Coalition for Christian Colleges and Universities

Global Stewardship Initiative

Global Stewardship Begins at Home: An Analysis of Existing Stewardship Practices and Policies at Bethel College

Bethel College

Robert Kistler

Department of Biological Sciences

Nancy Doebbeling, Renee Owens, Erin Biehn, Jennifer Ammermann, Peter Coleman, Chad

Morton, and Ben Ramaker

Environmental Studies Program

Ardith Lindahl
Manager of Building Services

r-kistler@bethel.edu

Introduction

Solutions to many environmental problems frequently are thought to be intuitive and self-evident. Examples of this easy solution mentality abound. To solve the landfill crisis, we should simply build incinerators (Marro 1989). To solve the ozone depletion crisis we simply substitute environmentally safe HCFCs for CFCs. Paper bags or better yet biodegradable bags and containers solve the consumer waste problem. Two reasons may be largely responsible for this easy solution mentality. One is a public perception that calls for immediate action on both personal and corporate levels to solve environmental crises in the least obtrusive way. The other is a real need to act to mediate real problems before definitive data have adequately outlined either the problem or the consequences of possible courses of action. This latter reason is really a failure of the scientific community to be effective at communicating the real meaning of scientific uncertainty and thus appearing to be in disagreement on real environmental problems, when in reality scientists usually agree on there being a problem but may disagree in the interpretation of the often sparse data that is already available on a given issue or on the implications of that data for defining a course of action that might lead to a solution or remediation of the problem.

The largest criticism of current "environmental solutions" deals with these apparently headlong rushes toward green solutions. Thus Hocking (1991a) roundly criticizes the replacement of foam cups with paper, Hendrickson et al. (1995) criticize the headlong rush to recycling as an environmental panacea, Poore (1992) denounced re-usable diapers as the environmentally second-best alternative to disposables, and Poore and O'Donnell (1993) labeled ozone depletion as an environmentalist scam. Much of this criticism of the rush to be green uses much of the same data base that is used to support each purported environmental crisis. Now this environmental backlash is reaching even into the Church (Wright 1995) and also into the decision making processes of institutions of higher education. As an example Bethel College switched back from paper to polystyrene cups largely using a simplified summary of Hocking's original Science paper (Hocking 1991b). While the reasons for this failure of individuals, institutions, and society to accept, or even to actively reject green solutions to evident environmental problems may be complex, two principle reasons are that often real data are not available on the effectiveness of proposed solutions or that available data have not been effectively interpreted for the non-scientific community.

This project gathered data on the effectiveness of existing and potential environmental policies and programs at Bethel College to enable policy makers, planners, administrators, faculty, staff, and students to develop sound, data based decisions on how to best steward the natural resources that have been entrusted to us by our Creator. The primary goal of the project was to first develop a multi-part case study of how a small community (Bethel College) has benefited from waste reduction and also contributed to local and global stewardship (links of resource use and waste production commonly overlooked). A secondary goal was to guide change toward more stewardly use of resources, by Bethel College corporately and its members individually, based upon a sound local data base.

History of Stewardship at Bethel College

Bethel College resides on a 214 acre wooded campus surrounding Lake Valentine in a suburban environment. The campus has largely been left undisturbed except for the areas around buildings and consists of several different forest types, wetlands, a 59 acre lake, and a small prairie. The current stewardship efforts at Bethel College grew out of an interest on the part of faculty, students, and staff. Beginning with a simple student operated recycling program in 1986 in the academic buildings on campus, the recycling program has largely become a campus wide effort. The recycling history (Table 1) documents the growth of this program. The documentation of this history was the initial first step in our analysis of Bethel College's current stewardship practices. What the history clearly shows is that a diverse group of interested students, faculty, staff, and administrators have been collaborating to shape the thinking and practices that affect both the way we use our resources and the way we view the small piece of the creation entrusted to us.

Analysis of existing recycling program

The current campus wide recycling program consists of clearly marked individual recycling containers placed in numerous locations in the academic buildings and in some student housing areas. We analyzed several aspects of this current effort during the 1995 - 1996 academic year. The effectiveness of our recycling program in both academic buildings (Doebbeling 1996) and student housing (Coleman 1996) and knowledge of community perceptions about solid waste (Owens 1996) were examined to provide an initial data base needed for good resource management. These studies worked closely with several on campus offices and with groups of students and faculty to assess attitudes and practices related to resource management in offices, common areas, and student housing.
The major component of campus waste, not surprisingly, is paper and in turn this makes up a major component of our recycling program (Figure 1). These paper products are becoming highly valued as raw materials although the value to Bethel of recycling (as opposed to incinerating or landfilling) these materials varies tremendously with market prices. Corrugated, as one example of data we collected, has varied tremendously in price (Figure 2).

