Earth & E-nvironment 7: 201-231 University of Leeds Press

Food Waste at the University of Leeds – Maximising Opportunities Tina Schmieder School of Earth & Environment, University of Leeds, Leeds, W. Yorkshire LS2 9JT; Tel: 0113 3436461 Abstract The University of Leeds is facing increasing pressures to reduce its carbon footprint and to cut spending. Waste management has so far been overlooked for its potential to reduce operational costs and decrease the university‟s carbon footprint. The project found that the university is overspending on the management of its waste food. This occurs through limited waste segregation on campus with most of the food waste disposed in the general waste. UoL is paying a premium for the collection and recovery of recyclables in general waste, whilst the source segregated recycling collection is significantly cheaper. Efficient segregation could save thousands of pounds per year on food waste collection alone. In addition, efficient source segregation of food waste would enable UoL to use its food waste as feedstock for a potential small-scale biodigester which would generate financial benefits and has the highest potential to reduce UoL‟s carbon emissions from food waste. The project looked at maceration and dedicated food waste bins to dispose of food waste. Consideration of the experiences across different departments led to the conclusion that both are adequate means of food waste disposal, depending on the needs of the respective working environment. The constraints for UoL‟s waste management include a lack of communication to staff, students and amongst departments. These issues result in a generally unmindful attitude towards waste segregation. The project concludes by recommending the following actions: a behavior change programme which aims to increase waste segregation across the campus, a feasibility study about available volumes of feedstock for a small-scale biodigester investment and a feasibility study for a composting scheme at Leeds University Union. Keywords: Food waste, anaerobic digestion, higher education, climate change, waste segregation, feedstock, carbon emissions, small-scale biodigester, behaviour change, University of Leeds

ISSN 1744-2893 (Online) © University of Leeds

Schmieder T (2012) Food waste at the University of Leeds – Maximising opportunities Earth & E-nvironment 7: 201-231

1. Introduction Climate change and unsustainable resource use create many challenges for human society. These challenges provide opportunities to engage stakeholders and institutions of society to facilitate sustainable development (SD) (Stephens et al. 2008). Institutes of higher education are recognised as important facilitators for SD which has been acknowledged by several international agents, such as UNESCO. “UNESCO had been mandated to work with educators on a worldwide basis to foster the development, testing, sharing and adaptation of educational materials within the framework of the Decade of Education for Sustainable Development” (Lozano 2006, p.757). Institutes of higher education play an important role for SD in this respect because they “produce competent environmental decisionmakers, competency development and consciousness-raising” (Lozano 2006, p.758). In order to facilitate SD across society, however, institutes of higher education need to actively practice SD themselves. This is not a simple task as ”incorporating sustainability into a university system presents challenges regarding its education, research, operations and outreach dimensions” (Ferrer-Balas et al. 2010, p. 608). One of many opportunities for SD at a university‟s operational level is sustainable waste management. Waste has strong implications for SD in general and the Higher Education Funding Council of England (HEFCE) asserts that waste management “reduces the environmental impacts associated with disposal, including the production of the greenhouse gas methane, and helps conserve finite resources.” (2010, p. 27). It also has an impact through waste transportation which increases CO2 emissions, air and noise pollution as well as soil and groundwater contamination (Audit Commission 2008). The United Kingdom produces “millions of tonnes of waste each year” (Audit Commission 1997, p.4) and DEFRA calculated that around 3% of its direct greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions stem from waste (2011a). Many universities in the UK are the size of small communities and contribute significantly to the country‟s overall carbon footprint and resource use. But they are also an important contributor to SD in the UK by developing the necessary “skills, knowledge and value base” as well as working as a role model by pursuing the “highest standards of environmental management across all properties owned and managed” (DfES 2003, p. 7, p11). Looking at the operational level, UK universities produce large amounts of waste and although the awareness of sustainable waste management strategies is continuously increasing, there is still scope for improvement alongside the more popular recycling practices (Clay 2005). The University of Leeds (UoL) is a good example of the increasing focus on sustainable development at the operational level. The University has made efforts to increase its waste management efficiency throughout the last decade and has been rewarded with a steep increase in its recycling rate and steep decrease in waste sent to landfill. Recycling at institutes of higher education, however, is a topic which has been researched a lot (Clay 2005). There is a need to focus research on a separate area of waste in higher education which involves waste food and biodegradable waste. The University of Leeds (UoL) is one of the major education providers and employers in Yorkshire and as such recognizes the importance of sustainable development in all areas of its operation in order to limit its carbon foot print and to stop climate change. It has made significant efforts in different domains of sustainability and received multiple awards, such as the highest grade in People & Planet Green League and Silver in the Business in the Community Environmental Index (UoL 2010). Due to the implementation of drastic public spending cuts, UoL is looking at ways to save costs while at the same time reducing its carbon emissions. The above mentioned efforts have already enabled cost savings of hundreds of thousands of pounds (UoL 2011a) and it is perceived that increased sustainability efforts at the UoL can bring costs further down while at the same time significantly reducing GHG emissions. Waste represents a big area of opportunity for both, cost savings and carbon reduction. An organization the size of UoL is bound to have a large environmental impact through its generated waste. For these reasons, 202

Schmieder T (2012) Food waste at the University of Leeds – Maximising opportunities Earth & E-nvironment 7: 201-231

