can make or 
save money (Oskamp, 1995).  
 The implementation of a suitable solid waste management programme with 
appropriate recycling methods is vital to the alleviation of the local problems 
associated with solid waste generation, handling and disposal, environmental 
conservation and public hygiene (Hasnaian, et al., 2005). 
To ensure that the whole recycling concept works the "recycling cycle" has to be 
closed. This cycle consists of two elements: the recycling of the waste and the 
purchase of recycled products. This latter part has often been neglected but is crucial 
for the success of recycling in general (Biswas et al., 2000).  
 
While the waste minimisation process of recycling, reducing and re-using was viewed 
as one of the more effective, practical and sustainable approaches to combat rising 
solid waste at local, region, national and international levels this approach was further 
developed to include new concepts as they evolved. The R5 approach added two 
 18 
concepts to the traditional R3 waste management strategy which can be seen in Figure 
1 below. This figure shows the five concepts for waste management in terms of 
suitability in relation to how sustainable they are, with the least sustainable being at 
the bottom. Recover or recovery aims to recapture components and move them up the 
pyramid, and includes the recovery of energy from residual waste that remains, 
ideally after maximised reduction, re-use and recycling has taken place (Waste 
Recycling Group Ltd, 2010). The final concept in this approach is the residual 
disposal or management of waste that remains after the previous concepts have been 
applied.  
 
 
 
Figure 1, R5 waste hierarchy. Note: from Miswaco Envirocenter, 2004.  
 
Within New Zealand, the government has drawn on internationally recognised waste 
hierarchies such as R5 in developing national waste management strategies (MfE, 
2011b). The Ministry for the Environment has been associated with R5 related 
projects such as the Reduce Your Rubbish campaign which was designed “to raise 
awareness of New Zealand’s growing waste problem and provide householders with 
simple actions they can take to reduce their rubbish” (MfE, 2011e). This project has 
since ended, but MfE now maintains the sustainability.govt.nz website that includes 
easily accessible information about waste management (MfE, 2009b).  
 
The most recent development of this approach includes re-think as the sixth ‘R’, as 
shown in Figure 2 below. This represents the need for meaningful consideration of 
 19 
potential waste during the early stages of production. This may result in product 
redesign to ensure that any waste can be managed at the top end of the waste 
hierarchy pyramid. In order for waste minimisation practices such as these to be 
effective they need to be applied by organisations, institutions and businesses, such as 
Massey University.  
 
 
Figure 2, R6 waste hierarchy. Note: from PNCC, Waste Management and 
Minimisation Plan, 2009.  
 
Massey University’s Palmerston North campus is an example of a large organisation 
which is seeking to improve and enhance awareness “to achieve the attitudinal and 
behaviour changes necessary to live sustainably” (ARIES, 2009). Universities as part 
of the higher education system occupy a unique position of leadership and 
responsibility to promote education as a basis for a more sustainable society and “to 
integrate sustainable development into education at all levels and all areas of life 
including communities, the workplace and society in general” (UNDESD, 2011). 
Accordingly, in this particular case, Massey University has a role to play to create a 
sustainable environment by preserving the campus environment, which makes a 
positive contribution to the local community, and assists in achieving the PNCC’s 
target of zero waste minimisation. Massey University’s Road To 2020 strategy (2011) 
emphasises the need for a reduction in environmental impacts through practices and 
 20 
behaviour for sustainability. Recycling programmes and effective waste management 
lessen impacts in relation to these activities, and integrates learning and behaviour 
change for sustainability for all people on campus. In addition to this the Massey 
University Environmental Policy states that it is “committed to the principles of 
environmental responsibility and sustainable resource management at local, national 
and international levels” (Massey University, 2002, p. 1). This commitment “involves 
concerns for natural and developed environments, for the effective use of consumable 
resources, and the development of best management practices on all of the 
University’s land holdings” (Massey University, 2002, p. 3). By adopting a waste 
management strategy that is based on waste hierarchy concepts associated with the R6 
approach Massey will be able to achieve this objective.  
 
In addition, for both environmental and economic reasons, recycling and proper waste 
disposal should be a central concern to all community members. Based on the report 
by Enzler, et al., (2006), proper labelling and readily available educational materials 
can play a crucial role in enhancing recycling programmes and may potentially 
increase the amount of recycling on campus by raising awareness and increasing 
participation in such programmes. In order to develop and employ effective waste 
minimisation programmes there needs to be regular monitoring and auditing processes 
put in place. Universities such as Massey need to ensure this takes place because 
without accurate knowledge of the performance of the current waste management 
programme there is little that can be done except to make assumptions about current 
levels of success.  
 
2.4  Zero waste 
Zero waste is an initiative that is applied to encourage and inspire individuals to 
change old ways of thinking and to reduce the production of waste and to eliminate 
landfill disposal (Matete & Trois, 2008; Young, Ni et al., 2010). Zero waste is also a 
strategy for environmental sustainability since waste represents a considerable amount 
of pollution in the world. The following sections details zero waste at an international 
scale, zero waste in New Zealand, zero waste in Palmerston North, and zero waste at 
Massey University.  
 
 
 21 
2.4.1 Zero Waste at the International Scale 
Zero waste programmes have contributed to a significant decrease in international 
waste. It plays a vital role “in achieving the optimality of waste minimisation” 
(Snyman & Vorster, 2010). A number of countries have committed to establishing 
zero waste programmes, with the intention to minimise waste production and to 
achieve environmental sustainability and economic viability. A number of 
organisations have introduced zero waste programme in various countries.  
 
ZWIA (2009) defines zero waste as being both pragmatic and visionary. It seeks to 
emulate sustainable natural cycles, where all discarded materials are resources for 
others to use. Zero waste means designing and managing products and processes to 
dramatically reduce the volume and eliminate the toxicity of waste, conserve and 
recover all resources, and not burn or bury them. Implementing zero waste will 
eliminate all discharges to land and water, or air that may be a threat to planetary, 
human, animal or plant health. 
 
Zero waste international alliance (ZWIA) is an organisation, spanning the 
involvement of several countries, in which involves several key individuals and 
organisations who share the intention of networking and supporting the growing 
number of zero waste campaigns around the world. ZWIA was established in January 
2003 (ZWIA, 2007) and has grown to include international members from a number 
of representative countries such as the United Kingdom (London), the USA 
(California), Australia, Canada, Scandinavia, Egypt, Taiwan, India, New Zealand and 
Italy, as well as a range of companies such as Dupont, Fuji Xerox and Toyota (ZWIA, 
2007; Greyson, 2007; Phillips, Tudor et al., 2011). The aim of ZWIA is to develop 
international standards and benchmarks in waste production and to develop waste 
minimisation strategies toward zero waste management through initiating and 
facilitating research and information sharing for the promotion of zero waste, building 
capacity to effectively implement zero waste and setting standards for the application 
of zero waste (ZWIA, 2010).   
 
In Australia, a zero waste minimisation strategy was adopted by NSW state 
government in February 2001. The purpose of adopting this waste minimisation 
strategy was to reduce waste through collaboration between stakeholders and local 
 22 
communities. The local community provides information with regard to waste 
management to government; therefore the information given can be used to create an 
initiative by government to create a policy for a waste minimisation strategy. For 
instance, Eurobodalla Shire Council was committed to reducing the waste disposed to 
its landfill site by an average of 10% per year during the period of 2001-2004 
(Eurobodalla Shire Council, 2001). Similarly, the council is also committed to reduce 
the waste disposed to landfill by 90% during the period of 2001-2011. The state of 
South Australia has also adopted a zero waste strategy which aims to reduce waste to 
landfill by 25% by 2014 (Zero Waste SA, 2011). This will be achieved through the 
use of innovative practices and collaboration, education, advocacy and financial 
incentives.  
 
In addition, in Switzerland, a non-governmental organisation, the Zero Emission 
Research and Initiative (ZERI) plays a crucial role to reduce waste and pollution to 
zero in business, municipalities, government agencies, communities and educational 
institutions. ZERI was established in 1994 by Gunter Pauli, a Belgium entrepreneur 
(ZERI, 2010). The development of ZERI is meant to promote zero waste solutions. 
There are a number of countries that have adopted the concept and methodologies of 
ZERI namely Brazil, Colombia, and Sweden. The concept and method of ZERI has 
significantly contributed to these countries achieving profitability in their 
organisations and effectively minimising waste production. 
 
2.4.2 Zero Waste in New Zealand 
The zero waste initiative in New Zealand was established in 1997 upon the formation 
of the Zero Waste New Zealand Trust (ZWNZ Trust) (ZWNZ Trust, 2011k). The 
focus of the trust is “to support the activities of community organisations, councils, 
businesses, schools and individuals involved in waste minimisation and recycling” 
(ibid.). Zero waste policies have been adopted by 70% of local councils throughout 
New Zealand, which are shown by the shaded areas in Figure 3 below, with many 
aiming for zero waste by 2015 (ZWNZ Trust, 2011d). After ten years of operation in 
2007 the Trust divided into two organisations, with the creation of Zero Waste NZ 
Ltd, a charitable company that operates as a commercial contractor. This company 
aims to promote the vision of zero waste through a number of core activities: 
information exchange, networking, collaborating with councils, community groups 
 23 
and businesses, research, advocacy and policy development, providing advice and up 
skilling individuals through training courses run by the Zero Waste Academy. In 2010 
the Zero Waste New Zealand Trust came to an end; however Zero Waste New 
Zealand Limited continues to operate and has provided consulting services to 
Counties Power, Deliottes, Kiwi Investment Property Trust, Ngati Whatua O Orakei, 
Wastebusters Trust Canterbury and the Ministry for the Environment.  
 
 
Figure 3, Map of zero waste councils in New Zealand. Note: from ZWNZ Trust, 
2011. 
 
Furthermore, a number of businesses in NZ also have adopted a zero waste strategy 
including Fonterra, Ricoh group NZ, Fuji Xerox and Toyota NZ, Palmerston North 
(ZWNZ Trust, 2011h). Additionally the New Zealand Business Council for 
Sustainable Development (NZBCSD) promotes zero waste, and focuses specifically 
on achieving zero solid waste in industry (NZBCSD, 2011).  For businesses the initial 
 24 
interest in zero waste may simply be about ensuring that the production of waste is 
decreased in order to increase profits. This can take place by reductions in disposal 
costs, increasing value from lower inputs of materials and energy, and maximising the 
amount of product per unit of raw material and reducing the cost of production 
(ZWNZ Trust, 2011b). This may also lead to businesses aiming to address broader 
sustainability issues which can lead to responsible employers that attract a committed 
workforce, strong community, improved supplier and regulatory relationships and 
increasing competitiveness through innovation (ibid.).  
 
Fonterra established the 'Eco-Efficiency Programme’ in 2003 and aimed to reduce the 
volume of rubbish it sends to the country's landfills by 75% over the 18 months 
period. The new programme has been very successful, reducing the volume of waste 
going to landfill by 85% - a saving of up to 800 tonnes a year (ZWNZ Trust, 2011f). 
Similarly, Ricoh offer a take back service for old photocopier machines and toner 
cartridges. In its day-to-day operations Ricoh collects as many materials for recycling 
as possible including obsolete machines, aluminium, toner cartridges, polyethylene 
plastic, paper and cardboard (ZWNZ Trust, 2011h). When cardboard is mixed with 
other materials and sent to landfill, it ends up costing a business approximately $400 
per tonne. However, when it is recycled, then it will only cost the business $40 per 
tonne. Furthermore, it costs around $1000 to dump a tonne of screwed up paper (in 
rubbish bags), compared with $40-60 per tonne to recycle flat paper. High waste 
paper producers (or users) can earn $60-100 per tonne through recycling.  
 
In addition, Fuji Xerox also runs a successful in-house recycling programme that staff 
willingly participate in (ZWNZ Trust, 2011h), which collects copy and print 
cartridges for recycling. In addition to this they are aiming to decrease waste in the 
initial design phase of their products by including recyclability, energy savings, long 
life, low emissions and developing high-speed duplexing copying functions, as well 
as producing recycled paper. In addition, the team at Toyota's National Customer 
Centre in Palmerston North has the goal of being one of the first zero waste 
businesses in the Manawatu (ibid.). Non-recyclable waste from the Centre's $60M 
turnover national parts warehouse has reduced 25% in the past year due to continuous 
improvement activities. 
 
 25 
Furthermore, there has also been collaboration between the ZWNZ Trust and local 
government as is shown by the adoption of a zero waste strategy by the Far North 
District Council in 1999 (ZWNZ Trust, 2011e). This was one of the first ten councils 
to adopt a zero waste philosophy in New Zealand. The Far North District Council has 
taken an extra step in the zero waste approach by involving two local community 
based businesses in their waste management system. Firstly Clean Stream Northland 
(CSN) as one of the 4 waste contractors for the district (Far North District Council, 
2011), and this company is a joint venture between the Community Business and 
Environment Centre (CBEC) and Te Runanga o Te Rarawa, which is the tribal 
council that represents the interests of 23 local Maori marae (iwi/hapu) (CBEC, 
2011a). CSN operates 10 refuse transfer stations for the Far North District Council 
and work in partnership with them to achieve a target of zero waste to landfill. They 
do this by “providing quality cost effective waste reduction services, and educating 
[their] communities on how [they] can reduce waste to landfill” (ibid.). Their 
approach aligns to a R5 concept (reduce, re-use, recycle, recovery, landfill), and in 
January 2010 the community was recycling 53% of its waste by tonnes and 78% by 
volume. The “current waste reduction target for [this network of] recycling/refuse 
transfer stations operated by CSN is 75% in tonnes” (ibid.).  
 
In addition to this CBEC Recycling and Refuse services operates a kerb side recycling 
and refuse service across some district areas such as Kaitaia, Ahipara, Awanui, 
Waipapakauri and Te Hapua (CBEC, 2011b). In addition to kerb side recycling they 
offer commercial level recycling and rubbish services throughout the Far North. This 
company was first established in 1989 and operates the Kaitaia recycling centre along 
with a network of drop off centres, which are recognised as a model of community led 
waste reduction and resource recovery (ibid.). For Kaitaia this has resulted in 
currently 61% of their waste going through the recycling centre and approximately 
250,000 cubic metres of waste being diverted from landfill over 13 years (ZWNZ 
Trust, 2011c). While local and corporate initiatives have been increasing to reduce 
waste and increase sustainability, at a higher level the New Zealand government has 
also shown concern for waste production and reduction.  
 
In response to an increase in waste production, the New Zealand government has 
established legislation in order to manage and minimise waste issues in the country. 
 26 
The Waste Minimisation Act 2008 “encourages a reduction in the amount of waste we 
generate and dispose of in New Zealand and aims to lessen the environmental harm of 
waste” and “also aims to benefit our economy by encouraging better use of materials 
throughout the product life cycle, promoting domestic reprocessing of recovered 
materials and providing more employment” (MFE, 2011a). It plays a key role in 
achieving waste minimisation towards zero waste management strategy through a 
range of methods. The Act will establish a levy on all waste disposed of in landfills, 
develop product stewardship schemes, clarify the roles and responsibilities of 
territorial authorities, allow for the creation of regulations to improve information and 
reporting on waste and waste minimisation and establish a board which can give 
independent advice to the Minister for the Environment (ibid.). The waste strategy is 
set to increase the effectiveness of the re-use, reduce and recycle concept as well as 
increasing environmental awareness. It also demonstrates the government’s 
commitment to reducing the waste stream and the local government’s aspiration for 
more effective and efficient waste management and minimisation of waste 
production.  
 
Previously the NZ Waste Strategy 2002 aimed to “achieve the vision towards zero 
waste and a sustainable New Zealand” through four strategic action programmes and 
30 national targets including waste minimisation, organics, construction and 
demolition wastes, hazardous wastes and waste disposal. It meant to achieve 
environmental sustainability, social wellbeing and economic viability. However the 
2010 Waste Strategy considered these goals to be ambitious and revised the aim to 
enable a more flexible approach to waste management and minimisation through the 
two goals of reducing harm and improving efficiency. The message of reduce, re-use, 
recycle is consistent with the second of these goals which highlights resource 
efficiency in both production and consumption. While this strategy focuses strongly 
on reduce, re-use, recycle there is also evidence of rethink being promoted in the 
production of packaging (MfE, 2011d). This provides a vision for the shaping of a 
best practice waste minimisation strategy in New Zealand. 
 
Due to the increase in waste production every year, waste has become a primary 
concern with regards to environmental impacts in New Zealand. Accordingly, the 
increasing awareness of the environmental effects of producing a significant amount 
 27 
of waste has driven stakeholders (national government, local government, and 
politicians) to address the issue by creating a new methodology of solid waste 
management in order to improve environmental standards. In New Zealand, the Waste 
Analysis Protocol (WAP) which was developed in 1992 was used as an approach to 
address the waste problem. After a full review in 2000, this was transformed to the 
Solid Waste Analysis Protocol (SWAP) which has been developed as an effective 
way to collect waste data and address the issues.  
 
The primary reason of transforming the WAP to SWAP was to facilitate the collection 
of consistent and reliable waste data by providing a methodology that can be used 
nationally. However, the original or core methodology of WAP is still retained in the 
new methodology of SWAP. The primary purpose of applying SWAP with regard to 
solid waste management is to assist territorial authorities in their waste management 
planning. It assists regional council by providing quantified data that can be used in 
the development of appropriate objectives and practices for waste management at the 
regional level, as well as assisting regional councils and territorial authorities in 
fulfilling their monitoring obligations under section 35 of the Resource Management 
Act 1991 (RMA).  The 2008 Waste Minimisation Act highlighted the need for 
improved data collection and reporting on waste in order to improve waste 
minimisation practices at a national level.   
 
SWAP is designed to obtain superior, detailed information from the results of waste 
management projects. The method is suitable for a small user with limited needs and 
resources, but it is also for large users with broader needs and resources in order to 
achieve an accurate result across a range of contexts. This makes it an applicable 
analysis framework for a range of situations and organisations, such as Massey 
University. The key components of the protocol are the use of a clear classification 
system, and statistical principles, and analysis in trial design and data analyses to 
guide survey designers in how to obtain the best result for the survey or investigation, 
and to provide users of the information with an indication of the accuracy of the 
information.  
 
Furthermore, the SWAP analysis plays an essential role in conducting solid waste 
audits by providing a framework which can be promoted for use at both regional and 
 28 
national levels. A key part of this is the establishment of a precise classification 
system. According to the Ministry for the Environment (2002), there are 12 
classifications which were used in the waste audit conducted for this research. This 
classification is intended to be utilised as a method for the survey protocol as well as 
for categorising waste in waste audits. The SWAP classification system formed the 
basis for parts of the waste and recycling audit carried out at Massey University for 
this research. This meant that waste production of each classification type was able to 
be quantified, and contamination levels in the disposal of recyclables and non-
recyclables were able to be measured. The following, Figure 4 is the waste 
classification system designed by the Ministry for the Environment (ibid.).  
 
 
 29 
1. Paper 
2. Plastics 
3. Putrescibles 
4. Ferrous 
Metals 
5. Non-Ferrous 
Metals 
6. Glass 
7. Textiles 
 
- Paper (excluding newsprint and magazines) e.g. Photocopy paper 
- Paper (Newsprint)    e.g. Newspapers 
- Paper (magazines and printed materials)  e.g. Advertising Brochures 
- Paper board (corrugated cardboard) 
- Paper Board (including cereal and shoe boxes) 
- Paper Board (Liquid cartons and multi materials) e.g. waxed cartons, foil lined cartons 
- PET-Code 1     e.g. Soft drink bottles 
- PET-Code 2     e.g. Milk bottles, retail bags 
- PVC-Code 3     e.g. Cups, shower curtains, binders 
- LDPE-Code 4     e.g. retail carry bags 
- PP-Code 5      
- PS-Code 6     e.g. Foam meat trays, foam cups 
- Multi Material-Code 7 
- Putrescibles (excluding garden)   e.g. Food scraps, dead animals 
 
- Putrescibles (garden)     e.g. Grass clipping, weeds, trees  
- Ferrous (excluding Steel cans)   e.g. Car body, roofing iron, appliance  
 
- Ferrous (Steel cans)    e.g. Baked bean can, soap can  
- Non-Ferrous (excluding aluminium cans)  e.g. Copper pipe, aluminium windows. 
 
- Non Ferrous (Aluminium cans)   e.g. soft drink cans  
- Glass (brown bottles)     
- Glass (Clear bottles) 
- Glass (Green bottles) 
- Glass (Jars)     e.g. Jam jar, gherkin jar) 
- Glass (Excluding bottles and jars)  e.g. Window glass 
- Non-Leather      e.g. Carpet, curtains 
 
- Leather  
Primary Classifications Secondary Classifications Examples 
 30 
12. Potentially 
Hazardous 
11. Rubber 
10. Timber 
9. Rubble, 
Concrete, etc 
8. Nappies & 
Sanitary 
 
- None      e.g. Disposable nappies, sanitary napkins  
- Rubble and rocks     e.g. Including bricks  
- Concrete       
- Plasterboard     e.g. Gib board 
- Fibre Cement products    e.g. Hard planks, shakes 
- Fibreglass       
- Soil/Clay     e.g. Topsoil sand  
- Other   
- Length and pieces     e.g. Farming timber, boards, sawn timber 
- Pallets and crates  
- Fabricated     e.g. joinery, beds, cabinet  
- Sheets       e.g. plywood, particle board, MDF 
- Sawdust/shavings 
- Debris/other 
- Tyres        
 
- Rubber products    e.g. Rubber pipes, mats  
- Household hazardous     e.g. Cleaning agents, aerosol, wax 
products, glues, cosmetics, medicines, batteries, lighters, paint and ink, agrichemicals  
- Special and treated waste 
- Medical waste     e.g. prescriptions medicines, animal 
remedies    
- Untreated hazardous waste    
- Debris/others     e.g. Contaminated soil 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 4, SWAP analysis. Note: from MfE, 2008. 
 
 
 
 
 31 
2.4.3 Zero Waste in Palmerston North 
In 2000, Palmerston North City Council officially adopted a zero waste policy 
(ZWNZ Trust, 2011i). Prior to this, from the early 1990s a range of strategies had 
been created to achieve a reduction in waste. These focused on management of the 
landfill and the waste going in to it. During this time recycling centres were also 
established and a number of community based programmes began, such as a green 
waste depot, education about composting, a locally designed vermicomposting bin 
that was distributed to the regional educational institutions, and in 1995 a weekly 
kerbside recycle system was implemented (ibid.). A collaboration also developed 
between PNCC and Massey University, as these two organisations were both 
increasingly focusing on the zero waste approach as a waste management strategy.  
  
In 2002 this collaboration was formalised by the launch of the Zero Waste Academy, 
and the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between PNCC, the Zero 
Waste New Zealand Trust and Massey University (ZWNZ Trust, 2011i). The Zero 
Waste Academy project aimed to “link the leadership and vision of Zero Waste New 
Zealand Trust with the experience and expertise of Massey University and the 
practical implementation of Palmerston North City Council’s Zero Waste policy” 
(ZWA, 2002, p. 1). The two key objectives of this project were to “assist Palmerston 
North City develop an economically and socially viable Zero Waste strategy, a key 
component of which will be the development of a model resource recovery park” and 
to “make Massey University, Palmerston North campus, the premier tertiary 
institution in the Asia-Pacific region for Zero Waste research, training and practice” 
(ibid.).  
 
In December 2005 the PNCC adopted the Waste Minimisation Plan which was 
updated in 2009 to reflect changing perspectives about waste both nationally and 
locally (PNCC, 2009). The purpose of adopting the Waste Minimisation Plan was to 
improve the system of waste management by recognising the role of the private sector 
in generating and handling waste, and minimising the amount of waste disposed of 
into landfill. It is also intended to respond to the requirements of the Waste 
Minimisation Act 2008. In addition to Waste Minimisation Act 2008, PNCC has also 
developed the plan in accordance with relevant government policy, namely the Local 
Government Act 2002, and the New Zealand Waste Strategy 2002.  
 32 
 
By implementing the Waste Minimisation Plan, PNCC has committed to achieve 75% 
diversion of waste that is currently buried in landfill and clean-fills by 2015 (PNCC, 
2009). PNCC’s commitment to waste minimisation is fundamentally based on the 
vision and guiding principles of the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2009. 
The vision of this plan is to achieve “effective progress towards zero waste and a 
sustainable Palmerston North” (PNCC, 2009, p. 2). The guiding principles provide a 
framework for the waste minimisation plan, and include developing a strategic 
approach to waste minimisation, collaborating with those who want to work in the 
best interests of the community, and implementing systems that are affordable, cost 
effective, and resilient, and achieving environmental excellence (PNCC, 2009).  
 
The Waste Management and Minimisation Plan highlighted the significance of the 
fact that 84% of the Palmerston North’s waste was collected by the private sector, and 
so was out of direct control of PNCC. This indicates that the collaboration between 
PNCC and the private sector has to be developed in depth in order to achieve the 
optimal result of diverting waste from landfill. Therefore, a key approach for 
minimising waste entering the landfill for PNCC is to work collaboratively with the 
private sector to design and monitor a new best practice approach to waste 
minimisation in Palmerston North.  
 
Within Palmerston North two transfer stations are currently in operation by private 
enterprises and are located at Matthew Avenue and Malden Street. These provide 
various waste collection and disposal services including both recycling activities and 
landfill operations (PNCC, 2009). A concern when waste disposal is controlled by the 
private sector is that their approach may not be consistent with PNCC’s, and the local 
vision for waste management may not be met. PNCC, on the other hand, provides a 
weekly kerbside recycling and rubbish bag collection service primarily aimed at 
residential areas. PNCC also operates two recycling centres at Awapuni Sustainable 
Development Centre (ASDC-PNCC) and Ferguson Street, plus a transfer station in 
Ashhurst. The Awapuni Sustainable Development Centre processes both recycling 
and green waste. PNCC has an “immediate focus to provide an improved recycling 
collection system, provide facilities to process recyclables, and provide economic 
green and organic waste facilities” (PNCC, 2009, p. 5). The plan also aims to use an 
 33 
R6 approach to sustainable waste management by situating residents’ contribution as 
high up the waste hierarchy as possible (ibid.).   
 
In order to implement the Waste Minimisation and Management Plan in Palmerston 
North, PNCC introduced a new residential kerbside recycling collection service on 5th 
July 2010 (PNCC, n.d.a). In this service, all residentially rated properties received a 
240 litre wheelie bin for recycling plastic, paper, cardboard, and tins and a 45 litre 
recycling crate for glass collection (See Figure 5), with each bin being collected on a 
fortnightly rotation. When compared to the previous system this mades household 
recycling more user friendly, as official bins were not provided and the use of plastic 
bags was common. In this new system the household is only responsible for sorting 
glass from the other recyclables, and the provision of a sturdy bin could potentially 
result in less glass breakages.   
 
 
 
Figure 5, the new collection of recycling bins in Palmerston North. Note: from 
PNCC, 2010. 
 
 
 
 34 
 
2.4.4 Zero waste at Massey 
As the major educational facility in Palmerston North, Massey University, Turitea 
Campus has an important role to play in Zero waste minimisation within the region. 
They have been identified as one of the key private sector organisations that PNCC 
needs to collaborate with on zero waste initiatives. This has already taken place 
through the launch of the Zero Waste Academy, as outlined on page 31. Prior to this 
collaboration, in December 1999, a Zero waste programme was established at Massey 
by the School of the Environment (Mason, Brooking et al., 2003; Mason, Oberender 
et al., 2004). The zero waste initiative was a response to student concerns over 
environmental management issues such as recycling facilities on Massey’s Turitea 
Campus (Mason, Brooking et al., 2003). This led to discussions which included 
concerned staff and students and eventually disseminated to a PNCC staff member, 
which led to the discovery of the Zero Waste NZ Trust. Following on from this a 
funding grant was obtained which was used to conduct an initial study into organic 
residuals, the findings of which were published in 2003.  
 
This research was conducted by two students and supervised by an academic staff 
member. The primary objective of Mason, Brooking, Oberander et al.’s initial study 
was to assess the quantity of waste produced and the production patterns of solid 
residuals at Massey University (ibid.). It was recommended that a formal 
environmental management system needed to be introduced. As a result of this 
research an on-campus composting facility was designed (Zero Waste New Zealand 
Trust, 2011j). In addition to this a related project was initiated that focused on the 
improvement of solid waste recycling and source separation.  
 
Mason, Oberender and Brooking (2004) assessed the effectiveness of source 
separation at Massey and investigated the potential for the re-use of resource residuals 
on Turitea campus. The study was conducted in and around the kitchen, cafeteria and 
concourse areas and aimed to assess the quantities and production patterns of solid 
residuals these areas. The research objectives were “to assess the effectiveness of 
source separation practise and to investigate the potential for resource residuals re-use 
and re-cycling both on and off campus” (Mason et al., 2004). This research identified 
that a recycling problem existed in the amenities buildings; a problem that was 
 35 
associated with human activities including eating, drinking and socialising. The key 
recommendation was that improved and ongoing education and training was required 
to improve recycling behaviours in these areas.  
 
Consequently, there was further study of campus community attitudes toward 
environmental awareness (Kelly, Mason, Leiss & Ganesh, 2006). This study 
conducted a survey using written questionnaire, which was mailed to a random 
sample of 1400 staff and students. The response to that survey demonstrated the 
existence of different attitudes among the university community when it came to 
environmental issues and that many were still uncertain when it came to recycling. 
The major difficulty appeared to be distinguishing between what could and could not 
be recycled, and it was suggested that better signage would address part of this issue.  
Additionally there was support for the concourse based recycling system to be 
extended to the remainder of campus.  
 
In 2008, Massey University Student Association (MUSA) conducted another survey 
of 152 students to identify the percentage of the university community which was 
regularly recycling, and using the bins provided in appropriate manner. This survey 
asked participants to rate their own environmental awareness and Massey’s 
environmental sustainability, as well as quantifying the awareness of recycling on 
campus, the use levels of recycling facilities, and the satisfaction level regarding the 
current recycling facilities. The results of the MUSA survey indicated that: 59.9% of 
participants rated Massey’s environmental sustainability as good or better, 97.4% of 
students were aware of the university’s recycling and 89.5% of those surveyed were 
using the recycling facilities, and 61.2% were happy or very happy with the current 
facilities. In addition to this the opportunity was provided for participants to name one 
thing they would like to see Massey do to improve environmental sustainability on 
campus. The top three results were more recycling bins (39), addition of composting 
bins (11) and increased promotion of recycling for a sustainable campus (11).  
 
Lastly, there was a further report on the university’s waste problem by Hannon 
(2005), as the co-ordinator of Zero Waste Academy. This report focused on 
documenting the current and future initiatives of Massey University’s practical zero 
waste program. Current initiatives included the expansion of the recycling wheelie bin 
 36 
to a total of 26 clusters across campus, a staff/common room plastics and cans 
recycling system, with the potential for organic and biodegradable waste to be added, 
supporting local PNCC product development project regarding a Organic/Renewable 
vs. Plastic Sanitary disposal system trial, and the development and utilisation of an 
ongoing waste audit that incorporates innovative methodologies and contributes to 
monitoring of the zero waste programme.   
 
In summary, previous studies found that there was an existing focus in and around the 
kitchen/cafeteria and concourse areas; that a recycling problem existed in the 
amenities buildings; there were question concerning effectiveness of source 
separation of waste and the behaviour of the campus community in relation to 
recycling programs. Further, many on campus were still uncertain when it came to 
what could be recycled and what could not be. Finally, due to some lateral thinking 
there was a suggestion that the deciding factor in participation by the campus 
community in the zero waste programmes was bin type and its colour. Clearly, there 
were still questions unanswered regarding the efficiency of the current zero waste 
programs on Massey’s Turitea campus. However, without accurate knowledge of the 
performance of the current Massey waste management programme there is little that 
can be done except to make assumptions about how the current programme may be 
improved and developed. 
 
2.5 Recycling Behaviour  
Recycling only takes place when somebody makes a choice to put any given materials 
in a recycling bin instead of a waste bin. While infrastructure design in zero waste 
programmes may ensure that there is access to a user friendly recycling bin the 
provision of facilities such as this can be described as a hardware element and is just a 
part of the zero waste challenge. A key dimension of zero waste is what people know, 
understand and believe, and how they choose to act. These elements can be thought as 
human software which is as important as the recycling hardware previously described. 
There is a relationship between recycling behaviour and waste audits as they are a 
method that can provide an insight into how well the human recycling software is 
working by quantifying the correct and incorrect recycling and waste choices people 
are making.  
 
 37 
In recent years the increasing amount of waste produced in communities and 
households has become a major concern in many countries and a number of initiatives 
have aimed to address this. A key focus for this has been to increase participation in 
recycling programmes across the community through effective system and facilities 
design. The range of techniques employed relate to the community and individuals’ 
triggers for behaviour change. A study carried out in the UK analysed behavioural and 
attitude changes towards recycling in an area of central London (Thomas, Yoxon, 
Slater & Leaman, 2004). This research had similar findings to other studies carried 
out in the UK in that time or space constraints, the lack of convenient facilities and 
not considering their actions to be of worth can outweigh a person’s desire to 
participate in recycling. More specifically, the key reason that people gave for 
increased recycling behaviour was the improvement of facilities for recycling (ibid.). 
An example of this would be the addition of extra recycling bins, to increase the 
locations where recycling can take place. Other key motivators for behaviour change 
was that recycling was considered common behaviour, and that recycling fitted in 
with everyday routines and became a habit (ibid.). A final factor identified was that 
the person had the right information to be able to participate in the recycling 
programme. While these need to be considered at the operational level there are also 
examples of initiatives that have been implemented at a policy based or strategic level 
which focus on improving recycling behaviour.  
 
A country may have a number of strategic documents that could operate bilaterally, 
with neighbouring nations, as well as nationally within that country. The vision for 
waste management in England was established by the Department for Environment, 
Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) 2007 Waste Strategy for England. The underlying 
strategy from this report was for central government to take a role in enabling each 
sector, within society to share responsibility for reducing its own waste (DEFRA, 
2007). This aimed to encourage action by all individuals and to increase the numbers 
of people participating in recycling. This strategy identified a number of activities that 
will contribute to a change in recycling behaviour including extending the campaign 
for recycling, increasing the amount of recycling bins available in public spaces, and 
promoting the reduction of waste and increase of recycling in schools. It is important 
to include the two key factors of behavioural change these being encouragement and 
engagement as these are necessary to generate and sustain a transformation in public 
 38 
behaviour. The encouragement factor is important to attain higher participation and is 
most effective when there is active enforcement, increased education, and financial 
incentives. Similarly, the engagement factor activities, such as education, 
consultation, and awareness raising and providing information, have been found to 
enhance recycling performance and be essential to recycling scheme success.  
In addition to this the Waste and Resource Action Programme (WRAP) works across 
the United Kingdom and aims to “help the UK Governments to meet their national 
and international commitments and build the green economy” and “to support 
resource efficiency in the UK so that householders, businesses and the public sector 
save money and make better use of resources” (WRAP, 2011). Since the programme 
began in 2000 it has helped to increase the size of the recycling and reprocessing 
sector which has quadrupled between 2000 and 2008, and this has resulted in over 
120 million tonnes of waste being diverted from landfill and over 20 million tonnes of 
CO2 equivalent greenhouse gases saved. This contributes to achieving WRAP’s 
vision which is “a world without waste, where resources are used sustainably” (ibid.). 
In addition to this the European Union (EU) Directive came into force in 2010 and 
establishes a legislative framework which sets EU-wide targets for reuse and 
recycling 50% of household waste and for reuse, recycling and recovery of 70% of 
construction and demolition waste by 2020 (DEFRA, 2008). In order to meet these 
targets it will be necessary for behaviour change and increased participation across 
society. In addition to creating behaviour change around recycling and waste disposal 
it is essential to monitor recycling programmes for example through waste audit 
process.  
 
