Masters Thesis
My Masters Thesis (Applied Project) examined the topics of solid-waste disposal participation and knowledge via qualitative and quantitative research methods. My initial interest in this topic came from exploring Arizona State University's (ASU) sustainability plan and its goals of eliminating 90% of campus solid waste from the landfill by 2015 and achieving 60% documented active engagement by the campus community by the same year. Unlike previous research into knowledge/participation of undergraduate students, I chose to include graduate students and faculty perspectives into my research.
Findings show that data on goals had not been quantified and that responses of ASU community members reflect previous research on the subject. New findings were suggested based the gender of the respondents that could be further explored in the future. My applied project proposed multiple solutions including: the modification of current university signage and the creation of new educational media to bridge the knowledge gap |
Problem Statement:
Despite having a detailed sustainability plan, Arizona State University has yet to increase the university communities’ knowledge and usage of the ASU solid waste recycling system. Research Questions: How did the University measure active engagement? What has the assessment of the zero waste initiative shown? Did the University achieve its goals? If not by how much was it off? How did the community value the solid waste program? How well did the community think that the University done promoting it? Did the community members think highly or lowly of the program? How did the community use the solid waste program? What was their familiarity with locations? What was their familiarity with what was accepted for recycling and what was not? Are they conscious of their interactions with sorting waste? How did the community participate? What were their beliefs about the costs and benefits of participation? Is there a social norm driving them to participate? What kinds of barriers stopped them from participating? How might we increase engagement? Was there a need for greater promotion? Was there a need for improved waste-bin facilities? If so, in what way should they be improved? |
Literature Review:
My initial interest on the topic came from Arizona State University’s Strategic Plan for Sustainability Practices and Operations. From there, I began exploring studies on the determinants of university recycling behaviour. Most studies used Icek Ajzen's Theory of Planned Behaviour to understand the determinants of recycling behaviour. Exploration of university recycling led to studies on the determinants of recycling behaviour. Findings of my review showed that multiple factors play a role in individual recycling behaviour. On a global scale, it was shown that "attitude, beliefs, behaviours and social norms were the base determinants for behaviour. Common results showed that community members have a positive view of their role in recycling and look to institutions as drivers of the initiatives. Unfortunately, the studies offered vague suggestions for improving participation. To explore that need, I conducted research into brand loyalty and advertising, which pointed to education and repetitive exposure as ways of increasing participation. |
Methodology:
For this project, I proposed using a concurrent mixed-methods approach that was based in a pragmatic worldview. Usage of qualitative and quantitative techniques provided a comprehensive analysis of the research problem, while the pragmatic basis allowed me to approach the research topic without being restricted to one method or technique. Thus creating an in-depth view that led to a designable solution.
Quantitative techniques were used to gather thoughts of campus community on what they knew about ASU solid-waste disposal resources and their views of the program. Qualitative techniques used to probe deeper into the community's responses to identify insightful information that could be used in the design of a product.
Techniques used:
Large scale online survey
Face-to-face interviews
Field Observations
Online Survey:
Was created using SurveyMonkey templates.
Survey questions were based on the literature review.
Solicited the heads of 8 ASU Colleges to distribute survey to the community.
Goal response rate - 50 valid responses.
Final response rate - N=179 valid responses with 3 invalid.
Response rate represents 0.003% of the Tempe Campus.
Online Survey Demographics:
57% identified as female
37% identified as male
6% identified as another gender identity
Age range 18 - 68
Highest frequency 18 - 35
27.9% achieved high school diploma
36.3% attained bachelor's degree
30.7% attained graduate degree
29.6% Graduate Students
20% Staff
17.3% Faculty
28% Undergraduate
Majority Upperclassmen
Face-to-face Interviews
Interview participants were solicited primarily from online survey respondents
Of the 179 responses, only 32 agreed to follow up interviews.
N=16 were available to take part in scheduled face-to-face interviews.
Interviewees were asked to discuss their response to the survey.
Interviewees were asked to comment on the current signage used by the University.
Field Observations
Conducted over 8 non-consecutive days at 3 unique locations across the Tempe, Arizona campus.
Goal was to capture fly on the wall perspective of interactions.
Ability to observe without alerting subjects allowed for unaltered behaviour.
However, occasional suspension of approach was necessary to gather data.
For this project, I proposed using a concurrent mixed-methods approach that was based in a pragmatic worldview. Usage of qualitative and quantitative techniques provided a comprehensive analysis of the research problem, while the pragmatic basis allowed me to approach the research topic without being restricted to one method or technique. Thus creating an in-depth view that led to a designable solution.