UoL has asked CO2Sense to undertake a waste management project with a particular focus on food waste, its minimisation and the optimisation of cost-effective and carbon-saving alternatives to the current way food waste is managed. 2. Aims and Objectives The overarching aim of this project is to maximise opportunities from food waste for the University of Leeds. These opportunities should explore ways to achieve cost savings and carbon reductions through the effective management and use of food waste. Central to this project is the need to evaluate the current process of food waste disposal and to compare the status quo with alternative options of food waste treatment. Finally, it aims to recommend an action plan, outline opportunities for further studies on food waste in organisations of higher education and highlight opportunities for CO2Sense to assist the UoL with material efficiency measures. The project was structured into several objectives which included the collection of all data of food waste arising at UoL, either from existing records within the University of Leeds or through visual waste auditing and staff interviewing. It also required the analysis of qualitative and quantitative food waste data to develop a complete picture of the food waste management at UoL and the identification and critical evaluation of opportunities to recycle and recover food waste. 3. Literature Review Waste Watch found that a significant amount of food waste can be avoided. Waste Watch undertook several studies dedicated to food waste in the UK. Of the potentially edible food, our survey research found that the most frequently wasted is fruit and vegetables (30% throw away significant amounts), bread and cakes (20%), raw meat and fish (16%) and ready meals / convenience foods (also 16%). (2007, p. 8). While waste food at universities may slightly vary in its composition to domestic waste food, the issues of sustainable food waste disposal are similar. “Greenhouse gas emissions are generated from the growing, transport, processing and storage of food before purchase” (p.21) and GHG emissions are also generated after disposal. Subsequently, food waste can have a substantial impact on the carbon footprint of a university if not managed sustainably. Food waste arises in several areas of the University‟s operations and depending on the operational background, can provide substantial opportunities for decreasing costs and carbon emissions. The literature review, while attempting to focus on the project objectives, copies the project structure by covering the main areas of importance. Initially, the literature needed a focus on waste management drivers, waste in general and food waste in particular. Maceration, anaerobic digestion and behaviour change then were the other areas of focus of the project. Drivers for waste management in the UK In its 2011 Review of the Waste Policy, the UK government acknowledges that waste management impacts areas such as “material security, energy, climate change and environmental protection” (p.5). Resource Futures in its 2009 waste guidance documents agrees that sustainable waste management is essential in order to “protect the environment and human health” (2009, p. 7). In fact, Wilson describes public health, environmental protection and resource value as three of the most important drivers for waste management (2007). While more sophisticated waste management strategies prevent any danger to health, environmental protection and resource value are still issues that need to be improved. Wilson stresses the need to move from the “traditional „end-of-pipe‟ concept of „waste management‟ to a more holistic concept of „resource 203

Schmieder T (2012) Food waste at the University of Leeds – Maximising opportunities Earth & E-nvironment 7: 201-231

management‟” and thereby closing the loop (p. 205). Recycling and recovery of waste can both reduce harmful GHG emissions as well as produce high-value products to address material security. The usability of waste rather than its disposal is an area where awareness is increasing among social agents as it becomes more known that “waste treatment can result in high added value products” (Arvanitoyannis et al 2006, p. 96). In order to maximize the potential from closed-loop technologies and benefit from the resource value of waste, the UK government stresses the need to manage waste responsibly and has established the waste hierarchy as both “a guide to sustainable waste management and a legal requirement of the revised EU Waste Framework Directive” (DEFRA 2011a, p. 10). Legislation The waste hierarchy is one of the most important pieces of legislation with regards to waste. It structures the priorities of waste treatment with the intention “to minimise material disposal” and reduce reliance on endof-pipe solutions (Price and Joseph 2000, p. 98). It lists prevention of waste as the highest priority, followed by re-use as a means of extending the life of material. Recycling and recovery are equally options of the waste hierarchy and have the strongest implications for food waste. The least preferred option of the waste hierarchy for any kind of waste is disposal to landfill or incineration without energy recovery. While the procurement and effective use of catering supplies can certainly prevent and reduce food waste from the start, it is impossible to re-use waste food once it has occurred. Recycling and recovery, however, are the most suitable means of managing waste food that comply with the waste hierarchy. Recovery involves anaerobic digestion and incineration with energy recovery and DEFRA defines recycling as “turning waste in a new substance or product” (2011a, p.11). Waste management in the UK not only provides many opportunities to save or generate money and reduce carbon emissions. It is also subject to many constraints, mostly in the form of legislation which aims to create a sustainable waste industry. The following legislation affects waste management and food waste in the UK: EU Waste Framework Directive 2008:

This Directive by the EU parliament “establishes the legislative framework for the handling of waste and puts in place the essential requirements for the management of waste” (p.312/3)

Environmental Protection Regulations 1991 Duty of Care details the responsibilities for waste producers (Duty of Care) to prevent any health hazards and the environment from being polluted by regulating waste transfer notes and waste licencing (UK Government 1991). Environmental Protection Act 1990

The Act aims to control pollution from industrial processes involving waste and reviews several pieces of earlier legislation. It introduces the “duty of care as respects waste” (UK Government 1990, § 34).

Environmental Permitting Regulations 2007

“The Environmental Permitting Programme aims to reduce red tape for industry and regulators, by streamlining and consolidating the processes of obtaining, varying and transferring permits” (Research Futures 2009, p. 11) This Regulation controls all areas of handling animal byproducts, including catering waste (UK Government 2005). This involves the handling of animal by-products at biogas and composting plants.

Animal By-Products Regulation 2005

204

Schmieder T (2012) Food waste at the University of Leeds – Maximising opportunities Earth & E-nvironment 7: 201-231

Duty of Care: DEFRA Guidance 1996

Provides a step-by-step guidance to the Duty of Care Regulations, including an overview of responsibilities and a check list. Government Review of Waste Policy in This document contains actions and commitments by the UK England 2011 government regarding sustainable use of materials, waste prevention, re-use and recycling, energy recovery and enforcement (DEFRA 2011a). The review also “outlines a pledge to remove barriers to the uptake of anaerobic digestion (Environmentalist 2011, p. 4). Waste (England and Wales) Regulations The Regulations lay down rules for waste prevention and 2011 management programmes, for the improved use of waste as a resource in line with the waste hierarchy and lays down duties for effective waste management. The overarching aim of these regulations is the protection of the environment and human health (UK Government 2011). Anaerobic Digestion Strategy and Action This strategy lays down the UK governments vision and Plan commitment for AD as well as an action plan to enable “a thriving AD industry to grow in England over the next few years” (2011, p. 2). Figure 1: UK legislation related to food waste