Therefore approaches to achieving behaviour change with respect to the increasing 
performance of recycling programmes have to be effectively designed in order to 
increase community participation. This may include employing a range of techniques 
that relate to the communities’ triggers for behaviour change. For instance in England, 
the general awareness of potential techniques has shifted towards economic incentives 
in which financial penalty will be given for not recycling, however the opportunity to 
implement this technique has not yet been taken up by any of the local authorities 
(DEFRA, 2009). Additionally it is essential to encourage people to comprehend more 
 39 
about the full range of recyclable and non-recyclable materials in order to increase 
participation rates and support recycling programmes.  
 
Recycling engages a complex chain of behaviour from many parties, namely 
producers, manufactures, and consumers (Begum, Siwar et al. 2009; Watson 2009). 
Concerns about the role of the consumer in recycling for the most part focus the 
return of recyclable materials into the system, which is dependant in part on the 
recycling behaviours that take place. A better understanding of recycling behaviours 
will help aid design and improve the effectiveness of any recycling programme 
(Sidique, Lupi et al. 2010). In order to reduce the amount of waste entering landfills, 
recycling and waste reduction programmes such as source reduction, kerbside 
recycling, and drop off recycling programmes should be implemented. Application of 
these practical systems can contribute to the achievement of zero waste goals, as well 
as fulfilling components of broad spectrum sustainability programmes.   
 
By implementing recycling programmes universities can be leaders in waste 
minimisation, while also demonstrating the outcomes of these programmes with 
regards to behaviour change in recycling which contribute to campus sustainability. 
Two examples of universities that have done this are Monash University, in 
Melbourne and the Australian National University (ANU), in Canberra. At Monash a 
wide range of environmental initiatives have been developed, which includes 
recycling, in an attempt to reduce environmental impacts by “reducing, reusing and 
recycling valuable resources, and reducing waste sent to landfill” (Monash University, 
2009). Similarly ANU established ANUgreen environmental program in 1999 under 
the ANU environmental policy (ANU, 2011). This aims to reduce the university’s 
environmental impact and a key aspect of this has been the development of a 
comprehensive waste minimisation plan that focuses on R3 practices.  
 
At Massey University, where this research took place, behaviour change has played a 
key role in developing a zero waste programme, for which the participation of the 
campus community was essential. Since the establishment of this programme the link 
between increasing recycling behaviour and improving infrastructure accessibility and 
quality, raising awareness and increasing education has been shown as studies have 
taken place, changes have been made and recycling has increased. Details of these 
 40 
studies can be found in the previous section on Zero Waste Massey (page 29-32). 
Fundamentally, a successful recycling program depends not only on technology but 
also on the response of the community towards environmental sustainability (Begum, 
Siwar et al. 2009) and the development of methods of carrying out monitoring, such 
as waste auditing.  
2.6 Waste Auditing 
There are two approaches that can be used to audit waste management practices, 
waste auditing and recycling auditing. A waste audit is a formal, structured process 
used to quantify the amount and type of waste being generated by an organisation 
(Dowie, McCartney et al., 1998; McCartney, 2003). In general, a waste audit is a 
more quantitative process providing data regarding specific types of waste (Nilsson, 
Bjuggren et al., 1998). The auditing information can help investigate current waste 
practices and how they can be improved. As an outcome of the waste audit, 
recommendations on how to introduce or increase recycling can be developed 
(Mahwar, Verma et al., 1997; McCartney, 2003). A recycling audit also uses sorting 
to determine the level of contamination in recycle bins, and identifies what is being 
placed into the bins that doesn’t belong there (Concordia University, 2011). Both of 
these types of auditing can contribute to developing and improving waste 
management systems.  
 
The objectives of an audit will largely be determined by the waste types and physical 
location to be audited. There are a number of objectives in conducting a waste or 
recycling audit including, to determine the composition and quantities of waste and 
recyclables being generated, to measure the effectiveness of existing waste 
management systems, to identify opportunities for improving waste management 
systems and strategies, and to collect baseline data for measuring the effectiveness of 
waste minimisation strategies (McCartney, 2003).  
 
In relation to this study, both waste and recycling audits were conducted from January 
2010 to March 2011 at the Massey University Turitea Campus. The aim of conducting 
the waste and recycling audits in this study was to identify the amount and type of 
waste produced, as well as investigating the effectiveness of the recycling and waste 
collection systems by measuring contamination levels. Therefore the findings of this 
 41 
study will provide information of how to enhance and improve campus recycling 
programme in Massey University.  
 
In New Zealand, a number of existing waste management programmes have applied 
waste auditing in order to identify the waste production and to enhance the 
improvement of waste management system. For example, waste auditing projects of 
particular interest for this study were undertaken in Christchurch, the North Shore of 
Auckland and Timaru. The Timaru District Council, (2007), used waste auditing to 
determine the level of waste contamination in recycle bins (inappropriately disposed 
of rubbish i.e. was the rubbish potentially recyclable waste disposed of as landfill). 
How this was achieved was by way of a stepped process. The first step was to identify 
all the rubbish bins. Next, the waste found in the contaminated bins was removed and 
sorted by category (type). Thereafter, the results of the audit were recorded according 
to the quantity of each specific type of waste i.e. organic waste, cans, paper or 
cardboard. Waste auditing, as described above, is a practical method or tool that is 
used to help identify the type of waste (Waste Not Limited, 2001). In addition, waste 
audits also enable a connection to be made to the source of waste. 
 
In order to develop the methodology for this research it was necessary to consider a 
range of previous studies and create an adapted audit to suit the Massey University 
context. The following is a detailed description of how a general waste and recycling 
audit would be conducted.  
 
2.6.1 The Method of Conducting a Waste Audit 
There are a number of key principles that need to be considered when conducting a 
waste or recycling audit. These have been identified using a number of examples and 
existing guidelines and include steps such as:  
 Scoping (Waste Not Limited, 2001; Pearson, 2002a; New South Wales 
Government, 2011),  
 Setting up (Waste Not Limited, 2001; New South Wales Government, 2011; 
New South Wales Government, 2011),  
 42 
 Sorting it out (Waste Not Limited, 2001; Pearson, 2002a; Department of 
Environmental Protection Pennsylvania, 2010; New South Wales 
Government, 2011),  
 Health and safety (Waste Not Limited, 2001; Pearson, 2002a; New South 
Wales Government, 2011),  
 Managing data and analysing data (Waste Not Limited, 2001; Pearson, 2002b; 
New South Wales Government, 2011).  
 
Following is detailed information concerning the steps of how a waste audit is 
conducted.  
 
2.6.1.1 Scoping 
Initially, it is important to conduct a scoping of the audit site which will include 
locating the bins onsite, finding out when emptying is scheduled, determining if 
different bins are used for different activities, locating a space to be used for sorting, 
and getting an early feeling for any health and safety issues that may arise as this will 
affect the equipment you may need (Waste Not Limited, 2001). It will also be 
necessary to let people affected by the waste audit know how long it will take, and 
ensure that any other relevant people are contacted. Once this has been undertaken a 
detailed methodology and plan can be created. 
 
2.6.1.2 Health and Safety 
Health and safety is an overriding consideration for all organisations. Workplace 
occupational health and safety (OSH) is covered by NZ legislation. There are hazards 
associated with waste auditing, these include the following examples. Accordingly, a 
waste audit has to consider OSH both during the development and application of the 
methodology.  Prior to doing the physical waste audit, consideration needs to be given 
to keeping auditors safe from any kind of health risk or physical injury. According to 
Waste Not Limited (2001), there are a number of important requirements related to 
health and safety; (i) identifying any kind of risk which has the potential to cause 
injury, and (ii) creating a plan to minimise or isolate the health and safety risks 
associated with the audit. In terms of risk identification, there are several common 
 43 
things which can put auditors at risk and that can cause physical injury. These 
considerations are as follows. 
 
1. Waste may contain needles, broken glass or other sharp objects, chemicals and 
even infectious material. Inadequately stored food waste may have infestations 
of insects or rodents.  
2. Injuries may result from lifting and carrying heavy waste bins/bags or 
containers, and dropping objects on hands, legs or feet.   
3. There are many on site hazards to consider such as: vehicles, machinery, 
tripping hazards, slippery surfaces, dust, odours, and even non-audit personnel 
who may use the space on a daily basis as they go about their normal routine. 
 
Prior to the audit being conducted a health and safety plan needs to identify each risk 
or hazard, the steps taken to avoid or minimise the risk and the procedure should a 
hazard be encountered. It is also necessary to identify safety equipment that is 
required, of which a first aid kit is a priority, and most importantly a trained first aider 
should be included in the makeup of the audit team. Safety equipment should be 
provided for all team members, which will include protective gloves, breathing 
masks, safety goggles and sanitising products. Safety equipment should also include 
provision for wash down should a contamination event occur and obviously a place 
for team members to prepare, dress appropriately prior to conducting the audit and 
change after work, shower and remove potential risky and hazardous material from 
their person. In addition vaccinations, such as tetanus and Hepatitis B should be 
considered (Waste Not Ltd, 2001).  
 
A health and safety briefing should be held prior to the audit process and should 
encompass all that is mentioned above to a sufficiently high degree that all team 
members are fully aware of the difficulties, potential risks/hazards and how to 
effectively deal with them.  
 
2.6.1.3 Setting up a Waste Audit 
There are several important physical elements which are required by any team if they 
are to conduct a physical waste audit namely, equipment and recognition of site 
requirements (Waste not limit, 2001; Timaru District Council, 2007). These elements 
 44 
play a crucial role in undertaking a waste audit. Locating a place in which to work is 
considered a high priority. The selected site is important because rubbish cannot 
simply be sorted anywhere as, not surprisingly, many find rubbish to be an unpleasant 
reality – even aside from the high risk it presents for public and individual health and 
safety. Public attitudes aside, there are several site requirements to consider; such as, 
the place should be dry and out of the wind; close to the disposal point; and, at least 
4m x 5m square with ample head space. Once this has been identified effective tools 
and equipment can be sourced.  
 
An example of the sort and type of equipment required would be a heavy duty 
(industrial) scale (weighing device) of some sort. This tool is used to measure the 
weight of waste based on each category. Additionally, when sorting waste by type 
consideration needs to be given to whether it is organic matter or something else. 
Regardless of waste type protective gear is required (e.g. mask, gloves, and steel toed 
boots). Sorting may require extras bins or containers of an appropriate size.  
 
Aside from all of the above, team members should also have an adequate supply of 
pens, clipboards and audit sheets. Additionally electronic devices such as a camera 
and a laptop computer may be useful. The use of technological aids such as computers 
and calculators will greatly assist in the process of data collection and speed up the 
process of analysis post audit. However if a laptop is unable to be acquired or not 
considered suited to the environment, data sheets can be used.  
 
After addressing all that is mentioned above the actual physical task of auditing 
(waste sorting and quantification) can be planned. 
 
2.6.1.4 Sorting out – Quantification of Waste Materials 
After the site for physical waste audit is selected and set up, and all equipment is 
ready to go, there are the multiple steps in sorting process that need to be considered. 
The process of sorting the waste out is comprised of following six steps. Each step in 
the plan is considered to be sequential and each needs to occur, and in the correct 
order, before going on to the next. These steps are as follows. 
 
 45 
1. Weigh the multiple sorting bins, while empty, and record the weight on the 
outside of each sorting bin. This means that the bin weight is recorded and can 
be excluded from the final weight. 
2. Weigh the selected sample of waste and record that weight on sheet provided.  
3. Empty the waste sample onto the sorting table.  
4. Sort waste into the designated bins by category – record in audit sheet.  
5. Weigh each designated sorting bin and record the weight on the audit sheet 
before appropriately disposing of the waste material.  
6. Transfer the data from the waste audit sheet into a spreadsheet for further 
analysis back at the laboratory – a data management issue. 
 
2.6.1.5 Managing Data 
All the collected data, as mentioned above, will be, during the audit process, 
transferred to a spreadsheet. This can involve onsite entry into an excel spreadsheet 
using a laptop or entering data by hand onto datasheets. This is done in order to create 
a record of all of the data based on each category. The collection of data will 
influence the way in which it may be used so this needs to be considered. The data or 
spreadsheet needs to include all of the relevant categories, the date, time and location, 
and source of waste. Thereafter, all the recorded data is then available for further 
analysis. 
Accuracy needs to be considered in terms of the unit of measurement selected 
(kilograms, grams, etc), and the number of decimal places the weight is measured and 
recorded to. When more than one person is conducting the audit training needs to be 
used to ensure that not only is all data collected in the same way but that the sorting 
process is carried out consistently.  
 
2.6.1.6 Analysing the Data 
Data analysis will depend on both the amount of data gathered and the questions that 
are being asked. Data needs to be summarised into tables and graphs while making 
sure that important details are not lost. This will allow the data to be reviewed. 
Further analysis of the data can require the resorting, ranking, or standardisation of 
the information gleaned from the audit. When analysing the data it is important to 
consider the information about the context of where the waste or recycling came from, 
for example what type of bins were available in the location and how many of each 
 46 
type (Pearson, 2002b). This can help to determine where the real issues lie, such as 
recycling awareness or a lack of facilities. Following this, graphs or tables are 
constructed which facilitate the communication of the audits findings. If the material 
warrants it then comparative analysis can also be undertaken. The final step is a 
written report. 
 
 
 47 
 
CHAPTER 3 
METHODOLOGY 
 
3.1 Introduction 
This research has been undertaken as a case study, to evaluate zero waste 
management process at Turitea campus, Massey University. Underpinning this project 
is the idea that implementing routine waste and recycling auditing should be part of 
evaluating existing and designing new development in zero waste management at 
Massey. This project provided an opportunity to trial a waste and recycling auditing 
procedure which had been specifically developed for the Massey University context 
and to then use the findings to make recommendations about how the recycling 
collection infrastructure and programme as a whole might be improved. Trial I of this 
research operated as a pilot trial after which a number of improvements were made 
which are described in the results chapter. In addition to this a number of other minor 
changes were made during Trial II and III in order ensure that the best possible data 
would be collected. Trial IV focused on the location of the student hostels in order to 
provide a clear picture to RFM about how effectively the recycling facilities were 
functioning.  
 
As a result of the collaboration with RFM a brief report of the research findings was 
created in order to provide them with information in relation to the Turitea campus 
and the student hostels (see Appendix I). The briefing report was based upon two 
parts. Part I describes the basic waste and recycling infrastructure across the campus, 
alongside the key findings from auditing the waste and recycling programme. This 
baseline report was presented in a meeting with Massey’s Facilities Management 
staff. As a result of the discussion and feedback, further research questions were 
identified and additional work was undertaken. This second body of work forms Part 
II and presents the key findings from the audit of the recycling and waste in the 
student hostels, as well as addressing the required volumetric component for this 
project. It was also requested that this report be presented to the Massey Sustainable 
Development steering committee, as it is an input into the redevelopment of the 
current waste and recycling infrastruture at Turitea campus.  
 48 
 
Waste and recycling auditing involves physically sorting and classifying 
heterogeneous mixture of recyclable, unrecyclable, and organic materials. This 
provides quantification of: a- the recyclables in the solid waste stream, and b- the 
waste and other contamination in the recycling stream. For the first, this would 
involve materials that should be in recycling bins being disposed of in waste bins that 
go to landfill. Alternatively contamination of recyclables can involve the wrong 
category of recyclable or non-recyclable materials being placed in the bin. These 
findings shed light of the awareness levels and nature of participation of the university 
community in on-campus recycling (Timlett & Williams, 2008). 
 
3.2 Location of Study  
The study was undertaken at Turitea campus, Massey University. This study focused 
on certain places within the university campus namely the concourse area, in between 
library, the student-dining hall, staff common room for trials I, II and III; and student 
accommodation or hostels for trial IV (see Figure 3 below).  
 
In the sample area, the waste audit could then be undertaken. The audit consisted of 
the selection of the many waste bins located on the campus. The location chosen for 
the study (the concourse and dining hall) was identified because it is recognised as a 
high use area (an area of high waste and recycling production generated by the 
university community), and is also high profile in terms of demonstrating the 
recycling bin cluster system. Following is Figure 6, an aerial photograph map that 
provides an overview of the area from where the sample bins were selected.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 49 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 6, Site location of study.  
 
3.3 Survey Period 
The process of conducting waste auditing in this study consists of four trials.  Each 
trial consisted of a one week period of time. Furthermore, each trial represents a 
comparable point during semester one and two where all students are around on 
campus and during summer school where there are few students. The survey periods 
for this study were selected in order to deal with the pattern of waste disposal which is 
directly related to the number of students and staff present on campus throughout the 
year. It was necessary to consider this pattern to be ‘seasonal’ as it varies throughout 
the year but stays the same when considered on a year to year basis. The survey 
periods selected aim to give a representation of a typical year with this seasonal 
pattern in mind. This also allows for the data collected to show an accurate 
representation of what can be expected at high-generation periods, which is an 
important consideration when redesigning existing waste and recycling disposal 
systems.  
 
 
Concourse & 
Dining hall 
Massey University, 
Turitea Campus, 
Palmerston North 
Student 
Hostels 
 50 
The waste audit took place: 
 Trial I – 25th – 29th January, 2010; summer semester = decreased student 
density. 
 Trial II – 13th -17th September, 2010; second semester = high student density. 
 Trial III – 29th November – 3rd December 2010; summer semester = decreased 
student density.  
 Trial IV – 7th – 11th March 2011; first semester = high student density.  
 
3.4 Research Method 
Conducting a waste and recycling audit is a useful way to investigate the effectiveness 
of the waste management systems in an institution (McCartney 2003; Smyth, Fredeen 
et al. 2010). The process of undertaking a waste audit in this study consisted of 
several steps. The following is a detailed description of the steps and process of 
conducting waste audit in this study.  
 
3.4.1 Waste Auditing  
The method of conducting waste audit in this study is comprised of several steps. The 
steps are as follow; 
1. Scoping or choosing the site location.  
2. Selecting the sample bins based on the high production of waste and 
systematic random sampling.  
3. Consultation with key staff at Massey.  
4. Identifying the equipment required to undertake the waste audit.  
5. The quantification of waste material.  
6. Analysing data.  
 
Following is a detailed elaboration of each of the above steps. 
 
3.4.1.1 The Locations, Types and Sizes of the Bin Codes 
Prior to undertaking the recycling and waste audit process at Massey’s Turitea 
campus, there were several factors which needed to be taken into consideration with 
regards to  planning. The key planning considerations were determining the site 
location; the size of the bin used for the audit process; talking to everyone involved to 
 51 
find out the necessary information; finding a place to sort the materials; finding out 
how often rubbish bins were emptied and making sure that the bins were not emptied 
prior to doing the audit. 
 
At present Massey uses a variety of different types of bins around the campus. Each 
bin is designed for a different purpose and this is reflected in the characteristics and 
size of each bin. This diverse variety of bins also reflects that the overall systam has 
been expanded in a number of phases, as need required it. These bins range from 
rather small to extremely large (see Figure 7). These bin types and their locations are 
described in the following section. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 7, Samples of bins audited in this study.  
 
B 
B1 B2 B3 B4 
C 
D1 
D 
D2 D3 D4 
E 
E2 
E3 E1 
F 
F1 F2 
A1 
A2 
A 
 52 
As shown in Figure 7 above, Code A contains the largest of the waste bins used at 
Massey (A1) and also includes the paper/cardboard recycling cages. Codes C and E 
are the smallest, and Codes B, D, and F, are the intermediate size bins. Each bin 
serves a specific purpose in a specific environment. Generally these bins are placed at 
various locations around the campus where they are needed which results in there 
being more bins in high pedestrian/use areas such as the concourse area, the student 
accommodation areas, and the student dining hall, as well as the staff common rooms 
(see Figure 8).  
 
 
Figure 8, the locations of bins  
 
These six bin types were given a code, from A to E, in order to be easily identified 
during the process of the waste and recycling audits (see Table 1 and Figure 7). These 
codes and sub-codes where necessary are shown in Table 1.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
Dining 
Hall 
Concourse 
Area 
Student   
Halls 
Staff 
Common 
Room 
A 
B 
C 
E 
D 
F 
Across the 
Campus 
 53 
Table 1, Bin code and location 
No Type of Bin Code 
Sub-
Code Category  Location  
1 
Large Waste and 
Recycling Cage 
Bins 
A 
A1 
Large Waste 
Bin Across the Turitea 
campus 
A2 
Recycling Cage 
Bin 
2 
Recycling Wheelie 
Bin 
B 
B1 
Plastic and 
Bottles 
Concourse area & 
Dining Hall 
B2 
Aluminium and 
Tin Cans 
B3 Mixed paper 
B4 
Mixed Glass 
Bottles 
3 Small Waste Bin C -  Waste Concourse Area 
4 
Massey Recycling 
Bin 
D 
D1 Landfill 
Dining Hall 
D2 Plastic 
D3 Glass 
D4 Cans 
5 
Waste, Organic & 
Recycling Bins 
E 
E1 Organic Waste 
Staff Common 
Rooms E2 Recyclables  
E3 Waste 
6 Wheelie Bin F 
F1 Recyclables  
Student Hostels 
F2 Waste 
 
1. Code A was the large/bulk waste bin and paper/cardboard recycling cage bin. 
There were 40 large waste bins and 19 paper/cardboard recycling cage bins 
located across Turitea campus.   
2. Code B was the recycling wheelie bin clusters, which each consist of four bin 
types (sub-code B1 is Aluminium & Tin Cans; B2 is Plastic & Bottles; B3 is 
Mixed Paper; and B4 is Mixed Glass and Bottles). There were a total of 26 of 
these clusters located around the campus, including those at the student hostels.  
 54 
3. Code C was the small waste bins of which there were 12 that were located in 
the concourse and other nearby areas.  
4. Code D was the Massey recycling bins which were made up of four categories 
namely, D1 (landfill), D2 (plastic), D3 (glass), and D4 (cans). The total amount 
of code D bins was two and these were located inside the dining hall.  
5. Code E was the organic (E1), recycling (E2) and waste (E3). There were a total 
of 31 bins which were located in the staff common rooms.  
6. Code F was used for the audit conducted during Trial IV of the student hostels 
which consisted of recycling wheelie bins (F1) and large waste bins (F2). 
These bins were also a part of the wider campus waste and recycling 
management program, so were a part of the 26 recycling wheelie bin clusters 
and 40 large waste bins.   
 
Two different approaches were used to select the bins from each code to be audited. 
For Code B, D and E the selection was based for the largely on there being adequate 
quantities of material to audit, particularly for Code B and D during Trial I which was 
conducted during the summer semester when less students are on campus. For Code C 
the small number of bins (2) meant that it was possible to audit all of this bin type. 
Code E? For Code A and F a process of systematic random sampling was used to 
select which bins would be audited. What was sample size based on? 
 
3.4.1.2 Description of Bin Types 
The large waste and paper/cardboard recycling cage bins (Code A) 
Firstly, the large waste bins (Code A1) used at the Turitea campus range in size from 
1.5m3, 2m3, 3m3 to 4.5m3 (Massey Regional Facility Management (RFM), 2010). In 
total, there are 40 bins used at Turitea campus, which consist of twenty one bins of 
1.5m3, one bin of 2m3, 5 of 3m3, and thirteen of 4.5m3. These bins are located in 
various places around Turitea campus and the Massey student halls. These bins are 
managed and emptied by a contractor (Waste Management Ltd) through RFM, and 
are emptied on demand. These bins contain waste that has come from a variety of 
locations including that collected by cleaners from inside buildings and the contents 
of the small waste bins (Code C). This waste is contained within large black plastic 
bags. Table 2 below shows the detailed information provided by RFM with regard to 
the location and size of the large waste bins.   
 55 
 
Table 2, the location and size of the large waste bins,  Turitea campus 
No Waste bin Location 
Size 
(m3) 
1 Bernard Chambers Carpark, off Library Rd 1.5 
2 Vet Tower, outside gate to yard, off University Ave into Ag Eng car park  4.5 
3 Vet Clinic Garage, by Vet Clinic Garage 1.5 
4 Library, beside loading Bay back of library, Library Rd 4.5 
5 Science Tower D, loading Bay Science Tower D, end of Riddet Road 3 
6 Social Science Tower, car park to right of SST Building, University Ave  4.5 
7 Wharerata, Wharerata car park, University Avenue 1.5 
8 Mognie Hall 4.5 
9 Craig Lockhart & Walter Dyer Halls 1.5 
10 Tararua & Ruahine Halls 4.5 
11 AgHort B 1.5 
12 AgHort C 1.5 
13 Green Bike Trust (GBT) 4.5 
14 Boiler House 3 
15 Maori Studies, Bourke Road, Maori Studies building loading bay 1.5 
16 Creche car park  1.5 
17 Maori Studies, Bourke Road, Childcare 1.5 
18 Printery, car park behind Printery, off Collinson Rd 4.5 
19 Prac Teach Agrom, compound behind building, off Collinson Rd  1.5 
20 Riddet Compound, Riddet Rd, (between Riddet bldgs) 1.5 
21 Kairanga Court, second bin in Workshop Rd 4.5 
22 City Court Hostel, first bin in Workshop Rd 4.5 
23 Rotary Court, University Ave 3 
24 Matai & Kiwitea Halls 4.5 
25 MacHardy Hall 1.5 
26 Refectory, Refectory Rd, behind Refectory building 1.5 
27 Business Studies, University Ave, car park behind Bus. Studies Central 1.5 
28 International Office 1.5 
29 University House, Japanese Theatre  1.5 
30 Main Building, adjacent Old Registry 4.5 
31 Dining Hall 4.5 
32 Science Tower A, Colombo Rd, back of Science Tower A 3 
33 Tawa Hall 1.5 
34 Residential service office (RSO), Colombo Rd 1.5 
35 RFM, inside W&S courtyard, Colombo Rd 1.5 
36 Colombo Hall, outside Colombo Hall 3 
37 Food Technology  4.5 
38 Riddet 2, off University Ave, between Colombo & Riddet Roads  1.5 
39 Riddet labs, between Riddet and Computing Services bldgs 1.5 
40 Sport Complex, Orchard Rd behind Sports centre 2 
 56 
The paper/cardboard recycling cage bin (sub-code A2) was also located across Turitea 
campus with there being a total of 19 bins. The volume of the recycling cage bin is 3 
m3 and these bins are managed by RFM and emptied under contract by Fullcircle on 
demand. Table 3  below describes the total number and location of recycling cage 
bins across campus.  
 
Table 3, Recycling cage bins   
No Recycling cage bin Total 
1 Printery 2 
2 Green Bike Trust 2 
3 RFM 2 
4 Creche 1 
5 Old Main Building 1 
6 Cafeteria 1 
7 Computing Services 1 
8 Registry 1 
9 Sports Institute 1 
10 Business Studies 1 
11 Riddet 2, off University Avenue ,between Colombo & Riddet Roads 1 
12 Science Tower C 1 
13 Vet Clinic 1 
14 Library 1 
15 Science Tower A 1 
16 Wharerata 1 
Total  19 
 
Recycling Wheelie bins (Code B and F1) 
The wheelie bins (Code B and F1) are located adjacent to the concourse area, in the 
student dining hall, and distributed around the student accommodation halls. The size 
or volume of each recycling wheelie bin is 240 litres and there are a total of 26 
clusters. Each cluster is colour coded, for instance red colour is for aluminium and tin 
cans; and the green colour is for plastics and bottles (see Figure 7). Using wheelie 
bins for these recycling facilities means that they are easily moved into high use areas, 
and are also easily emptied. However, an issue for these bins is that the signage needs 
to be clear in order for them to be used properly and it is already recognised that in 
some cases this signage is not adequate and in other cases is non-existent. This has 
been potentially creating confusion for the campus community resulting in incorrect 
 57 
choices being made about recycling and waste disposal. This prior knowledge was 
factored in during the auditing process.  
 
The process of removing the recyclable materials from the wheelie bins is coordinated 
by Green Bike Trust (GBT). This is undertaken twice a week on Tuesday and 
Thursday using the small truck to transport the materials. It is known that in general 
there are quite significant waste and food contamination issues, therefore the 
recycling is hand sorted on campus prior to be transported to the ASDC-PNCC. One 
of the aims of redesigning the current recycling facilties is to improve the quality of 
campus recycling (reduce contamination) to the point where hand sorting is no longer 
required.  
 
Small Waste bins (Code C) 
There are two types of small waste bins around campus.  These are either round or 
square shaped, which represent a new model versus an old model. In total there are 12 
round bins and 8 square bins. There is a significant price difference between the two 
and a replacement process is being undertaken. These waste bins are placed in a 
variety of sites around and adjacent to the concourse and the student dining hall in 
areas with medium to high amounts of foot traffic. These waste bins are supposed to 
be dedicated for waste materials only but do not have clear signage and tend to be 
used for waste, recyclables and compostables. The fact that they also tend to not be 
located near recycling facilities such as the wheelie bin clusters also affects their 
usage. These bins are managed and emptied by RFM staff and they are emptied daily.   
 
Massey Recycling Bin (Code D) 
The Massey recycling bins are located inside inside the dining hall and consists of two 
groups with four categories in each. These categories are landfill (D1), plastic (D2), 
glass (D3) and cans (D4). The student dining hall staff was responsible for 
coordinating and managing these bins and the process of removing the materials from 
these bins was carried out daily. This bin was removed from service by RFM at the 
end of 2010. The primary reasons for removing the two Massey recycling bins from 
the student dining hall was due to the fact that “the recyclables found in these bins 
was simply thrown away to the large waste bin which is located in between the dining 
hall and Science Tower A” (A. Shannon, personal communication, April 15, 2011). 
 58 
This meant that the choosing of categories in which to dispose waste and recycling by 
people was basically useless as the contents were disposed of as general waste and 
ended up going to landfill. After these bins were removed they were replaced with 
two clusters of recycling wheelie bins, which were now co-ordinated by GBT. In 
addition to these new recycling clusters three organic waste bins were added to the 
facilities provided in the dining hall. These are shown in Figure 9 below and as can be 
seen they did not have signs to indicate their function. As a result of the change, these 
bins were only audited during Trial I and II.  
 
 
Figure 9, the picture of the organic waste bisn in the Dining Hall area 
 
Organics, Recycling, and Waste bins (Code E) 
These bins are located in the staff common rooms and are made up of facilities for 
compostable/organic waste (E1), mixed recyclables (E2) (plastic, glass and cans) and 
waste (E3). This style of all in recycling facility can only be found in the staff 
common rooms across Turitea campus. Figure 7 on page 51 illustrates the 
arrangement of these bins. This current configuration of bins was adopted in March 
2010 with the addition of the compostable waste bins which began as a pilot project 
managed by a contractor. This then expanded to the current system. There were a total 
of 30 groupings of Code E bins across the various staff common rooms. The process 
of emptying the recycling and waste bins was carried out daily by RFM, whereas 
compostable waste was collected out twice a week (Wednesday and Friday). The 
detailed information with regard to the locations of compostable, recycling and waste 
bins is shown below in Table 4.  
 
 59 
Table 4, the locations of waste, organic and recycling bins in the staff common rooms, 
Turitea campus. Note: y = yes 
No Location  Organic Recycling Waste 
1 International Office y y y 
2 
Research Management 
Service y y y 
3 University House y y y 
4 Japan Lecture Theatre y y y 
5 Humanities Building y y y 
6 HR Reception y y y 
7 Business Studies y y y 
8 Refectory building y y y 
9 Communication building y y y 
10 Registry Building Level 1 y y y 
11 Registry Building Level 2 y y y 
12 Social Science Tower Level 1 y y y 
13 Social Science Tower Level 6 y y y 
14 Geographic Building Level 3 y y y 
15 Library Level 2 y y y 
16 Library Level 3 y y y 
17 Radio Fm y y y 
18 Maori Studies y y y 
19 Vet-Equine Blood y y y 
20 Vet-Common Room y y y 
21 Aghort Common Room y y y 
22 Riddet-School of Engineering y y y 
23 School of Engineering y y y 
24 I.T Common Room y y y 
25 RFM y y y 
26 Riddet y y y 
27 Wool Building y y y 
28 Recreation Centre y y y 
29 Printery y y y 
30 NSAT y y y 
 
Systematic Random Sampling 
In order to conduct a waste audit in a large scale organisation it is necessary to use 
sampling methods to ensure a representative sample is selected and to give the data 
validity. By using sampling, issues to do with time and physical resources can be 
minimised as the audit does not need to include all waste and recycling bins across the 
campus. Systematic random sampling is a statistical method involving the selection of 
 60 
K= N/n 
elements from an ordered sampling frame (Bellhouse, 1988; Christman, 2009). The 
most common form of systematic sampling is an equal probability method. The 
systematic random sampling applied in this study was used specifically to investigate 
the large waste and recycling cage bins (Code A), and the recycling wheelie bins and 
large waste bins located at the student hostels (Code F). The systematic random 
sampling was applied in this study for these codes because the number of bins was 
widely spread around the campus and by using this approach each sample had an 
equal probability of being chosen at any stage during the sample process. The 
following is the formula used for systematic random sampling and detailed 
information where the samples were taken in the selected areas. 
 
 
 
 
Where K, the sample interval; N the population size; and n the sample size 
(Bellhouse, 1988; Christman, 2009).  
 
Code A 
There were two sub-codes in Code A, these being A1 the large waste bins and A2 the 
paper/cardboard recycling cage bins. This means there were two sample sizes, one for 
each of the sub-codes, which were chosen based on Table 1 page 53. This was applied 
in both Trial II and III. The process that was undertaken is described below.  
 
