FEATURE
CASE STUDY:
NEWCASTLE UNIVERSITY Newcastle University’s waste management story is just one of the successes up for debate at RWM 2013. Waste Manager, Daniel O’Connor reveals.
Newcastle University has seen dramatic recycling results in the last few years, with recycling rates increasing from 26% to 60%, then soaring past 90%. The success has been down to a well-thought-out communications plan, positive staff and student attitude and a user- friendly collection system.
If you had said that we could hit 60% recycling, I would have not believed you, but 90% is ridiculous. Our approach demonstrates what is possible; not only are we diverting hundreds of tonnes of waste from landfill, saving carbon and getting more value out of waste, but we are also saving money. In the current climate, that is even more admirable.
The journey to zero waste to landfill began in 2005/6 with the development of a waste strategy with a focus on delivering recycling and properly engaging with building stakeholders.
While I worked in the council sector, I became a huge fan of the approach WRAP had for waste communications. Built on academic research and case studies, their suite of communications support is the best available to help people start recycling.
www.tomorrowsfm.com
I borrowed loads of the techniques that WRAP suggested for Local Authorities and applied these to campus activities. Furthermore, the campus was ready for recycling. People were all recycling at home, so why not at work? These huge improvements are down to a receptive audience and a great cleaning team of 300+.
I went to every building user group and cleaners’ meeting to introduce myself and explain what we were planning. This gave everyone a chance to ask questions and challenge the system – which is a really useful exercise.
COMMUNICATIONS There is no point developing a new
recycling scheme that people do not participate in. People participate in something new when they have decided for themselves that it is a good idea. To persuade people you need to communicate in the right manner and provide accessible services.
From the start, a recycling brand was established with a friendly non-authoritarian approach and the benefits of recycling explained. Our approach was tongue in cheek and at times certainly the wrong side of the official University boundaries with some of the communication materials! For example, above the urinals we displayed some posters saying “Aim Higher - recycle”, which had the cleaners in a bit of a tizz. Nonetheless, if you want to change behaviour, you have to stand out from the crowd.
The campaign strategy was to inform and motivate users in a positive way. All communications emphasised that recycling is easy, everybody’s doing it. And there is value in recycling. Communications literature informed users why they should take part, what was in it for them, what was in it for the University. They also informed people how to take part in the scheme and detail what can be recycled.
All of the communications were supplemented with positive feedback every quarter in the form of an inter-building recycling league. The league approach really seems to get people fired up, some buildings are achieving recycling levels up to 80% and are only putting out a few bin bags per day!
We achieved 60% source separated recycling using these methods, but following the introduction of a new waste management contractor in 2012, our residual general waste could be processed at a MRF. There it was separated by hand and machine for further recycling which boosted our recycling to over 90%.
I also set up my own resource reuse service, similar to a corporate freecycle;
www.warp-it.co.uk helps FM staff find homes for their surplus materials, in the same organisation or between organisations. I’ve also set up
www.wasteaction.com to help any organisation achieve the same results.
Daniel will be sharing his insights on 10th September at RWM.
TOMORROW’S FM | 43
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64