The legislation for waste management aims to effectively control and reduce resource use by laying out clear routes of waste treatment and holding adverse behaviour responsible, especially through financial penalties. It is through this path of direction and responsibility that effective waste management is incentivised. Legislation encourages behaviour that reduces costs by avoiding expensive landfill tax through ingenious and value-adding ways of waste treatment while similarly reducing carbon emissions. Many applications of sustainable waste management have been known and in practice for a long time, and while the technology is mature, require a greater uptake and application through the public. The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) found that “existing waste management practices can provide effective mitigation of GHG emissions” (2008, p.11). It argues that many of these practices, such as energy recovery from waste “produce an indirect reduction of GHG emissions through the conservation of raw materials, improved energy and resource efficiency, and fossil fuel avoidance” (2008, p.11). Society agents like higher education institutes play an important role as facilitators of sustainable development to increase participation in these practices and lead by example. Food waste in higher education Institutes of higher education and especially universities in the UK often have the size and environmental impact of small municipalities. Their main impact arises from “operational activities in terms of the purchase, use and disposal of resources” (Waste watch 2005, p. 8) and integrating SD into operational aspects of organisations of this size and complexity tends to be a challenge. Sustainable waste management at university campuses requires the commitment of staff, student and external contractors. Some institutes of higher education struggled with limited results from awareness-raising campaigns and resorted to off-site segregation of waste (EAUC 2011). While this meant a successful and convenient way to increase the recycling rate, this strategy does not allow universities to engage effectively with their role as facilitators for and contributors to sustainable development (HEFCE 2008). Zhang et al. argue that “Universities have a moral and ethical obligation to act responsibly for the environment” (2011, p. 1607) and transferring this obligation to a third party impedes universities‟ role as a contributor to SD. Universities have been recognised as incubators for “innovation and demonstrating a variety of model practices” (Zhang et al 2011, p. 1607). With a wealth of knowledge in the area of sustainable development 205

Schmieder T (2012) Food waste at the University of Leeds – Maximising opportunities Earth & E-nvironment 7: 201-231

and civil engineering, universities have a distinct advantage to draw on this expertise and create innovative solutions for managing their waste. Food waste is an area with various sustainable treatment methods which reduce carbon emissions and costs. Universities, like many other public sector organisations, often use food waste disposal systems or macerators to dispose of waste food. Parsons and Kriwoken (2010) argue “in order to decrease environmental impacts in waste management the treatment must be based on the characteristics of the waste” (p. 472). One argument for maceration rather than food waste collection is that “typical food waste is 70 % water and 30 % solids” (Strutz 1998, p. 2) which makes disposal through the sewer system appear a much more natural path. Strutz concludes that “food waste disposer processing food waste through a publicly owned treatment works has the lowest cost to the municipality; the least air emissions, especially greenhouse gases ! ; converts the food WASTE to a RESOURCE which may be recycled; and as a result overall is the most environmentally friendly and sustainable option” (1998, p. 3). There are, however, opponents to maceration. Marashlian and El-Fadel voice concerns about increased water consumption and increased volumes of sewage sludge (2005). They conclude, however, that “potential environmental and economic implications may differ with location and therefore area-specific characteristics must be taken into consideration” (p.22). The opportunities for sustainable food waste management arise from its highly problematical impacts when landfilled. Baptista et al. found that the biodegradable proportion of waste, mainly food waste “generates high quantities of methane and leachate” during its degradation (2011, p. 565). While maceration prevents these issues through effective treatment in the sewer system, recycling and recovery of food waste equally minimise the occurrence of leachate and prevent or convert harmful methane emissions during the treatment of the waste. Recycling is an appropriate treatment for food waste as composting turns waste food into a rich and fertile substance which increases growth and productivity of plants (Smith and Jasim 2009). Strutz found that since “composting requires more moisture than is available in most materials, the addition of food waste does enhance the composting process” (1998, p. 3). Papageorgiou et al. state that “energy recovery is the most common method for recovering value from waste and it is commonly defined as waste-to-energy” (2009, p. 929). Energy from food waste can be recovered through anaerobic digestion (AD) which has been in practical use since 1975 (IPPC 2008). AD uses methane to produce renewable energy and “plays a dual role in waste treatment by converting organic waste into stable organic soil conditioners or liquid fertilizers and reducing the environmental impact of organic waste products prior to their disposal” (Sakar et al 2009, p. 4). While initially a cost-intensive investment, AD has also a “large potential for global warming savings, especially from substitution of fossil fuel by the biogas, but also from carbon storage in soil and inorganic fertilizer substitution through use of the digestate as a fertilizer” (Moller et al. 2009, p. 813). Behaviour change and communication Effective waste management is a very practical issue, and needs hands-on action in order to be successful. There are many initiatives in place to raise awareness of waste treatment options to motivate the audience to participate or increase efforts. Creating a sustainable society requires “a critical mass to take up sustainable lifestyles before the rest will follow” (Davidson 2010, p. 180). There are different opinions on how to create lasting behaviour change for waste management. Genovese (2008) discusses that information is “essential for communicating that a problem exists” (p.1). She cautions, however, that pure information campaigns do not translate into robust and lasting behaviour change since awareness “does not necessarily translate into concern or taking personal action” (p.1) While information is necessary to inform the audience about an issue and its possible solution, it does not increase the sense of personal responsibility towards this issue.