Firstly, there was a total of 40 samples in the sub-code A1. Accordingly, by applying 
the formula of systematic random sampling, the total population of 40 was divided by 
the sample size of 2 which equalled 20 (40/2= 20). This meant that every 20th sample 
of sub-code A1 was chosen to get the sample of 2, beginning at a random starting 
point between 1 and 20. In the case of the first trial, the random starting point was 5, 
thus the sample of bins selected for sub-code A1 were 5 and 25, which were located 
in the loading bays of Science Tower D and Social Science Tower. In the second trial, 
the starting point for selecting the random sample of 2 was 18, as a result the sample 
bins chosen were 18 and 38, which were situated at Main Building, adjacent to the 
Old Registry, and Riddet 2, off University Avenue, between Colombo & Riddet 
Roads. 
 61 
 
Secondly for sub-code A2, there were a total of 19 cage bins located across the 
campus. The method used to select the sample in the code A2 was similar to that used 
above for sub-code A1, with the two samples being chosen using systematic random 
sampling. The total population size of 19 was divided by 2 (the sample size) which 
equalled 9.5 (19/2=9.5). This was rounded down to 9. As a result in the first trial the 
random starting point selected was 2, resulting in bins 2 and 11 being selected. 
However it was found that one of the bins selected (as well as the majority of those on 
campus) was empty so only the bin located at the Green Bike Trust (GBT) could be 
audited in Trial II. For Trial III it was decided to audit the recycling cages next to the 
large waste bins already selected, these being at Main Building and Riddet. 
 
Code F 
The bin sample of Code F was included in this project as a result of a specific request 
that was made by RFM to audit the campus hostels. This resulted in Trial IV focusing 
on a waste and recycling audit of the large waste bins and recycling wheelie bins of 
the student halls. In order to identify the current level of performance the audit was 
focused on identifying the contamination levels of non-recyclable waste in the 
recycling bins, the contamination level of recyclable materials in the wrong recycling 
bins, and the contamination level of recyclable and compostable materials in the large 
waste bins. In addition to this the volumes of recyclables was calculated in order to 
provide information that RFM could use to redevelop the current recycling facilities. 
This meant that a conversion factor needed to be created to convert the weighed 
results (kg) into volumes (m3). This is found in Table 6.  
 
Therefore, the method of systematic random sampling was also applied for bin Code 
F. There were a total of 17 student hostels across the Massey University, Turitea 
campus. These hostels consist of four main groupings, some of which are then made 
up of individual halls. These four groupings were Atawhai, Moginie, the Courts, and 
Turitea (see Figure 10). The names of the individual halls are shown in Table 5, page 
62. Another factor to consider for the student halls is the tendency for certain ones to 
be home to either mostly international or mostly domestic students. Depending on the 
findings of the data analysis this may result in interesting disucssions around 
recycling behaviour. The international student halls consisted of Atawhai, Rotary 
 62 
Court, Kairanga Court, Egmont Court, Tararua, Ruahine and Kiwitea, whereas 
domestic student halls included Moginie Hall, Bindaloe Hall, Craig Lockhart, Walter 
Dyer, Colombo Hall, Tawa Hall, Matai Hall, Miro Hall, Totara Hall, McHardy, and 
City Court.  
 
 
Figure 10, the four groups of student hostels. 
 
The same process for selecting the samples was used with the addition of a cyclical 
aspect. Samples were selected from within each of the four groupings as follows: 
1. Three samples of recycling wheelie bin clusters were chosen for both Moginie 
and Turitea.  
2. Two samples were selected from the Courts.   
3. Due to there only being a single cluster at Atawhai village there could only be 
one sample selected. 
As a result there were nine samples chosen from the student hostels to be audited. In 
Table 5 below these nine hostels are highlighted.  
 
 63 
Table 5, Student hostels at Massey University, Turitea campus 
No Location Hostel 
1 Moginie 
1 Moginie 
2 Craig Lockhart  
3 Bindaloe 
4 Walter Dyer 
5 Tararua & Ruahine 
2 Turitea 
1 McHardy 
2 Colombo 
3 Matai  
4 Totara 
5 Miro 
6 Tawa 
7 Kiwitea 
3 The Court 
1 City Court 
2 Egmont Court 
3 Kairanga Court 
4 Rotary Court 
4 Atawhai 1 Atawhai  
 
Additionally for Code F four large waste bins were selected for auditing based on 
observations of there being contents available for sorting. As a result the bins at 
Moginie, Tawa, Colombo and City and Egmont Courts were selected.  
 
Massey’s Conversion factor 
As briefly mentioned previously the primary idea behind Massey’s conversion factor 
was to fulfil a request by RFM so that the rate of recyclables could be quantified by 
volume, in order to be able to use this measurement for redevelopment of the current 
recycling facilities. The conversion factor is a measurement that is used specifically to 
determine the volume of recyclable materials and compostable/organics, from a 
weighed sample. This measurement means that a recyclables sample that has been 
weighed in kilograms can easily be converted to volume in cubic meters. The aim of 
establishing Massey’s conversion factor is to convert the weight of recyclables and 
compostable organic waste generated during the audits into volumes for use by RFM 
in future planning. The types of recyclables measured include plastic and bottles; 
aluminium & tin cans; mixed paper and glass.  
 64 
In order to determine the conversion factor for Massey two different methods were 
used in order to compare the accuracy. These two methods are described below. 
 
Method I 
- The volume used for the conversion factor is 100 litres (0.1m3). This number 
was used so that it can be easily converted to both higher and lower volumes, 
for example 50 litres or 200 litres. The next step was to use the 240 litres 
(0.24m3) bin as a sample (see Figure below) to define 100 litres. The volume 
of 0.1m3 was measured using a measurement tape. The measurement process 
took the length, width, and height, which were then used to calculate the 100 
litres by multiplying the length, width and height. The following photographs 
show the measurement process. 
 
  
 
  
Figure 11, method one of the Massey conversion factor  
- Based on the calculation process as seen from the figure above, the result of 
0.1m3 is as follows – length = 50cm; width = 55cm; and height = 36cm. 
accordingly, the tape line shown in the above figures shows the volume of 100 
litres.  
- After defining 0.1m3 for the sample wheelie bin, the amount of the various 
types of recyclable materials and compostable organic food were then 
 65 
measured. The bin was filled up to the tape mark with each material, and then 
the bin was weighed using scales and recordings made of each result.  
 
Method II 
This method was developed in order to improve the accuracy of the previous method. 
Accordingly, a 150 litres wheelie bin was used as a sample to be filled with 100 litres 
of water. The measurement process is as follow; 
- Using a 5 litre jar to fill up the wheelie bin with the water to define 100 litres. 
The following is an illustration of defining 100 litres using a 5 litre jar (5 x 20 
= 100 litres). 
  
- After defining the 100 litres with water and marking the bin, the recyclables 
(plastic, paper, glass and aluminium) and compostable organic food were then 
measured by filling the bin up to the mark with each one, and then weighing 
the bin each time to determine the weight in kilograms. In order to obtain an 
accurate result, the measuring process for each type of recyclables was 
completed twice.  The following is an illustration of this process.  
  
 66 
  
  
Figure 12, method two of the Massey conversion factor  
In addition, the process of measuring plastic materials was done at both Massey and 
the Ferguson St recycling centre. The reason for doing this was to make a comparison 
between the plastic and bottles, and aluminium and tin cans generated by the 
household communities in Palmerston North and the campus community at Massey 
University.  
 
As a result, a table of Massey’s conversion factor was created.  
 
Table 6, Massey’s conversion factor  
Category 
Volume 
(0.1m3 ) 
Plastic & Bottles 2.1 kg 
Aluminium & Tin Cans 4.10 kg 
Mixed Paper 10.9 kg 
Glass 25.76 kg 
Organic Food 18.40kg 
 
 
 67 
3.4.1.3 Consultation with Key Staff Regarding the Waste and Recycling Audit at 
Massey 
Prior to conducting Massey’s waste audit, collaborating and communicating with key 
people on campus was very important because they were a source of essential 
information in relation to the current recycling programme at Massey. In addition to 
this data was provided about the location and number of waste and recycling bins, and 
information about the current recycling programme (such as frequency of waste 
collection), as well as providing the location in which the audit was carried out. The 
key individuals identified in this study included the coordinator of Zero Waste 
Academy (Mr. J, Hannon), who is also a supervisor for this research, the Campus 
environmental and emergency operations manager based at RFM (Mr. Ken McEwen 
and Kerry Lee), RFM - Grounds personnel (Gary Mack, Manager, and Andrew) who 
provided support in conducting the physical waste audit, the GBT Programme 
manager (Yvonne Marsh) as well as other GBT personnel (Sandra and Ricky), and 
Helen Mays an independent contractor working in synergy with the GBT to develop 
efficient organic waste bins at Massey University.  
 
3.4.1.4 Equipment  
Equipment plays an essential role in conducting waste audits (Waste not limit, 2001; 
Timaru District Council, 2007), and these tools were identified as being necessary 
prior to the audit being conducted:  
a. Electronic platform scale (50 kg capacity) 
b. Sorting tables 
c. Protective gear e.g. gloves and masks. 
d. Bins to sort into  
e. Rubbish bag to sort into  
f. Pen and clipboard  
g. Audit sheets 
h. Calculator 
i. Camera  
j. First aid kit  
k. Transportation to pick up the waste 
 
 
 68 
3.4.1.5 Site Requirements for Sorting 
The waste audit was conducted outside the premises of the Green Bike Trust (GBT), 
which is otherwise known as the Massey ‘boiler house’ The GBT building met the 
requirements of the audit plan because it was: 
- Dry 
- Out of the wind 
- Away from hazards and traffic areas 
- At least 5m x5m with sufficient head room. 
It was also important to set up a sorting table at the correct height (waist high) in 
order to minimise the risk of back injuries during this process. The following Figure 
(13) shows the waste sorting facilities.  
  
Figure 13, Waste auditing facility 
 
3.4.1.6 The Process of Auditing   
The process of auditing the waste out is as following: 
a. Empty the bag onto the sorting table based on each bin code 
b. Sort into the different category bin code 
c. Weigh each bin of different category material separately and record the weight 
before disposing of the material. 
d. Keep doing this until all the waste has been sorted and the data entered on the 
sheet 
e. Clean up all the residue waste and make sure the place is left as clean as you 
found it before.  
f. Take photos and make a note of any relevant observation during the sorting 
process.  
 69 
The following images in Figure 14, illustrate how the auditing process was 
undertaken. 
  
Figure 14, the process of sorting out the waste 
  
3.4.1.7 Data Analysis 
Once data had been collected it was to be analysed in order to fulfil the research 
objectives. This involved the following: 
 For the recycling audit the amount of contamination for each recyclable 
category was first quantified in kilograms. This was then converted into a 
percentage for both incorrect and correct recyclable disposal.  
 A general waste composition (recyclable, compostable and waste) was 
quantified in some cases, in relation to specific locations and/or bin categories.  
 Recycling waste compositions were quantified for specific recycling bin 
codes. 
The results of this data analysis were presented in appropriate tables, graphs and pie 
charts for each trial and bin code.   
 
In order to audit the large waste bins it was necessary to use a method of sorting that 
could handle the complex range of waste that would be present. For this reason a 
SWAP analysis categorisation method was used. This is shown in Figure 1 (page 29-
30). It was also necessary to use a well known method which could be understood and 
potentially used for future waste and recycling audits. Once the SWAP analysis had 
been used to categorise the waste it was then possible to quantify the relative amounts 
of recyclables, compostable and waste.    
70 
 
 
CHAPTER 4 
RESULTS 
 
The results section of this study is based around the four trials outlined in section 3.3. 
The section is highly detailed and contains the research results using two forms of 
presentation; tables and figures with accompanying text. For each trial the main 
considerations were to find indicators in the data that show the key areas of the 
current waste and recycling system that need to be redesigned to enhance the 
recycling behaviours on campus. The analysis methods that were used for this 
included the calculating and comparing of contamination levels within both the waste 
and recycling categories. While any contamination can indicate a recycling system 
that is not functioning properly, the contamination of waste (that will go to landfill) 
with recyclable material is particularly concerning because these materials are a 
potential resource that is being lost by not being placed into the recycling stream. In 
addition to this any relevant qualitative data that was noted during the audits was 
included. First the results of each trial are presented followed by an analysis of what 
these trials mean in relation to each other, and to create a broader picture of the 
current recycling and waste management system at Massey University’s Turitea 
campus. The following section is the detailed description of the result of Trial I which 
represents one week data collection (25th – 29th January 2010 during summer school).  
 
Trial I was conducted as a pilot audit and following its completion a number of 
changes were made in order to improve the range of the findings for Trial II and III.  
 
The key changes were: 
- The addition of Code A (large waste bin and recycling cage), and Code E 
(organic and recyclable staff room bins) to get a broader picture of the current 
waste and recycling management systems across the Turitea campus. 
- Adding a compostable category to the sorting process for Code C (small waste 
bins).  
71 
 
In addition to this a change was made for Code E between Trial II and Trial III by 
adding the auditing of the staff common room waste bins (were present) in addition to 
the mixed recycling and organic bins.  
 
Furthermore, Trial IV was conducted in this study due to the request of information 
with regard to the performance of the current recycling programme in the Massey 
Turitea hostels by RFM. The information provided in Trial IV included the volumes 
of recyclables found in the recycling wheelie bins, as well as the contamination levels 
found in both recycling clusters and large waste bins.  
 
4.1 Trial I 
 
4.1.1 Auditing the Recycling Wheelie Bins (Code B) 
The first task undertaken was the auditing of the recycling wheelie bins that were 
located in the concourse and the dining hall area. This audit consisted of seven 
clusters, each consisting of four bins, out of a total 26 clusters across campus. Of the 
seven clusters audited two were located inside the dining hall while the others were on 
the concourse. The collection of these bins was coordinated with the regular waste 
removal which is undertaken by GBT twice a week on a regular cycle. According to 
the material categories the contents of each bin was combined and weighed. The 
contents were then sorted to ascertain the amount of each type of recyclable that was 
correctly placed in each labelled recycling bin, and conversely the amount of waste 
that was incorrectly disposed of in that recycling bin (NB: A waste bin is included in 
each cluster of recycling bins. So in this case the opposite measures were sought).  
 
The Massey conversion factor (as shown in Table 6) was used to calculate the volume 
of recyclables for each sub-code, and in total. The calculation of these volumes is an 
important part of future redesign and redevelopment of the current facilities. The 
results of that process are displayed below in Table 7, and Figure 15 shows the 
comparative percentages of the sub-categories.  
 
 
 
 
72 
 
Table 7, the Auditing result,  Code B Trial I 
Code B 
Category (Recycling-
Wheelie Bin) 
Correct Incorrect  Total 
(kg) 
Total 
Volume 
(m3) (kg) (kg) 
B1 Plastic Bottles 8.51 2.64 11.15 0.58 
B2 
Aluminium & Tin 
Cans 44.93 3.03 47.96 1.19 
B3 Mixed Paper 2.61 0.58 3.19 0.03 
B4 Mixed Glass Bottles 63.96 0.1 64.06 0.25 
Resource Totals 120.01 6.35 126.36   
B5 Waste 19.18 3.59 22.77   
Totals  139.19 9.94 149.13 2.05 
 
According to Table 7 above, the total volume of recyclable material generated was 
2.05m3. These totals show that aluminium & tin cans, and mixed glass bottles were 
significantly higher in total than the other categories by weight. These totals were 
affected by the fact that there was a conference held which included a social function, 
and the recyclables produced were of typical categories for this situation. This is also 
reflected in the following pie chart, Figure 15, that shows the categories according to 
their percentage of the total.  
 
 
Figure 15, the percentage of recycling and waste generated by Code B in Trial I by 
weight (kg) 
 
73 
 
The totals displayed in Table 7 suggest that the vast majority of the recycling or waste 
was correctly identified and disposed of appropriately in the correctly labelled bin. In 
order to create an easy comparison the weights for each sub-code above were used to 
calculate the percentages of correct vs. incorrect for each. The formula used is shown 
below.  
Correct or incorrect weight (kg) ÷ Total weight (kg) = n x 100/1 
 
The following graph, Figure 16, displays the percentage of correctly vs. incorrectly 
disposed of for each sub-code. This shows that the incorrect choice percentage ranges 
from 0.1 to 24 %, with contamination being the highest for plastic bottles followed by 
mixed paper, and waste.  
 
 
Figure 16, the percentage of correct vs. incorrect for Code B Trial I  
 
It is important to consider the different types of contamination when looking at this 
graph. The percentage of incorrectly disposed of waste consists of anything that is in 
the wrong bin. For the recyclable categories this may be in the form of a different type 
of recyclable material, or it may be waste or compostable waste. For categories which 
contain commonly used food packaging items it is often the case that contamination is 
in the form of potentially compostable waste, for which there was not a dedicated bin 
74 
 
in these clusters. However for the waste category the contamination consisted of 
recyclable materials and potentially compostable waste. This contamination is in fact 
made up of potential resources that would end up in landfill due to not being placed in 
the correct bin. In this instant that was 16 % of the contents of this category, which 
was above the average contamination level of 7 % which is described as follows.  
 
Subsequently the overall average percentage of correctly vs. incorrectly disposed of 
waste and recycling was calculated and this is shown in the following pie chart, 
Figure 17. This shows that on average 93 % of the choices made about which bins to 
use were correct, with 7 % being incorrect. This is a direct reflection of the recycling 
behaviours of the people that use these waste and recycling bins.  
 
 
Figure 17, the average percentage of correct vs. incorrect for Code B Trial I 
 
During the audit additional information was noted that may relate to the recycling 
behaviours shown by the quantified results. It was observed that the signage for the 
recycling wheelie bins was in most cases unclear, both in terms of instructing people 
what to dispose of and visually with regard to fading and damage. Factors such as this 
need to be taken into consideration when redesigning and improving the current waste 
and recycling system, as they may be contributing to the effectiveness of the wheelie 
bin clusters.  
 
75 
 
 
4.1.2 Auditing the Small Waste Bins (Code C) 
The collection and auditing process of the small waste bins (Code C) is similar to 
above Code B in terms of sorting and quantifying the waste and recycling, and 
consisted of 12 bins from the concourse area, out of the total of 20. The audit was 
conducted from the 25th – 29th January, 2010, and was coordinated with the regular 
daily emptying which is undertaken by RFM. After collecting the waste, the audit 
process was then undertaken to separate the waste from any recycling that had been 
wrongly placed in the small waste bins. In this trial organic food waste was sorted as 
waste rather than as a potentially recyclable material. This categorisation was changed 
for Trial II and III in order to improve the audit design. These bins are supposed to be 
dedicated to waste but lack signage and as a result recyclables are often placed in 
them mistakenly. The weight of contamination was then measured and the quantified 
result is shown in the table below.  
Table 8, the Auditing result, Code C Trial I 
Code Category 
Waste-
Landfill 
Recyclable  Total 
(kg) 
(kg) (kg) 
C Waste 9.75 2.14 11.89 
 
The Table 8 above indicates the total amount of waste for the small waste bins in the 
concourse area which is 11.89kg. Further analysis of the makeup of this ‘waste’ found 
that 18% actually consisted of recyclable materials, as is shown in the pie chart below, 
Figure 18. This can be considered as incorrect disposal and this means that nearly 
1/5th of the contents of these bins could be recycled if it was disposed of correctly. It 
is unknown what ratio of this could have been composted for this trial. It is important 
to remember that these bins are a standalone waste bin and that there is no other 
option to hand for people to choose.   
 
76 
 
 
 
Figure 18, the percentage of waste-landfill to recyclables for Code C Trial I 
 
4.1.3 Auditing the Massey Dining Hall Recycling Bins (Code D) 
The process of collecting these recyclables was conducted over three days (26th – 28th 
January 2010). These bins were located in the dining hall area and consisted of two 
clusters with four categories in each with names being based on the existing signage. 
In this case landfill corresponds to the waste category in previous audits. The auditing 
process followed the same procedures as out lined in the previous section for bin 
Code B i.e. weight, sorting within each category and weighing, followed by 
determining the percentage of correct and incorrect recycling. The volume for each 
recyclable type was also calculated using the Massey conversion factor. The 
following are the detailed results. 
Table 9, the Auditing result, Code D Trial I  
Code D Category 
Correct Incorrect  Total 
(kg) 
Total 
Volume 
(m3) (Kg) (Kg) 
D1 Landfill 5.89 0.25 6.14   
D2 Plastic 0.63 0.27 0.9 0.040 
D3 Glass 0.38 0.02 0.4 0.001 
D4 Cans 4.05 0 4.05 0.090 
Total  10.95 0.54 11.49 0.131 
 
77 
 
As is shown in Table 9 the landfill category contained the largest amount of waste 
overall, followed by cans, then plastic and glass. The percentages of these categories 
are shown below in Figure 19.  
 
 
Figure 19, the percentage of recycling and waste for Code D in Trial I 
 
As was done for the code B audit the percentage of correct vs. incorrectly disposed of 
was calculated using the following formula.  
 
Correct or incorrect weight (kg) ÷ Total weight (kg) = n x 100/1 
 
These results are shown in Figure 20 below.  
78 
 
 
Figure 20, the percentage of correct vs. incorrect for Code D Trial I 
 
While the range of contamination was from 0 to 30 % the most significant result of 
recyclable contamination found was for the plastic sub-code (D2). This had a much 
higher level than any of the others at 30% with only 70% of plastic being disposed of 
correctly.  The same different types of contamination as described on page 54 should 
be considered for this graph as well although in this case the results show that 
contamination is less of a concern for the waste category. This means that there was 
less potential loss of resources through the incorrect disposal of recyclables in the 
non-recycling stream. It is possible to gain insight into the benefits or limitations of 
this style of waste and recycling disposal facilities. For the least successful category, 
plastic, the main contaminants were compostable or food waste which relates to the 
dining hall location. The choices made with regard to what category to use are also 
potentially affected by the fact that there was not a bin provided for compostable 
waste, and that the waste category was labelled as ‘landfill’ which was potentially 
confusing for people. 
 
Following this it was possible to calculate the average contamination level which is 
shown below in Figure 21. This found that 90.3 % of the choices made in disposing of 
the waste and recyclables were correct, while 9.7 % were incorrect.  
 
79 
 
 
 
Figure 21, the average percentage of correct vs. incorrect for Code D Trial I 
 
4.2 Trial II 
This trial was conducted from 13th – 17th September 2010. It included the previous 
codes B, C and D from Trial I and also added in code A (the large waste bins and 
recycling cage bins) and code E (the organic waste and inorganic waste bins from the 
staff common rooms). As previously described the benefit of adding these two codes 
is that a more detailed picture could be gained of waste and recycling management, 
and recycling behaviours across the campus.  
 
4.2.1 Auditing the Large Waste Bins and Recycling Cage Bins (Code A) 
Auditing the large waste bin (A1) was undertaken in two different locations, namely 
Science Tower D, and Social Science Tower, while the recycling cage bin (A2) 
audited was located at the Green Bike Trust (GBT). There were a total of 40 large 
waste bins across campus and 19 recycling cage bins for paper and cardboard, and 
those that were audited were selected using systematic random sampling. Initially 
another recycling cage bin was selected using this method but was found to be empty 
at the time of the audit. While the large waste bins go to landfill the recycling cage 
bins are a part of the campus recycling system and the emptying of these is managed 
by RFM using a range of contractors.  
 
80 
 
In order to conduct a detailed audit of the general waste bins the New Zealand ‘solid 
waste analysis protocol’ (SWAP) landfill waste auditing methodology was selected 
for use – because this material is taken directly from Massey to landfill. The SWAP 
methodology utilises 12 waste classifications, and therefore provides considerable 
detail as to what potentially recyclable materials may be currently going to landfill, 
and hence may in future be targeted by upgrades in the Massey zero waste 
programme. The 12 SWAP classifications are: waste, glass, cans, mixed paper, mixed 
plastic, organic waste, metal, textiles, rubbers, trees, timber, and potentially hazardous 
waste. The results of the detailed sorting and weighing of the classifications of the 
resources currently in the waste Massey generates in each of the selected bin locations 
are shown in Table 10 and Figure 22, 23, and 24 below. Similarly, detailed 
information regarding the total amount of waste generated based on three 
classifications namely recyclables, compostable, and waste was produced during the 
audit and can be found below in Table 11, and Figure 25.  
81
 
 T
ab
le
 1
0,
 th
e 
A
ud
it
in
g 
re
su
lt
, C
od
e 
A
 T
ri
al
 I
I 
 B
in
/C
ag
e 
C
od
e 
A
 
C
at
eg
or
y 
 
L
oc
at
io
n 
W
as
te
/R
es
ou
rc
e 
C
la
ss
if
ic
at
io
n
 
T
ot
al
 
kg
 
W
as
te
 
G
la
ss
 
C
an
s 
M
ix
ed
 
P
ap
er
 
M
ix
ed
 
P
la
st
ic
 
O
rg
an
ic
 
W
as
te
 
M
et
al
 
T
ex
ti
le
s 
R
ub
be
r 
T
re
es
 
T
im
b
er
 
P
ot
en
ti
al
ly
 
H
az
ar
do
us
  
A
1 
 W
as
te
 
Sc
ie
nc
e 
T
ow
er
 D
 
32
.6
2 
0.
63
 
0.
1 
7.
85
 
1.
5 
1.
5 
  
  
0.
25
 
3.
36
 
0.
32
 
24
.6
 
72
.7
3 
So
ci
al
 
Sc
ie
nc
e 
60
.3
4 
6.
32
 
1.
95
 
15
.3
2 
4.
32
 
4.
56
 
0.
96
 
  
  
0.
84
 
0.
62
 
9.
23
 
10
4.
46
 
T
ot
al
  
92
.9
6 
6.
95
 
2.
05
 
23
.1
7 
5.
82
 
6.
06
 
0.
96
 
  
0.
25
 
4.
2 
0.
94
 
33
.8
3 
17
7.
19
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
A
2 
R
ec
yc
lin
g-
C
ar
db
oa
rd
  
G
B
T
 
  
3 
  
22
4 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
22
7 
      
82 
 
The above Table 10 illustrates the total amount of waste generated in both categories 
of Code A1, the large waste bin and Code A2 the recycling cage bin. The total amount 
of waste produced in both categories is the accumulation of the total amount of waste 
produced in the 12 different types of waste classification.  
 
For sub-code A2 the highest category produced was mixed paper at 224 kg. This 
indicates that the total amount of mixed paper generated is almost 100% of the total 
amount of waste in the recycling cage bin. It is important to acknowledge that the 
contents of A2 are a part of the recycling stream and so the key consideration is the 
amount of contamination that occurs whether by waste or other recyclables. The small 
amount of non mixed paper material found in the bin is most likely an irregularity, 
and future trials will show if this is an occurrence to be concerned about. 
 
The total amount of waste produced for Code A1 was 177.19 kg, which is 
accumulated from the two locations. Science Tower D and Social Science Building 
are two of the main buildings on campus and incorporate lecture theatres, class rooms, 
computer labs, science labs, and staff and student offices. This means that they 
produce a diverse range of waste and recyclables which is demonstrated in Table 10. 
The following graph, Figure 22, shows the percentages of each category produced 
relative to the two locations.  
83 
 
 
Figure 22, the percentage of SWAP categories for Code A1 Trial II 
 
The highest amount of materials generated in these locations was the waste category 
with 65% coming from the Social Science Building. The second highest category was 
potentially hazardous waste with 73% coming from Science Tower D, which directly 
reflects the link between the category of waste produced and the types of activities 
carried out in the building. In this case the potentially hazardous waste is for the most 
part made up of chemicals and aerosols and is a result of the high number of science 
labs at the location. Following this was the mixed paper category with 66% coming 
from the Social Science building which is directly related to the academic and office 
based context of the bins.  
 
The following charts, Figure 23 and 24,  display the makeup of waste produced by 
each building audited in percentages. These were calculated using the formula shown 
on page 61. 
 
84 
 
 
Figure 23,  the percentage composition of SWAP categories for Code A1 – Science 
Tower D Trial II 
 
 
Figure 24,  the percentage composition of SWAP categories for Code A1 – Social 
Science Trial II 
 
85 
 
For both locations waste was the highest category, and for the Social Science Building 
the difference between the waste category at 58% was significantly higher than the 
next highest category of mixed paper at 15%. For Science Tower D the second highest 
category was potentially hazardous materials at 34%, although unless an appropriate 
recycling scheme is in place for these, they would actually be considered as waste. 
This would mean that the waste category would in fact be 79% of the total materials 
disposed of. Following this in terms of percentage was mixed paper at 11% which 
aligns with the pattern found for Social Science Building.  
 
The following diagrams (Table 11, Figure 25) illustrate the total amount of waste 
generated at each location according to three different compositions namely 
recyclables, compostable and waste. In order to re-categorise the 12 types of waste 
into these three key waste streams the following groupings were made based on local 
recycling guidelines provided by PNCC (n.db). Recyclables consisted of glass, cans, 
mixed paper, mixed plastic, timber, textiles and metal. Compostable consisted of 
organic waste and trees, and waste consisted of waste, rubber and potentially 
hazardous materials. This provides a consistent method that will be followed in future 
trials for large waste bins.  
 
Table 11, the Auditing result of the large waste bins based on three key waste 
streams, Sub-code A1 Trial II 
Sub-code A1 - Categorisation into 3 key waste streams 
Location 
Recyclables 
(kg) 
Compostable 
(kg) 
Waste 
(kg) 
Totals 
Science Tower D 10.4 4.86 57.47 72.73 
Social Science  29.49 5.4 69.57 104.46 
Totals  39.89 10.26 127.04 177.19 
 
Based on the results shown above a number of key findings were noted. Firstly that 
the composition of waste, recyclables and compostable varies between the two 
locations. This is shown more clearly in Figure 25 which shows the percentage of 
each category for each location. One of the main factors in these categories was the 
86 
 
previously mentioned need to add the potentially hazardous materials into the waste 
category as no recycling scheme was in place for these. For Science Tower D this 
increased the waste category significantly which signals the importance of 
implementing an appropriate program to address this.  
 
  
Figure 25,  the composition of waste, recyclables, and compostable by percentage 
for Science Tower D and the Social Science Building, Sub-code A1 Trial II 
 
4.2.2 Auditing the Recycling Wheelie Bins (Code B) 
The second recycling wheelie bin audit (Code B) was conducted on two days 
(Tuesday 14th and Thursday 16th September 2010) during the Trial II survey period. 
Once again the collection involved 7 clusters, out of the total 26 clusters across 
campus and the location was based in the concourse and dining hall area. The same 
audit process was conducted as in Trial I (section 4.1.1) and the data collected from 
this process consists of weight by each category and the amount of waste and 
recycling categories that were correctly or incorrectly disposed of for both the 
recycling clusters and the associated waste bins. The total weights were converted into 
volume using the Massey conversion factor as before. This information is shown in 
Table 12 below. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
87 
 
Table 12, the Auditng result, Code B Trial I   
Code B 
Category (Recycling-
Wheelie Bin) 
Correct Incorrect  
Total 
(kg) 
Total 
Volume 
(m3) (kg) (kg) 
B1 Plastic Bottles 20.75 1.14 21.89 1.04 
B2 
Aluminium & Tin 
Cans 11.55 0.43 11.98 0.29 
B3 Mixed Paper 65.55 15.13 80.68 1.19 
B4 Mixed Glass Bottles 66.85 0.33 67.18 0.29 
Resource Totals 
164.7 17.03 181.73   
B5 Waste 17.32 20.7 38.02   
Totals  
182.02 37.73 219.75 1.77 
 
 
The total amount of waste generated was 219.75kg with 182.02kg being disposed of 
correctly and 37.73kg disposed of incorrectly. This suggests that the vast majority of 
the waste and recyclables are correctly identified and disposed of appropriately. A 
more detailed picture is provided by the breakdown into sub-codes and the percentage 
of correct vs. incorrect for each is shown in Figure 27 below. The overall composition 
of the waste and recycling is shown in Figure 26 as percentages of the total. This 
shows that mixed paper and mixed glass bottles were the most significant categories 
in terms of amount followed by general waste. This analysis helps to create a picture 
of a more typical waste and recycling composition for this location as it was 
conducted during semester two of the university year when students and staff on 
campus were present in normal patterns. The percentages found in this trial also 
support the fact that higher percentages of mixed glass bottles and aluminium and tin 
cans were found due to a non regular event (conference and social function).  
 
88 
 
 
Figure 26, the percentage of recycling and waste generated by Code B in Trial II by 
weight (kg) 
 
In order to get a clear picture of the contamination within each category a bar graph 
was once again created to show the correct vs. incorrect percentage for each sub-code, 
Figure 27.  
 
Figure 27, the percentage of correct vs. incorrect for Code B Trial II 
 
The range of incorrectly disposed of was from 0.49 to 54 %, with the two most 
significant results being for the mixed paper and waste categories at 19 % and 54 % 
89 
 
respectively. For the most part the contamination in the mixed paper category was of 
organic food waste, which relates to the proximity to the dining hall location and the 
fact that a dedicated compostable/organic waste disposal bin is not provided. The 
other significant result, which was the fact that 54 % of the waste category could have 
been disposed of in the recyclable categories, shows a sizeable loss of potential 
resources to landfill. This contamination was made up of organic food waste, and 
recyclable food containers such as plastic. This amount was also a lot higher than in 
Trial I which may be the result of an increase in people (students and staff) on campus 
because of the time of the year (during semester 2). 
 
Following this the average percentage of contamination was calculated as it was in 
Trial I, with this result shown in Figure 28 below.  
 
Figure 28, the average percentage of correct vs. incorrect for Code B Trial II 
 
This shows that overall the incorrect recycling behaviour taking place was slightly 
higher than in Trial I with an increase from 13 to 17 %. This may or may not be a 
result of the fact that there were a lot more people using the facilities during the 
survey period of this second trial. It should be noted that the facilities provided during 
this trial had not been changed or improved in any way since the first trial so the 
issues of poor and unclear signage still existed.  
 
 
 
90 
 
4.2.3 Auditing the Small Waste Bins (Code C) 
The Code C audit of the small waste bins located in the concourse area was the 
similar to that previously conducted in Trial I (section 4.1.2), with the exception that 
the sorting of the materials used three categories, namely waste, compostable and 
recyclables rather than just two as was previously done.  The waste was collected 
three times during the week (13th, 15th, and 17th September 2010). After collecting the 
waste the audit process was conducted to separate the waste and recyclable materials 
into each category for weighing and quantifying the contamination levels using the 
correct vs. incorrect method previously established. The result of this audit is 
displayed in Table 13 below. 
 
Table 13, the Auditing result, Code C Trial II 
Code C 
Categories 
Total 
(kg) Waste-
Landfill 
Recyclables Compostable 
(kg) (kg) (kg) 
17.85 27.27 16.42 61.54 
Percentage 
of total 
29.0 44.3 26.7 
  
 
The above Table 13 displays the total amount of waste generated in the small waste 
bins in the concourse area, which as previously noted are a standalone bin which is 
supposed to be used for general waste but this is not indicated with signage. The total 
amount of waste produced was 61.54kg which consisted of 17.85kg of waste-landfill 
and 43.69kg made up of recyclable and compostable materials. 
 
By converting the weights for each category into percentages of the total a clearer 
picture can be seen of the waste and recycling composition for these bins, which is 
shown below, Figure 29. The highest percentage of waste produced is recyclables, 44 
% followed by waste-landfill 29 % and compostable 27 %.   
 
91 
 
 
 
Figure 29, the percentage of waste-landfill, recyclables, and compostable for Code 
C Trial II 
 
Another way to consider these figures is shown in Figure 30 which re-categorises the 
results into recyclable resources vs. non-recyclable materials. By using the two 
categories of waste-landfill and recyclable it is clear that there was a 71 % loss of 
potential resources (recyclable and compostable) to landfill due to them not being in 
the recycling stream. 
 