The result of these price fluctuations is to make dependence on financial gain from a recycling program uncertain. Bethel has received income directly from four of the materials which we recycle. These include aluminum cans, corrugated cardboard, cooking grease, and scrap iron (Figure 3) and the mean annual income from these four materials for 1994 and 1995 was $2204 and for the period 1992 - 1996 averaged $1049 per year. (Figure 3). This income is currently used in supporting and expanding the recycling program. We must pay a recycling fee averaging $300 per month for the recycling of glass, mixed paper (office paper, newspaper, catalogs etc.), and aluminum cans not sold. However, Bethel also benefits indirectly from a reduction in cost of waste removal for all recycled materials. With an average of 15,000 lb. of material recycled per month (Figure 1) this saves a disposal cost ($50/ton tipping fee) of $375 monthly, leading to an annual savings of $4500.

Efficiency of existing programs

Aluminum can recycling is a good example of the efficiency of our current overall recycling program. Cans are both sold and also picked up for a fee and so fit into both of the classes above. They are also one of the easiest to recycle in the sense that contamination is not a major issue. What we have found is that the amount of aluminum recycled peaked in 1994 and has declined recently (Figure 4) even though the price for aluminum has remained around $0.35/lb. On top of this we found that since cans from residences and the seminary are picked up by SuperCycle instead of being taken to a redemption center, the cost of the recycling program is perhaps increased (Figure 5).

Another aspect of recycling efficiency lies in whether participants really recycle the way they say they do (Rathje 1990). Owens (1996) surveyed the Bethel community and only 3% said that they did not recycle and yet 70% said they perceived Bethel to have a "waste problem". When we examined the actual habits of several on campus offices, of student dorm rooms, and faculty offices, we found that in reality people like to say they recycle more than they actually do. Students in one residential unit where the recycling bins are outside of the unit did not make any effort to recycle (Figure 6). Although in another unit when students were provided with bins in their rooms that were emptied by student volunteers a 45% reduction (by weight) in waste and a corresponding increase in recycling occurred (Coleman 1996). Similarly faculty and staff also may overestimate or misunderstand recycling efforts and purposes. A representative two day sample from 15 faculty offices showed that the major waste was office paper, most of which was recycled, while other minor component recyclable materials like pop cans were not consistently recycled (Figure 7). A three sample analysis of the waste and recycling of several campus offices is represented by data from the Campus Ministries Office (Figure 8). Perhaps because a diversity of staff and students work out of this office, a significant amount of recyclable paper was thrown into the waste bin and also a significant amount of contaminants were thrown into the recycling bin. Finally, waste and recycling bins were examined in several sites on three different days (Figure 9). The major source of material in the paper recycling bins was paper from junkmail, campus memos, and returned student assignments although a significant number of contaminants were also present. The waste bins located adjacent to the recycling bins studied also contained a significant amount of paper that could have been recycled.

We found that most participants in our study were very willing to let us examine their garbage and to learn from us what and why they should recycle. Our main conclusion from these data were that most members of the college community recognize the importance of resource stewardship and wanted to make resource recycling work correctly, but that a lack of education and convenience often prohibited successful recycling. Most often a lack of education on what was, versus what was not, recyclable seemed to be the main issue. In our study the two major contaminants of our paper recycling were fluorescent colored (astrobright) paper, liquids from beverage containers, and recyclable materials placed in the wrong bins. Such contamination made the efficiency of the entire recycling program much lower. Recently such contamination (September 1996) has led to an extreme reduction of the glass recycling program in the college's academic buildings to one single collection site.

Potential resource management areas

The greatest area for potential improvement in resource management lies in the student residences. The recycling program has not expanded as rapidly or become as convenient in housing as it has in the academic areas. Most residences only have recycling either in the lobbies or outside the residences. Coleman (1996) concluded that Bethel College could save around $2500 annually simply by implementing a better in-residence recycling system based upon maximal student convenience. Furthermore, a major problem for the overall recycling program is a lack of participation and a lack of recycling and resource literacy. If an education program was begun, modeled well in the residences, and emphasized by student development staff as well as by physical plant, then the success of the entire recycling program could be significantly improved.

An analysis of energy and water use efficiency in student residences (campus townhouses) was undertaken by Ramaker (1996). In cooperation with Northern States Power Company we conducted an extensive energy audit of one townhouse unit. Natural gas space and water heating (57%) and electrical use (43%) make up the major energy demands in these units. The three recommendations of this analysis would both increase student satisfaction and decrease energy consumption.