206

Schmieder T (2012) Food waste at the University of Leeds – Maximising opportunities Earth & E-nvironment 7: 201-231

Equally, if sustainability efforts remain without success due to ”internal attributions (such as not caring about recycling paper) then it may be harder to deal with” (Plank 2011, p. 49). McDonald found in a recent survey that staff at universities felt that “responsibility for the lack of recycling lies with the employers” (2011, p. 64). This illustrates that not only is information about sustainable waste management a potential barrier but so is attitude. Parker found that “changing attitudes is only the first step and does not always correlate with action” but it is nevertheless “a robust antecedent of intentions (and so behaviour) and it is, therefore, an important first step” (2011, p. 43). A positive attitude towards sustainable waste management combined with recognition of personal responsibility allows measures, which depend on the commitment of many, to be successful. While Waste Watch hopes that “some small changes could lead to much less food waste” (2007, p. 27), Davidson argues that big changes are necessary. “If everyone does a little, we‟ll achieve only a little” (2011, p. 190). These are the reasons why “sustainability communication is critical for people‟s attitudes and engagement” (Franz-Bahlen and Heinrichs 2007, p. 439). Communication and sustainable waste management go hand in hand. “Finding the right way to tell someone about sustainable development, and relating it to their experience has been crucial in engaging universities and colleges with the sustainable development (SD) agenda.” (Forum for the Future 2004, p. 15). Using effective sustainability communication of comprehensive and structured waste management data can have a positive effect on attitudes towards waste segregation and recycling and create lasting behaviour change. 4. Methodology In order to fulfil all of the objectives, the project needed a structured and methodical approach. Figure 2 outlines the structure of the project. With an initial timescale of ten weeks, the scoping of the project and the background reading were meant to take about two weeks at the start. The bulk of the data gathering and subsequent analysis of the data occupied more than two-thirds of the project time. This left another two to three weeks at the end of the project to consider options and recommendations and to compile the business report. The results of the data gathering were important for developing useful project recommendations. This is why a mixture of quantitative data, such as spread sheets and invoices was combined with qualitative data, such as interviews and visual bin checks, photos and general observations, and secondary data like government and NGO reports. The use of “more than one method of data collection” is referred to as data triangulation, whereas the combination “qualitative and quantitative approaches” is referred to as methodological triangulation (Robson 2002, p. 174). Both strategies have been applied in different areas of the project. Using multiple methods had several advantages and disadvantages. Generally, using different methods to collect qualitative and quantitative data increases the interpretability of the data (Robson 2002). Qualitative data like interviews increase the understanding of experiences and processes which in the case of this project helped to understand the current waste management practice across the university (Rubin 2005). Quantitative data, however, helps to establish relationships between variables which in this case were important for understanding the volume or cost of waste food. While using different methods meant that the data collection was very time-consuming, this issue was countered through intensive planning and scheduling of all activities and efficient time management. Triangulation helped to combine micro-aspects like departmental issues in waste management and macro-aspects, like food waste segregation across the entire campus and together formed the bigger picture (Robson 2002).

207

Schmieder T (2012) Food waste at the University of Leeds – Maximising opportunities Earth & E-nvironment 7: 201-231

Figure 2: Outline of the project structure

An important part at the beginning of the project was to determine the key contacts at UoL, starting with the sustainability manager at Estate Services. Ideally, the relevant contacts would be closely involved in the waste management or related decision-making process and be placed across the departments of the University which generated the highest amounts of food waste. From these contacts, further individuals relevant to the food waste treatments were then identified. The contacted staff were meant to represent a cross-section of staff from Leeds University Union (LUU) and the University of Leeds and involved: o

The Environmental Manager, LUU

o

The Waste Manager and Head of Cleaning Services, UoL

o

The Catering Operations Manager, UoL

o

The Residential Property Manager, UoL

o

The Food and Beverages Officer at Devonshire Residence, UoL.

o

The Bar Operations Manager, LUU 208

Schmieder T (2012) Food waste at the University of Leeds – Maximising opportunities Earth & E-nvironment 7: 201-231

The majority of the data collection took place during meetings with the above-mentioned contacts which were carried out as semi-structured interviews. A set of questions was prepared in advance of the meeting in order to cover the same ground of qualitative information with all contacts. The interview questions were designed taking into account advice and suggestions from an experienced waste management consultant at CO2Sense and aimed at replies in both quantitative and qualitative format. The advantage of semi-structured interviews involve the opportunity for the interviewees to talk freely about the general topic of waste management and food waste in their departments and at UoL. This way, the perceived different needs and requirements of each department could later be seen in the context of overall University requirements. Furthermore, the interviewees were free to express criticism and offer suggestions in addition to their own perception of the current waste management strategy of UoL. This approach allowed a much broader insight into the topic and covered areas which were not necessarily included in the prepared questions. In addition, the project used quantitative data provided by the University Waste Manager and the waste contractor. This included a detailed spreadsheet which contained the exact volumes of the university‟s waste streams collected per month as well as an overview of the volumes of recovered waste streams from the material recovery facility (MRF). No compositional analysis was undertaken due to concerns about health and safety but several bins were checked visually to understand the nature of the segregated waste. The meetings included tours around the departments and the respective bin sites to understand the infrastructure and facility which encourages waste segregation. Image-based evidence was taken in the form of photographs of the different types of bins and waste sites. Image-based research is “often used to simply gather information” (Harper 1998, p. 30) and “a photographic image is good evidence of the reality it captures (Winston 1998, p.54). Images were therefore a suitable addition to general observations made about the reality of different waste management approaches across several departments of UoL. Secondary sources contributed to the findings of the project, both from academic and grey literature. Grey literature “is produced on all levels of government, academics, business and industry” but not controlled by publishers (Schöpfel 2006, p. 67). Grey literature was mostly accessed for relevant findings from government, business and industrial studies. Its importance lies in the fact that relevant findings are often more detailed than in journals and can be distributed up to 18 months ahead of academic literature (Schöpfel 2006). Academic literature was used to understand the status quo at UoL in context to the innovation in waste management. The content of these documents is controlled by publishers and through this means offers more credibility. Using both kinds of literature allowed the combination of up to date, highly reliable and credible information. An important issue for the project was the integration of the two main stakeholders, CO2Sense and the Sustainability Team at UoL. The environmental consultancy CO2Sense undertook the project for UoL on the basis of a student placement which would eventually lead to a business report and a masters dissertation. The initial scoping of the project was slightly complicated by the involvement of multiple stakeholders. Consistent and effective communication ensured that questions and problems could be discussed and solved in accordance with UoL‟s and CO2Sense‟s requirements. While the initial project scope was limited to campus food waste, maceration was included upon request of CO2Sense which was agreed by UoL. The feasibility of a small-scale biodigester investment was requested mid-way through the project by UoL. CO2Sense acknowledged this change of the project scope after careful consideration of time frame and the extent of the additional work. Again, the key to the successful integration of these additional areas lay in immediate and effective communication.