 
 
Figure 30, the percentage of waste-landfill to recyclables  for Code C Trial II 
92 
 
 
4.2.4 Auditing the Massey Dining Hall Recycling Bins (Code D) 
The process of collecting Massey Recycling Bin (Code D) was carried out on three 
days (13th, 15th, and 17th September 2010). As stated in Trial I these bins were located 
in the dining hall area and consisted of two clusters, consisting of the four categories 
of recyclables. The auditing process followed the same procedure used in Trial I 
which involved collecting, sorting and weighing the material in each category/bin. 
The detailed information from this audit is shown in Table 14 below. 
 
Table 14, the Auditing result, Code D Trial II 
Code 
D 
Category  
Correct  Incorrect  
Total 
Weight (kg) 
Total 
Volume 
(m3) (kg) (kg) 
D1 Landfill 8.16 6.76 14.92 0.20 
D2 Plastic 1.42 2.01 3.43 0.16 
D3 Glass 10.78 0 10.78 0.05 
D4 Cans 0.66 0 0.66 0.02 
Total  21.02 8.77 29.79 0.42 
 
The total amount of waste produced was 29.79 kg, which was nearly three times the 
amount produced during Trial I which was conducted during summer semester when 
fewer students were on campus. As was done previously the percentages of each 
category of the total was calculated and is shown in Figure 31 below. While the 
percentage of waste is similar to that in Trial I at 53 %, there is a much lower 
proportion of glass, which may support the previous findings that the glass total had 
been affected by an irregular event taking place for Code B, the Recycling Wheelie 
Bins which are located in the same area. The other increases in cans and plastic can be 
said to reflect the typical quantities that would be found during semester two of the 
university year.  
93 
 
 
Figure 31, the percentage of recycling and waste for Code D Trial II 
 
Following this the percentages of correct vs. incorrect disposal were calculated for 
each category following the same method as in Trial I. These results are shown in 
Figure 32 below.  
 
 
Figure 32, the percentage of correct vs. incorrect for Code D Trial II 
 
94 
 
The range of incorrect disposal was from 0 to 59 %. While glass and cans had zero 
contamination both plastic and landfill had high levels at 59 % and 45 % respectively. 
This indicates that when people were making a choice about using the glass and cans 
categories they were making the correct one; however this did not happen for plastic 
and landfill. For plastic the main contaminants were paper and organic/compostable 
waste. For landfill the main contaminants were plastic and organic/compostable 
waste. This indicates confusion around the disposal of plastic and paper and supports 
the fact that there was not an option for the easy disposal of organic food waste close 
by. The result for the glass and cans are similar to Trial I as contamination was 0 to 5 
% in that case, whereas the contamination for plastic has nearly doubled, and the 
contamination for landfill has increased more than tenfold. This later result in 
particular indicates a significant issue with the understanding and use of the landfill 
category and 45 % of the materials in these bins were in fact potential resources for 
either recycling or composting.  
 
These concerns are also reflected in the average contamination percentage 
calculations which are shown in Figure 33 below. The incorrect disposal of waste and 
recyclables had increased from just under 10 % to 26 %. A contributing factor for this 
is likely to be the increase of students using the dining hall because Trial II was 
conducted during semester two of the university year. 
 
 
Figure 33, the average percentage of correct vs. incorrect for Code D Trial II 
95 
 
 
4.2.5 Auditing the Staff Common Room Organic and Recycling Bins (Code E) 
Auditing the Organic and Recycling Bins (Code E) was undertaken twice during the 
survey week (Wednesday 15th and Friday 17th of September 2010), and was 
coordinated with the regular twice weekly collection of organic recycling by an 
independent contractor and on demand collection of recyclables by RFM. This 
consisted of the contents of 30 bins that are located in the Massey staff common 
rooms. Code E contains two sub-codes which represent compostable waste (E1) and 
recyclables (E2). The audit process that took place found that contamination levels 
were very low for both of these categories. Consequently, the audit focused on 
identifying both the combined weight and the weight for each category. Table 15 
below shows the weight found for each category. 
 
Table 15, the Auditing result, Code E Trial II 
Code E Category  Weight (kg) 
E1 Compostable 78.5 
E2 Recyclables 41.84 
Total 120.34 
 
Based on these quantities it was possible to calculate the percentage for each of the 
combined total and these are shown in Figure 34 below. This showed that 
compostable waste is a component of the materials disposed of in the staff common 
room bins and that the existing system which includes the facilities for their separate 
disposal is being effectively used. This was also supported by the low levels of 
contamination found. The recyclable disposal facilities provided were an ‘all in’ 
general recycling bin which allows for cans, glass and mixed plastic within the one 
bin. The fact that low levels of contamination were found in this indicates that the 
understanding of what can be disposed of is high. The ‘all in’ system decreases the 
potential choices that a person can make and in a sense simplifies the recycling 
facilities. The success of this supports this idea.   
 
96 
 
It was decided that in order to gain a more complete picture of the waste and recycling 
in the staff common rooms it was decided to add the category of general waste to 
Code E for Trial III. This means that it would be possible to get an idea of whether 
and what quantity of compostable and recyclables may be being wrongly put in to the 
general waste bins.  
 
Figure 34, the percentage of compostable and recyclables for Code E Trial II 
 
4.3  Trial III 
This trial was conducted from 29th November – 3rd December 2010. It used the 
previous codes A, B, C, D and E from Trial II and used the same method except for 
Code E. In this case an additional sub-code (E3) for general waste was added to 
increase the potential findings about recycling behaviour from the audit.  
 
4.3.1 Auditing the Large Waste Bins and Recycling Cage Bins (Code A) 
For this trial the auditing process for the large waste bins (Code A) and the 
paper/cardboard recycling cage bins (A2) was undertaken in two different locations, 
namely the Main Building (now the Sir Geoffrey Peren building) adjacent to the old 
registry, and Riddet 2, off University Avenue ,between Colombo & Riddet Roads (see 
Figure 35 below). This meant that each sub-code had two locations feeding into its 
results. These bins were randomly selected from the total of 40 large waste bins across 
campus. As was done previously the contents were categorised according to the 12 
categories based on a SWAP analysis method, namely waste, glass, cans, mixed 
97 
 
paper, mixed plastic, organic waste, metal, textiles, rubbers, trees, timber and 
potentially hazardous waste.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 35, The large waste bins and recycling cages at their locations; the Main 
building, adjacent to the old Registry building, and Riddet 2, off University Avenue, 
between Colombo & Riddet Roads 
 
The result of the sorting and weighing process undertaken at each location are shown 
in Table 16 below.  
98
 
 T
ab
le
 1
6,
 th
e 
A
ud
it
in
g 
re
su
lt
, C
od
e 
A
 T
ri
al
 I
II
 
 
B
in
/C
ag
e 
C
od
e 
A
 
C
at
eg
or
y 
 
L
oc
at
io
n 
W
as
te
/R
es
ou
rc
e 
C
la
ss
if
ic
at
io
n
 
T
ot
al
 
kg
 
W
as
te
 
G
la
ss
 
C
an
s 
M
ix
ed
 
P
ap
er
 
M
ix
ed
 
P
la
st
ic
 
O
rg
an
ic
 
W
as
te
 
M
et
al
 
T
ex
ti
le
s 
R
ub
be
r 
T
re
es
 
T
im
b
er
 
P
ot
en
ti
al
ly
 
H
az
ar
do
us
  
A
1 
 W
as
te
 
M
ai
n 
B
ui
ld
in
g 
 
45
 
3.
2 
3 
25
 
18
 
8.
5 
  
  
0.
25
 
0.
3 
  
  
10
3.
25
 
R
id
de
t 
26
 
5.
5 
2.
1 
15
 
6.
8 
5.
5 
  
  
  
  
0.
45
 
0.
7 
62
.0
5 
T
ot
al
  
71
 
8.
7 
5.
1 
40
 
24
.8
 
14
 
  
  
0.
25
 
0.
3 
0.
45
 
0.
7 
16
5.
3 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
A
2 
R
ec
yc
lin
g-
C
ar
db
oa
rd
  
M
ai
n 
B
ui
ld
in
g 
  
  
  
48
5 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
48
5 
R
id
de
t 
 
 
 
 
 
 
11
5 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
11
5 
        
99 
 
As can be seen from Table 16 the total amount of waste generated for each location 
from the two different types of bins and different places was comparatively different. 
Main Building had the most materials for sub-code A1 overall and for each category 
except glass, timber and potentially hazardous, as well as sub-code A2. The categories 
with the highest amount of material across both locations were waste, mixed paper 
and mixed plastic. The Main Building is used for teaching and offices and also has a 
number of other buildings in close proximity which have a similar function. Riddet 
has a combination  of uses such as classrooms, laboratories, offices and workshops. 
These functions are reflected in the composition of the waste and recyclables found.  
 
Following this the percentage of each category in sub-code A1 relative to the two 
locations were calculated once again. The results of this are shown in Figure 36 
below.  
 
 
Figure 36, the percentages of SWAP categories for Code A1 Trial III 
 
As can be seen the main differences were that Main Building had some rubber and 
tree material, whereas Riddet had some timber and potentially hazardous material. 
100 
 
Also the fact that Riddet had more glass material than Main Building was different to 
what is shown for the other categories where Main Building had a higher percentage. 
For sub-code A2, which had a total of 600kg of mixed paper and cardboard, the 
relative percentage for each location was calculated and this result is shown in Figure 
37 below.  
 
Figure 37, the percentage comparison of  recycling paper and cardboard for Main 
Building and Riddet,  Code A1 Trial III 
 
This shows that Main Building produced more than four times the amount that Riddet 
did. For both locations no contamination or incorrectly disposed of materials were 
found in the recycling cage. This shows that when given the option to choose between 
the large waste bin and paper/cardboard recycling cage (which in this trial are located 
right next to each other) people are able to make the correct choice to put non-mixed 
paper materials in the waste bin. However there was a relatively large amount of 
mixed paper waste placed into the large waste bin which should have, and could 
easily have, been placed in the paper/cardboard recycling cage. This may have been 
made difficult by the cage bins being full.  
 
This point also links to how the waste and recyclables are placed into these facilities 
to begin with. If the majority of the materials come through a process of being placed 
in smaller bins located in offices and classrooms, which are then combined when they 
are collected by cleaning staff before being placed in the large outside bins, this 
101 
 
means the facilities inside the buildings needs to be considered. In relation to the 
previous point about the mixed paper being placed in the large waste bin this would 
raise the question of whether or not there are adequate mixed paper bins inside for 
people to make the correct choice to begin with.  
 
Following this the comparative percentages of each category were calculated for each 
location and these are shown below in Figures 38 and 39.  
 
Figure 38,  the percentage composition of SWAP categories for Code A1 – Main 
Building Trial II 
 
102 
 
 
Figure 39,  the percentage composition of SWAP categories for Code A1 – Riddet 
Trial II 
 
The same process as was carried out in Trial II for re-categorisation was then 
followed. Recyclables consisted of glass, cans, mixed paper, mixed plastic, timber, 
textiles and metal. Compostable consisted of organic waste and trees, and waste 
consisted of waste, rubber and potentially hazardous materials. The result of this is 
shown in Table 17 below.  
 
Table 17, the Auditing result of the large waste bins based on three key waste 
streams, Sub-code A1 Trial III  
Code A - Categorisation into 3 key waste streams 
Location 
Recyclables 
(kg) 
Compostable 
(kg) 
Waste 
(kg) 
Totals 
(kg) 
Main 
Building 49.2 8.8 45.25 103.25 
Riddet 29.85 5.5 26.7 62.05 
Totals  79.05 14.3 71.95 165.3 
 
103 
 
Based on the results shown above a number of key findings were noted. Firstly that 
the composition of waste, recyclables and compostable only varies a small amount 
between the two locations. This is shown more clearly in Figure 40 which shows the 
percentage of each category for each location. In both cases the recyclables category 
was the highest amount, followed by waste then compostable waste. This result was 
different to that found for Code A in Trial II where waste was the highest category by 
a considerable amount followed by recyclables then compostable waste. This was 
partly a result of the amount of potentially hazardous materials that were produced, 
and contributed to the waste category. This is linked to the type of waste produced 
and the activities undertaken in the specific buildings, as well as the current recycling 
programs that are or aren’t in place.  
 
It is also important to note that for both of these locations the amount of 
contamination of the large waste bins was considerable at more than 55 %. This 
means that resources are being lost due to being disposed of incorrectly, and that 
recycling behaviour needs to be improved somehow.  
 
  
 
Figure 40,  the composition of waste, recyclables, and compostable by percentage 
for Main Building and Riddet, Sub-code A1 Trial II 
 
 
4.3.2 Auditing the Recycling Wheelie Bins (Code B) 
The third recycling wheelie bin audit (Code B) was conducted on two days (Tuesday 
30th November and Thursday 2nd December 2010) during the Trial III survey period. 
Once again the collection involved 7 clusters, out of the total 26 clusters across 
campus and the location was based in the concourse and dining hall area. The same 
audit process was conducted as in Trial I and II (section 4.1.1 and 4.2.2) and the data 
collected from this process consists of weight by each category and the amount of 
104 
 
waste and recycling categories that were correctly or incorrectly disposed of for both 
the recycling clusters and the associated waste bins. The total weights were converted 
into volume using the Massey conversion factor as before. This information is shown 
in Table 18 below. 
Table 18, the Auditing result, Code B Trial III   
`Code B 
Category 
(Recycling-
Wheelie Bin) 
Correct Incorrect  
Total 
(kg) 
Total 
Volume 
(m3) (kg) (kg) 
B1 Plastic Bottles 13.6 1.31 14.91 0.71 
B2 
Aluminium & Tin 
Cans 
14.4 0.05 14.45 0.35 
B3 Mixed Paper 27.35 10.88 38.23 0.56 
B4 
Mixed Glass 
Bottles 
89.9 0.95 90.85 0.39 
Resource Totals  145.25 13.19 158.44   
B5 Waste 22.3 9.25 31.55 0.58 
Totals  167.55 22.44 189.99 2.59 
 
The total amount of waste generated was 189.99kg with 167.55kg being disposed of 
correctly and 37.73kg disposed of incorrectly. As was found in previous trials the 
majority of the waste and recyclables were correctly identified and disposed of 
appropriately. Once again a more detailed picture is provided by the breakdown into 
sub-codes and the percentage of correct vs. incorrect for each is shown in Figure 42 
below. The overall composition of the waste and recycling is shown in Figure 41 as 
percentages of the total. This shows that mixed glass bottles and mixed paper were the 
most significant categories in terms of amount, followed by general waste. This 
analysis helps to create a picture of the trends of the waste and recyclables 
composition as it was the third trial for this location. When compared to Trial I and II 
this audit has similarities to Trial I with regards to the high amount of mixed glass, 
however the high percentage of mixed paper is similar to that found in Trial II. These 
patterns may relate to the time of the year that the audits were conducted, as well as 
the introduction of paper compostable plates and bowls in the dining hall.  
 
105 
 
 
 
Figure 41,  the percentage of recycling and waste generated by Code B in Trial III 
by weight (kg) 
 
In order to get a clear picture of the contamination within each category a bar graph 
was once again created to show the correct vs. incorrect percentage for each sub-code, 
Figure 42.  
 
 
Figure 42, the percentage of correct vs. incorrect for Code B Trial III 
 
 
106 
 
The range of incorrectly disposed of was from 0.3 to 29.3 %, with the two most 
significant results being for the mixed paper and waste categories at 28.5 % and 29.3 
% respectively. This trend is consistent with the results from Trial II and these were 
also two of the categories with significant results in Trial I. The types of 
contamination found were similar to Trial II and consisted of organic food waste in 
the mixed paper category. The other significant result, which was the fact that 29.3% 
of the waste category could have been disposed of in the recyclable categories, again 
shows a sizeable loss of potential resources to landfill although this amount was 
considerably less than in Trial II. This contamination was again made up of organic 
food waste, and recyclable food containers such as plastic. 
 
Following this the overall percentage of contamination was calculated as it was in 
Trial I and II, with this result shown in Figure 43 below. 
 
 
Figure 43, the average percentage of correct vs. incorrect for Code B Trial III 
 
This shows that overall the incorrect recycling behaviour taking place was slightly 
lower than in Trial II with a decrease from 16 to 12 %. This result of 14 % is very 
close to the 13 % found in Trial I. This may be linked to the time of year during which 
the trials were conducted although the difference across the three trials is only 3 % at 
the most which is only a small difference. The most meaningful part of this result is 
the percentage of recyclable resources that are being lost due to being placed in the 
waste category which across the three trials is an average of 33.1%. This shows that 
recycling behaviour and choices needs to be improved.  
107 
 
 
4.3.3 Auditing the Small Waste Bins (Code C) 
The Code C audit of the small waste bins located in the concourse area was the same 
as that previously conducted in Trial I and II (section 4.1.2 and 4.2.3).  The waste was 
collected three times during the week (29th November, 1st and 3rd December 2010). 
After collecting the waste the audit process was conducted as for Trial II to separate 
the waste and recyclable materials into each category for weighing and quantifying 
the contamination levels using the correct vs. incorrect method previously established. 
The result of this audit is displayed in Table 19 below. 
Table 19, the Auditing result, Code C Trial III 
Code C 
Categories 
Total 
(kg) 
Waste-
Landfill 
Recyclables Compostable 
(kg) (kg) (kg) 
6.15 7.56 5.7 19.41 
Percentage 
of total 
31.7 38.9 29.4 
  
 
The above Table 19 displays the total amount of waste generated in the small waste 
bins in the concourse area. The total amount of waste produced was 19.41kg which 
consisted of 6.15kg of waste-landfill and 13.26kg made up of recyclable and 
compostable materials. Once again the weights for each category were converted into 
percentages of the total, which is shown in Figure 44 below. These percentages are 
similar to those found in Trial II where exactly the same sorting process was used, 
with the highest being recyclables, followed by waste-landfill then compostable.   
 
108 
 
 
Figure 44, the percentage of waste-landfill, recyclables, and compostable for Code 
C Trial III 
 
As noted in Trial II the alternative way of looking at this is to use the categories of 
waste-landfill and recyclable to focus on the potential resources lost through the 
incorrect disposal into a general waste bin. This also allows for the data collected 
during Trial I to be compared as this only used the two categories of recyclable and 
waste-landfill. This is shown in Figure 45 below and shows that 68 % of the materials 
in these bins were in fact recyclable which reinforces the lack of understanding of the 
purpose of these small waste bins that was also found in Trial I and II. The percentage 
of recyclable resources found in this bin code across the three trials has decreased 
somewhat from 82 % to 71 % then 68 %. In terms of the timing of the trials and the 
seasonality of the campus population the trials were conducted during summer 
semester, then semester two then the following summer semester so there may be an 
indication of student populations becoming more aware of the recycling facilities 
option and choosing to use it over the small waste bins. This seasonality of use is 
definitely reflected in the totals collected with Trial I being 11.89kg, Trial II 61.54kg 
and Trial III 19.41kg.   
 
109 
 
 
Figure 45, the percentage of waste-landfill to recyclables  for Code C Trial III  
 
4.3.4 Discontinued Audit of the Massey Dining Hall Recycling Bins (Code D) 
In between the survey period of Trial II and III Massey removed the Massey Dining 
Hall Recycling Bins from the waste and recycling facilities provided in the dining hall 
due to impracticalities as described in section 3.4.1.2 (page 57). This meant that a 
third audit for code D was unable to be conducted for this trial. However because an 
audit was completed for the first two trials for this code there will still be some value 
to the results collected in terms of how well that layout of bin was used and 
understood. These will be discussed in section 4.5.2. 
 
4.3.5 Auditing the Staff Common Room Waste, Organic and Recycling Bins 
(Code E) 
As was undertaken previously bin Code E was audited twice during the survey period 
for Trial III (Wednesday 1st and Friday 3rd December 2010) in coordination with the 
regular collection process. In the previous trial the total number of bins was 30 
however for this trial there were only 24 bins remaining. This was due to some of the 
locations being considered to be impractical and so being discontinued. In addition to 
this it was decided to add the waste category into the audit in order to quantify the 
total amount produced and determine the correct vs. incorrect disposal levels. As 
previously stated contamination of waste is an important indicator for recycling 
behaviour as it highlights when and where people are failing to recycle. In this 
particular instant, because there are also recyclable and compostable facilities 
110 
 
provided, contamination is a direct indication of effective or non effective recycling 
choices being made. Table 20 below shows the results of the audit and sorting process 
for the three categories.  
Table 20, the Auditing result, Code E Trial III 
Code 
E 
Category  
Weight 
(kg) 
E1 Compostable 119.75 
E2 Recyclables 68.05 
E3 Waste 
Correct  15.5 
Incorrect  2.3 
Total 205.6 
 
As was done in previous cases the percentage of each category was calculated as this 
is shown in Figure 46.  
 
Figure 46, the percentage of compostable and recyclables for Code E Trial III 
 
This shows that compostable waste was the highest category and was in fact more 
than six times the amount of waste found. This shows that the compostable waste 
disposal system which was implemented in March 2010 is functioning well and is 
understood by users. That recyclables were the second highest category shows that the 
all in recycling system is working effectively as well. The other important factor, as 
111 
 
previously mentioned were the contamination levels for each category and these were 
calculated as previously and are shown in Figure 47 below. 
 
 
Figure 47, the percentage of correct vs incorrect for Code E Trial III 
 
As was noted previously in Trial II there was no contamination found in the 
recyclables and compostable categories which confirms an understanding by the 
people choosing to use these categories. For the waste category there was an incorrect 
disposal level of nearly 13 %. This contamination was mainly made up of recyclables 
(mixed plastics and papers) and while the percentage is not high some people are 
failing to use the appropriate disposal facilities and therefore some resources are being 
lost to landfill.  
 
4.4  Trial IV 
The fourth trial of this study was slightly different from the previous trials I, II and III. 
In this particular case, this trial focused on the recycling wheelie bins and the large 
waste bins located in the student hostels at the Turitea campus at the specific request 
of RFM. They also requested that total weights (kg) of recyclables be converted into 
volume (m³), which was why the Massey conversion factor was created in section 
3.4.1.2, Table 6. In total, there were 17 clusters of wheelie bins in the student hostels. 
Of this total nine clusters were selected from the student hostels using systematic 
112 
 
random sampling. In addition, there were nine large waste bins, and of these four 
waste bins were selected based on observations of where there were materials 
available to audit.  
 
The data presented was collected over a one week data collection period (March 8th 
and 10th, 2011) during semester one of the year. The data obtained consists of weight 
by each audit category and the percentage of correct and incorrect recycling, based on 
each location. Following is the detailed information of the auditing result of the final 
trial.   
 
4.4.1  Auditing the Recycling Wheelie Bins (Code F1) 
 
4.4.1.1  Moginie Hall 
The total amount of recyclables generated was 25.89kg with 25.1kg being disposed of 
correctly and 0.79kg disposed of incorrectly, as is shown in Table 21. This shows that 
the majority of the recyclables are correctly identified and disposed of appropriately. 
As was done for Code B through Trials I, II and III the next step was to calculate the 
percentage of the total for each category.  
 
Table 21, the  Auditing result for Moginie Hall, Code F1 Trial IV 
Code F 
(Moginie) 
Category 
Correct 
(kg) 
Incorrect 
(kg) 
Total 
(kg) 
Total 
Volume 
(m3) 
B1 Mixed Plastic 1.95 0.2 2.15 0.10 
B2 Aluminium & Tin Cans 1.15 0 1.15 0.03 
B3 Mixed Paper 10.05 0.22 10.27 0.09 
B4 Mixed Glass Bottles 11.95 0.37 12.32 0.04 
Total 25.1 0.79 25.89 0.26 
 
The percentage of each category, plastic bottles, aluminium and tin cans, mixed glass 
bottles and mixed paper is shown in Figure 48 below. This gives an overall picture of 
the composition of the recyclables for Moginie Hall and by later doing this for each 
hostel audited patterns or trends may be discovered. For Moginie the highest 
categories were mixed glass bottles and mixed paper, which based on observations 
113 
 
during the audit process, consisted of a large amount of glass alcohol bottles and 
cardboard packaging, as well as newspapers and other paper packaging.     
 
 
Figure 48, the percentage of recyclable categories for Code F1 Trial IV (Moginie) 
 
While the amount of incorrectly disposed of recyclables was not a high number by 
creating a bar graph (Figure 49), as was done in previous trials, it created a clearer 
picture of what was happening. The category with the highest percentage of 
contamination was mixed plastic and this consisted of a mixture of other recyclables 
and compostable food waste. The average percentage of correct vs. incorrect was 96 
to 4 %.  
 
Figure 49, the percentage of correct vs. incorrect recyclables disposal for Code F1 
Trial IV (Moginie Hall)  
 
114 
 
4.4.1.2  Tararua and Ruahine Halls 
The total amount of waste generated was 22.99kg with 22.35kg being disposed of 
correctly and 0.64kg disposed of incorrectly, as is shown in Table 22. This shows that 
for these halls the majority of the recyclables are also correctly identified and 
disposed of appropriately. As was done for previous audits the next step was to 
calculate the percentage of the total for each category. 
 
Table 22, the  Auditing result for Tararua and Ruahine Halls, Code F1 Trial IV  
Code F 
(Tararua) 
Category 
Correct 
(kg) 
Incorrect 
(kg) 
Total 
(kg) 
Total 
Volume 
(m3) 
B1 Mixed Plastic 3.9 0.27 4.17 0.20 
B2 Aluminium & Tin Cans 4.15 0.27 4.42 0.11 
B3 Mixed Paper 5.1 0.1 5.2 0.04 
B4 Mixed Glass Bottles 9.2 0 9.2 0.03 
Total 22.35 0.64 22.99 0.38 
 
As before the percentage of each category, plastic bottles, aluminium and tin cans, 
mixed glass bottles and mixed paper is shown in Figure 50 below. This gives an 
overall picture of the composition of the recyclables for Tararua and Ruahine Hall. As 
was found for Moginie Hall the highest categories were mixed glass bottles and mixed 
paper.  
 
 
Figure 50, the percentage of recyclable categories for Code F1 Trial IV (Tararua & 
Ruahine Halls) 
 
115 
 
Following this the bar chart (Figure 51) was created to show the correct vs. incorrect 
for each category so that it would be possible to compare this result across the hostels. 
While the contamination level were still quite low Ruahine and Tararua did have 
some contamination in both mixed plastic and aluminium and tin cans. For the mixed 
plastic the contamination was mostly other recyclables and compostable food waste, 
while for the aluminium and tin cans the contamination was glass and cardboard 
packaging. The average percentage of correct vs. incorrect was 97.4 to 2.6 %.  
 
 
Figure 51, the percentage of correct vs. incorrect recyclables disposal for Code F1 
Trial IV (Tararua & Ruahine Halls) 
 
4.4.1.3  Bindaloe Hall 
The total amount of recyclables generated was 44.38kg with 44.17kg being disposed 
of correctly and 0.21kg disposed of incorrectly, as is shown in Table 23 below. This 
low amount shows that for this hall the majority of the recyclables are also correctly 
identified and disposed of appropriately, so when people are recycling they are 
making the correct choices about which category to put things in. As was done for 
previous audits the next step was to calculate the percentage of the total for each 
category.  
 
 
 
116 
 
Table 23, the  Auditing result for Bindaloe Hall, Code F1 Trial IV 
Code F 
(Bindaloe) 
Category 
Correct 
(kg) 
Incorrect 
(kg) 
Total 
(kg) 
Total 
Volume 
(m3) 
B1 Mixed Plastic 1.8 0.09 1.89 0.09 
B2 Aluminium &Tin Cans 2.05 0 2.05 0.06 
B3 Mixed Paper 3.27 0.12 3.39 0.03 
B4 Mixed Glass Bottles 37.05 0 37.05 0.14 
Total 44.17 0.21 44.38 0.32 
 
The percentage of each category, plastic bottles, aluminium and tin cans, mixed glass 
bottles and mixed paper is shown in Figure 52 below. This gives an overall picture of 
the composition of the recyclables for Bindaloe Hall. 
 
 
Figure 52, the percentage of recyclable categories for Code F1 Trial IV (Bindaloe 
Hall) 
 
Following this the bar chart (Figure 53) was created to show the correct vs. incorrect 
for each category so that it would be possible to compare this result across the hostels. 
For Bindaloe Hall the contamination levesl were considerably low, which indicates 
that recycling choices are being made correctly. The average percentage of correct vs. 
incorrect was 97.9 to 2.1 %. 
 
117 
 
 
Figure 53, the percentage of correct vs. incorrect recyclables disposal for Code F1 
Trial IV (Bindaloe Hall)  
 
4.4.1.4  Colombo Hall 
For Colombo Hall there was a total of 21.28kg recyclables generated with 21.1kg 
disposed of correctly and 0.18kg incorrectly. These results are shown below in Table 
24.  
 
Table 24, the  Auditing result for Colombo Hall, Code F1 Trial IV 
Code F 
(Colombo) 
Category 
Correct 
(kg) 
Incorrect 
(kg) 
Total 
(kg) 
Total 
Volume 
(m3) 
B1 Mixed Plastic  2.6 0.08 2.68 0.13 
B2 Aluminium & Tin Cans 1.65 0 1.65 0.04 
B3 Mixed Paper 6.85 0.1 6.95 0.06 
B4 Mixed Glass Bottles 10 0 10 0.03 
Total 21.1 0.18 21.28 0.31 
 
Following this the percentage of the total for each category was calculated and this is 
displayed in the piechart below, Figure 54.  
 
118 
 
 
Figure 54, the percentage of recyclable categories for Code F1 Trial IV (Colombo 
Hall) 
 
For Colombo the highest category was mixed glass bottles, followed by mixed paper, 
mixed plastic and aluminium and tin cans. This was fairly consistent, in terms of 
sequence, with the previous hostels, although the relative percentages for each have 
varied. As was undertaken previously a bar chart was created to give a clear picture of 
the recycling behaviour in terms of the correct vs. incorrect disposal choices being 
made, as this is shown below Figure 55. For Colombo Hall this confirmed that the 
contamination levels were very low, which shows that the majority of the choices 
being made were correct. The average percentage of correct vs. incorrect was 98.9 to 
1.1 %. 
 
 
Figure 55, the percentage of correct vs. incorrect recyclables disposal for Code F1 
Trial IV (Colombo Hall) 
 
119 
 
4.4.1.5  Tawa Hall 
The audit of the recycling wheelie bins at Tawa Hall found that there was a total of 
17.14kg recyclables generated, with 16.73kg being disposed of correctly and 0.41kg 
incorrectly. These totals are shown in Table 25 below. The next step was to calculate 
the percentage of the total for each category.  
 
Table 25, the  Auditing result for Tawa Hall, Code F1 Trial IV 
Code F 
(Tawa) 
Category 
Correct 
(kg) 
Incorrect 
(kg) 
Total 
(kg) 
Total 
Volume 
(m3) 
B1 Mixed Plastic  1.85 0.06 1.91 0.09 
B2 Aluminium & Tin Cans 1.48 0.25 1.73 0.04 
B3 Mixed Paper 2.95 0.1 3.05 0.02 
B4 Mixed Glass Bottles 10.45 0 10.45 0.04 
Total 16.73 0.41 17.14 0.19 
 
Figure 56 below shows that once again mixed glass bottles was the highest category 
followed by mixed paper, mixed plastic and aluminium and tin cans at 61, 18, 11 and 
10 % respectively.  
 
 
Figure 56, the percentage of recyclable categories for Code F1 Trial IV (Tawa 
Hall) 
 
The bar chart (Figure 57) below illustrates more clearly the percentages of 
contamination found for each category. This shows that there was a considerable 
amount of contamination in the aluminium and tin cans category, while the three other 
categories for the most part had low or no contamination. This contamination in the 
120 
 
aluminium and tin cans category was made up of mixed glass bottles and plastics. The 
average percentage of correct vs. incorrect was 94.8 to 5.2 %. 
 
 
Figure 57, the percentage of correct vs. incorrect recyclables disposal for Code F1 
Trial IV (Tawa Hall) 
 
4.4.1.6  Matai Hall 
The total amount of recyclables generated was 26.93kg with 26.4kg being disposed of 
correctly and 0.53kg disposed of incorrectly. This low amount shows that for Matai 
Hall the majority of the recyclables are correctly identified and disposed of 
appropriately, and that correct recycling behaviour is high. Table 26 below shows the 
results of thie audit. As was done for previous audits the next step was to calculate the 
percentage of the total for each category.  
 
Table 26, the  Auditing result for Matai Hall, Code F1 Trial IV 
Code F 
(Matai) 
Category 
Correct 
(kg) 
Incorrect 
(kg) 
Total 
(kg) 
Total 
Volume 
(m3) 
B1 Mixed Plastic 2.25 0.15 2.4 0.11 
B2 Aluminium & Tin Cans 1.95 0.08 2.03 0.05 
B3 Mixed Paper 8.6 0.05 8.65 0.08 
B4 Mixed Glass Bottles 13.6 0.25 13.85 0.05 
Total 26.4 0.53 26.93 0.29 
 
121 
 
 
Figure 58 below shows the percentage of the total for each category and reproduces 
previous patterns for Code F Trial IV. The highest category was mixed glass bottles, 
followed by mixed paper, mixed plastic and aluminium and tin cans.  
 
 
Figure 58, the percentage of recyclable categories for Code F1 Trial IV (Matai 
Hall) 
 
Figure 59 below shows the contamination levels in terms of percentage of the total for 
each category. Once again these levels are quite low overall with the highest amount 
of contamination through incorrect disposal being for mixed plastic. This 
contamination was made up of paper and compostable waste. The average percentage 
of correct vs. incorrect was 96.9 to 3.1 %. 
 
122 
 
 
Figure 59, the percentage of correct vs. incorrect recyclables disposal for Code F1 
Trial IV (Matai Hall) 
 
4.4.1.7  City Court 
For City Court there was a total of 37.79kg recyclables generated with 37kg disposed 
of correctly and 0.79kg incorrectly. These results are shown below in Table 27.  
 
Table 27, the  Auditing result for City Court, Code F1 Trial IV 
Code F 
(City 
Court) 
Category 
Correct 
(kg) 
Incorrect 
(kg) 
Total 
(kg) 
Total 
Volume 
(m3) 
B1 Mixed Plastic 3.2 0.06 3.26 0.15 
B2 Aluminium & Tin Cans 6.2 0.33 6.53 0.16 
B3 Mixed Paper 4.95 0.2 5.15 0.04 
B4 Mixed Glass Bottles 22.65 0.2 22.85 0.09 
Total 37 0.79 37.79 0.44 
 
Following this the percentage of the total for each category was calculated and this is 
displayed in Figure 60 below. This shows that for City Courts mixed glass bottles 
were the highest amount followed by mixed paper, aluminium and tin cans and mixed 
plastic.  
 