Quantitative techniques were used to gather thoughts of campus community on what they knew about ASU solid-waste disposal resources and their views of the program. Qualitative techniques used to probe deeper into the community's responses to identify insightful information that could be used in the design of a product.
Techniques used:
Large scale online survey
Face-to-face interviews
Field Observations
Online Survey:
Was created using SurveyMonkey templates.
Survey questions were based on the literature review.
Solicited the heads of 8 ASU Colleges to distribute survey to the community.
Goal response rate - 50 valid responses.
Final response rate - N=179 valid responses with 3 invalid.
Response rate represents 0.003% of the Tempe Campus.
Online Survey Demographics:
57% identified as female
37% identified as male
6% identified as another gender identity
Age range 18 - 68
Highest frequency 18 - 35
27.9% achieved high school diploma
36.3% attained bachelor's degree
30.7% attained graduate degree
29.6% Graduate Students
20% Staff
17.3% Faculty
28% Undergraduate
Majority Upperclassmen
Face-to-face Interviews
Interview participants were solicited primarily from online survey respondents
Of the 179 responses, only 32 agreed to follow up interviews.
N=16 were available to take part in scheduled face-to-face interviews.
Interviewees were asked to discuss their response to the survey.
Interviewees were asked to comment on the current signage used by the University.
Field Observations
Conducted over 8 non-consecutive days at 3 unique locations across the Tempe, Arizona campus.
Goal was to capture fly on the wall perspective of interactions.
Ability to observe without alerting subjects allowed for unaltered behaviour.
However, occasional suspension of approach was necessary to gather data.
Results:
The online survey results showed that community members were positive about their role in solid-waste initiatives, but felt that the University had not done enough to promote these initiatives to rest of the campus. Community members were more likely to regularly recycle and felt that views of their various social groups reflected that opinion. Despite their eagerness, it was commonly cited that uncertainty of what is recyclable on campus. An interesting bit of data showed that there was a clear gender gap when it came to recycling behaviour with more women than men expressing eagerness to participate.
Interview responses reflected the majority views of the survey. A portion of the responses were critical of the system, but were optimistic about their role. When presented with the current signage, the majority had seen the outdoor signs, but could not recall having seen the indoor sign. Participants praised the outdoor signs for visual simplicity in conveying information and permanent attachment to receptacles, however counter indication showed that limited examples led to uncertainty of what was disposable. It was made clear that respondents value of time was a limiting factor in interaction with solid-waste resources. The indoor sign was praised for the level of detail in its examples of materials, however the sign was criticized for being only the size of a piece of paper and for its small font size. It was commonly remarked that nobody was going to take time out of their busy day to read through all the information.
Common remark was that nobody was going to take time out of their busy day to read through all information.
The online survey results showed that community members were positive about their role in solid-waste initiatives, but felt that the University had not done enough to promote these initiatives to rest of the campus. Community members were more likely to regularly recycle and felt that views of their various social groups reflected that opinion. Despite their eagerness, it was commonly cited that uncertainty of what is recyclable on campus. An interesting bit of data showed that there was a clear gender gap when it came to recycling behaviour with more women than men expressing eagerness to participate.
Interview responses reflected the majority views of the survey. A portion of the responses were critical of the system, but were optimistic about their role. When presented with the current signage, the majority had seen the outdoor signs, but could not recall having seen the indoor sign. Participants praised the outdoor signs for visual simplicity in conveying information and permanent attachment to receptacles, however counter indication showed that limited examples led to uncertainty of what was disposable. It was made clear that respondents value of time was a limiting factor in interaction with solid-waste resources. The indoor sign was praised for the level of detail in its examples of materials, however the sign was criticized for being only the size of a piece of paper and for its small font size. It was commonly remarked that nobody was going to take time out of their busy day to read through all the information.
Common remark was that nobody was going to take time out of their busy day to read through all information.
Personas:
Based on the findings of my face-to-face interviews, I developed 3 personas that represented the campus community:
Persona 1: The Pessimist
“I think the idea and the concept is important, but how they're going about doing it...yeah I don't see it moving forward fast enough.”
Key Characteristics:
Recognizes need for promotion
Familiar with all concepts
Lack of Duty (Due to situation)
Pessimism about program
Pessimism about promotion
Persona 2: The Positivist
“I think people recycle because it’s easy these days”
Key Characteristics:
Recognizes need for promotion
Familiar with concepts
Barriers to Duty
Optimistic about role
Optimistic about sustainable practices
Persona 3: The Optimist
“One person just can’t make a difference, it really does take a group to really enhance that difference.”