209

Schmieder T (2012) Food waste at the University of Leeds – Maximising opportunities Earth & E-nvironment 7: 201-231

5. Findings Campus waste management at UoL UoL has been publicly awarded for its waste management efforts by several known initiatives. Its official waste management statistics in figure 3-1 show a positive trend away from landfill and towards increased recycling as the preeminent means of waste management: The university is currently sending 0% waste to landfill (UoL 2010). Mixed municipal waste is used for energy recovery and incineration. While this is a major benefit to curb the university‟s GHG emissions from general waste, the university was interested to learn about ways to reduce costs and carbon emissions from food waste. While this project focused on food waste at UoL, it is important to understand the university‟s general waste management and waste streams. Figure 3-1: UoL Waste Production 2005-2010 (Source: UoL 2010) From a waste data spreadsheet provided by the UoL Waste Manager the proportion of total waste tonnage across campus against food waste was calculated which revealed that only about 3% of the University campus waste appeared to be food waste. This initial result prompted further investigation into a study of waste composition at institutes of Higher Education by Waste Watch, according to which the proportion of food and green waste against other types of waste at an institute of higher education is approximately 18% (figure 3-2). The small amount of 3% food waste at the UoL campus did not seem to show a true picture of UoL‟s waste situation and required some further investigation into the recycling and waste segregation practice at UoL. Recycling on campus

Figure 3-2: Main types of waste at institutes of higher education (Source: Wastewatch 2005)

210

Recycling is actively promoted by the university and presents a strong part of its culture. Part of the university‟s waste is segregated directly on the campus through the use of dedicated waste bins or through collection of specific waste types in individual

Schmieder T (2012) Food waste at the University of Leeds – Maximising opportunities Earth & E-nvironment 7: 201-231

departments (figure 4). This is referred to as source segregation. Another part of the waste, however, is collected without prior treatment through the general waste collection and transported to a material recovery facility (MRF). A MRF sorts the general waste into individual waste streams and recycles all components where possible. This is referred to as MRF segregation. The UoL‟s recycling statistics in figure 2 do not distinguish between source-segregated and MRF-segregated recycling waste. According to its official figures, the university is currently recovering and recycling 92% of its entire waste. Figure 5 looks at the proportion of source segregated waste in comparison to the total tonnage of waste collected. This is an important detail since food waste is only recorded in the source-segregated but not in the MRF-segregated waste proportion.

Figure 4: Recycling facilities across campus for cans, paper, glass and general waste (Source: Own image)

With focus solely on recycling at source, the data provided by the UoL Waste Manager reveals that the entire recycling activity at the university is about 31% of the total waste tonnage collected, with the rest recovered through a MRF and through energy from waste (average between January and May 2011, figure 5). The recycled waste includes waste streams like WEEE, fluro tubes, wood, toners, batteries, mobile phones, chemical bottles and scrap metal, some of which are classed as hazardous waste (Schmieder 2011a). All of these waste types require special handling and disposal. The university is legally obliged to monitor these closely and dispose of them in a safe way. These waste streams are unlikely to contain any food waste and are therefore not relevant for this project. It is worth investigating the main areas of recycling which can be actively encouraged by the university.

Figure 5: UoL Recycling Jan – May 2011 in tonnes (Source: Data provided by UoL Waste Manager)

Premier Waste Ltd. (PW) is the main waste contractor for UoL and disposes of the majority of the waste produced on campus, currently including the waste generated by the LUU. The contractor manages general waste, paper and cardboard, plastics, glass and cans as well as the food waste collection. These are waste streams for which recycling rates can be directly influenced by staff and students at source through segregation into dedicated waste bins. This means that the majority of the recycling potential of the university is managed by Premier Waste (figure 6).

In order to encourage active recycling, PW provides different kinds of bins dedicated to different waste streams. The waste is intended to be segregated at source through disposal in the respective bins inside the 211

Schmieder T (2012) Food waste at the University of Leeds – Maximising opportunities Earth & E-nvironment 7: 201-231