123 
 
 
Figure 60, the percentage of recyclable categories for Code F1 Trial IV (City Court) 
 
Following this, as was undertaken previously a bar chart was created to give a clear 
picture of the recycling behaviour in terms of the correct vs. incorrect disposal choices 
being made. As can be seen in Figure 61 below, for City Court contamination levels 
were low with the highest amount of incorrect disposal being just over 5 %. The 
average percentage of correct vs. incorrect was 97.1 to 2.9 %. 
 
 
Figure 61, the percentage of correct vs. incorrect recyclables disposal for Code F1 
Trial IV (City Court) 
 
 
 
 
 
124 
 
4.4.1.8  Kairanga Court 
The audit of the recycling wheelie bins at Kairanga Court found that there was a total 
of 22.25kg recyclables generated, with 21.9kg being disposed of correctly and 0.35kg 
incorrectly. These totals are shown in Table 28 below. The next step was to calculate 
the percentage of the total for each category.  
 
Table 28, the  Auditing result for Kairanga Court, Code F1 Trial IV 
Code F 
(Kairanga) 
Category 
Correct 
(kg) 
Incorrect 
(kg) 
Total 
(kg) 
Total 
Volume 
(m3) 
B1 Mixed Plastic 3.3 0 3.3 0.16 
B2 Aluminium & Tin Cans 2.85 0.16 3.01 0.07 
B3 Mixed Paper 7.25 0.1 7.35 0.06 
B4 Mixed Glass Bottles 8.5 0.09 8.59 0.03 
Total 21.9 0.35 22.25 0.32 
 
Figure 62 below shows that once again mixed glass bottles was the highest categoryat 
39 %, although in this case the next highest category, mixed paper was much higher 
than found in previous hostel audits at 33 %. Following these came mixed plastic and 
aluminium and tin cans at 15 and 13 % respectively.  
 
 
Figure 62, the percentage of recyclable categoriees for Code F1 Trial IV (Kairanga 
Court) 
 
Figure 63 below shows the percentages of correct vs. incorrect disposal for each 
category and illustrates that level of incorrect disposal were low overall with the 
125 
 
highest being 5.32 % for aluminium and tin cans. This contamination mainly 
consisted of glass bottles and plastics. The average percentage of correct vs. incorrect 
was 98.1 to 1.9 %. 
 
 
Figure 63, the percentage of correct vs. incorrect recyclables disposal for Code F1 
Trial IV (Kairanga Court) 
 
4.4.1.9 Atawhai 
The audit of the recycling wheelie bins at Atawhai found that there was a total of 
37.21kg recyclables generated, with 36.65kg being disposed of correctly and 0.56kg 
incorrectly. These totals are shown in Table 29 below. Once more, the next step was 
to calculate the percentage of the total for each category.  
 
Table 29, the  Auditing result for Atawhai, Code F1 Trial IV 
Code F 
(Atawhai) 
Category 
Correct 
(kg) 
Incorrect 
(kg) 
Total 
(kg) 
Total 
Volume 
(m3) 
B1 Mixed Plastic  6.75 0.32 7.07 0.34 
B2 Aluminium & Tin Cans 7.35 0.1 7.45 0.18 
B3 Mixed Paper 10.2 0 10.2 0.09 
B4 Mixed Glass Bottles 12.35 0.14 12.49 0.04 
Total 36.65 0.56 37.21 0.65 
 
126 
 
Figure 64 below shows that once again mixed glass bottles was the highest category 
followed closely by mixed paper, aluminium and tin cans and mixed plastic at 34, 27, 
20 and 19 % respectively.  
 
 
 
Figure 64, the percentage of recyclable categories for Code F1 Trial IV (Atawhai) 
 
The barchart below, Figure 65, illustrates more clearly the percentages of 
contamination found for each category. This shows that there was minimal 
contamination for all categories although nearly 5 % for mixed plastic This 
contamination in the mixed plastic category consisted of paper and organic food. The 
average percentage of correct vs. incorrect was 98.3 to 1.7 %. 
 
127 
 
 
Figure 65, the percentage of correct vs. incorrect recyclables disposal for Code F1 
Trial IV (Atawhai) 
 
The following section will summarise the results for the audit carried out for Code F1 
for all of the hostels in order to create a better picture of the results.  
 
4.4.1.10 Summary of Recycling Audit for Student Hostels - Code F1 Trial IV 
This section provides a brief overview of the results for the student hostel recycling 
wheelie bins that were audited during Trial IV. The barchart below, Figure 66, shows 
the total amounts in kg of each type of recyclable for each hostel.  
 
128 
 
 
 
Figure 66, the total in kg for the four recyclable types at all nine hostels 
 
This shows that the totals are quite variable across the hostels and in particular two of 
the mostly first year student hostels (Bindaloe and City Court) produced a high 
quantity of glass bottles. The range of totals for mixed glass bottles was from 8.59 to 
37.5 kgs, mixed paper from 3.05 to 10.27 kgs, aluminium and tin cans from 1.15 to 
7.45 kgs, and mixed plastic from 1.89 to 7.07 kgs. Bindaloe Hall, City Court and 
Atawhai Village produced the three highest totals overall and Tawa Hall produced the 
lowest total overall.  
 
The volumes of recyclables produced by the hostels can be summarised as follows.  
 Moginie Hall: 0.26 m³ 
 Tararua and Ruahine Hall: 0.38 m³ 
 Bindaloe Hall: 0.32 m³ 
 Colombo Hall: 0.31 m³ 
 Tawa Hall: 0.19 m³ 
129 
 
 Matai Hall: 0.29 m³ 
 City Court: 0.44 m³ 
 Kairanga Court: 0.32 m³ 
 Atawhai: 0.65 m³ 
 
The following Figure (67) illustrates the percentage of correct vs. incorrect disposal 
for all nine hostels. This visual representation helps to give a clear picture of where 
the key areas of concern over recycling behaviour are. If a single hostel was having 
major problems with recycling choices this would show clearly but this is not the 
case, and overall the majority of the choices being made are correct and indicate good 
recycling behaviour. The only incorrect percentage greater than 10 % was the 14 % 
contamination in the aluminium and tin cans category at Tawa Hall. This 
contamination consisted mostly of mixed glass bottles and cardboard packing boxes. 
Following this was the 9.3 % contamination in the mixed plastic category at Moginie 
Hall, which consisted mostly of organic food waste and aluminium cans. In all other 
cases the contamination level was below 6.5 % which indicates that the choices being 
made as to where to place recyclables are for the most part accurate.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
13
0 
 
 
F
ig
ur
e 
67
, t
he
 p
er
ce
nt
ag
e 
of
 c
or
re
ct
 v
s.
 in
co
rr
ec
t i
n 
th
e 
re
cy
cl
in
g 
w
h
ee
lie
 b
in
s 
fo
r 
th
e 
9 
ho
st
el
s,
 T
ri
al
 I
V
131 
 
 
4.4.2 Auditing the Large Waste Bins (Code F2) 
The auditing of the large waste bins at the hostels used the same process as for the 
large waste bins for code A1 in Trial II and III (section 4.2.1 and 4.3.1). This used the 
12 category SWAP analysis to sort the waste, which was then weighed. This was 
carried out for four hostels Moginie, Colombo, Tawa and City and Egmont Courts. 
The results of this process are shown in Table 30 below.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
13
2 
  T
a 
bl
e 
30
, t
he
 A
ud
it
in
g 
re
su
lt
 fo
r 
C
od
e 
F
2,
 T
ri
al
 I
V
 
L
ar
ge
 
W
as
te
 B
in
 
C
at
eg
or
y 
 
L
oc
at
io
n 
W
as
te
/R
es
ou
rc
e 
C
la
ss
if
ic
at
io
n
 
T
ot
al
 
kg
 
W
as
te
 
G
la
ss
 
C
an
s 
M
ix
ed
 
P
ap
er
 
M
ix
ed
 
P
la
st
ic
 
O
rg
an
ic
 
W
as
te
 
M
et
al
 
T
ex
ti
le
s 
R
ub
be
r 
T
re
es
 
T
im
b
er
 P
ot
en
ti
al
ly
 
H
az
ar
do
us
 
C
od
e 
F
2 
 W
as
te
 
M
og
in
ie
  
44
.5
 
5.
5 
4.
8 
8.
4 
5.
5 
4.
4 
0.
75
 
  
  
  
  
0.
4 
74
.2
5 
C
ol
om
bo
 
42
.6
 
5.
8 
4.
2 
6.
2 
3.
6 
4.
8 
  
  
  
  
  
0.
35
 
67
.5
5 
T
aw
a 
49
.8
 
5.
6 
4.
2 
6.
1 
4.
8 
5.
1 
  
  
  
  
  
  
75
.6
 
C
it
y 
&
 E
gm
on
t 
C
ou
rt
s 
57
.2
 
9.
3 
6.
3 
11
.3
 
6.
8 
6.
6 
  
0.
55
 
  
  
  
0.
8 
97
.5
 
T
ot
al
  
19
4.
1 
26
.2
 
19
.5
 
32
 
20
.7
 
20
.9
 
 0
.7
5 
0.
55
  
  
  
  
1.
55
  
31
3.
4 
  
133 
 
As can be seen from the above table the totals for the amount of material found in the large 
waste bins was reasonably consistent with a range from 67.55 to 97.5kgs. The bin with the 
highest total was actually used by two smaller hostels, and because the halls range in size of 
population it can be difficult to draw direct comparisons between the amount of materials 
produced. The majority of the materials could be categorised as waste, mixed paper, mixed 
plastic, glass, cans and organic waste, which reflects the function of the hostels as 
residences. During the audit process it was noted that the common materials found in the 
large waste bins as contaminants were food containers made of paper and plastic, glass and 
plastic bottles, food waste and cardboard packaging.   
 
4.4.2.1  Moginie Hall 
The following chart (Figure 68) displays the percentage per category of waste produced by 
Moginie Hall. 
 
Figure 68, the percentage composition of Moginie Hall into twelve categories Code F2 
Trial IV 
 
The percentage found was 59.9 % for the waste category followed by mixed paper at 11.3 
%, then mixed plastic and glass at 7.4 % each.  
 
 
 
134 
 
4.4.2.2  Colombo Hall 
 
 
 
Figure 69, the percentage composition of Colombo Hall into twelve categories Code F2 
Trial IV 
 
As can be seen in the above chart (Figure 69) waste was the highest category at 63.1 % 
followed by mixed paper, glass and organic waste at 9.2, 8.6 and 7.1 % respectively.  
 
4.4.2.3  Tawa Hall 
 
Figure 70, the percentage composition of Tawa Hall into twelve categories Code F2 Trial 
IV 
135 
 
 
For Tawa Hall waste was again the highest category at 65.9 % followed by mixed paper, 
glass, organic waste and mixed plastic at 8.1, 7.4, 6.7 and 6.3 % respectively (Figure 70).  
 
4.4.2.4  City and Egmont Courts 
 
 
 
Figure 71, the percentage composition of City & Egmont Courts into twelve categories 
Code F2 Trial IV 
 
 
And finally for City and Egmont Courts the highest category was waste at 58.7 % followed 
by mixed paper, glass, mixed plastic and organic waste at 11.6, 9.5, 7 and 6.8 % 
respectively (Figure 71).  
 
4.4.2.5  Contamination of Large Waste Bins Code F2 
As was done previously the 12 types of waste materials were recategorised into the 3 key 
waste streams of recyclables, compostable and waste. This process used the method from 
Trial II and III to maintain consistency. The results of this are shown in Table 31 below. 
This showed that the amounts for each category were similar across the four hostels and this 
is shown more clearly in the charts that were created below based on the percentage of each 
category of the total. This also meant that it was easier to determine the contamination 
levels of the large waste bins by combining the total of the recyclables and compostables.  
136 
 
 
Table 31, Categorisation into 3 waste streams for  Code F2 Trial IV 
Code F2 - Categorisation into 3 key waste streams 
Location 
Recyclables 
(kg) 
Compostable 
(kg) 
Waste 
(kg) 
Totals 
(kg) 
Moginie 25.0 4.4 44.9 74.3 
Colombo 19.8 4.8 43.0 67.6 
Tawa 20.7 5.1 49.8 75.6 
City & 
Egmont 
Courts 
34.3 6.6 58.0 98.9 
Totals  99.7 20.9 195.7 316.3 
 
As is shown below in Figure 72, for Moginie Hall 40 % of the contents was contamination 
of recyclables and compostables.   
 
 
Figure 72, the composition by percentage of 3 key waste streams for Moginie Hall, Code 
F2 Trial IV 
 
For Colombo Hall 36 % of the contents was contamination, as shown in Figure 73.  
 
137 
 
 
Figure 73, the composition by percentage of 3 key waste streams for Colombo Hall, Code 
F2 Trial IV 
 
Figure 74 below shows that for Tawa Hall 34 % of the contents was contamination 
consisting of recyclables and compostables. 
 
 
Figure 74, the composition by percentage of 3 key waste streams for Tawa Hall, Code F2 
Trial IV 
 
And finally for City and Egmont Courts (Figure 75) 41 % of the waste was actually 
recyclables and compostables.  
138 
 
 
Figure 75, the composition by percentage of 3 key waste streams for City and Egmont 
Courts, Code F2 Trial IV 
 
The range of contamination, or incorrectly disposed of materials was 34 % to 41 %. This is 
relatively high and shows that despite low contamination levels in the recycling clusters 
(Code F1) a considerable amount of resources are being disposed of incorrectly. This 
indicates that there needs to be an improvement in recycling behaviour to increase correct 
choices.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
139 
 
 
CHAPTER 5 
DISCUSSION 
 
The discussion section of this study, which consisted of four trials, is found below. The raw 
data presented above in the previous chapter (Chapter 4) has produced a number of results 
which now will be elaborated on in more detail. The discussion of this study are presented 
to address the research questions and accordingly, to achieve the objectives of this project. 
The research objectives are as follows; 
1. Designing and trialling a suitable waste and recycling audit system for the campus.  
2. Identifying the contamination levels in the waste and recycling bins selected for the 
study.  
3. Reporting on the overall quantity of waste disposed of and the general recyclables 
and organic resources recycled on campus during each trial.   
4. Having quantified, then advise Massey University Regional Facilities Management 
(RFM) on the effectiveness of the existing model for on campus collection and 
recycling.   
5. Develop a set of recommendations for RFM (i.e. infrastructure design 
considerations, planning and implementation collections and processing) for a 
redeveloped campus recycling system. 
6. Present these recommendations to RFM in way which mirrors a professional context 
and liaise and respond regarding queries and or follow-up actions. 
7. Document this process as a model / pilot for the proposed Massey University 
‘sustainability internship’ in which the campus is utilised as a living laboratory for 
addressing real world research problems through integrated learning. 
 
By designing and undertaking the waste and recycling audit objective one was met. The 
results of this audit, which are in chapter four, identify and report on the contamination 
levels in the waste and recycling bins, and the quantities of waste and recyclables found to 
be generated during the four trials and fulfill objectives two and three. These are also 
discussed further in this chapter to follow along with the recommendations developed based 
140 
 
on the audit findings. A briefing report was also created in order to communicate these 
findings and recommendations to RFM, which fulfilled objectives four, five and six. This 
report and the completed thesis will fulfil objective seven.   
 
The following sections will discuss the audit findings for the four trials based on the bin 
codes.   
 
 
5.1  Large Waste Bins and Recycling Cage Bins (Code A and Sub-code F2) 
As mentioned in previously Code A is comprised of two categories, the large waste bin 
(Code A1) and the recycling cage bin (Code A2). Code A was audited during Trial II and 
III. In addition to this the large waste bins located at the student hostels (Code F2) were 
audited during Trial IV in order to provide information about the waste and recycling of the 
student hostels to RFM. So although these have a different code the can be compared to the 
other large waste bins as they are all a part of the same waste management system, that is 
collected by a private contractor, and were audited using the same method. The key findings 
from these audits will be discussed as follows.  
 
5.1.1 Large Waste Bins (Sub-code A1 and F2) 
Table 32 below shows the assembled results from the large waste bins audited in the various 
locations for all three trials based in the categorisation of the contents into recyclables, 
compostable and waste. Based on these totals the average total for each category was 
calculated for each trial as well as the average total for each category across the three trials.  
141 
 
 
Table 32, categorisation of Sub-code A1 and F2 into recyclables, compostable and waste, 
Trial II, III and IV 
Categorisation into 3 key waste streams - Trial II, III, IV Code A1 & F2 
Location 
Recyclables 
(kg) 
Compostable 
(kg) 
Waste 
(kg) 
Total 
(kg) 
Trial II 
Science Tower D 10.4 4.9 57.5 72.7 
Social Science  29.5 5.4 69.6 104.5 
Trial 
III 
Main Building 49.2 8.8 45.3 103.3 
Riddet 29.9 5.5 26.7 62.1 
Trial 
IV 
Moginie 25.0 4.4 44.9 74.3 
Colombo 19.8 4.8 43.0 67.6 
Tawa 20.7 5.1 49.8 75.6 
City & Egmont Courts 34.3 6.6 58.0 98.9 
Totals  218.6 45.5 394.6 658.7 
          
Trial II Average 20.0 5.1 63.5 88.6 
Trial III Average 39.5 7.2 36.0 82.7 
Trial IV Average 24.9 5.2 48.9 79.1 
Overall Average 27.3 5.7 49.3 82.3 
 
 
The total amount of waste generated was 658.7kg for the 8 locations, the first four of which 
were education facilities while the latter four were student hostels. The recyclables found in 
the Science Tower D, Social Science, Main Building and Riddet bins were mostly mixed 
paper (e.g. news papers, magazines, paper hand towels, folders, and A4 paper). In this case, 
the main issue with these recyclable materials being placed into the waste bin may be 
explained by the many of the campus community that use these bins still being uncertain 
when it comes to what could be recycled and what could not be. Another factor may be that 
recycling facilities provided within the buildings are not widespread enough so recyclable 
materials end up going into general waste bins which are then emptied by cleaning staff into 
the large waste bins. One of the outcomes of the survey of students conducted by MUSA 
142 
 
(2008) was that more recycling bins were requested including inside buildings, which 
would help to address this issue, especially if combined with increased promotion of 
recycling across the campus. These facilities would need to be convenient, and this 
improvement to the current system would be likely to increase recycling behaviour 
(Thomos et al., 2004). Below is Figure 76, which illustrates the contamination level of 
recyclable materials, found in the large waste bin with photographs taken during the waste 
auditing process. 
 
  
Figure 76, Examples of contamination of waste as found in the large waste bins 
 
Based on the results obtained (which are shown in detail on pages 81, 98 and 131), the total 
amount of potential hazardous substances found in the bulk waste bin was considerable, 
especially in the location of Science Tower D and Social Science Tower (Trial II). The total 
percentage of hazardous substances found was approximately one fifth of the total materials 
during Trial II. The hazardous products found in these locations were mainly chemical 
products which were derived from laboratories. This incorrect disposal is an issue for both 
the environment, when they end up in landfills, and the campus community and waste 
contractors in terms of risks to human health (Tsai & Chou, 2004), so it is an important 
matter for Massey University to deal with. Figure 77 below shows examples of the 
potentially hazardous substances found during the large waste bin audit. It is important that 
Massey University takes the initiative to ensure that these are disposed of correctly in the 
future and this may involve working with PNCC or Horizons Regional Council as they will 
have hazardous waste disposal systems in place. It should also be noted that aerosol cans 
can actually be placed in the new kerbside recycling bins that PNNC provides to 
143 
 
households, so the campus recycling system needs to be aligned with this in some way for 
these materials (PNCC, n.db). Depending on the annual quantity and types of hazardous 
substances there may be the need to develop a comprehensive programme between Massey 
and PNCC or Horizons Regional Council. An alternative approach to this issue is to contact 
the producers of the substances as in some cases they may have already developed recovery 
programmes for excess materials as well as containers. An example of this is the 
Agrecovery Rural Recycling Programme that was developed as an ‘industry product 
stewardship scheme’ for used agrichemical containers and other “on farm” waste issues, 
and has been operating since 2005 and includes the support of the many companies that 
produce agrichemicals (Agrecovery, 2011).  
 
  
Figure 77, Examples of potentially hazardous substances as found in the large waste bins 
 
Figure 78 below shows that the total amount of materials audited was quite similar across 
the three trials despite Trial III being conducted during summer semester when less students 
and staff would have been on campus. During the audit of Main Building and Riddet it was 
noted that there was a lot of mixed paper and mixed plastic disposed of in the large waste 
bin which contributed significantly to the total material. The paper seemed to be the result 
of an end of the university year clean out as it included papers and folders as can be seen in 
Figure 78, while the plastic was made up of bottles and the 55 litre black plastic bin bags 
that are used to collect the waste from the smaller internal bins. If facilities inside the 
buildings are improved and overall waste quantities reduced the amount of plastic bags 
should also be reduced.  
144 
 
 
 
Figure 78, the average total (kg) of material audited during Trial II, III and IV, Code A1 
and F2 
 
By recategorising the materials from the 12 types based on the SWAP to the three 
categories of recyclable, compostable and waste it was possible to get a clearer picture of 
the types of resources being placed in the large waste bins. Figure 79 below compares the 
totals audited at each of the eight locations from all three trials.  
 
 
145 
 
 
 
Figure 79, the comparison of totals (kg) for Code A1 and F2 Trial II, III and IV 
 
This shows that particularly for Social Science during Trial I, Main Building and Riddet 
during Trial II, and the four student hostels (Moginie, Colombo, Tawa and Egmont and City 
Courts) the amount of recyclables in particular was higher when compared to Science 
Tower D. This reflects that poor recycling choices are being made by the people in these 
locations, and shows that potentially across the wider campus this may be happening as 
well. Because of the fact that most of the materials in the large waste bins come from the 
interior bins, in order to change the recycling behaviour the changes need to be focused on 
improving the interior recycling facilities. Figure 80 below displays the percentages of 
recyclables, compostable and waste for each location.  
 
This shows that the percentage of waste found within the large waste bin audits ranged from 
around 43 to 70 %. Conversely, this means that the range of compostable and recyclable 
146 
 
materials found in these bins ranged from 57 to 30 %. This confirms that a high percentage 
of resources is being lost by being disposed of incorrectly into these waste bins. By looking 
at these percentages a clearer picture can be gained of recycling and waste management 
practices than would be given by just looking at the amount of contamination shown in the 
dedicated recycling bins and this is important to consider for future audits. In view of the 
fact that the large waste bins are collected by commercial contractors internal audits are the 
only way to find out about these contamination levels.  
 
 
 
Figure 80, the comparison of the percentage of waste, recyclables and compostable waste 
for Code A1 and F2 across T II, III and IV 
 
The barchart above also shows a comparison between the four hostel locations and at this 
stage we can consider the characteristics of these that may be relevant. Moginie Hall, 
Colombo Hall, Tawa Hall, and City and Egmont Courts are all mostly first year, domestic 
students.  
 
147 
 
Figure 81 below shows the average percentages of recyclables, compostable and waste 
based on the survey periods of the three trials. By using these averages and categories it is 
possible to illustrate the percentage of recyclable and compostable resources being 
discarded in the waste bins for each trial. The extent of this type of contamination was from 
28.3 % in Trial II, 52.2 % in Trial III and 38.1 % in Trial IV. While you normally expect the 
contamination level to decrease during summer semester (Trial III) in this case the high 
quantity of papers and files discarded in the Main Building bin increased the amount of 
recyclables. For activities such as this (cleaning out files, etc) which may be seasonal in a 
university there may be a need to ensure that extra recycling facilities are provided and staff 
are reminded about the zero waste programme at Massey and the importance of recycling 
valuable resources. Additionally this graph shows the consistent amount of compostable 
waste that was generated and disposed of into the large waste bins. As another valuable 
resource that it being lost by being disposed of incorrectly there is a need to develop and 
improve the facilities for and recycling choices made for compostable waste. The 
compostable waste facilities were installed in the staff common rooms in March and April 
2010 which was before these audits were conducted, and these results show that there needs 
to be further work undertaken to expand the use of these, whether it is through increased 
access or raising awareness.   
 
148 
 
 
Figure 81, the average percentage of recyclables, compostable and waste, Code A1 and 
F2 Trial II, III and IV  
The audit of the student hostels large waste bins revealed that 38.1 % of the contents was 
made up of recyclable and compostable material, and being disposed of incorrectly in the 
large waste bins. This contamination was a range of recyclable materials such as mixed 
paper and plastic and glass bottles, as well as organic food waste. There are no facilities 
provided for compostable waste at the student hostels, although there are recycling clusters 
supplied. However these facilities need to be improved in order to increase the use of them 
and make recycling choices for residents easier. Currently the signage for these recycling 
wheelie bins is ambiguous, and in some cases unreadable due to sun damage, or missing. In 
addition to this the way in which the waste is collected from the hostels is similar to the 
other buildings at Massey, which means that smaller interior bins are emptied into large 
waste bags and placed in the large waste bins by cleaners. This can be improved by 
providing interior recycling facilities within the student hostels, which would result in a 
decrease in the amount of resources being discarded into the large waste bins.  
 
Figure 82 below displays the overall average percentage of recyclables, compostable and 
waste for all the locations and across all three audits. This shows that only 60 % of the 
149 
 
materials of the large waste bins were disposed of correctly. If the recyclable and 
compostable materials were discarded of appropriately, there would be less contamination 
found in the large waste bins and as a result the amount of waste sent to the landfill would 
be reduced. In order for this to happen recycling and compostable facilities need to be 
improved and further developed to be clearer and more accessbile within locations such as 
university buildings and student hostels across Turitea campus. This result shows that it is 
necessary to influence current behaviours of those using this bin in order to facilitate 
achieving the goals of Massey Universities zero waste programme. 
 
 
Figure 82, the overall percentage of recyclables, compostable and waste for Code A1 and 
F2, Trial III, III and IV 
 
5.1.2 Paper/Cardboard Recycling Cage Bins (Sub-code A2) 
For the paper/cardboard recycling cages three sudits were conducted with the first being 
located at the Green Bike Trust during Trial II (semester 2), and the second and third at 
Main Building and Riddet during Trial III (summer semester). The compiled audit results 
are shown in Table 33 below and Figure 83 illustrates the typical contents of these bins. 
This shows that most of the material found is papers and cardboard, as it should be in these 
cage bins. 
 
 
 
150 
 
Table 33, the Auditing result for Sub-code A2 Trial II and III 
Code  Category  Trial Location 
Correct Incorrect Total 
(kg) 
(kg) (%) (kg) (%) 
A2 
Cardboard 
Recyclable 
Trial 
II 
GBT 224 99% 3 1% 227 
Trial 
III 
Main 
Building 
485 100% 0 0% 485 
Riddet 115 100% 0 0% 115 
Total  824 
 
3 
 
827 
Average % 
  
100% 
  
0% 
  
 
   
Figure 83, contents of the mixed paper recycling cage bins 
 
While the contamination levels of the A2 bins were very low, the key conclusion from these 
audits was that a considerable amount of paper was being disposed of, especially taking into 
consideration that for Main Building and Riddet there was also a 40kg of mixed paper put 
into the large waste bins. As previously mentioned it seemed that the activities of the 
building occupants had a direct impact on the quantity of paper and cardboard found at 
Main Building, namely that there had been an ‘end of the year clean out’ taking place. In 
relation to the quantities of paper and cardboard produced this indicates that Massey 
University operates in a very similar way to an office environment and because of this faces 
the same challenges in reducing the amount of paper produced in day to day activities. 
Ideally there needs to be a campus wide programme implemented to reduce the amount of 
151 
 
cardboard and paper produced, and this fits with the focus of zero waste which prioritises 
rethinking and reduction before recycling. Recommendations in relation to this will be 
made further on in this section.  
 
5.1.3 Recycling Wheelie Bins (Code B and Sub-code F1) 
This section discusses the findings of the audit of the wheelie bins located on the concourse 
and in the student Dining Hall (Code B) that were audited during Trial I, II and III, 
combined with those located at the student hostels (Sub-code F1). These are a part of the 
campus wide recycling clusters that are a key component of the Massey zero waste 
programme. The recycling wheelie bin system aims to provide disposal for recyclables into 
four categories in order to streamline the this waste disposal process and reduce the amount 
of recyclables going to landfill through increased recycling behaviour. The trials were 
conducted across the various survey periods which included the summer semester, when 
student numbers are greatly reduced, as well as semester two, when there are high numbers 
of students and staff on campus. While the Sub-code F1 bins were audited during an overall 
trial of the student hostels, the results are able to be compared to the Code B bins as the 
same process was carried out as for Code B trial I, II and III. The key findings from these 
audits will be discussed as follows.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
15
2 
  
T
ab
le
 3
4,
 th
e 
A
ud
it
in
g 
re
su
lt
s 
of
 c
or
re
ct
 v
s.
 in
co
rr
ec
t f
or
 th
e 
re
cy
cl
in
g 
w
he
el
ie
 b
in
s 
(C
od
e 
B
 &
 F
1)
, T
ri
al
 I
, I
I,
 I
II
 a
nd
 I
V
 
N
o 
T
ri
al
 
C
at
eg
or
y 
T
ot
al
 
(k
g)
 
T
ot
al
 
V
ol
um
e 
(m
3)
 
M
ix
ed
 P
la
st
ic
 (
B
1)
 
A
lu
m
in
iu
m
, T
in
,&
 
C
an
s 
(B
2)
 
M
ix
ed
 P
ap
er
 (
B
3)
 
M
ix
ed
 G
la
ss
 B
ot
tl
es
 
(B
4)
 
W
as
te
 (
B
5)
 
C
or
re
ct
 
(k
g)
 
In
co
rr
ec
t 
(k
g)
 
C
or
re
ct
 
(k
g)
 
In
co
rr
ec
t 
(k
g)
  
C
or
re
ct
 
(k
g)
 
In
co
rr
ec
t 
(k
g)
 
C
or
re
ct
 
(k
g)
 
In
co
rr
ec
t 
(k
g)
 
C
or
re
ct
 
(k
g)
 
In
co
rr
ec
t 
(k
g)
 
1 
T
ri
al
 
I 
8.
51
 
2.
64
 
44
.9
3 
3.
03
 
2.
61
 
0.
58
 
63
.9
6 
0.
1 
19
.1
8 
3.
59
 
14
9.
13
 
2.
05
 
2 
T
ri
al
 
II
 
20
.7
5 
1.
14
 
11
.5
5 
0.
43
 
65
.5
5 
15
.1
3 
66
.8
5 
0.
33
 
17
.3
2 
20
.7
 
21
9.
75
 
2.
33
 
3 
T
ri
al
 
II
I 
13
.6
 
1.
31
 
14
.4
 
0.
05
 
27
.3
5 
10
.8
8 
89
.9
 
0.
95
 
22
.3
 
9.
25
 
18
9.
99
 
1.
76
 
4 
T
ri
al
 
IV
 
27
.6
 
1.
23
 
28
.8
3 
1.
19
 
59
.2
2 
0.
99
 
13
6.
2 
1.
05
 
19
5.
65
 
12
0.
6 
57
2.
56
 
3.
16
 
T
ot
al
 
70
.4
6 
6.
32
 
99
.7
1 
4.
7 
15
4.
73
 
27
.5
8 
35
6.
91
 
2.
43
 
25
4.
45
 
15
4.
14
 
11
31
.4
3 
9.
3 
A
ve
ra
ge
 %
 
91
.8
 
8.
2 
95
.5
 
4.
5 
84
.9
 
15
.1
 
99
.3
 
0.
7 
62
.3
 
37
.7
 
  
 
C
or
re
ct
 
In
co
rr
ec
t 
O
ve
ra
ll 
%
 c
or
re
ct
 v
s.
 in
co
rr
ec
t 
fo
r 
T
I,
 I
I 
&
 I
II
 
87
.5
%
 
12
.5
%
 
O
ve
ra
ll 
%
 c
or
re
ct
 v
s.
 in
co
rr
ec
t 
fo
r 
T
 I
, I
I,
 I
II
 &
 I
V
 
82
.8
%
 
17
.2
%
 
     
153 
 
Table 34 on the previous page shows the accumulated audit results for the correct vs. 
incorrect contents of the recycling wheelie bins from Trials I, II, III and IV, across the 
various locations. By looking at the results for each of the five categories you can see 
that the majority of the recyclables were disposed of correctly, with the range of 
contamination being from 0.7 to 15.1 % for the four categories of recyclables, with 
mixed paper and waste having the highest contamination levels.  This shows the key 
areas of recycling behaviour which need to be addressed, and also highlights again the 
two areas of recycling behaviour. These are the making of correct choices when 
recycling, i.e. paper vs. plastic, and the decision to recycle rather than just place all 
materials into the general waste bin. The first of these behaviours may be enhanced 
through improved signage and facilities (Kelly et al., 2006; Thomas et al., 2004), 
while the second may take more effort and involve raising awareness about the 
importance of recycling and other zero waste strategies. An additional factor to 
consider is that the contrast between the recycling facilities provided at Turitea 
campus and the recently established household curbside recycling system which uses 
a single bin for mixed plastic, paper/cardboard and aluminium disposal may be 
causing confusion for some people. It is possible that others may feel some apathy in 
using the on campus facilities when they can see that there is a much simpler system 
being used elsewhere and don’t understand why there is this difference between 
Massey and PNCC. This reinforces the need to redesign the recycling facilities 
provided on campus to align with those provided by PNCC, or at the very least to 
ensure that clear signage is installed to simplify choices for users. 
 
  
Figure 84, examples of contamination of the mixed paper (B3) wheelie bins 
 
154 
 
  
Figure 85, examples of contamination of the waste (B5) wheelie bins (no signage)   
 
In order to correctly assess the recycling behaviour overall the waste bin audit results 
were also included to see what percentage of the contents should have been recycled, 
and as can be seen in the table this was an average of 37.7 % of the contents. This was 
increased in large part by the Trial IV results from the student hostels. Because the 
facilities provided at the hostels are slightly different from the other recycling clusters 
in that the waste goes into large waste bins not wheelie bins, this would have some 
effect on the use of them, in particular that they are used by cleaners for waste 
disposal. However the results still stand and show that even discounting the large 
waste bins for Trial IV over 12.5 % of the waste from Trial I, II and III should have 
been recycled. When Trial IV is included the overall percentage increases to 17.2 %, 
which was determined by adding all of the incorrect totals together and calculating 
their percentage of the total. The following tables (35 and 36) show a comparison of 
the average correct vs. incorrect percentages for each trial both including the waste 
bins and excluding the waste bins. The general pattern was that incorrect recycling 
behaviour increased when the audit of the waste category was included. This shows 
that some people are choosing not to recycle and resources are being lost by going 
into waste bins which are disposed of into landfills.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
155 
 
Table 35, the comparison of average percentage, Code B and F1 Trial I, II, III and 
IV, without waste included 
Comparison of average % without waste category for recycling 
wheelie bin - Code B & F Trial I, II, III, IV 
Code and Trial Correct % Incorrect % 
Code B Trial I  95 5 
Code B Trial II  91 9 
Code B Trial III 92 8 
Code F1 Trial IV 98.3 1.7 
 
Table 36, the comparison of average percentage, Code B and F1 Trial I, II, III and 
IV, with waste included 
Comparison of average % with waste category for recycling wheelie 
bin - Code B & F Trial I, II, III, IV 
Code and Trial Correct % Incorrect % 
Code B Trial I  93 7 
Code B Trial II  83 17 
Code B Trial III 88 12 
Code F1 Trial IV 78 22 
 
In order to give a visual representation of these tables the following barchart (Figure 
86) was created to highlight the difference between the analysis with the waste 
category included and the analysis without it. 
 