Insulating the attics to R44 would save $218 per unit with a payback period of 5 years. Installing 92+% efficiency heating systems would save $200 per year per unit with a payback time of 10 years. Installing 30 watt fluorescent fixtures would save $24 per unit per year with a payback time of 1.6 years. Of course these payback figures do not include the effects associated with a cleaner environment, lower overall resource consumption, and the educational component of making environmental awareness a part of the institution's educational mission.

The food service also provides a large potential opportunity for on campus management of natural resources. We examined the purchase and disposal of recyclable plastics (Morton 1996) and polystyrene (Ammermann 1996) in food service. Food service purchases 37 products packaged in #2 (HDPE) plastic and four in #1 (PETE) plastic, both of which have local recycling streams. Our analysis showed that monthly these plastics add up to total of 1170 pounds that are largely disposed of into the waste stream and not recycled or re-used. Polystyrene is used in the fast food section of food service for beverages, meals, and salads. In Fall 1993 a decision was made to switch from paper based containers to polystyrene, while still using reusable china plates in the dining center. This decision was largely based upon economics, aesthetics, and consumer preference. Last year usage was over 31,000 pieces per month (Figure 10) at a cost of over $1100 per month. While weight wise this makes up only a small portion of our waste, these cups, food pods, plates, and salad containers make up the greatest component of our campus waste by volume and fill waste bins all over our campus. This increases work load of workers, both in food service and all over campus, emptying waste bins much more frequently than would be the case for other alternatives. The true environmental and economic system costs need to be examined in a much greater detail to make a sound decision on what would be the best overall containers for use by food service.

Recommendations and Conclusions

These data really just began to provide the information needed to totally analyze resource use and management at Bethel College. In almost all cases there is room for improvement in the way we use our resources and the ways in which we make decisions about the purchase, use, and disposal of resources. Several conclusions became very evident through these studies. First and most importantly resource management has to be made a keystone of institutional policy at all levels and must include physical plants, student development staff, and educational components. If recycling, for example, is simply instituted without ongoing education of community members then most likely the efficiency of the recycling system will decline as ours is currently doing, and the associated costs of recycling will climb and benefits will correspondingly decline. We would suggest that for Bethel College such education should begin with first year student orientation, should continue through displays, especially during Minnesota Waste Reduction Week, the first week in October, should include at least one campus wide mailing (on recycled paper) that describes the importance and procedures of recycling at Bethel College, and finally should include the placement of "recycling instructions" above every set of recycling containers in the blue information plaque style of signage on the rest of the campus.

Finally we need to change the ways in which we think about resources. Too often we just use resources and then they disappear "away" into the waste stream. While this is very convenient it is not good stewardship. A reorganization of the way we deal with resource use and disposal in our institutions and programs needs to be initiated. One of the best ways that might bring about such a change in attitudes and practices would be to steward our resources on a true cost basis. For example if each unit were charged by the bag for each bag of waste removed from their office, office complex, or housing unit, then there would be incentives both to recycle and to reduce the production of waste. This incentive method would also pay for energy issues since if each department for example were charged for electrical usage, either based upon true use by meter measurement or average usage by surveys, then there would be a greater incentive to turn off lights when not in use, install occupancy sensors (Biehn 1996), or to help finance replacement of inefficient fixtures with more efficient modern lighting and heating systems. One common myth that this study discovered to play a major role in people's thinking about energy issues is the idea that turning off a light uses more energy than leaving the light on. First the increased energy use we found typically to last far less than 1 second. Second while fluorescent fixtures do have shorter light bulb life times due to frequent off/on cycles, they are in turn left on less, resulting in a longer average replacement time for each bulb and a lower overall usage of electricity. Such incentive-true cost based resource management and a data-based debunking of "anti-environmental myths" should help all resource users to improve stewardship of the resources under our care.