campus buildings. From there, cleaners collect the waste from the bins and sort them into bigger dedicated bins at bin sites across the campus. All bins, inside and outside of the campus buildings, are clearly marked for the intended waste stream to facilitate segregation and minimize contamination by other types of waste. Food waste is initially segregated into a small green composting bin, many of which have been provided across campus. Food waste then follows the same path as other segregated waste streams and ends up in large 1100l bins dedicated to food waste. Although the necessary Figure 6: Source segregation and material recovery in tonnes (Source: Data recycling facilities and provided by UoL Waste Manager and Premier Waste Ltd.) infrastructure have been in place across the campus since 2008 minimal amounts of food waste are recorded and disposed each month. Source segregation vs. MRF recovery From the data provided by the UoL Waste Manager the recycling amount of non-hazardous waste at source level appears relatively small when compared with the overall recycling and recovery rate of about 92%. A closer look at the UoL numbers reveals that on average only about 14% of paper, cardboard, plastics, glass, cans and food waste is segregated at source and 75% of total recycling takes place at the MRF. Figure 6 shows a comparison of the recycling undertaken by UoL and through the contractor. All waste which is not recycled at source is disposed of in the general waste bins. The general waste is then collected by Premier Waste and transported to the MRF which is managed by Leeds Paper Recycling (Schmieder 2011c). There the general waste is segregated and split into separate waste types. Only 11% of the general waste is unsuitable for recycling and recovered through energy from waste (incineration). Figure 7 provides a clearer picture how the university waste splits up into source segregated waste (greens), Premier Waste recovery (all other colours) and mixed municipal waste (grey) which is incinerated. Surprisingly, 15% of the recovered general waste is classed as kitchen and canteen waste for which Premier Waste confirmed that all of this is food waste. Only 3% of food waste, however, is segregated at source and recorded as recycling. This shows a big potential to increase source segregation of food waste. While increased food waste segregation would reduce the consumption of energy and transport fuel needed to recover food waste from general waste at the MRF and thereby lower UoL‟s environmental impact, there are also cost savings to be made by segregating food waste at source. This analysis assumes that the entire proportion of recycled waste is used for a new production stream and thereby recycled. However, the usability of the recycled waste depends a lot on the contamination through other types of waste, such as food waste. The Environmental Agency has inspected several MRFs and undertaken a survey among waste disposal and waste collection authorities and found that for municipal solid waste “reject rates of 10.85 would be a typical average and „zero reject rates‟ very unlikely” (EA 2009, p.1). 212

Schmieder T (2012) Food waste at the University of Leeds – Maximising opportunities Earth & E-nvironment 7: 201-231

Under the Duty of Care, it remains therefore the responsibility of UoL to understand how exactly its waste is treated after collection and whether all of its recovered fraction can be classed as recycling.

Figure 7: Breakdown of source-segregated and Premier Waste recovered waste by waste type (Source: Data provided by Premier Waste Ltd.)

Cost and carbon implications At the moment, the costs for unsegregated waste are very high and recycling allows disposing of the waste in a much cheaper, sometimes even free way. Understanding the amount of recycling at source and at the MRF allows for a thorough analysis of the waste management costs and the potential savings from increased source segregation. Figure 8 illustrates the low amount of source-segregated food waste in comparison to MRF recovered food waste between January and

Figure 8: Breakdown of source-segregated and MRF recovered food waste in tonnes (Source: Data provided by Premier Waste Ltd.)

213

Schmieder T (2012) Food waste at the University of Leeds – Maximising opportunities Earth & E-nvironment 7: 201-231

May 2011. Source segregation ranged from 6% to 35% in these months while the majority of the food waste was recovered at the MRF. Food waste is currently collected by PW at 44.56£/t. This applies only to source segregated food waste from the dedicated food waste bins. The majority of the campus food waste, however, is not segregated at source and disposed in the general waste bin. General waste is currently collected by PW at 74.89£/t. This means that the university is consistently overpaying for the majority of its food waste collection. Figure 9 shows a calculation of the savings that could be achieved through 100% source segregation of food waste. On average, UoL could save more than £500 per month or more than £6,000 per year on food waste alone. This applies equally to other waste types such as plastics, clean wood, metals, glass and mixed packaging. Increasing the level of source segregation for these waste streams could substantially lower UoL‟s waste management costs. Efficient source segregation of plastics could reduce costs by almost £1,000 per months since the collection of segregated plastics is free. Figure 10 shows an overview of the calculations per waste stream.

Figure 9: Potential monthly savings through efficient food waste segregation (Source: Data provided by UoL Waste Manager and Premier Waste)

Figure 10: Calculation of monthly savings through efficient food waste segregation (Source: Data provided by UoL Waste Manager and Premier Waste)

The grey types of waste are picked up as general waste at £74.89 per tonne and the different waste types are then recycled at the MRF. The light grey waste types are the principal areas where cost savings can be achieved, the dark grey municipal waste is used for incineration. The yellow area is the source segregated waste which was structured according to price – blue for free waste disposal, light green for glass at £3.71 per bin and green for food waste at £44.56 per tonne.

214

Schmieder T (2012) Food waste at the University of Leeds – Maximising opportunities Earth & E-nvironment 7: 201-231

Besides the obvious cost reductions, increased source segregation reduces contamination of waste streams which increases the value of the recycled waste and its usability. Food waste is a source of contamination of waste streams and can greatly devalue recycled components. The contamination of food waste also determines how it is used after segregation and recovery. Premier Waste explains that “pure food goes to compost and anything with packaging goes to AD” (Schmieder 2011c). DEFRA has developed emission indicators to allow companies to monitor and report their GHG emissions. IEMA found that reporting allows companies “to take a view on all their emissions, not just some of them, and target improvement where the greatest environmental and business benefits can be gained” (2011b, p. 21). When DEFRA‟s emission indicators were applied to UoL‟s waste data, the food waste produced by UoL generated 181,992 kgCO2 emissions in 2009 and 616,811 kgCO2 emissions in 2010. Depending on the treatment method, the baseline emissions for food waste can be altered substantially. Figure 11 displays the impact that different treatment methods have on the CO2 emissions for food waste. Landfill increases the emission level whereas anaerobic digestion, composting and combustion (energy from waste) all reduce CO 2 emissions.

Figure 11: CO2 emission by treatment method (Source: Defra 2011b, data provided by Premier Waste)

According to DEFRA, anaerobic digestion (AD) potentially reduces CO2 emission most (-8,210 kgCO2 in 2009, -27,827 kgCO2 in 2010 and -40169 kgCO2 forecasted for 2011). Combustion generates energy from waste and potentially reduces CO2 emissions by -4,511 kgCO2 in 2009, -15,290 kgCO2 in 2010 and potentially -22,072 kgCO2 emissions in 2011. Although composting also reduces CO2 emissions, it does this at a lower proportion than AD and combustion.