156 
 
 
Figure 86, the comparison of average contamination for Code B and F1 acrosss 
Trial I, II, III and IV, both including and excluding waste category 
 
While for Trial I the difference was minimal at 2 %, for Trial II and III the difference 
shown for incorrect disposal including waste was 8 % and 4 % respectively. However 
for Trial IV the difference was considerable with a 20.3 % increase in incorrect 
recycling behaviour when the waste bins were considered as well. In particular the 
Trial IV Code F1 result shows the importance of including the contamination found in 
the large waste bins in order to really understand the recycling behaviour going on at 
the student hostels. Without including the waste bins it would be easy to see the 
results just from the recycling wheelie bins and assume that the majority of the 
recycling choices being made were correct. This highlights the importance of the 
recycling and waste audit at the student hostels, particularly as places where eating 
and drinking take place (Mason et al., 2004), and recognises that it is a key part of any 
future redesign or redevelopment of the recycling facilities.  
 
Figure 87 below shows the average percent of correct vs. incorrect across all four 
trials and clearly illustrates that the range of contamination is from 3 to 22 %. This 
confirms that there is a definite need to improve the current recycling cluster system 
157 
 
to ensure that the amount of recyclable and compostable resources being disposed of 
incorrectly are reduced, and a part of this will be to develop a way to reduce 
contamination within recyclable category (sub-code B1, B2, B3 and B4) bins and so 
reduce the need to resort the contents as is currently carried out by the GBT. A 
development to the current system that will help to reduce the comtamination levels 
would be the provision of bins for the disposal of compostable organic food waste as 
this makes up a considerable part of the incorrectly disposed of materials in the mixed 
paper, mixed plastic and waste categories. This would need to be accompanied with a 
marketing campaign to raise awareness about the importance and ease of composting 
food waste. In 2010 the introduction of paper bowls for use in the Dining Hall did 
result in a reduction of mixed plastic materials, and this illustrated a re-thinking of the 
practice at the time while still working with the recycling facilities that were in place. 
It is important for factors such as this to be continually monitored as advances are 
made in production of biodegradable food containers, for example starch based bowls 
and plates (PotatoPak NZ Ltd, 2010), which may make them an economically feasible 
option in the future. If a comprehensive compostable waste system is put in place then 
this type of prospective change would also become feasible in terms of the disposal 
facilities’ ability to manage this change. The results for Trial II and IV below also 
show that the contamination levels increase during semester one and two when more 
students and staff are on campus, which was expected.  
 
Figure 87, the average % of correct vs. incorrect for Code B, Trial I, II, III and 
Code F1, Trial IV 
158 
 
 
While the  recycling wheelie bins at the hostels are a part of the campus wide system 
the results from the Trial IV audit provide detail that may be used to improve the 
recycling behaviour in relation to the characteristics of the individual hostels. The 
general characteristics are that: 
- Moginie; mostly first year students, mostly domestic. 
- Tararua and Ruahine; mix of first year and mature students, mostly 
international. 
- Bindaloe; first year students, mostly domestic. 
- Colombo; mostly first year students, mostly domestic. 
- Tawa; first year students, mostly domestic. 
- Matai; first year students, mostly domestic. 
- City Court; first year students, mostly domestic. 
- Kairanga Court; mature students, mostly international. 
- Atawhai; mature students, mostly international. 
These characteristics will be considered during the following discussion about the 
results of the student hostel recycling wheelie bins audited.  
 
Figure 88 below shows the total amount of each category of recyclable found at each 
hostel during the audit of Trial IV. While these totals were relatively consistent there 
were a few noteworthy differences, namely that Bindaloe had a high total of mixed 
glass bottles, as did City Court, although Bindaloe’s total was much higher. Generally 
mixed plastic and aluminium tins and cans had the lowest total for the type of 
recyclable found, and mixed glass was the highest. These differences may be 
attributable to the different characteristics of the hostel populations, such as age and 
whether or not they are first year students. During the audit, which was carried out on 
Tuesday and Thursday, it was observed that the majority of the recyclables in the 
student hostels were being produced on Thursday, Friday and Saturday and this 
resulted in excess amounts to be collected when the bins were emptied on Tuesday. 
On the other hand when the bins were emptied on the Thursday there was only a small 
amount of recyclables to collect. This made it clear that more thought needed to be 
given to the collection days and that Friday and Monday would be more suitable.  
 
159 
 
 
Figure 88, the comparison of totals per recyclable category for all 9 hostels by 
weight (kg), Code F1  Trial IV  
 
The following piechart, Figure 89, displays the percentage each hostel contributed to 
the overall total of recyclables audited for Code B Trial IV. These ranged from 7 to 17 
%. This shows that all hostels are participating in the recycling programme to some 
extent. Bindaloe and City Courts contributed the highest percentage at 17 and 15 % 
respectively, while the contribution of the other seven hostels ranged from 7 to 10 %.  
 
Figure 89, the contribution of each hostel to the recyclables stream, Code F Trial 
IV 
 
160 
 
Table 37 below displays the percentage of correct vs. incorrect that was calculated 
from the audit results for each sub-code for each hostel location. In addition to this it 
also shows the average percentage for each hostel which was calculated across the 
sub-codes, and the average percentage for each sub-code which was calculated by 
combining the results of all of the nine hostels.  This shows that the range of incorrect 
disposal for the four sub-codes was on average from 0.87 to 4.36 %, and that the 
overall total for incorrect disposal for all nine hostels was 1.7 %. These figures are 
only the result for the recycling wheelie bins and so do not represent the amount of 
recyclables and compostable waste that is being disposed of incorrectly in the large 
waste bins. By considering these results it is possible to see whether the correct 
choices are being made when people are choosing to recycle, and relate this to the 
current recycling facilities that are provided. At 1.7 % incorrect disposal the recycling 
behaviour of the students living at these hostels is generally efficient, and the 
recycling clusters are being used as they should be. This level of contamination is 
much lower than that found during the Code B audits (17.2 %) across the rest of 
campus and this may reflect that the students living on campus have a better 
understanding of the recycling facilities and more buy in in terms of trying to reduce 
the amount of waste produced on campus. There is also the possibility that by living 
and studying on campus and having less exposure to the PNCC household recycling 
system there is less confusion about where the types of recyclables need to be 
deposited.  
16
1 
 
T
ab
le
 3
7,
 T
ot
al
 (
kg
) 
co
rr
ec
t v
s.
 in
co
rr
ec
t a
nd
 c
or
re
ct
 v
s.
 in
co
rr
ec
t p
er
ce
nt
ag
e 
ca
lc
ul
at
io
n
s 
fo
r 
th
e 
st
u
de
nt
 h
os
te
ls
, C
od
e 
F
1 
T
ri
al
 I
V
 
  N
o 
C
od
e 
F
1 
- 
St
ud
en
t 
H
os
te
ls
 
%
 C
or
re
ct
 v
s.
 I
nc
or
re
ct
 
T
ot
al
 (
kg
) 
C
or
re
ct
 v
s.
 
In
co
rr
ec
t 
M
ix
ed
 P
la
st
ic
 (
B
1)
 
A
lu
m
in
iu
m
 &
 T
in
 C
an
s 
(B
2)
 
M
ix
ed
 P
ap
er
 (
B
3)
 
M
ix
ed
 G
la
ss
 B
ot
tl
es
 (
B
4)
 
C
or
re
ct
 
In
co
rr
ec
t 
C
or
re
ct
 
In
co
rr
ec
t 
C
or
re
ct
 
In
co
rr
ec
t 
C
or
re
ct
 
In
co
rr
ec
t 
C
or
re
ct
 
In
co
rr
ec
t 
1 
M
og
in
ie
 
90
.7
0 
9.
30
 
10
0.
00
 
0.
00
 
97
.8
6 
2.
14
 
97
.0
0 
3.
00
 
36
.6
5 
0.
56
 
2 
T
ar
ar
ua
&
R
ua
hi
ne
 
93
.5
3 
6.
47
 
93
.8
9 
6.
11
 
98
.0
8 
1.
92
 
10
0.
00
 
0.
00
 
21
.9
 
0.
35
 
3 
B
in
da
lo
e 
95
.2
4 
4.
76
 
10
0.
00
 
0.
00
 
96
.4
6 
3.
54
 
10
0.
00
 
0.
00
 
37
 
0.
79
 
4 
C
ol
om
bo
 
97
.0
1 
2.
99
 
10
0.
00
 
0.
00
 
98
.5
6 
1.
44
 
10
0.
00
 
0.
00
 
26
.4
 
0.
53
 
5 
T
aw
a 
96
.8
6 
3.
14
 
85
.5
5 
14
.4
5 
96
.7
2 
3.
28
 
10
0.
00
 
0.
00
 
16
.7
3 
0.
41
 
6 
M
at
ai
 
93
.7
5 
6.
25
 
96
.0
6 
3.
94
 
99
.4
2 
0.
58
 
98
.1
9 
1.
81
 
21
.1
 
0.
18
 
7 
C
it
y 
C
ou
rt
 
98
.1
6 
1.
84
 
94
.9
5 
5.
05
 
96
.1
2 
3.
88
 
99
.1
2 
0.
88
 
44
.1
7 
0.
21
 
8 
K
ai
ra
ng
a 
C
ou
rt
 
10
0.
00
 
0.
00
 
94
.6
8 
5.
32
 
98
.6
4 
1.
36
 
98
.9
5 
1.
05
 
22
.3
5 
0.
64
 
9 
A
ta
w
ha
i 
95
.4
7 
4.
53
 
98
.6
6 
1.
34
 
10
0.
00
 
0.
00
 
98
.8
8 
1.
12
 
25
.1
 
0.
79
 
A
ve
ra
ge
 
%
 a
cr
os
s 
ho
st
el
s 
  
95
.6
4 
4.
36
 
95
.9
8 
4.
02
 
97
.9
8 
2.
02
 
99
.1
3 
0.
87
 
 
 
O
ve
ra
ll 
%
 c
or
re
ct
 v
s.
 in
co
rr
ec
t 
fo
r 
9 
ho
st
el
s 
T
IV
 
98
.3
%
 
1.
7%
 
162 
 
In addition for this by calculating the average percentage of correct vs. incorrect 
disposal for each category (Figure 90 below) it was possible to see that contamination 
levels were the highest for mixed plastic and aluminium and tin cans, and lowest for 
mixed paper and mixed glass bottles. For mixed plastic and aluminium and tin cans this 
contamination for the most part consisted of organic food waste and mixed paper. The 
generally low levels show that for the most part correct recycling choices are being 
made for for all categories once people decide to use the recycling bins, but there are 
some incorrect ones being made resulting in the low level contamination.  
 
 
 
Figure 90, the average percentage of correct vs. incorrect disposal per category across 
9 hostels Code F1 Trial IV 
 
In overview of the percentage of correct vs. incorrect recycling choices being made for 
all of the categories and all of the hostels the only time this was greater than 10 % was 
for aluminium and tin cans at Tawa Hall (14.45 %), with the next closest result being for 
163 
 
mixed plastic at Moginie Hall (9.3 %). This may highlight possible areas for further 
analysis if future audits find similar results.  
 
In relation to the purpose of this study, the two key goals for the recycling system are to 
increase the number of people choosing to recycle, and then to ensure that the facilities 
provided enable the correct choice to be made as to where to dispose of waste and 
recyclables as easily as possible. It is important that any redesign of the current 
recycling facilities ensures that it becomes a part of the daily routines and a habit for the 
students and staff, which will motivate behaviour change (Thomas et al., 2004). In 
addition to this it is essential to remember the other key aims of zero waste programmes 
which are to re-think and reduce the consumption and use of resources rather than just 
relying on recycling as a solution. These are the factors that will be considered when 
developing the recommendations for the Massey University Turitea campus recycling 
and waste management system.  
 
5.1.4   Small Waste Bins (Code C)  
The auditing of the Code C or small waste bins that were located around the concourse 
area was conducted over Trial I, II and III. As previously noted the method for this audit 
varied slightly during Trial I, which was a pilot trial, and Trial II and III. This meant that 
the sorting of the bin contents was different with compostable waste being categorised 
as waste in Trial I but as recyclables in Trial II and III in order to draw attention to the 
importance of organic waste as a resource. The outcome of this is that the contamination 
results for each trial are not directly comparable so the focus of this discussion will be 
Trial II and III when it comes to correct vs. incorrect. These results are shown in Table 
38 below, which gives the total kgs and the percentage of correct vs. incorrect for Trial 
I, II and III.  
 
 
 
 
 
164 
 
 
 
Table 38, the Auditing result, Code C Trial I, II and III 
Code  Category  Trial 
Correct  Incorrect  Total 
(kg) (kg) (%) (kg) (%) 
C Waste 
Trial 
I 9.75 82% 2.14 18% 11.89 
Trial 
II 17.85 29% 43.69 71% 61.54 
Trial 
III 6.15 32% 13.25 68% 19.4 
Total 33.75 
 
59.08 
 
92.83 
Average %(not 
including Trial I)   29.6%   70.4%   
 
In particular this shows that the total amount of waste found varied considerably 
between summer semester (Trial I and III) and semester two (Trial II). This table also 
shows that the average percentage of correctly and incorrectly disposed of waste for last 
two trials was 29.6 % and 70.4 % respectively. This shows that the contamination level 
of recyclable materials and compostable waste in the waste bins is significantly high. 
Figure 91 below illustrates the difference in totals for each trial and obviously this 
would be considered when RFM manages the emptying of these bins. 
 
165 
 
 
Figure 91, the totals in kg for Code C, Trial I, II and III 
 
Based on the observations during data collection, the majority of waste produced in 
these bins is predominantly from MUSA shop, the student dining hall, and the coffee 
shop. Mason et al. (2004) identified that recycling may become an issue in areas that are 
associated with actvities such as eating, drinking and socialising, and recommended that 
education and training was a solution for this. The contamination of recyclable materials 
and compostable waste in the small waste bins is mostly from plastic bottles and organic 
food (e.g. bread, apples and banana skins), which should be disposed of in ways that 
facilitate their recycling. In part it can be assumed that the high level of contamination 
occurred due to the absence of organic bins around the concourse area. Figure 92 below 
illustrates the types of contamination found.  
 
166 
 
  
Figure 92, examples of compostable and recyclable contamination found in the small 
waste bins 
 
The following chart (Figure 93) compares the correct vs. incorrect percentage across the 
two trials and shows that the contamination levels for the small waste bins was 
relatively equal for the second and third trials.  
 
 
Figure 93, the comparison of correct vs. incorrect percentages for Code C Trial II and 
III 
 
This shows that the lack of understanding about the function of the bins is constant 
regardless of how many students are present on campus. In addition to this the level of 
167 
 
recyclable and compostable materials found in these bins was especially high with a 
range from 68 to 83 %. This undoubtedly shows that the purpose of these bins as being 
for waste only is not understood by the people using them, and when you consider that 
there is not any signage present to reinforce this it makes total sense. The addition of 
clear signage (Kelly, et al., 2006) would help to address the difficulties people had in 
deciding what could and could not be disposed of in these bins.  
 
Next these percentages from Trial II and III were used to calculate the average 
percentage of correct vs. incorrect and this is shown in Figure 94 below. This found that 
on average just over half of the contents of the small waste bins audited was incorrectly 
disposed of and is to be considered contamination. This finding highlights the fact that 
these bins are being used as a one stop waste and recycling bin, not as a dedicated waste 
bin as they are meant to be, and identifies a strong need for these facilities to be 
upgraded and improved in order to improve the choices made by people about what to 
use them for.  
 
 
Figure 94, the average correct vs. incorrect for Code C across Trial II and III 
 
5.1.5  Massey Dining Hall Bins (Code D)  
This section discusses the findings of the audit of the Massey recycling bins (Code D) of 
which there were two which were located in the Dining Hall. As previously mentioned 
168 
 
these bins were only audited in Trial I and II due to them being discontinued after Trial 
II after concerns about how they were being managed. The following discussion aims to 
provide insight into the waste and recycling being produced in the dining hall area as 
well as reflect the recycling behaviours of those using the bins while they were there. 
These results are shown in Table 39 below. From this table it is possible to see that the 
total amount collected increases significantly in Trial II which reflects the increase in 
students on campus. In addition to this it shows that the contamination of the landfill 
and plastic categories increased considerably for Trial II when more students were using 
the bins. The overall percentage of incorrectly disposed of materials was 22.7 % which 
meant that over one fifth of the bin contents were contaminants. However for glass and 
cans the contamination was zero or minimal, so the main issues were with the landfill 
and plastics categories and directly related to the location with the contamination being 
made up of food waste, and food containers. This issue is discussed more further on in 
this section. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
16
9 
 T
ab
le
 3
9,
 th
e 
A
ud
it
in
g 
re
su
lt
 fo
r 
C
od
e 
D
, T
ri
al
 I
 a
nd
 I
I 
 
C
od
e 
T
ri
al
 
L
an
df
ill
 (
D
1)
 
P
la
st
ic
 (
D
2)
 
G
la
ss
 (
D
3)
 
C
an
s 
(D
4)
 
T
ot
al
 
(k
g)
 
  
O
ve
ra
ll 
%
 c
or
re
ct
 
vs
. i
nc
or
re
ct
 
C
or
re
ct
 
In
co
rr
ec
t 
C
or
re
ct
 
In
co
rr
ec
t 
C
or
re
ct
 
In
co
rr
ec
t 
C
or
re
ct
 
In
co
rr
ec
t 
K
g 
%
 
K
g 
%
 
K
g 
%
 
K
g 
%
 
K
g 
%
 
K
g 
%
 
K
g 
%
 
K
g 
%
 
C
or
re
ct
 
In
co
rr
ec
t 
D
 
T
ri
al
 I
 
5.
89
 
96
 
0.
3 
4 
0.
6 
70
 
0.
3 
30
 
0.
38
 
95
 
0 
5 
4.
1 
10
0 
0 
0 
11
.5
7 
95
 
5 
T
ri
al
 I
I 
8.
16
 
55
 
6.
8 
45
 
1.
4 
41
 
2 
59
 
10
.8
 
10
0 
0 
0 
0.
7 
10
0 
0 
0 
29
.8
6 
70
.5
 
29
.5
 
T
ot
al
 (
kg
) 
14
.1
 
 -
 
7.
1 
- 
 
2.
0 
 -
 
2.
3 
 -
 
11
.2
 
 -
 
0 
 -
 
4.
7 
 -
 
0 
- 
 
41
.4
3 
- 
- 
A
ve
ra
ge
 %
 
- 
76
 
- 
 
25
 
- 
 
56
 
- 
 
45
 
 -
 
97
.5
 
- 
 
2.
5 
 -
 
10
0 
- 
 
0 
- 
77
.3
 
22
.7
 
             
170 
 
 
 
 
Figure 95, the comparison of the totals produced for each category for Code D Trial 
I and II 
 
As is shown in Figure 95 above the totals for each category increased with the 
exception of cans. Also the increase in glass and landfill was considerable, for example 
more than twenty times for glass. This is a direct reflection of the increased use of the 
Code D bins and these totals need to be considered when placing or developing 
recycling and waste facilities in the Dining Hall so that demand can be met during peak 
periods as well as non-peak periods. 
 
  
Figure 96, examples of contamination found in the Massey recycling bin (Landfill 
D1 and Plastic D2) 
 
Figure 96 above illustrates the types of contamination found in the landfill and plastic 
bins during the auditing process. For the landfill sub-code the contamination was a 
combination of organic food waste, paper, plastic and cans, particularly relating to food 
171 
 
storage, while for the plastic sub-code the contamination was mainly organic food 
waste. The high amount of food waste reflects the fact that bins for compostable waste 
were not provided at the time of Trial I and II. In 2008 the survey carried out by MUSA 
highlighted that students wanted facilities to be provided for organic food waste. Figure 
97 below shows the comparison of correct vs. incorrect for each category in Trial I and 
II.  
 
 
 
 
Figure 97, the comparison of correct vs. incorrect for Code D Trial I and II 
 
By comparing this it can be seen that while the glass and cans categories were used 
correctly for the most part, the landfill and plastic categories had an increase in 
contamination through incorrect use. This, when combined with the earlier description 
of the types of contamination found for the landfill and plastic sub-codes, highlights the 
importance of having relevant and clear waste and recycling facilities in place in the 
Dining Hall particularly during semester one and two of the university year when use 
will be high. Similar to the outside environment of the concourse the facilities provided 
in the dining hall are important in addressing issues with recycling in locations were 
eating and drinking are taking place (Mason et al., 2004).   
 
172 
 
5.1.6  Staff Common Room Waste, Organic and Recycling Bins (Code E)  
This section discusses the findings of the audit of the Staff Common Room compost, 
recycling and waste bins (Code E) that were audited during Trial II and III. As 
previously described the method of auditing these bins was improved for Trial III and 
this is reflected in the following Table 40 in which the waste category (E3) is shown as 
n/a (not applicable) for Trial II. The facilities provided in the staff common rooms were 
upgraded in early 2010 to include the compostable waste bins, and the recyclables 
facilities are a mixed recycling bin which is unique in terms of the other recycling 
facilities provided across campus.  
 
Table 40, the Auditing result for Code E Trial II and III 
Code  Trial 
Category 
Total 
(Kg) 
Compostable 
(E1) 
Recyclables (E2) Waste (E3) 
Correct 
(Kg) 
Incorrect 
(Kg) 
Correct 
(Kg) 
Incorrect 
(Kg) 
Correct 
(Kg) 
Incorrect 
(Kg) 
E 
Trial 
II 
78.5 0 41.84 0 n/a n/a 120.34 
Trial 
III 
119.75 0 68.05 0 15.5 2.3 205.6 
Total 198.25 0 109.89 0 15.5 2.3 325.94 
 
Using the results in Table 40, the average weight of compostable waste produced every 
week in the staff common rooms can be calculated at 99.1kg. This total is similar to 
that found during audits carried out by the contractor, Helen May, who developed and 
manages the compostables disposal system which was an average of 115 per month for 
April, May and June 2010 (Mays, 2010). The average amount of recyclables was 
54.9kg. The high amount of compostable waste reflects the function of the common 
rooms as meal consumption areas and shows that the staff and students using the areas 
were taking advantage of the opportunity to use compostable waste facilities which 
weren’t available in any other parts of the university. In Trial III when waste was 
audited as well it was found that the level of contamination for this category was 13 %, 
173 
 
which consisted mainly of recyclables that should have been placed in the bin provided 
and were food containers made of plastic and tin cans, and paper towels which should 
have been placed in the compostable bin.  
 
Figure 98 below compares the total amount of compostable waste and reyclables 
collected across the two trials, the first of which was conducted during semester 2 while 
the second was during summer semester.   
 
 
Figure 98, the comparison of compostable waste and recyclables for Code E Trial II 
and III 
 
This showed that the amount of both had increased considerably despite there being 
less students and staff on campus. This in part reflects the fact that the staff common 
rooms are used by staff and post graduate students who are more likely to remain on 
campus in higher numbers during the summer semester. In addition to this is can be 
expected that more staff and students were choosing to use these relatively new 
facilities as time passed and their understanding of them increased. However because 
the waste category was only audited for the second of these trials this cannot be 
confirmed through decreasing totals of contamination levels. With regard to the 
minimal contamination found in the compostable and recyclable bins it has also been 
noted that in some instances staff may be taking the initiative to remove any materials 
174 
 
that have been wrongly placed in them, resulting in the impression that all of the 
choices being made about what to place in them are correct. It could easily be assumed 
that the presence of staff and mature students resulted in these low levels when in fact 
quality control is taking place.  
 
In terms of comparing the type of facilities (compostable bins and all in recycling bins) 
provided in the staff common rooms with the other recycling facilities (single type 
recyclable bins and few opportunities for compostable waste) it seems that those 
provided in the staff common rooms provided clearer and more comprehensive 
opportunities for people to make the correct recycling choices. However in order to 
confirm this further research would need to be conducted and ideally trials would be 
placed in the dining hall area which mimic the waste, all in recyclable and compostable 
bin system. It would also be important to gather more information about the quality 
control that may be taking place in the staff common rooms perhaps through surveys in 
order to determine the frequency and degree at which this is taking place.  
 
5.2  Summary of Discussion 
The waste and recycling options provided around the concourse area and dining hall, 
the recycling wheelie bins (Code B), small waste bins (Code C) and Massey dining hall 
recycling bins (Code D), had varying levels of contamination and overall there was a 
pattern of there being some uncertainty about the categories/labels used and issues with 
signage.  
- Of these three codes the most serious issues were with the small waste bins 
(Code C), and the average contamination levels of 70 % showed that the 
understanding of these as waste bins with recyclable materials needing to be 
disposed of in other places such as the wheelie bin clusters was minimal. This 
can be attributed to a lack of signage and the fact that they seem to be 
positioned in isolation from the recycling facilities provided.  
- Within this location the use of the Massey dining hall recycling bins (Code D) 
also showed a need for improvement although as these have since been 
discontinued this issue may have already been addressed in part. The average 
contamination levels of 45 % in the plastic category and 25 % found in the 
landfill category indicated that the labelling was not assisting people in easily 
making the correct recycling choices and the amount of organic food waste 
175 
 
found showed the real need for compostable waste facilities to be provided in 
the dining hall.  
- The recycling wheelie bins (Code B) around the concourse were the campuses 
most visible demonstration of the zero waste programme, and the audit showed 
that while they are functioning well to a degree improvements could be made. 
Over the period of Trial I, II and III 12.5 % of the contents of these bins was 
incorrectly disposed of which shows a reasonable number of incorrect recycling 
choices were made. This is why the sorting of these bins by the GBT takes place 
before the contents are sent to the recycling centre. The contamination of 
organic food waste again indicates the need for compostable waste facilities in 
this location where the main food supply is located.  
 
The large waste bins (Code A1) that were located at various places across campus were 
found to contain considerable amounts of recyclable and compostable resources at 42 
% of the total materials. These bins are a part of a system that involves waste being 
collected from inside buildings for disposal, and because of this to reduce this 
contamination the recycling behaviour of the people inside the buildings needs to be 
addressed. While recyclable and compostable facilities are provided in the staff 
common rooms (Code E) these are not accessible by everyone. This trend is also shown 
in the large waste bins at the student hostels (Code F2) with 38 % of the contents being 
recyclable and compostable.  
 
The facilities provided for waste, compostable and recyclables in the staff common 
rooms were particularly interesting in that they demonstrates that the compostable bins 
provided can succeed. This provides a prototype system that can be further developed 
to be used in other parts of campus. The use of an all in recycling bin also seemed to be 
successful and this aligns with the PNCC residential recycling system so may also be 
an option to be developed further for the wider campus community.  
 
The contamination levels of the recycling wheelie bin clusters (Code F2) at the student 
hostels were low for the most part, however as previously mentioned, a considerable 
amount of recyclable and compostable resources are being lost by being disposed of 
into the large waste bins (Code F1). This shows that some people are opting out of 
176 
 
recycling, but that those that are recycling are making the correct choices for the most 
part.  
 
The following section will describe the recommendations in relation to the key issues 
found during the waste and recycling audit conducted in this research. 
 
5.3 Implications and Recommendations  
 
In general, the recycling programme at Massey works relatively well. Nonetheless, 
However, there are several key issues which need to be considered, in order to build on 
this good performance. For instance; 
  
- The signage of the wheelie bins is unclear and potentially confusing for new and 
international students.  
- In many cases signage is UV damaged and missing.  
 
Recommendation 1: Signage upgrade and create brand for recycling programme.  
This involves redesgning and improving the existing signage to ensure that it is visible, 
clear and concise, and long lasting. When labelling of general waste bins is undertaken 
it could be emphasised that this waste will be going to landfill and that this is not a 
desired outcome. This needs to consider current commonly used symbols for recycling 
throughout New Zealand. Ensuring clarity in the choice of bins for people to use will 
increase the speed at which decisions can be made and this may increase use as well as 
reducing contamination. In addition to this the creation of a brand for the programme 
will aid in increasing awareness of and participation in recycling at Turitea campus, by 
using clear instructions and messages such as posters, as well as linking to the broader 
sustainability programme that Massey has developed. This could incorporate wider 
aspects of waste management associated with behaviour change, such as the importance 
of individuals and groups considering their patterns of consumption and attempting to 
create less waste and use resources efficiently through awareness in their purchasing. 
By incorporating elements such as this into the awareness raising people will receive a 
more comprehensive education about Zero waste. This is particularly important in 
fulfilling Massey University’s role as a place of higher education and can result in well 
177 
 
informed students that have attained an education beyond the scope of their chosen 
field of study.  
 
- The number of recycling bins across the campus is relatively low. As a result, 
many of the recyclable materials are going into general waste bins, and as a 
consequence of this will be going to landfill instead of being recycled. 
- In addition to this the recycling system is quite dated and does not link to the 
new recycling collection system implemented by PNCC. Also on campus the 
indoor recycling system does not match the outdoor cluster system. These 
factors may be adding to the confusion and negatively impacting on 
participation in the recycling programme. The indoor recycling system also 
needs to be further developed in order to address the high amount of recyclables 
being lost through disposal into the large waste bins. For the most part this is a 
result of the way that waste and recycling is being handled in offices, 
classrooms and rooms in student hostels. The branding of the programme needs 
to include a way to get the message about the importance of recycling to these 
people.  
The report prepared for RFM (appendix 1) provides potential designs for aspects of this 
recommendation.  
 
Recommendation 2: Campus Recycling system makeover. 
This would include the brand development concept previously mentioned in 
recommendation 1, as well as try to align the cluster system with more recently 
developed systems. A key part of this would involve working with PNCC to ensure the 
system fits the requirements of their recycling centers. In addition to this will be the 
opportunity to increase the number of recycling facilities provided across the campus to 
include areas which are currently not covered. 
 
- There is a lot of contamination of potentially recyclable organic resources in 
both the waste and recycling bins.  In many cases this relates to the fact that a 
bin for compostable waste is not provided for use, despite the system in the 
Staff Common Rooms having proven successful.  
The report prepared for RFM also (appendix 1) provides potential designs for aspects of 
this recommendation.  
178 
 
Recommendation 3: Expand the current Organic Recycling system to become a 
consistent part of the campus Recycling system. 
Increasing the current organic recycling system from just the staff common rooms to 
include the student hostels and outdoor collection points, for example around the 
concourse area, in association with general recycling collection is likely to further 
reduce waste to landfill. This would involve redesigning the current indoor system to 
suit and outdoor environment as well as increased quantities. 
 
- This research project has focused on Turitea campus in Palmerston North and so 
does not include the other Massey campuses in Wellington or Auckland. In 
order to develop a true Massey wide zero waste programme this will need to be 
addressed, which will involve working with the host city and local recycling 
service providers.  
 
Recommendation 4: Conduct a feasibility study and establish targets to create a 
Massey University recycling network across the three campuses.  
This will provide the opportunity for knowledge and expertise to be shared across the 
institution as lessons are learned from previous experiences in order to develop a 
comprehensive and customised system for each campus. There may also be the 
opportunity to reuse equipment.  
 
- In order to redevelop the current facilities it is best to have a body of knowledge 
about how well they are functioning in relation to both management and the 
recycling behaviour of students and staff on campus. Regular waste and 
recycling audits are a way of monitoring this as well as the effect of any 
changes made.  
 
Recommendation 5: To undertake regular waste and recycling audits, which involve 
a process of evaluation to develop improvements in how they are carried out.  
This will aim to use student research projects to add to the existing body of knowledge 
as well as investigate areas not yet examined, such as tracking the source of the 
different types of waste and recycling being produced in a department or building in 
order to develop advanced indoor facilities.  
 
179 
 
5.4 The performance of the waste and recycling audit  
This section provides an assessment of the auditing process that was used during this 
research. This aims to provide information about what was learned during this process 
in order to aid future audits that will be carried out. Generally the auditing method 
utilised in this study went relatively well in terms of the steps used to obtain the data 
(refer to section 3.4.1 in Chapter 3 page 49). However, there were a number of 
obstacles and limitations identified which need to be addressed for future audits and 
these are outlined below.  
 
1. Communication with stakeholders in relation to the waste and recycling 
management at Massey’s Turitea campus (i.e. RFM). With a stakeholder such 
as RFM that played such a major role it was crucial to establish communication 
early on in the process. This communication should include factors that relate to 
the operational carrying out of the audit, as well as overall audit design that may 
be developed to fulfil requests and requirements of the stakeholder. In addition 
to this other stakeholders need to be contacted and communicated with regularly 
throughout the process, such as GBT, and PNCC in relation to Turitea campus. 
While communication was carried out reasonably well during this research it 
was identified that earlier more in depth communication with stakeholders 
would have improved the audit process. 
2. Designing a research timeline to further explore the seasonality of waste and 
recycling produced throughout the year. Because of the complexities of the 
current waste and recycling system determining the annual quantities produced 
was very difficult, and it would be essential to obtain any available data from 
the stakeholders to assist with this. By further exploring the seasonality it may 
be possible for collection schedules and facilities provided increased in 
efficiency.  
3. Establishing the necessary support before conducting the research. For instance 
to provide help for collecting and sorting out the waste, to set up the location for 
sorting out the materials.  
4. Designing the audit methodology in order to ensure that all types of waste and 
recycling bins used in the location are covered in order to provide an accurate 
picture. For Turitea campus the range of bins used made this process quite 
180 
 
complicated and this relates to the way in which the campus wide system has 
been developed.   
5. Data analysis. There are numerous data analysis approaches that can be used in 
order to measure waste quantification and the level of contamination in both 
waste and recycling bins. For future research it is recommended that a full 
statistical analysis is considered (using programmes such as SPSS or excel).   
181 
 
 
CHAPTER 6 
CONCLUSION 
 
 
 
6.1 Introduction 
This research undertook a waste and recycling audit at Massey University’s Turitea 
campus in order to investigate the performance of the zero waste programmes and make 
recommendations for the improvement of the recycling and waste facilities. This final 
chapter will summarise the findings of this research as they relate to this aim, including 
a short section detailing potential areas for further research.  
  
6.2  Summary of Findings 
The waste and recycling audits conducted during this research identified incorrect and 
poor recycling behaviour using contamination levels as an indicator, in the various 
facilities provided across the campus.  
 