Key Characteristics:
Optimism about sustainable practices
Optimism about role
Recognition of role
Struggle to understand system
Sense of Duty
Need for more promotion
Unfamiliar with concepts
Based on the findings of my face-to-face interviews, I developed 3 personas that represented the campus community:
Persona 1: The Pessimist
“I think the idea and the concept is important, but how they're going about doing it...yeah I don't see it moving forward fast enough.”
Key Characteristics:
Recognizes need for promotion
Familiar with all concepts
Lack of Duty (Due to situation)
Pessimism about program
Pessimism about promotion
Persona 2: The Positivist
“I think people recycle because it’s easy these days”
Key Characteristics:
Recognizes need for promotion
Familiar with concepts
Barriers to Duty
Optimistic about role
Optimistic about sustainable practices
Persona 3: The Optimist
“One person just can’t make a difference, it really does take a group to really enhance that difference.”
Key Characteristics:
Optimism about sustainable practices
Optimism about role
Recognition of role
Struggle to understand system
Sense of Duty
Need for more promotion
Unfamiliar with concepts
Conclusions:
How did the University measure active engagement?
Discussion with management failed to reveal evidence of zero waste initiatives or success in achieving goals.
How did the community value the solid waste program?
Community members value of solid waste program were favorable, but university promotion efforts were divided.
How did the community use the solid waste program?
The community’s familiarity with solid waste resources and familiarity with what is acceptable for recycling around the campus was shown to be subjects of moderate familiarity.
How did the community participate?
Community values benefits of participation in sustainability activities
Influence of social norms on participation were inconclusive
Confusion about what can and cannot be recycled was a common barrier.
How might we improve engagement?
Definite need of improvement to waste bin facilities and promotion
Redesign of current signage was identified as potential solution
Creation of informational posters was identified as potential solution.
How did the University measure active engagement?
Discussion with management failed to reveal evidence of zero waste initiatives or success in achieving goals.
How did the community value the solid waste program?
Community members value of solid waste program were favorable, but university promotion efforts were divided.
How did the community use the solid waste program?
The community’s familiarity with solid waste resources and familiarity with what is acceptable for recycling around the campus was shown to be subjects of moderate familiarity.
How did the community participate?
Community values benefits of participation in sustainability activities
Influence of social norms on participation were inconclusive
Confusion about what can and cannot be recycled was a common barrier.
How might we improve engagement?
Definite need of improvement to waste bin facilities and promotion
Redesign of current signage was identified as potential solution
Creation of informational posters was identified as potential solution.
Applied Project:
Based on findings and discussion with my committee, it became clear that a new media package could be a potential solution. This involved a redesign of campus signage, the creation of informational posters on select issues, and the inclusion of new website/social media resources.
The analysis of current signage showed that the outdoor signs were visually simple and graphically strong, but lacked certain detailed information on solid waste categories. At the same time, the indoor sign had abundant information, but was visually cramped and easily missed in passing. All signage lacked cohesive language, which the data showed was problematic given that the average community member does not take an exorbitant amount of time in disposing of waste, nor do they wish to when faced with other obligations.
Further discussions with Committee chair and a graphic designer led to the following designable solution.
Firstly, new signs would be created to address the issues and would replace all signage used by the University. The primary goal of the new signs were to bridge the information gap while maintaining visual simplicity. In order to do so a QR code would be included on all signage that would direct individuals to the Zero Waste website.
As part of the informational campaign, a poster would be created focusing on informing the community about materials that are commonly cited as examples of uncertainty. These posters would be placed near waste receptacles and common areas.
Based on findings and discussion with my committee, it became clear that a new media package could be a potential solution. This involved a redesign of campus signage, the creation of informational posters on select issues, and the inclusion of new website/social media resources.
The analysis of current signage showed that the outdoor signs were visually simple and graphically strong, but lacked certain detailed information on solid waste categories. At the same time, the indoor sign had abundant information, but was visually cramped and easily missed in passing. All signage lacked cohesive language, which the data showed was problematic given that the average community member does not take an exorbitant amount of time in disposing of waste, nor do they wish to when faced with other obligations.
Further discussions with Committee chair and a graphic designer led to the following designable solution.
Firstly, new signs would be created to address the issues and would replace all signage used by the University. The primary goal of the new signs were to bridge the information gap while maintaining visual simplicity. In order to do so a QR code would be included on all signage that would direct individuals to the Zero Waste website.
As part of the informational campaign, a poster would be created focusing on informing the community about materials that are commonly cited as examples of uncertainty. These posters would be placed near waste receptacles and common areas.
Graphic Design Credit - Hongjian Li