Reasons for the low source segregation Through interviews with the UoL Waste Manager and several other managerial staff involved in waste management at the university, the strongest reason for the low source segregation of non-hazardous waste was determined as the general attitude of staff and students towards waste segregation. Financial restraints and a limited number of workforces in the cleaning services were both assessed as potential reasons with the UoL Waste Manager but discarded (Schmieder 2011a). This is in line with the finding of Velazquez et al. whereby lacking awareness and interest create barriers to sustainable behavior (2005). Other reasons, such as too many and confusing waste bins which take up too much space as well as hygienic reasons were offered by the LUU Bars Operations Manager and the UoL Catering Operations Manager (Schmieder 2011e).

Figure 12: Composting bin for food waste segregation (Source: Own picture)

215

Schmieder T (2012) Food waste at the University of Leeds – Maximising opportunities Earth & E-nvironment 7: 201-231

PW state that they would prefer source-segregated food waste but that the contamination through other types of waste is a real problem. They explained that they “would like to collect these fractions separately but even in an establishment the size of the UoL this would not be practical or cost effective unless they had a dedicated waste compound and employed in house collectors and sorters” (Schmieder 2011c). Recommendations Staff and students‟ attitude stands out as the biggest barrier to efficient source segregation but it is also a factor that UoL could choose to exercise more control over. Currently, UoL is communicating a 92% recycling rate which conveys only a small part of the picture. A campus-wide behavior change programme has the potential to communicate the recycling and recovery situation effectively and point out source segregation as an important area of improvement. This is likely to increase awareness among staff and students that their recycling efforts can make a big difference to UoL‟s carbon footprint. Increased awareness of the benefits of source segregation is likely to increase segregation of waste on campus. Increased amounts of segregated food waste will reduce UoL‟s waste management invoices and enable much higher CO2 savings. This enables UoL to save money while reducing its carbon footprint at the same time. It is recommended that UoL proactively uses the DEFRA Greenhouse Gas Conversion Factors for Company Reporting to monitor and measure its carbon footprint from waste and particularly from food waste. A combination of a behavior change programme and increased reporting efforts will enable UoL to control its waste management costs and carbon emissions. It is equally possible that these actions could even have an empowering effect on the university‟s sustainability efforts. Food Waste Maceration in Catering Maceration in Catering Services UoL Catering Services produce large amounts of food waste from catering for students and staff. They are not using food waste bins to dispose of food remains but have installed food maceration systems. The systems were bought at an expense of approximately £5,000 and have been in practice without any maintenance issues for several years. This practice applies to many large public sector organisations but can create problems with regards to the sewer system as well as the additional use of water and electricity. A high capacity food waste disposal unit for large commercial kitchens such as the Refectory and Devonshire kitchen is expected to have a capacity of 900kg/hr and uses 2.2kW energy and approximately 36 liters of water per minute (Hobart 2010). This potentially puts a lot of pressure on the environment. Several studies have assessed the impact as well as advantages and disadvantages of maceration systems. Disadvantages included increased water consumption, initial purchase costs and potential grease build-up in the sewer system (Rosenwinkler 2001, Gitter 2006). YorkshireWater stated that macerated food waste increases the risk “of sewer blockages, sewer flooding, environmental pollution, 216

Figures 13 and 14: Maceration system at the Refectory (Source: Own images)

Schmieder T (2012) Food waste at the University of Leeds – Maximising opportunities Earth & E-nvironment 7: 201-231

odours and rodent infestations”. YorkshireWater quotes an unpublished DEFRA report, The National Food Waste Disposal programme, which found that “kerbside collection of segregated kitchen food waste was shown to have both lower greenhouse gas emissions and overall financial costs compared with the use of food waste disposal by macerators”. This view is supported by IEMA, adding that “macerators or other food waste-disposal units, do not provide the same opportunities to create added value from the material” (2011c, p. 24) Water UK, the representative organisation for water and wastewater utilities, in its 2009 position on macerators “opposes the use of macerators” and would like the government to “consider a ban on the commercial use of food waste disposers”. Waste water systems are not originally designed to dispose of large amounts of food waste which can add 18% of solids to the load through maceration (Thomas 2011). Depending on the use of anaerobic digestion in the sewer, however, additional organic matter can improve the performance of the sewer system. YorkshireWater as the utility company who disposes of waste water from UoL is using anaerobic digestion and even „‟investing £33 million in anaerobic digestion and energy production over the next five years” (Yorkshire Water 2011, p.25). Evans et al (2010) found no significant change in the water load or in sewer blockages through the use of food waste disposers. They did, however, note that the biogas production increased through increased use of macerators. Gitter (2006) even describes maceration as an “environmentally friendly and sustainable food waste disposal option”, which improves the hygienic environment and is easy to use. Maceration also reduces transportation emissions and costs for waste disposal and it increases the “renewable energy value of Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) anaerobic digestion biogas” (Gitter 2006). Finally, the Charted Institution of Water and Environmental Management (CIWEM) believes that food waste disposers “could have a useful place in the management of food waste and that they might be a more convenient and environmentally superior alternative to separate storage and collection” (2003, p.191). The UoL Catering Operations Manager explained the preference for a maceration system because it is an efficient one-point system for food waste, it is reliable, and does not require a lot of maintenance (Schmieder 2011b). In addition, a macerator is a very hygienic means of disposal which is important in an environment where hygiene is priority. In the past, the Refectory has experienced problems with rats and the macerator eliminates the storage problem for food waste and does not attract any pests. All the food waste is disposed of in the macerator. A small percentage of 2% food waste is achieved through exact procurement of needed volumes of food as well as efficient use of the food before the use by date. Leftovers from one day are refrigerated and used wherever possible for new food on the next, i.e. leftover vegetables can be turned into a vegetable soup on the following day. Water or energy use from the maceration system is not recorded and there are no meters installed. The financial report which includes the departmental food waste recordings are only used internally and are not provided as information to the waste manager. Catering Services are financially independent and do not receive any monetary support from UoL. A maceration system is fairly cost-effective once purchased and frees up work resources. Any alternative solution for food waste therefore needs to comply with the highest hygienic requirements and should be equally or more cost-effective than the maceration system. Food Waste Management at the Leeds University Union and UoL Coffee Bars Although maceration plays a big role in the university‟s catering operations there are alternative ways of food waste disposal which are no less feasible. This section looks into food waste disposal at LUU catering facilities and at the UoL coffee bars across campus.