The key findings were:  
- Code A1, the large waste bins had an average of 41 % of the contents across 
Trials II, III and IV was incorrectly disposed of and consisted of resources that 
should have been recycled or composted.  
- Code B, the recycling wheelie bins had an average of 17.2 % incorrectly 
disposed of materials across Trial I, II, III and IV. This consisted of recyclables 
being placed in the wrong bins, such as other recyclable bins and waste bins, as 
well as compostables being placed in the recycling and waste bins.  
- Code C, the small waste bins had an average of 70 % incorrectly disposed of 
materials across Trial II and III, which consisted of recyclables and compostable 
waste.  
- Code D, the Massey dining hall bins had an average of 22.8 % incorrectly 
disposed of materials across Trial I and II, which was mostly in the plastic and 
landfill categories and consisted of recyclables and compostable waste.  
- Code E, the staff common room waste, organic and recycling bins had minimal 
levels of contamination in the organic and recycling bins across Trial II and III, 
182 
 
and had 12.9 % incorrect materials placed in the waste bin in Trial III. This 
consisted of recyclables such as plastic food containers and compostables such 
as paper towels. 
- Trial IV which focused specifically on the student hostels found that the 
recycling wheelie bins had low levels of contamination at 1.7 % on average, 
although the large waste bins had high levels of contamination at 38 % on 
average.  
Overall these findings highlighted the need for the current facilities to be redeveloped 
in order to improve the recycling behaviour and increase the effectiveness of the 
recycling programme on campus. With this in mind a number of specific 
recommendations were made: 
 
1. Signage upgrade and create brand for recycling programme.  
2. Campus Recycling system makeover. 
3. Expand the current Organic Recycling system to become a consistent part of the 
campus Recycling system. 
4. Conduct a feasibility study and establish targets to create a Massey University 
recycling network across the three campuses.  
5. To undertake regular waste and recycling audits, which involve a process of 
evaluation to develop improvements in how they are carried out.  
 
These five recommendations aim to provide an increase in the positive recycling 
behaviour already taking place at Massey University’s Turitea campus by improving 
the waste and recycling infrastructure. In cases such as the organics disposal facilities 
these improvements supplement the current facilities, while other improvement focus 
on providing a clearer and simpler recycling system. These will also contribute to 
enhancing the Massey zero waste programme and therefore reducing the amount of 
resources being discarded of incorrectly and going to landfill.  
183 
 
 
6.3 Future Research 
 
The following future studies are recommended: 
- Undertake surveys of staff and students about their use of and thoughts 
regarding the recycling facilities. This could include the expansion of the 
organic/compostable waste bins, the design of recycling bins for inside 
university buildings and potential ways to increase use of recycling facilities. 
This survey should be larger in scope than the one conducted by MUSA in 
2008. 
- Focusing future audits to get a clearer picture of the seasonality of the campus 
location so that infrastructure and collection schedules can be increased in 
efficiency.  
- A waste and recycling audit that uses statistical analysis to determine the annual 
totals of waste and recyclable materials produced across Turitea campus.  
- Conduct waste and recycling audits of the other Massey campuses such as 
Hokowhitu, Albany (Auckland) and Wellington to gather baseline data which 
can be used to create a recycling network across the campuses.  
- Undertake studies that focus on reducing the amount of waste being produced 
across the campus, i.e. paper, and investigate how well recent initiatives such as 
compostable plates and bowls, and compostable bins are understood by users.  
- An investigation into the current waste and recycling management costs for 
Massey University, at both campus and institutional levels, and how these can 
potentially be reduced through improved recycling practices.  
 
184 
 
 
REFERENCES 
 
 
 
Agapitidis, I. & Frantzis, I. (1998). A possible strategy for municipal solid waste 
management in Greece. Waste Management & Research, 16(3), 244-252.  
 
Agrecovery. (2011). Agrecovery supporters. Retrived 7 May, 2011, from 
http://www.agrecovery.co.nz/about/agrecovery-supporters/.  
 
Alshuwaikhat, H. M. & Abubakar, I. (2008). An integrated approach to achieving 
campus sustainability: assessment of the current campus environmental 
management practices. Journal of Cleaner Production 16(16), 1777-1785. 
 
Al-Salem, S. M., Lettieri P., et al. (2009). Recycling and recovery routes of plastic solid 
waste (PSW): A review. Waste Management 29(10), 2625-2643. 
 
Annegrete, B. (2001). Factors influencing solid waste generation and management, 
Journal of Solid Waste Technology and Management, 27, 156–162 
 
ANU. (2011). Recycling and waste management at ANU. Retrieved 2 April, 2011, 
from http://www.anu.edu.au/anugreen/index.php?pid=52. 
 
ARIES, (2009). Macquarie University innovation award- Innovation towards 
sustainability. Retrieved April 11, 2011, from 
http://www.aries.mq.edu.au/news/innovations_award/. 
 
Armijo de Vega, C., Ojeda Benítez, S., et al. (2008). Solid waste characterization and 
recycling potential for a university campus. Waste Management, 28, S21-S26.  
 
Ashwood, K., Grosskopf, M. & Scheider, E. (1996). Conducting a waste audit and 
designing a waste reduction work plan. Pulp Paper Can, 97(9), 84–86. 
 
Bai, R. & Sutanto, M. (2002). The practice and challenges of solid waste management 
in Singapore. Waste Management, 22(5), 557-567. 
 
Begum, R. A., Siwar C., et al. (2009). Attitude and behavioral factors in waste 
management in the construction industry of Malaysia. Resources, Conservation 
and Recycling, 53(6), 321-328. 
 
Belkin, N. L. (1995). Reduce, Reuse, Recycle. AORN, 62(3), 333-333. 
 
Bellhouse, D.R. (1988). Systematic sampling, in Handbook of Statistics. In P.R. 
Krisnaiah & C.R. Rao (Eds.) (pp. 125-146). Amsterdam: North Holland-
Elsevier. 
 
185 
 
Biswas, A., Licata, J.W., McKee, D., Pullig, C., & Daughtridge, C. (2000) The 
Recycling Cycle: An Empirical Examination of Consumer Waste Recycling and 
Recycling Shopping Behaviours. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 19(1), 
93-105. 
 
Boyle, C. A. (2000). Solid waste management in New Zealand. Waste Management, 
20(7), 517-526.  
 
CBEC. (2011a). Clean Stream Northland. Retrieved 2 April, 2011, from 
http://www.cbec.co.nz/Clean_Stream.cfm. 
 
CBEC. (2011b). CBEC Recycling and Refuse services. Retrieved 15 March, 2011, 
from http://www.cbec.co.nz/CBEC_Recycling.cfm. 
 
Chang, N. B. & Davila, E. (2008). Municipal solid waste characterizations and 
management strategies for the Lower Rio Grande Valley, Texas. Waste 
Management, 28(5), 776-794. 
 
Chowdhury, M. (2009). Searching quality data for municipal solid waste planning. 
Waste Management, 29(8), 2240-2247. 
 
Christman, M. C. (2009). Sampling of Rare Populations. Handbook of Statistics. C. R. 
Rao, Elsevier, 29(1), 109-124. 
 
Clay, S., Gibson D., et al. (2007). Sustainability Victoria: influencing resource use, 
towards zero waste and sustainable production and consumption. Journal of 
Cleaner Production, 15(8-9), 782-786. 
 
Concordia University. (2011). Waste and recycling audits. Retrieved 15 March, 2011, 
from http://sustainable.concordia.ca/ourinitiatives/r4/rethink/audits/. 
 
Eriksson, O., M. Carlsson Reich, et al. (2005). "Municipal solid waste management 
from a systems perspective." Journal of Cleaner Production, 13(3), 241-252. 
 
Delgado, O. B., Ojeda-Benítez S., et al. (2007). Comparative analysis of hazardous 
household waste in two Mexican regions. Waste Management, 27(6), 792-801.  
 
Demirbas, A. (2011). Waste management, waste resource facilities and waste 
conversion processes. Energy Conversion and Management, 52(2), 1280-1287. 
 
Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Defra 2007). Waste strategy for 
England. Retrieved February 5, 2011, from 
http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/waste/strategy/strategy07/index.htm. 
 
DEFRA. (2007). Waste strategy for England 2007 Executive Summary. London: 
DEFRA. Retrieved 25 March, 2011, from 
http://archive.defra.gov.uk/environment/waste/strategy/strategy07/documents/w
aste07-strategy.pdf.  
 
186 
 
DEFRA. (2008). Waste strategy annual progress report 2007/08. London: DEFRA. 
Retrieved 25 March, 2011, from 
http://archive.defra.gov.uk/environment/waste/strategy/strategy07/documents/w
aste-strategy-report-07-08.pdf.   
 
DEFRA. (2009). Incentives for household recycling. Retrieved 20 April, 2011, from 
http://archive.defra.gov.uk/environment/waste/strategy/incentives/ 
 
Department of Environmental Protection Pennsylvania. (2011). Conducting a Waste 
Audit. Retrieved February 18, from 
http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/airwaste/wm/recycle/facts/ComRec.ht
m. Retrieved 18 February 2011.  
 
Dowie, W., McCartney, D., & Tamm, J. (1998). A case study of an institutional solid 
waste environmental management system. Journal of Environmental 
Management, 53(2), 137-146. 
 
Duan, H., Huang Q., et al. (2008). Hazardous waste generation and management in 
China: A review. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 158(2-3), 221-227. 
 
Dutta, S. & Das, A. (2010). Analytical perspective on waste management for 
environmental remediation. Trends in Analytical Chemistry, 29(7).  Retrieved 
17 April, 2011, from 
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V5H-502G 
GWD-1&_user=572227&_coverDate=08%2F31%2F2010&_rdoc=1&_fmt= h 
igh&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct
=C000029098&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=572227&md5=64c6f6f6a
f827e116f84cc8f4542046a&searchtype=a 
 
Eichner, T. & Pethig,  R. (2001). Product Design and Efficient Management of 
Recycling and Waste Treatment. Journal of Environmental Economics and 
Management, 41(1), 109-134. 
 
European Commission. (2003). Waste generated and treated in Europe, European 
Commission. Office for official publication of the European Communities, 
Luxembourg.   
 
European Environment Agency. (2003). Europe`s Environment. The third assessment. 
European Environment Agency, Copenhagen. 
 
Eurostat (2009). Half a Ton of Municipal Waste Generated Per Person in the EU27 in 
2007. Eurostat Press Office. Retrieved 29 November, 2010, from 
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_PUBLIC/8-09032009-BP/EN/8-
09032009-BP-EN.PDF.  
 
Environment Waikato Regional Council (2011), Solid Waste. Retrieved February 15, 
from http://www.ew.govt.nz/environmental-information/Solid-waste.  
 
187 
 
Enzler, E., Fischer, K., & Teale, M. (2006). Improvement in recycling habits and waste 
disposal through increased awareness and education. Recycling patterns on 
edgwood campus. 
 
Eurobodalla Shire Council. (2001). Eurobodalla Shire Council Waste Minimisation  
Strategy. Retrieved 2 February, 2011, from http://www.zerowaste.co.nz/assets/ 
intern ational/Eurobodalla_Shire_Council.pdf.  
 
Evison, T. & Read, A. D. (2001). Local Authority recycling and waste -- awareness 
publicity/promotion. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 32(3-4), 275-291. 
 
Far North District Council. (2011). General information: Refuse contractors. Retrieved 
19 April, 2011, from http://www.fndc.govt.nz/services/water-wastewater-and-
refuse/rubbish-and-recycling/general-information. 
 
Greyson, J. (2007). An economic instrument for zero waste, economic growth and 
sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production, 15(13-14), 1382-1390. 
 
Gómez, G., Meneses M., et al. (2009). Seasonal characterization of municipal solid 
waste (MSW) in the city of Chihuahua, Mexico. Waste Management, 29(7), 
2018-2024. 
 
Hannon, J. (2005). Massey University practical zero waste program – current and future 
initiatives. Palmerston North: Massey University.  
 
Hannon, J. (2008). Massey University practical zero waste program-current and future 
initiatives. Palmerston North: Massey University. 
 
Hannon, J. (2009). The campus sustainability report. Palmerston North: Massey 
University.  
 
Hargreaves, J. C., Adl M. S., et al. (2008). A review of the use of composted municipal 
solid waste in agriculture. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 123(1-3), 1-
14.  
 
Hasnain, M., Isa, et al. (2005). Solid waste collection and recycling in Nibong Tebal, 
Penang, Malaysia: a case study. International Solid Waste Association. 
Published by: http://www.sagepublications.com. Malaysia.  
 
Hasome, H., Tachio K., et al. (2001). Studies on the evaluation of municipal waste 
management systems. Waste Management & Research, 19(1), 2-11. 
 
Hassan, M.N., Rahman, R.A., Chong, T.L., Zakaria, Z., & Awang, M. (2000) Waste 
recycling in Malaysia: problems and prospects. Waste Management & Research, 
18, 320-328. 
 
Henry, R. K., Yongsheng Z., et al. (2006). Municipal solid waste management 
challenges in developing countries - Kenyan case study. Waste Management, 
26(1), 92-100. 
 
188 
 
Hristovski, K., Olson L., et al. (2007). The municipal solid waste system and solid 
waste characterization at the municipality of Veles, Macedonia. Waste 
Management, 27(11), 1680-1689. 
 
Hu, K., Hipel K. W., et al. (2009). A conflict model for the international hazardous 
waste disposal dispute. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 172(1), 138-146. 
 
IISD. (2000). Declarations for sustainable development: the response of universities. 
International Institute for Sustainable Development, Winnipeg, Canada. 
Retrieved  February 21, 2011, from http://iisd.ca/educate/declare.htm.  
 
Imam, A., Mohammed B., et al. (2008). Solid waste management in Abuja, Nigeria. 
Waste Management, 28(2), 468-472. 
 
Juhasz, A. L., Magesan, G., & Naidu, R. (2004). Waste Management. Science 
Publisher. Plymouth, UK. 
 
Kassim, S. M. & Ali, M. (2006). Solid waste collection by the private sector: 
Households' perspective--Findings from a study in Dar es Salaam city, 
Tanzania. Habitat International, 30(4), 769-780. 
 
Kelly, T.C., Mason, I.G., Leiss, M.W., & Ganesh, S. (2006) University community 
responses to on-campus resource recycling. Resources, Conservation and 
Recycling, 47(1), pp. 42-55. 
 
Keniry, J. (1995) Ecodemia: Campus Environmental Stewardship at the turn of the 21st 
century. National Wildlife Federation Washington. 
 
Khoo, H. H. (2009). Life cycle impact assessment of various waste conversion 
technologies. Waste Management, 29(6), 1892-1900. 
 
Kollikkathara, N., Feng, H. & Stern, E. (2009) A purview of waste management 
evolution: Special emphasis on USA. Waste Management, 29, 974–985. 
 
Laustsen, G. (2007). Reduce-Recycle-Reuse: Guidelines for Promoting Perioperative 
Waste Management. AORN, 85(4), 717-722, 724, 726-728. 
 
Lu, L.-T., Hsiao T.-Y., et al. (2006). MSW management for waste minimization in 
Taiwan: The last two decades. Waste Management, 26(6), 661-667. 
 
Magrinho, A., Didelet F., et al. (2006). Municipal solid waste disposal in Portugal. 
Waste Management, 26(12), 1477-1489. 
 
Mahwar, R. S., Verma N. K., et al. (1997). Environmental auditing programme in India. 
Science of The Total Environment, 204(1), 11-26. 
 
Manga, V. E., Forton O. T., et al. (2008). Waste management in Cameroon: A new 
policy perspective? Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 52(4), 592-600. 
 
189 
 
Mason, I., A. Oberender, et al. (2004). Source separation and potential re-use of 
resource residuals at a university campus. Resources, conservation & recycling, 
40(2), 155-172. 
  
Mason, I. G., Brooking A. K., et al. (2003). Implementation of a zero waste program at 
a university campus. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 38(4), 257-269. 
 
Massey University. (2002). Massey University Environmental Policy. Retrieved 5 
April, 2011, from 
http://www.massey.ac.nz/massey/fms/PolicyGuide/Documents/University%20
Management/Environmental%20Policy.pdf.  
 
Massey University. (2003a). Zero Waste Academy: Partners. Retrieved 16 April, 2011, 
from http://zwa.massey.ac.nz/partners.htm.  
 
Massey University.  (2003b). Zero Waste Academy: Practice. Retrieved 7 April, 2011, 
from http://zwa.massey.ac.nz/practice.htm.  
 
Massey University. (2011). Road to 2020. Retrieved 16 April, 2011, from 
http://www.massey.ac.nz/massey/fms/About%20Massey/Documents/Defining-
road-to-2020.pdf   
 
Matete, N. & Trois, C. (2008). Towards zero waste in emerging countries – A South 
African experience. Waste Management, 28, 1480–1492. 
 
Matsumoto, S. (2011). Waste separation at home: Are Japanese municipal curbside 
recycling policies efficient? Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 55(3), 325-
334. 
 
McCartney, D. M. (2003). Auditing non-hazardous wastes from golf course operations: 
moving from a waste to a sustainability framework. Resources, Conservation 
and Recycling, 37(4), 283-300. 
MfE. (2002). The New Zealand Waste Strategy: Towards zero waste and a sustainable 
New Zealand. Retrieved 30 March, 2011, from 
http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/waste/waste-strategy-mar02/. 
 
MfE. (2007). Environment New Zealand 2007. Retrieved 22 August, 2010, from 
http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/ser/enz07-dec07/.  
 
MfE. (2009a). Composition of solid waste. Retrieved 12 April, 2011,  from 
http://www.mfe.govt.nz/environmental-reporting/waste/solid-waste/compositi 
on/.  
 
MfE. (2009b). Rubbish. Retrieved 15 April, 2011, from 
http://www.sustainability.govt.nz/rubbish.  
 
190 
 
MfE. (2010). The New Zealand Waste Strategy: reducing harm, improving efficiency. 
Retrieved from http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/waste/waste-
strategy/wastestrategy.pdf. 
 
MFE. (2011a). Waste Minimisation Act 2008. Retrieved 28 March, 2011, from  
http://www.mfe.govt.nz/issues/waste/waste-minimisation.html.  
 
MfE. (2011b). Basel Convention. Retrieved 27 March, 2011, from 
http://www.mfe.govt.nz/laws/meas/basel.html.  
 
MfE. (2011c). Montreal Protocol. Retrieved 21 March, 2011 from 
http://www.mfe.govt.nz/laws/meas/montreal.html.  
 
MfE. (2011d). Product stewardship. Retrieved 25 March, 2011, from 
http://www.mfe.govt.nz/issues/waste/product-stewardship/index.html.  
 
MfE. (2011e). Reduce your rubbish - A successful model for future collaboration. 
Retrieved 26 April, 2011, from http://www.mfe.govt.nz/issues/waste/waste-
pilot/.  
 
MfE. (2011f). The New Zealand Waste Strategy: Reducing Harm, Improving 
Efficiency. Retrieved 19 December, 2011, from 
http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/waste/waste-strategy/index.html.  
 
Miswaco Envirocenter. (2004). R5 waste hierarchy. Retrieved 16 March, 2011, from 
http://www.touchoilandgas.com/download.cfm?step=2&type=art&type_id=152.  
 
M. Hasnain Isa, et al. (2005). Solid waste collection and recycling in Nibong Tebal, 
Penang, Malaysia: a case study. Waste Management and Research, 23, 565-570. 
Retrieved 19 February, 2011, from 
http://wmr.sagepub.com/content/23/6/565.full.pdf.  
 
Monash University. (2009). Recycling and waste. Retrieved 15 April, 2011, from 
http://www.mrs.monash.edu/environment/recycling-waste/index.html 
 
Musa, Massey University. (2008). Musa environment officer student survey-recycling/ 
sustainability. Unpublished report: Massey University.  
 
New South Wales Government (2011). Doing a Waste Audit. Retrieved 18 February, 
2011, from 
http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/wrapp/01118wasteaudit.pdf.  
 
Ngoc, U. N. & Schnitzer, H. (2009). Sustainable solutions for solid waste management 
in Southeast Asian countries. Waste Management, 29(6), 1982-1995. 
 
Nilsson, J., Bjuggren C., et al. (1998). Greening of a campus restaurant at Stockholm 
University: sustainable development audits by means of the SDR methodology. 
Journal of Environmental Management, 52(4), 307-315. 
 
191 
 
NZBCSD. (2011). Zero waste: Introduction. Retrieved 15 April, 2011, from 
http://nzbcsd.org.nz/zerowaste/content.asp?id=24 
 
NZWS. (2010). New Zealand Waste Strategy: Reducing harm, improving efficiency. 
Retrieved 15 November, 2010, from 
http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/waste/waste-strategy/wastestrategy.pdf.  
 
OECD. (1991). Environmental indictors, a preliminary set. organisation for economic 
co-operation and development. Paris.  
 
OECD, (2002). Environment Data: Compendium 2002. Retrieved 12 February, 2011, 
from http://www.oecd.org>. 
 
OECD, (2007). Environmental performance review of New Zealand. Retrieved 12 
April, 2011, from http://www.oecd.org/document/10/0,2340,en_2649_34307_ 
37915274_1_1_1_1,00.html.  
 
Oskamp, S. (1995) Resource Conservation and Recycling: Behaviour and Policy. 
Journal of Social Issues, 51(4), 157-177. 
 
Parizeau, K., V. Maclaren, et al. (2006). Waste characterization as an element of waste 
management planning: Lessons learned from a study in Siem Reap, Cambodia. 
Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 49(2), 110-128. 
 
Pearson, R. (2002a). Waste audits as a management tool. Waste Management and 
Environment, October, 2002, 25-28. 
 
Pearson, R. (2002b). Step by step waste audit. Waste Management and Environment, 
December, 2002, 25-28. 
 
Pitchel, J. (2005). Waste management practices. Municipal, hazardous,  and industrial. 
Taylor and Francis Group; New York.  
 
Phillips, P. S., T. Tudor, et al. (2011). A critical review of a key Waste Strategy 
Initiative in England: Zero Waste Places Projects 2008-2009. Resources, 
Conservation and Recycling, 55(3), 335-343.  
 
PNCC. (2009). Waste Management and Minimisation Plan. Retrieved 15 October, 
2010, from 
http://www.palmerstonnorth.com/content/107635/Waste%20Man%20%20Min
%20Plan%202009web.pdf?now=2010-04-07T09:03:28.  
 
PNCC. (n.d.a).  New recycling service. Retrieved 19 October, 2010, from 
http://www.pncc.govt.nz/ServicesAndFacilities/CommonServices/Recycling/De
tail.aspx?id=108478.  
 
PNCC. (n.d.b). The A to Z of household recycling. Retrieved 2 May, 2011, from 
http://www.pncc.govt.nz/content/144154/A-Z%20Recycling%20for%20Web 
.pdf.  
 
192 
 
PotatoPak NZ Ltd. (2010). Our environment. Retrieved 2 May, 2011, from 
http://www.potatoplates.com/our-environment/.  
 
Samakovlis, E. (2004). Revaluing the hierarchy of paper recycling. Energy Economics, 
26(1), 101-122. 
 
Seadon, J. K. (2010). Sustainable waste management systems. Journal of Cleaner 
Production, 18(16-17), 1639-1651. 
 
Sidique, S. F., F. Lupi, et al. (2010). The effects of behavior and attitudes on drop-off 
recycling activities. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 54(3), 163-170. 
 
Slater, R., J. Frederickson, et al. (2007). A critical evaluation of partnerships in 
municipal waste management in England. Resources, Conservation and 
Recycling, 51(3), 643-664. 
 
Snyman, J. & Vorster, K. (2010). Towards zero waste: a case study in the City of 
Tshwane. Waste Management & Research. 
 
Solid Waste District (2011). How to conduct a Waste Audit. Retrieved February 18, 
2011, from  http://www.solidwastedistrict.com/information/stats.htm. 
 
Springett, D.V. (1995) Environmental responsibility: an agenda for tertiary education: 
guide for environmental action. New Zealand Natural Heritage Foundation, 
Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand. 
 
Suttibak, S. & Nitivattananon, V. (2008) Assessment of factors influencing the 
performance of solid waste recycling programs. Resources, Conservation and 
Recycling, 53, 45–56.  
 
TalInlI, I., R. Yamantürk, et al. (2005). A rating system for determination of hazardous 
wastes. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 126(1-3), 23-30.  
 
Tammemagi, H. (1999). The waste crisis. Landfills, incinerators, and the search for a 
sustainable future. Oxford university press, New York.  
 
Taufiq, T. (2010). Characteristics of fresh municipal solid waste. United States -- 
Texas, The University of Texas at Arlington. 115. 
 
The Solid Waste Policy Group, At Rutgers the State University of New Jersey (2011). 
Life Cycle; Waste Audit. Retrieved February 18, 2011, from 
http://aesop.rutgers.edu/~envpurchase/basics_cycle_audits.htm.   
 
Thomas, C. Yoxon, M. Slater, R & Leaman, J. (2004, Sept). Changing recycling 
behaviour: An evaluation of attitudes and behaviour to recycling in the Western 
Riverside area of London. Paper presented at the Waste 2004 Integrated Waste 
Management and Pollution Control Conference, Stratford-upon-Avon, UK. 
Retrieved 15 April, 2011, from http://oro.open.ac.uk/7647/.  
 
193 
 
Timaru District Council. (2007). Waste management report for waste audit. June 2007. 
Timaru District Council.  
 
Timlett, R. E. & Williams, I. D. (2008). Public participation and recycling performance 
in England: A comparison of tools for behaviour change. Resources, 
Conservation and Recycling, 52(4), 622-634. 
 
Tinmaz, E. & Demir, I. (2006). Research on solid waste management system: To 
improve existing situation in Çorlu Town of Turkey. Waste Management, 26(3), 
307-314. 
 
Tsai, W. T. & Chou, Y. H. (2004). Government policies for encouraging industrial 
waste reuse and pollution prevention in Taiwan. Journal of Cleaner Production, 
12(7), 725-736. 
 
U.C. Santa Barbara. (2009). Campus sustainability plan. Retrieved April 11, 2011, from 
http://sustainability.ucsb.edu/plan/docs/SustainPlanExecSumm_Final.pdf. 
 
UN Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (UNDESD). (2011). The 
Scotish Government. UN Decade of Education. Retrieved April 12, 2011, from 
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Environment/SustainableDevelopment/UN
Decade. 
 
UNESA. (1992). Agenda 21. Retrieved August 15, 2010, from 
http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/agenda21/.  
 
USEPA. (2001). Waste- Liquid waste. Retrieved, April 12, 2011, from 
http://www.epa.gov/ebtpages/wastliquidwaste.html. 
 
US Environmental Protection Agency (2006). Definition of Solid Waste for RCRA 
Subtitle C Hazardous Waste. Retrieved February 17, 2011, from. 
http://www.epa.gov/osw/hazard/dsw/.  
 
Waste management and environment. (2002). Step by step waste audit. Retrieved 
January 21, 2011, from 
http://www.wme.com.au/magazine/downloads/WasteAudit_dec2002.pdf. 
 
Waste Recycling Group Ltd. (2010). Energy from waste. Retrieved 15 April, 2011, 
from 
http://wrg.co.uk/page.php?article=637&name=Energy+from+Waste&preview=t
rue.  
 
Watson, M. (2009). Waste Management. International Encyclopedia of Human 
Geography. K. Rob and T. Nigel. Oxford, Elsevier, 195-200. 
 
Wei, M. S. & Huang, K. H. (2001). Recycling and reuse of industrial wastes in Taiwan.  
Waste Management, 21(1), 93-97. 
 
Williams, T. P. (2005). Waste treatment and disposal. (2nd ed). The University of 
Leeds, UK: Jhon Wiley & Sons.  
194 
 
 
Wilson, E. J. (2002). Life cycle inventory for municipal solid waste management. 
Waste Management & Research, 20(1), 16-22. 
 
Wilson, D.C., Whitemen, A. & Read, A.D. (2003). Strategy planning for solid waste 
management; an interactive toolkit for developing countries. Waste 
Management World, 55-60. 
 
WRAP. (2011). About WRAP. Retrieved 15 April, 2011, from 
http://www.wrap.org.uk/wrap_corporate/about_wrap/our_impact.html. 
 
Van Der Ryn, S. & Cowan, S. (1996). An introduction to ecological design. 
Washington DC: Island Press. Pp 17-32. 
 
Vencatasawmy, C.P., Öhman, M., & Brännström, T. (2000) A survey of recycling 
behaviour in households in Kiruna, Sweden. Waste Management & Research, 
18, 545-556. 
 
Young, C., S. Ni, et al. (2010). "Working towards a zero waste environment in 
Taiwan." Waste Management & Research, 28(3), 236. 
 
Zhang, N., Williams I. D., et al. (2011). "Greening academia: Developing sustainable 
waste management at Higher Education Institutions." Waste Management. In 
Press, Corrected Proof. 
 
Zhuang, Y., S.-W. Wu, et al. (2008). Source separation of household waste: A case 
study in China. Waste Management, 28(10), 2022-2030. 
 
ZERI. (2010). Zero Emissions Research and Initiatives. Retrieved 20 October, 2010, 
from http://www.zeri.org. 
 
Zero Waste Inc. (n.d.). Zero waste philosophy. Retrieved from  
http://www.zwinc.org/philosophy.html.  
 
Zero Waste SA. (2011). Zero Waste SA. Retrieved 15 April, 2011, from 
http://www.zerowaste.sa.gov.au/. 
 
ZWA. (2002). Memorandum of Understanding. Zero Waste New Zealand Trust, 
Palmerston North City Council & Massey University.   
 
Zero Waste International Alliance (ZWIA). (2007). The establishment of ZWIA. 
Retrieved April 14, 2011, from http://www.zerowaste.co.nz/default,134.sm. 
 
ZWIA. (2009). Global principles for zero waste communities. Retrieved 15 April, 
2011, from http://ambientefuturo.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/global-
principles-of-zw.pdf.  
 
ZWIA. (2010). Zero Waste International Alliance: About us. Retrieved 16 April, 2011, 
from 
195 
 
http://zwia.org/joomla/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1&Ite
mid=2.  
 
ZWNZ Trust. (1999). Funding Application Form. Zero Waste NZ Trust, Auckland, 
New Zealand. 
 
ZWNZ Trust. (2001). Zero waste resources: Australia. Retrieved 15 April, 2011, from 
http://www.zerowaste.co.nz/default,136.sm. 
 
ZWNZ Trust, (2008). Climate change, sustainability, and waste. Retrieved April 13, 
2011, from http://www.zerowaste.co.nz/default,766.sm. 
 
ZWNZ Trust. (2011a). Australia. Retrieved 19 April, 2011, from 
http://www.zerowaste.co.nz/default,250.sm. 
 
ZWNZ Trust. (2011b). Businesses. Retrieved 19 April, 2011, from 
http://www.zerowaste.co.nz/default,13.sm . 
 
ZWNZ Trust. (2011c). Community Business & Environment Centre (CBEC). 
Retrieved 19 April, 2011, from http://www.zerowaste.co.nz/default,198.sm . 
 
ZWNZ Trust. (2011d). Councils. Retrieved 19 April, 2011, from 
http://www.zerowaste.co.nz/default,councils.sm. 
 
ZWNZ Trust. (2011e). Far North District Council. Retrieved 18 April, 2011, from 
http://www.zerowaste.co.nz/default,83.sm. 
 
ZWNZ Trust. (2011f). Fonterra. Retrieved 18 April, 2011, from 
http://www.zerowaste.co.nz/default,495.sm. 
 
ZWNZ Trust, (2011g). Palmerston North City Council. Retrieved 18 April, 2011, from 
http://www.zerowaste.co.nz/default,98.sm. 
 
ZWNZ Trust. (2011h). Some other examples. Retrieved 18 April, 2011, from 
http://www.zerowaste.co.nz/default,365.sm. 
 
ZWNZ Trust. (2011i). What is the Zero Waste Academy?. Retrieved 18 April, 2011, 
from http://www.zerowaste.co.nz/default,academy.sm. 
 
ZWNZ Trust. (2011j). What’s happening on-campus. Retrieved 20 April, 2011, from 
http://www.zerowaste.co.nz/default,82.sm. 
 
ZWNZ Trust. (2011k). Zero Waste NZ Trust. Retrieved 20 April, 2011, from 
http://www.zerowaste.co.nz/default,808.sm.  
 
196 
 
 
APPENDIX I 
 
 
Research Briefing and Recommendations  
 
‘Enhancing Waste and Recycling Infrastructure and the Awareness and 
Participation of the Campus Community at the Massey University-Turitea Campus-
Palmerston North’ 
 
Rony Da Costa 
Masters Student, INR, Massey University.  
 
Introduction 
Over the last few decades, waste has become a major concern and has threatened the 
sustainability of our environment and impacted on human health (Manga, Forton et al. 
2008; Watson 2009). For these reasons, successive national governments and Non-
Governmental Organisations (NGOs) have been exploring ways to minimise waste, and 
to lessen the adverse impacts of waste on our environment, and on human health 
(Waste Minimisation Act, 2008). In 1999, a zero waste programme was established at 
Massey University Palmerston North by the School for Environmental Engineering 
(Mason, Brooking et al. 2003; Mason, Oberender et al. 2004). The main objective in 
establishing the zero waste programme was “to provide a way of responding to the 
growing interest and concern relating to practical environmental management of the 
campus”. Secondary objectives were to promote ongoing research, education for 
sustainability (EFS), alongside raising environmental awareness and responsibility 
among the campus community.  
 
Since its establishment, several Massey research projects (Springett 1995, Strauss 1996, 
Brown et al 1999, Navarro 2000, Hannon 2000, Mason 2001, Brooking et al. 2003, 
Hannon 2004, Oberender et al. 2004) and have contributed information designed to 
inform and support zero waste – and more broadly sustainability - programme 
development. This project follows that precedent, with the addition that it was 
197 
 
structured to include the development and presentation of recommendations to 
Facilitates Management, thereby emulating a professional consultative setting for the 
student. This model of research provides an opportunity to pilot the idea of the campus 
providing a ‘living laboratory’ where sustainability related, ‘real world’ issues are 
studied with the view of designing solution based sustainability programme 
developments for Massey University. This concept presents a potential win-win for 
Massey. Opening up the campus as ‘living laboratory’ creates an array of value added 
learning and research opportunities in a setting which emulates the professional context 
for which students are being prepared. Over time, the knowledge base built up by this 
focussed student research programme (supported by staff expertise) will provide high 
quality feedstock for the ongoing decision making and investment needed to drive 
Massey’s sustainability programme.        
 
This latest research project involved undertaking a series waste and recycling audits to 
provide detailed and up to date information on the performance of the zero waste 
programme at Massey University’s Turitea campus. The specific aim of this research 
report is, having analysed the existing recycling program, to combine this with a 
directed study of relevant international best practices and to, informed by these findings 
then, develop and present a series of recommendations for improving campus zero 
waste management.  
 
This briefing report is based upon two parts. Part I describes the basic waste and 
recycling infrastructure across the campus, alongside the key findings from auditing 
this programme. This baseline report was presented in a meeting with Massey’s 
Facilities Management staff. As a result of the discussion and feedback, further 
research questions were identified and additional work was undertaken. This second 
body of work forms Part II and presents the key findings from the audit of the recycling 
and waste in the student hostels, as well as addressing the required volumetric 
component for this project.  
 