Table 1. History of stewardship practice at Bethel College. RETURN

• 1986 Student Group in GES325K, The Planet Earth: Environmental Responsibility and Christian Stewardship, initiated aluminum can recycling
• 1988 Professors, Neil Lettinga, Department of History, and Kathy Nevins, Department of Psychology, began collecting office paper in boxes and taking it to a local recycler. Professor Bob Kistler began collecting Styrofoam peanuts and plastic and hauling it to a recycler.
• Jan. 1989 Worked with an art professor, Dale Johnson, who agreed to have as a class assignment the designing of a recycling logo. Design completed and selected in March.
• Feb. 1989 Contracted with SuperCycle for weekly pickup of office paper and aluminum cansBegan recycling program at the Bethel Seminary and Seminary housing with containers provided for glass, cans, plastic and newspaper
• Mar. 1989 Put newly designed logo on boxes in library, offices and halls for paper, cans and glass
• April 1989 Purchased a cardboard baler and installed it by the back door of Food Service. Ron Sprecher, our groundsman offered to haul the bales to Waldorf Paper.
• Jan. 1990 Contracted with Aagaard Environmental Services for trash hauling and set up a contract based on actual weight (to save money and provide more incentive to recycle)
• Mar. 1990 Set up a Waste Management internship program for a student intern who then:
• April 1990 Set up focus groups to discuss such questions as "What kind of concerns do you have about the environment?", "What do people do when they get junk mail?", "How do we get people at Bethel involved in recycling?" (Shortridge 1990)
• May 1990 Department of Biological Sciences and Physical Plant jointly began the re-establishment of a 2.5 acre declining remnant of tall grass prairie on campus.
• Summer 1991 Purchased 128 Rubbermaid round gray containers with "Bethel Recycles" screen printed on them. Purchased plum lids for can recycling, gray for glass and teal for paper
• Developed a 10 year landscape plans, including set-aside natural areas, protection of all campus wetlands, and decreased mowing through the use of natural grass areas
• Jan. 1992 Set up recycling program at Fountain Terrace Student Apartments
• Mar. 1992 Established a recycling committee consisting of a biology professor, college and seminary students, purchasing, copy center, physical plant, discussing such things as purchasing paper products that can be recycled and buying products made of recycled paper.
• June 1992 A new law came into effect that fluorescent bulbs and PCB ballasts could no longer be thrown into the trash. For a few months it was necessary to store burned out bulbs until the haulers and market caught up with the law.
• Dec. 1992 Purchased a new cardboard baler when the old one was beyond repair
• Jan. 1993 1 drum of PCB ballasts picked up
• Mar. 1993 First group of burned out bulbs picked up and sent to Recyclights in Minneapolis
• July 1993 SuperCycle began collecting Mixed Paper. Up until this time we had separate containers for office paper and newspaper. Now we can put into the mixed paper bins almost everything except carbon paper, astrobright (fluorescent) colors, paper towels, paper cups, candy wrappers.
• 1994 Began sending out used floor cleaning pads for recycling. The company uses a process that cleans and restores to "like new" at considerable cost savings to Bethel over buying new. Each pad can be recycled several times.
• Summer 1995 Randy Swanson called U.S. West (phone company) and they brought in a dumpster to collect old phone books for recycling. Up until then we had hauled them away to bins at local supermarkets or SuperCycle picked up a few at a time.

References Cited

Ammermann, J. 1996. Polystyrene: Impact on Bethel College, Society, and the Environment. Senior Thesis, Bethel College, St. Paul, MN.
Biehn, E. 1996. The Potential Impact of a Sensored Lighting System on the Energy Budget of Bethel College. Senior Thesis, Bethel College, St. Paul, MN.
Coleman, P. M. O. 1996. Effect of In-Residence Recycling on the Gross Waste Output for Bethel College. Senior Thesis, Bethel College, St. Paul, MN.
Doebbeling, N. 1996. A case study of the Effectiveness of Bethel College's Paper Recycling Program. Senior Research Thesis. Bethel College, St. Paul, MN.
Granlund, A. 1992. Bethel College's Waste Stream. Senior Thesis, Bethel College, St. Paul, MN.
Hendrickson, C., L. Lave, & F. McMichael 1995. Time to Dump Recycling? Issues in Science and Technology 11(3):79-84.
Hocking, M.B. 1991a. Paper versus polystyrene: A complex choice. Science 251:504-505.
Hocking, M. B. 1991b. Paper versus polystyrene: Capping the great cup debate. Globe and Mail, Feb. 16, 1991.
Marro, A. J. (ed.) 1989. Rush to Burn: Solving Americas Garbage Crisis. Island Press, Washington, D.C.
Morton, C. 1996. The components of Plastic recycling and an Assessment of Plastic Recycling Within Bethel College Food Service. Senior Thesis, Bethel College, St. Paul, MN.
Owens, R. S. 1996. Solid Waste at Bethel College: Sociological Perceptions of Students, Staff, and Faculty. Senior Thesis, Bethel College, St. Paul, MN.
Poore, P. 1992. Disposable diapers are OK. Garbage 4(5): 26-31.
Poore, P. & B. O'Donnell 1993. Ozone: Scam or Crisis? Garbage 5(4): 24-29.
Ramaker, B. 1996. Audit of Energy and Resource Consumption in Campus Townhouses. Senior Thesis, Bethel College, St. Paul, MN.
Rathje, W. L. 1990 The history of garbage: Archaeologists bust myths about solid waste and society. Garbage 2(5):32-39
Shortridge, T. G. 1990. Recycling: The persuasive process. Senior Thesis, Bethel College, St. Paul, MN.
Wright, R.T. 1995. Tearing down the green: Environmental backlash in the evangelical sub-culture. Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 47(2):80-91.