This briefing report has also been developed so as to provide a quick introduction and 
overview of zero waste at Massey. This design element was included in response to 
staffing changes brought about by the ‘shared services’ restructuring, which highlighted 
the need for succession planning and to have documentation in stock, via which any 
198 
 
new staff member could pick up and read to gain a quick start understanding of the zero 
waste programme history, scope - and issues and opportunities.    
 
Part I 
Part I of this report presents key findings from the examination of concourse (central 
keynote part of the campus) waste and recycling infrastructure. The audit process was 
undertaken in a planned series, which sought to encompass the ‘seasonality’ of the 
university community as well as being designed to capture a snapshot of a key element 
of the wider campus waste and recycling network in statistically appropriate way. Key 
results are discussed below. 
 
Collection System in Massey University, Turitea Campus 
Massey has a number of existing recycling, waste, and organic resources collection 
points and associated bin types, which are placed at a variety of different sites.  At 
present, Massey uses a variety of different types of bins around the campus. Each bin is 
designed for a different purpose and this is reflected in the characteristics and size of 
each bin. These bins range from rather small to extremely large. The following is a 
detailed description regarding the existing bin types and locations as well as the key 
issues and list of recommendations.  
 
1. ‘Wheelie’ Bins / Mobile Garbage Bins (MGBs) 
The following is a detailed illustration of location and type of wheelie bins on 
campus.  
 
    
 a. Inside the Dining Hall             b. Concourse area (opposite dining hall entrance)      
       
199 
 
     
 c. The Library main entrance                          d. The Concourse Area (Northern corner of library)   
 
        
  e. Concourse area behind the Dining Hall          f. The Social Science Lecture Theatre 
 
     
 f. Inside the Dining Hall   g. Recreation Centre  
 
   
 h. Campus Accommodations (hostels) 
 
Figures 1, Recycling Wheelie Bins in the Concourse, the Dining hall area, and the Student Hostels. 
NB: these MGBS have been adapted for recycling with the use of recycling lids. 
 
200 
 
The above figure 1 illustrates the type of wheelie bins which are located adjacent to the 
concourse area, in the student dining hall, student accommodation, and recreation 
centre. The size or volume of the wheelie bin is 240 litres and there are a total of 26 
clusters. Each cluster is colour coded, for instance the red colour is for aluminium and 
tin cans; and the green colour is for plastics and bottles.  
 
The process of removing the recyclable materials from the wheelie bin clusters is 
coordinated by Green Bike Trust (GBT). This is undertaken twice a week on Tuesday 
and Thursday. The collection and transportation of recyclable materials in the wheelie 
bins is done by using the small truck (See Figure 2 below). Because of contamination 
issues the recycling still needs to be hand sorted on campus prior to be transported to 
the PNCC Awapuni Sustainable Development Centre (ASDC).  
  
Figure 2, Green Bike Trust (GBT) truck (left) and RFM tractor and trailer (right) used for 
emptying respectively recycling wheelie bins and waste in Massey 
 
Aside from external recycling clusters, there are also three new organic food waste 
collection wheelie bins which are recently placed inside the student dining hall. These 
wheelie bins are dedicated for organic waste collection. However these are not clearly 
signposted as such (See Figure 3).  
 
Figure 3, the picture of organic waste bin in the Dining Hall area.  
201 
 
 
2. Waste Collection (Small Waste bins).  
There are two types of small waste bins around campus.  These are either round or 
square shapes. The round shape is a new model whereas the square is an older 
model (NB: there is a significant price difference between the two and it appears 
Massey is in the process of replacing old with new). In total there are 12 round bins 
and 8 square bins located in the concourse area. These waste bins are placed in a 
variety of sites adjacent to the concourse area and the student dining hall.  
 
There are significant issues with the level of contamination in the waste bins (i.e. all 
types of recyclables and organic resources are placed in waste bin instead of the 
recycling collection system). The average percentage of contamination was found to 
be 64%.  
  
  
Figure 4: Illustrates the two types of the small waste bin (round or square) emptied by truck and the 
large general waste bin which is used for amalgamating and storing bulk waste at convenient sites 
around the campus. The network of large bins are emptied / serviced by a front load truck operated 
by an external contractor.   
202 
 
 
These waste bins are dedicated for waste only collection but this distinction is not 
well supported by accompanying signage. The Regional Facilities Management 
(RFM) office is responsible for managing the emptying of these bins. The process 
of emptying the waste is carried out daily by ground keeping staff using a small 
tractor (See Figure 2). The collected waste which is contained in plastic bags is 
subsequently ‘dumped’ into the bulk waste bins which are located around the 
campus (See Figure 4). The use of plastic bin liners assists in keeping both waste 
and recycling bins clean, but as a practice in itself creates additional waste.   
 
3. Large: Paper (1) and Polystyrene (2) Recycling Cages, Glass Bins (3), Scrap 
Metal Bins (4).   
These bins are the largest waste and recycling bins used at Massey University. The 
illustration of the large bins collection is shown below in Figure 5.  
 
     
1. Recycling cage bin          2. Polystyrene Cage 
   
     3. Glass bin                 4. Scrap Metal bin 
              
 
The bulk waste bins used at the Turitea campus range in size from 1.5m3, 2m3, 3m3 
to 4.5m3 (Massey Regional Facility Management RFM, 2010). In total, there are 40 
bins used at the Turitea campus. These consist of twenty bins of 1.5m3, one bin of 
2m3, five bins of 3m3, and thirteen bins of 4.5m3. These bins are located in various 
places around Turitea campus and Massey student halls or hostels. The detailed 
203 
 
information with regard to location, size, and total number of large waste bulk 
collection is appended as Table 1 as part of Appendix 1.  
 
In total there are nineteen paper recycling cage bins placed across the campus. 
There are three colour separated glass bins (clear/flint, green and brown) plus 
polystyrene recycling cage and one scrap metal recycling bin located up at the GBT 
base at the ‘boiler house’. The emptying and removal of the waste and recycling 
from within the large bins and cages is handled by a variety of contract service 
providers managed by RFM. For example: waste - via a ‘Waste Management Ltd’ 
front load truck, paper - via ‘Fullcircle’, glass - via ‘Cairns Bins’, polystyrene - via 
‘Genesis Trust’ and the scrap metal bin is emptied via a local scrap metal dealer.  
 
 
4. The Staff / Common Room Recycling, Waste, and Organic Resource 
Collection System.   
The Massey waste and recycling system utilises three different types of bin in the 
staff common room recycling programme. These are waste, ‘all in’ general 
recycling, and organic resource bins (see figure 6). The process of emptying 
recycling and waste is carried out on demand by RFM, whereas organic recycling 
collections are carried out routinely twice a week (Wednesday and Friday) by an 
independent contractor working in synergy with the Green Hub. Detailed 
information with regard to location and total number of waste, general and organic 
resource recycling bins is shown below in Table 2 as part of Appendix 1 
 
Figure 6, types of general recycling, waste, and organic collection receptacle in the staff common 
room. 
Organic Waste Recycling 
204 
 
 
General Observation of Collections Management: 
The servicing arrangements of the waste and recycling infrastructure is spread across a 
wide variety of internal and external service providers. These appear to have 
proliferated as new elements of the system have been added in. Whilst there is a certain 
degree of resilience in this diversity there may be advantages in simplifying the service 
provision so as to reduce the management demand and possibly cost. There would 
appear to be value in timing the examination of collection service arrangements 
alongside that of the recycling system design as a whole so that if any changes are 
forthcoming they can be implemented in synergy. 
  
Discussion of Key Audit Findings: 
The audit highlighted performance issues with the cluster model of recycling. This is 
indicated by there being an average contamination level of 15% by weight (i.e. all types 
waste and organic materials in the recycling, and misplaced recycling in the wrong bin). 
A key issue related to the potential cause of contamination in the wheelie bins is 
unclear/UV degraded and or missing signage (see Figure 1 above). Aside from signage 
issues, the Massey contamination levels may be derivative of the fact that the existing 
cluster system necessitates additional drop-off choices (i.e. which bin do I put my 
material in?) which may confuse or demand more thought from customers than they are 
prepared to put into this action.  
 
As it stands the current level of contamination means that the material has to be hand 
re-sorted on-campus by the Green Hub - rather than being able to be taken directly up 
to the Material Recovery Facility (MRF) at the Awapuni Sustainable Development 
Centre (ASDC). This quality assurance (QA) problem exists in spite of the fact the 
PNCC have adopted an all-in1 recycling MGB based curb-side recycling system, whilst 
Massey retains a separation at source model (e.g. people have to pick which bin in the 
cluster they need to deposit into).  
 
                                                 
1 NB The PNCC curb-side recycling system does facilitate separate glass collection into 60 L crates on 
alternate weeks. All other mixed recyclable paper, aluminium and steel cans, cardboard and all plastics 
go into the 240 L MGB  
205 
 
Whilst currently the recyclable material collected on campus feeds off into the city 
MRF processing system this is where the programme alignment ends. In the past the 
city’s household source separated plastic bag contained was conceptually aligned with 
the similar cluster model on campus, in terms of both systems requiring participants to 
action choices based upon awareness of how the system works. Now that the city has 
introduced ‘all in’ curb-side MGB system, the city and campus models are out of sync. 
Given that staff and students who live in the city are now experiencing this new simpler 
recycling system, the disconnect between this and the outmoded on campus system may 
be a source of confusion, and or pushback antagonism resulting in excessive 
contamination. It could be argued that if anything Massey’s ‘separation at source’ 
derived recyclables should be of higher quality than the general ‘all-in’ curb-side 
recyclables collected by the PNCC. However this appears not to be the case. 
   
Figure 7: Illustration of the old PNCC curb-side recycling system vs. the new. Left: The old ‘source 
separated’ curb-side bags. Right: All-in recycling MGB with a separate glass crate. NB: the 
implementation of the new system has resulted in a increase in recycling participation from approx 30% 
to 90% of households.    
 
A second form of on campus recycling system misalignments occurs in that the indoor 
staff common room recycling system does not match that employed outdoors. 
Ironically the indoor system employs in large part the same conceptual model as the 
PNCC new all-in curb-side system. This on-campus system mismatch may also be a 
source of confusion/ frustration related contamination. Currently the in-door organic 
resource collection and recycling system has not been rolled out uniformly around the 
whole campus. The waste audit findings show that organics resources are a major 
contaminant in the concourse waste system. Introducing an outdoor organics recycling 
206 
 
system on-campus so as to match what is working indoors is likely to reduce waste to 
landfill as well as provide a sense of cohesion to the zero waste programme.         
  
 
Part II 
Part II of this report presents the key findings of a waste audit which was conducted in 
the student hostels. This supplementary work request resulted from the initial meeting 
with RFM, where they considered understanding the hostel recycling scenario critical 
to any decision making regarding the recycling programme as a whole. RFM also 
sought clarification as to the volumetric rate at which recyclables were deposited into 
the concourse recycling system. An understanding of volume considerations is critical 
to aligning any possible changes in bin configuration/size with the servicing interval at 
which time the recycling bins are emptied. Get this factor wrong and recycling bins 
might overflow and potentially cause an aesthetic and practical nuisance.    
 
The hostel waste and recycling audit was undertaken by drawing upon the methodology 
established for the previous auditing work. The volumetric considerations were 
addressed by developing a Massey weight to volume conversion factor. This will allow 
all previous weight based waste and recycling audit data to be converted to volume 
data. Given that all waste and recycling audits have been undertaken over a fixed time 
period – aligned to current service intervals – this means some informed discussion can 
be entered into regarding the rates at which recyclables are generated and deposited, 
hence what bin volumes and configurations may be appropriate to encompass these 
flows.   
 
As a result, the following table of Massey’s weight to volume conversion factors – 
based on recyclable commodity type has been created. See Table 3 Appendix 1. 
 
Brief findings of the quantity and weight of recyclables and waste generated, as 
well as the level of waste and recyclables contamination in the student hostels.  
There are a total of 17 hostels across the Turitea campus. These hostels can be said to 
be comprised of four different groupings (Moginie Village, Turitea, The Courts, and 
Atawhai Village) with varying population characteristics, such as a high percentage of 
first year vs older or international students. Accordingly, a number of samples of this 
207 
 
study were selected using a systematic random sampling based on the four different 
groups. Table 4 in Appendix 1 below shows in a highlight (yellow) of which nine 
hostels were chosen using systematic random sampling.  
 
The data presented in following Table 5 of Appendix 1 is the data collected, which 
relates to a one week period. The actual data was collected on March 8th and 10th 2011 
during semester one, 2011, which is when students are on campus. The data obtained is 
weight by each category of recyclables and the percentage of audit result, correct and 
incorrect recycling based on each location of student hostel. Following is the auditing 
result of the final trial.   
 
In total, from nine hostels sampled (ref Table 5 – Appendix 1) a total of 256.31 kg of 
recyclables was generated. Utilising the conversion factors allowed us to estimate the 
volume of this material as 3.16 m3. Currently in the hostels the recycling contamination 
% is a very creditable 1.7% which is a very positive outcome. In the research report 
further analysis of these results is undertaken in order to drawn a more complete picture 
of the relative differences in per person recycling generation, as this may relate to the 
demographic variance in the hostel system. These findings may support further 
developments in environmental communication and social marketing to encourage 
ongoing participation. 
 
Alongside auditing the hostel recycling system, the situation with general waste was 
also examined and taken into account in conducting waste audit in the student hostels. 
In this case, only four locations were chosen using a systematic random sampling 
(Moginie hall, City Court, Colombo and Tawa hall). Based on the data obtained, the 
average contamination (i.e. recyclables found in the waste bin via the auditing process) 
is 38%, which can be considered significant.  The complete findings developed from 
waste auditing the four selected – representative - hostels are shown in Table 6 of 
Appendix 1. 
 
This contrasting picture tells us that whilst when people do actually recycle they do so 
in an accurate manner, making few ‘separation at source’ errors/omissions, which 
results in very low contamination. However it appears many people opt out and do not 
participant in recycling, which results in a significant amount of recyclable material 
208 
 
entering the waste stream. It can be presumed that because there is no organic recycling 
programme in the hostel, that a portion of this waste will be potentially recyclable 
organic resources. However, given that hostel students to a large degree frequent the 
centralised student dining centre – in which organic recycling is established, that not all 
of the recyclables currently in the waste can be attributed to this factor.  
 
In summary, whilst the waste and recycling audit process has quantified some very 
positive outcomes, this work has also highlighted some issues relating to recycling in 
the hostels, which is an important element of the overall zero waste programme on this 
campus. It is clear that any consideration of options for a zero waste programme ‘make-
over’ which involves a redevelopment of the recycling infrastructure and servicing, 
needs to factor in the whole variety of locations and niche circumstances – including 
the hostels - which exist on campus.      
 
 
Key Issues and Corresponding Recommendations. 
 
In general, the recycling collection system at Massey University Turitea campus works 
relatively well. However, there are several key issues which need to be considered, in 
order to build on this good performance. For instance; 
 The signage of wheelie bins is unclear and is potentially confusing for 
international students;  
 There is no signage on some of the wheelie bins and the existing signage is sun 
(UV) damaged. 
 
 
Recommendation 1: Programme Brand and Signage Makeover. 
Upgrade the Massey institutional, all-campus recycling system brand and hierarchy of 
instructional signage to ensure the motivational messages and key instructions are 
clearer and definitively linked to the broader sustainability programme. (For a mock-up 
example of ‘programme branding’ see Appendix 2). Additionally, there would be 
considerable value in reconsidering the interrelationship between the application of the 
New Zealand recycling symbols (which are currently used) and the incorporation of 
209 
 
other national recycling branding in particular the ‘LOVENZ’ national public spaces 
recycling brand. Finally consideration should be given to acknowledging and 
incorporating common international student languages.   
 
   
 This Massey Turitea campus recycling ‘cluster’ system is relatively old (arguably 
based on an outdated idea) and out of sync with the city’s new recycling 
collection model, which is managed by the PNCC. Additionally, Turitea’s 
campus outdoor vs indoor recycling systems are out of sync. This culminates in 
confusion, which potentially undermines effective participation in the zero waste 
programme. The issue of contamination has been red flagged by the findings of 
the waste and recycling audits undertaken as part of this research project.  
 
 
Recommendation 2: Institutional / Campus Recycling System Makeover 
For finalising and implementing an institutional recycling infrastructure and servicing 
system redesign this research project has initiated discussion around two redevelopment 
options. However, the scope of this research project is confined to the Turitea campus 
(and hence Palmerston North as the host city). It needs to be recognised that, in line 
with the recommended whole of institutional brand make-over the other two campus / 
host city scenarios need to be factored in – in arriving at a final overarching 
redevelopment plan. Locally improved recycling system alignment – within the campus 
in and out-door spaces and between city and campus models appears to be a 
commonsense redevelopment avenue which will facilitate the opportunity to  leverage 
value added social marketing benefits off any given host city’s ongoing municipal 
recycling education programmes. 
   
 
 There is a lot of contamination of potentially recyclable organic resources in both 
the waste on and recycling bins. In large part it might be argued that this has 
arisen from the fact Massey has adopted biodegradable food packaging (as 
opposed to the previous non recyclable polystyrene containers in the student 
210 
 
dining area without necessarily facilitating and communicating the corresponding 
organic recycling this change created a need for.   
 
 
Recommendation 3: Complete the ‘Roll-out’ of Organic Recycling as a Uniform 
Part of the Campus Recycling System. 
Expanding the current organic recycling system from just the staff common rooms to 
include the student hostels and outdoor collection points in association with general 
recycling collection, is likely further reduce waste to landfill and mitigate a significant 
contamination issue (paper food plates mistakenly put into paper recycling). The 
current use of bio-bags and boxes which works well in an indoor environment needs to 
be examined for effectiveness in an outdoor context. 
  
 
 The scope of the current Turitea campus recycling network has remained static 
for several years. In adopting a waste and recycling audit approach the research 
has inherently focussed on parts of the University where recycling exists. Of 
equal importance is to understand the fate of recyclable resources in parts of the 
campus not currently covered by the recycling services. Depending on future 
investment in recycling infrastructure and services further gap analysis type 
research work may be warranted.   
 This research project has specifically not been expanded to include in its scope 
the zero waste programmes of other Massey campuses. Again this is an important 
consideration which warrants further exploration. Ideally Massey will illustrate a 
high level of zero waste programme alignment in terms of infrastructure 
(conceptual model, bin types and network coverage), communications and 
servicing, across all of its campuses. A key factor is achieving positive alignment 
with host city / and local recycling service providers.  
 
 
Recommendation 4: Explore the practicalities of - and then set a goal for - 
establishing whole of campus recycling networks, based upon a uniform 
institutional and locally appropriate approach in each of Massey’s key locations. 
211 
 
At the Turitea campus, such an expansion will ensure that a greater number of strategic 
locations are covered, thereby creating a truly campus wide recycling network. 
Depending on which if any redevelopment option is selected, an examination of all 
campuses recycling programmes as a single institutional programme may throw up 
opportunities to reuse equipment between campuses thereby generating costs savings 
and synergy. 
          
 
  
 
Proposed Recycling Re-development Options: 
In order to progress the required, ‘where to from’ here discussion, the following two 
redevelopment options have been profiled for the Turitea campus:   
 
Option I: Synergy with the PNNC recycling model. 
One way can be achieved is by using the collection system which is similar to the 
PNCC model (wheelie bins and crates, see figure 7 below). This provides the 
advantages of being able to draw upon the value of the PNCC brand and potentially 
also cost savings from the economies of scale they enjoy.  
 
  
Figure 7: An illustration of the new recycling collection system and branding in Palmerston North – a 
240 L MGB and a 60 L glass recycling crate – NB: collected on alternate weeks. (Source PNCC 2010) 
 
Synergising with the PNCC recycling collection system within Massey is likely to 
increase effectiveness of the programme due to the campus community having 
familiarity with the PNCC`s system design, function and behaviour change messages. 
212 
 
Accordingly, the performance of campus recycling programme, in terms of increasing 
recycling volumes (equal less waste disposal costs) and reducing contamination levels 
(equals lower or hopefully zero on-campus resorting costs) is likely to improve. Aside 
from the advantages mentioned above, there are also a number of potential 
disadvantages such as the cost of the bin housing design (see figure 8: below) and the 
cost of purchasing new recycling collection bins. 
 
This model option will reduce the choices required of any given participant whilst 
maintaining a separate glass collection, which is a major safety and quality assurance 
consideration. This model adopts the all-in general recycling collection as per 
household recycling in the city. The use of the same bin types will draw upon people’s 
familiarity with the city’s programme rules (i.e. what goes where) and this familiarity 
can be supported by a unique Massey branding communications signature. 
213 
 
 
Figure 8: A model of campus recycling based upon utilising the PNCC model (i.e. all-in general 
recycling in a 240 L MGB and a separate 60 L glass recycling crate) alongside incorporating an organic 
resource recycling system and an institutional brand make-over with reworked signage. 
  
In developing Massey’s redeveloped branding and communications strategy, it should 
also be possible to draw upon other leading national and international recycling related 
programmes / brands in order to produce a clear, powerful, user friendly and effective 
communications framework in support of the collections infrastructure.   
 
In shifting from a ‘cluster’ format (up to 5 similar MGBs in a single location) to a 
single all-in general recycling model this potentially reduces the collection volume 
214 
 
available for the combined; plastics, paper and metal cans collection. This issue can be 
offset by:  
 Increasing the emptying/servicing frequency (NB: this may be required anyway 
in order to manage the challenges associated with organics recycling 
collections),  
 Increasing the number of recycling stations in high usage zones (NB: if 
recommendation 4 is adopted this will to a degree happen anyway), 
 Configuring a double-up of identical general recycling bins into a single 
recycling station. 
 
If the this option is selected for further detailed analysis and costing then the volumetric 
information will provide a way of determining which of the above options might be 
required to optimise the system design and to calibrate the requisite servicing.          
 
 
Option II: Reusing and Reformatted Existing Recycling Collection. 
The idea behind this option is to modify and re-present the ‘cluster’ model, i.e. the 
existing selection of wheelie bins, in a new and upgraded configuration. Figure 9 below 
illustrates some design work Massey had previously commissioned to explore this line 
of thinking. In reality any one of several hybrid ideas could be compiled under the 
guise of this option. For example: Separate glass collection and or organics recycling 
could be developed usingexisting 240 L MGB. The all-in general recyclables PNCC 
240 L MGBs could be inserted into this configuration, which would allow the existing 
MGB owned by Massey to be reincorporated in a modified updated context.    
 
This option has the advantage of making use of existing equipment arguable retaining 
some of the benefits of this system, for example the familiarity and buy-in the campus 
community has built up with this model. This option can also be applied around 
recommendation 1 – 4, the only apparent down side is that for, what is likely to be 
similar cost implications, this option may engender less of a high impact sense of being 
a complete system ‘make-over’ and hence attract less attention from staff and students, 
which is a valuable currency in terms of social marketing and communication.  
215 
 
 
Figure 9: Design work illustrating a remodelled / upgraded cluster concept.   
 
Option III: Start from scratch and explore the variety of new recycling bin 
systems. 
I do not, for reasons of cost and continuity, advocate this approach. However Appendix 
3 contains a variety of images of the ‘wide world’ of recycling bin design, which may 
act as a prompt stimulating further discussion as to which options will work best for 
Massey going forward. 
  
Summary of Key Ideas: 
1. Complete the Turitea campus recycling collection network by increasing the 
number and distribution of outdoor sites2. 
2. Redesign the model of individual recycling hub or station so as to incorporate the 
latest ideas. 
3. If possible synergise with PNCC (or that any host city) systems (e.g. MGB bin 
design/type, separate glass collection crate). 
                                                 
2 Appendix 3 contains an illustration of prospective new recycling sties that might be considered 
important as key focal points for new recycling collection on the Turitea Campus so as to create a 
complete campus network. 
216 
 
4. Brand, launch and reinforce this upgraded recycling collection system with a new 
look/signage and ongoing communication strategy which links back to 
‘Sustainability at Massey’.     
5. Introduce into the system dedicated outdoor organic recycling collection systems to 
complement the successful existing indoor staff common organic recycling option.  
Appendix 1: 
Table 1: The location, size and total number of the bulk waste bin in Turitea campus 
No Waste bin Location 
Size 
(m3) 
1 Bernard Chambers Carpark, off Library Rd 1.5 
2 Vet Tower, outside gate to yard, off University Ave into Ag Eng car park  4.5 
3 Vet Clinic Garage, by Vet Clinic Garage 1.5 
4 Library, beside loading Bay back of library, Library Rd 4.5 
5 Science Tower D, loading Bay Science Tower D, end of Riddet Road 3 
6 Social Science Tower, car park to right of SST Building, University Ave  4.5 
7 Wharerata, Wharerata car park, University Avenue 1.5 
8 Mognie Hall 4.5 
9 Craig Lockhart & Walter Dyer Halls 1.5 
10 Tararua & Ruahine Halls 4.5 
11 AgHort B 1.5 
12 AgHort C 1.5 
13 Green Bike Trust (GBT) 4.5 
14 Boiler House 3 
15 Maori Studies, Bourke Road, Maori Studies building loading bay 1.5 
16 Creche car park  1.5 
17 Maori Studies, Bourke Road, Childcare 1.5 
18 Printery, car park behind Printery, off Collinson Rd 4.5 
19 Prac Teach Agrom, compound behind building, off Collinson Rd  1.5 
20 Riddet Compound, Riddet Rd, (between Riddet bldgs) 1.5 
21 Kairanga Court, second bin in Workshop Rd 4.5 
22 City Court Hostel, first bin in Workshop Rd 4.5 
23 Rotary Court, University Ave 3 
24 Matai & Kiwitea Halls 4.5 
25 MacHardy Hall 1.5 
26 Refectory, Refectory Rd, behind Refectory building 1.5 
27 Business Studies, University Ave, car park behind Bus. Studies Central 1.5 
28 International Office 1.5 
29 University House, Japanese Theatre  1.5 
30 Main Building, adjacent Old Registry 4.5 
31 Dining Hall 4.5 
32 Science Tower A, Colombo Rd, back of Science Tower A 3 
33 Tawa Hall 1.5 
217 
 
34 Residential service office (RSO), Colombo Rd 1.5 
35 RFM, inside W&S courtyard, Colombo Rd 1.5 
36 Colombo Hall, outside Colombo Hall 3 
37 Food Technology  4.5 
38 Riddet 2, off University Ave, between Colombo & Riddet Roads  1.5 
39 Riddet labs, between Riddet and Computing Services bldgs 1.5 
40 Sport Complex, Orchard Rd behind Sports centre 2 
 
 
Table 2: The location and total number of general recycling, waste, and organic recycling bins as 
part of the staff common room recycling programme at the Turitea campus. 
No Location Organic Recycling Waste 
1 International Office       
2 Research Management Service       
3 University House       
4 Japan Lecture Theatre       
5 Humanities Building       
6 HR Reception       
7 Business Studies       
8 Refectory building       
9 Communication building       
10 Registry Building Level 1       
11 Registry Building Level 2       
12 Social Science Tower Level 1       
13 Social Science Tower Level 6       
14 Geographic Building Level 3       
15 Library Level 2       
16 Library Level 3       
17 Radio Fm       
18 Maori Studies       
19 Vet-Equine Blood       
20 Vet-Common Room       
21 Aghort Common Room       
22 Riddet-School of Engineering       
23 School of Engineering       
24 I.T Common Room       
25 RFM       
26 Riddet       
27 Wool Building       
28 Recreation Centre       
29 Printery       
30 NSAT       
 
218 
 
 
Table 3, Massey’s conversion factor.  
Category 
Volume 
(0.1m3 ) 
Plastic & Bottles 2.1 kg 
Aluminium & Tin Cans 4.10 kg 
Mixed Paper 10.9 
Glass 25.76 
Organic Food 18.40kg 
 
Table 4, Student hostels in Massey University, Turitea campus 
No Location Hostel 
1 Moginie 
1 Moginie 
2 Craiglockhart  
3 Bindaloe 
4 Walter Dyer 
5 Tararua & Ruahine 
2 Turitea 
1 McHardy 
2 Colombo 
3 Matai  
4 Totara 
5 Miro 
6 Tawa 
7 Kiwitea 
3 The Courts 
1 City Court 
2 Egmont Court 
3 Kairanga Court 
4 Rotary Court 
4 Atawhai 1 Atawhai  
 
There are a total of nine hostels selected as a sample for waste auditing. They are Moginie, Bindaloe, 
Tararua & Ruahine, Colombo, Matai, Tawa, City Court, Kairanga Court, and Atawhai.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
219 
 
 
Table 6: Summary findings of the hostel waste audit. 
Code Trial Location  
Correct Incorrect Total 
(kg) 
(kg) (%) (kg) (%) 
F  
(Waste) 
Trial 
IV 
Moginie 
Hall 
44.5 61% 28.6 39% 73.1 
City 
Court 
57.2 59% 40.3 41% 97.5 
Colombo 
Hall 
42.2 63% 24.6 27% 66.8 
Tawa 
hall 
49.8 66% 25.8 34% 75.6 
Total 193.7 62% 119.3 38% 313 
 
22
0 
 Ta
bl
e 
5,
 th
e 
ov
er
al
l r
ec
yc
la
bl
es
 c
om
po
si
ti
on
 o
f 
th
e 
ni
ne
 s
tu
de
nt
 h
os
te
ls
  
N
o 
St
ud
en
t 
H
os
te
ls
 
C
at
eg
or
y 
T
ot
al
 
(k
g)
 
T
ot
al
 
V
ol
um
e 
(m
3 )
 
M
ix
ed
 P
la
st
ic
 (
B
1)
 
A
lu
m
in
iu
m
 &
 T
in
 
C
an
s 
(B
2)
 
M
ix
ed
 P
ap
er
 (
B
3)
 
M
ix
ed
 G
la
ss
 
B
ot
tl
es
 (
B
4)
 
C
or
re
ct
 
(K
g)
 
In
co
rr
ec
t 
(K
g)
 
C
or
re
ct
 
(K
g)
 
In
co
rr
ec
t 
(K
g)
 
C
or
re
ct
 
(K
g)
 
In
co
rr
ec
t 
(K
g)
 
C
or
re
ct
 
(K
g)
 
In
co
rr
ec
t 
(K
g)
 
1 
M
og
in
ie
 
1.
95
 
0.
2 
1.
15
 
0 
10
.0
5 
0.
22
 
11
.9
5 
0.
37
 
25
.8
9 
0.
26
 
2 
T
ar
ar
ua
&
R
ua
hi
ni
e 
3.
9 
0.
27
 
4.
15
 
0.
27
 
5.
1 
0.
1 
9.
2 
0 
22
.9
9 
0.
38
 
3 
B
in
da
lo
e 
1.
8 
0.
09
 
2.
05
 
0 
3.
27
 
0.
12
 
37
.5
 
0 
44
.8
3 
0.
32
 
4 
C
ol
om
bo
 
2.
6 
0.
08
 
1.
65
 
0 
6.
85
 
0.
1 
10
 
0 
21
.2
8 
0.
31
 
5 
T
aw
a 
1.
85
 
0.
06
 
1.
48
 
0.
25
 
2.
95
 
0.
1 
10
.4
5 
0 
17
.1
4 
0.
19
 
6 
M
at
ai
 
2.
25
 
0.
15
 
1.
95
 
0.
08
 
8.
6 
0.
05
 
13
.6
 
0.
25
 
26
.9
3 
0.
29
 
7 
C
it
y 
C
ou
rt
 
3.
2 
0.
06
 
6.
2 
0.
33
 
4.
95
 
0.
2 
22
.6
5 
0.
2 
37
.7
9 
0.
44
 
8 
K
ai
ra
ng
a 
C
ou
rt
 
3.
3 
0 
2.
85
 
0.
16
 
7.
25
 
0.
1 
8.
5 
0.
09
 
22
.2
5 
0.
32
 
9 
A
ta
w
ha
i 
6.
75
 
0.
32
 
7.
35
 
0.
1 
10
.2
 
0 
12
.3
5 
0.
14
 
37
.2
1 
0.
65
 
T
ot
al
 r
ec
yc
lin
g 
 
27
.6
 
 
28
.8
3 
 
59
.2
2 
 
13
6.
2 
 
25
6.
31
 
3.
16
 
T
ot
al
 c
on
ta
m
in
at
io
n 
 
 
1.
23
 
 
1.
19
 
 
0.
99
 
 
1.
05
 
4.
46
 
 
 C
ur
re
nt
ly
 in
 th
e 
ho
st
el
s 
th
e 
re
cy
cl
in
g 
co
nt
am
in
at
io
n 
%
 is
 a
 v
er
y 
cr
ed
ita
bl
e 
1.
7%
  
 
22
1 
  
222 
 
APPENDIX 2 : Some examples of potential keynote locations which might be included in an 
extended campus wide recycling network. 
     
1. Registry Building          2. Massey Main bus Stop  3. Geography Building  
     
4. Aghort Lecture Theater        5. Science Tower B 6. Science Tower A  
   
7. Footpath behind Sc.Tower C    8. Behind Sc. Tower B.   9. Science Tower C. 
   
10. Footpath in front of the lake   11. the road to Library  12 the road behind Library 
223 
 
   
13. School of Philosophy     14. Social Science Tower   15. International Office 
    
16. University House      17. Medical Centre    18. Business studies  
 
 
19. the Centre 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
224 
 
APPENDIX 3: A mock-up of a Massey ‘recycling and sustainability’ brand, alongside the LOVENZ 
national public spaces recycling brand, plus other potentially relevant brands which may form synergy 
with ‘sustainability at Massey’ –  the UK’s ‘WRAP’ love food hate waste branding, ‘zero waste’ and 
the national recycling symbols.  
 
 
 
 
   
 
225 
 
  
 
Appendix 3B: A wide range of recycling bin types and applications on display.   
 
    
 
  
 
226 
 
  
    
 
    
 
227 
 
   
 
    
 
   
 
228 
 
       
 
     
 
   
22
9 
A
P
P
E
N
D
IX
 4
: 
O
ut
li
ne
 o
f 
th
e 
re
cy
cl
in
g 
cl
us
te
r 
lo
ca
ti
on
s 
in
 th
e 
co
nc
ou
rs
e 
ar
ea
 o
f 
T
ur
ite
a 
ca
m
pu
s 
of
 M
as
se
y 
U
ni
ve
rs
it
y.
 
C
on
co
ur
se
 A
re
a 
 
6 
7 
1 
4 5 
2 
3 
230 
 
 
 Legend 
 
 
1.  Inside Dining Hall Area 
 
2.  The Concourse area (opposite dining hall entrance) 
 
3.  The Library main entrance 
 
4.  The Concourse Area (Northern corner of library)    
 
5.  Concourse area behind the Dining Hall 
 
6.  The Social Science Lecture Theatre 
 
7.  Inside the Dining Hall 
 
8.  The Concourse Area and the student dining hall area 
 
9.   Waste Bin (The small round waste bin) 
 
10       Waste Bin (The small square waste bin) 
 
 
 
 
 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5
6
7