217

Schmieder T (2012) Food waste at the University of Leeds – Maximising opportunities Earth & E-nvironment 7: 201-231

LUU operates three catering facilities in the union building which are currently subject to the university waste contract. LUU staff are trained in terms of the waste that is recycled within the departments i.e. glass, plastic, paper, cardboard, waste cooking oil and composting and there are separate bins for all of these types of waste. According to the Bars Operations Manager food waste arises mainly as a result of uneaten/part eaten meals and is disposed in separate food waste bins. “These are labelled separately from the general waste bins which are kept free from food contamination” (Schmieder 2011d). Food waste as a result of spoilage or out of date food from the kitchens is kept to a minimum. Composting bins are mostly used for paper towels and coffee residue. Plate scrapings are collected in a separate bin. LUU tries to limit food waste already at the procurement stage by procuring food mostly frozen, using local supplies and ordering fresh produce on a daily basis. LUU tries to record food waste as part of their stock control. The records are, however, patchy and could be improved. LUU considers food waste bins in a sensitive hygienic environment an appropriate means of storing food waste and no problems with pests have been reported. However rats can be found outside the building around the bin areas and LUU works closely with the council pest control service which conducts regular checks on this. The Bars Operations Manager explained that the biggest challenges for food waste segregation in the bar areas are space in the very tight kitchens as well as too many bins to choose from. “When the staff is busy and need to serve a lot of customers there is no time to segregate everything in the correct waste bin, also most of the staff are students which could have an impact on the recycling ethics” (Schmieder 2011e). A second substantial source of food waste are UoL‟s coffee bars of which UoL operates 13 across the campus. The UoL Catering Operations Manager mentioned that food waste in the coffee bars stems mainly from bought food leftovers like Figure 15: The major LUU bin site (Source: Own picture) sandwiches and is less than 1% of the overall procured food. He explained that originally all the coffee bars had been provided with small composting bins. However, after some time of observing the process with these bins, the composting collection stopped for two reasons:  

Waste got mouldy because the collection time was too long. The food waste started rotting in the bins and maggots appeared. The food waste was contaminated by other types of waste which had not been segregated properly by students and staff.

Catering services are still interested in food waste segregation and would be happy to restart the composting bins in the coffee bars if the following applied:   

A better collection system with a higher collection frequency is introduced; The segregation process is not time-consuming and with no additional work for the staff in the coffee bars; and Food waste bins need to be closer at hand and accessible so that staff shouldn‟t need to transport the food waste to a bin which is further away; everything should be close at hand. 218

Schmieder T (2012) Food waste at the University of Leeds – Maximising opportunities Earth & E-nvironment 7: 201-231

When asked about barriers for effective food waste segregation the UoL Catering Operations Manager replied that the biggest issue at the coffee bars is the unwillingness of students to make an effort to use the appropriate bins in an appropriate way. He offered an example to illustrate the attitude of students which needs to be overcome. The refectory tried a pilot scheme to reduce waste from disposable packaging by replacing this with reusable plastic containers which were supplied to a trial group of students free of charge, could be taken home, and even brought back for cleaning by the refectory before re-use. From the 10 initial participants, only one effectively used the containers and provided feedback at the end of the trial. Other students explained that they would be “too lazy” to use and carry around the reusable containers. They found the disposable packaging a lot more convenient. Recommendations Since the evidence for and against maceration is not conclusive, it is recommended that UoL stays in close contact with YorkshireWater to avoid any legal infringement in case the legislation changes to prohibit disposal of food waste in the sewer system. The most cost-effective and convenient way forward at this time may be for UoL Catering Services to continue macerating their food waste until evidence has proven the unsuitability of maceration for environmental or economic reasons. It is recommended to start monitoring and recording water and energy consumption figures for the maceration system to gain a clear understanding of the costs involved and the potential carbon savings. LUU and UoL Catering Services would benefit from an exchange of experiences both with the maceration system and the food waste bins. It is also recommended that LUU starts recording their food waste volume more effectively. The knowledge of exact food waste volumes may be an important factor in the decisionmaking on the most suitable waste management strategy for LUU for negotiating a separate waste collection contract. There is currently interest in a composting facility which would help LUU to keep their waste collection invoices to a minimum and provide rich compost for their gardening scheme at Barden Grange. A composter could reduce LUU‟s carbon footprint significantly by avoiding any food waste going to landfill while at the same time providing rich fertiliser for the gardening scheme. Catering Services record their food wastage but only use these reports for their financial planning. It will be useful to share relevant information from these reports with the UoL Waste Manager to provide a basis for effective decision-making. Since the start of this project, it has been noted that several but not all coffee bars on campus indeed use food waste bins. However, neither the UoL Catering Operations Manager nor the UoL Waste Managers are fully aware of the current situation. It would be useful to increase communication between the UoL Waste Manager and those UoL departments which produce the largest amounts of food waste. This may help the UoL Waste Manager decide on the most appropriate waste strategy at the time in an ever changing organisation.

219

Schmieder T (2012) Food waste at the University of Leeds – Maximising opportunities Earth & E-nvironment 7: 201-231

Small-scale biodigester investment UoL is looking into the possibility to install a micro biodigester at their farms in order to use manure and farm waste as well as food waste for anaerobic digestion. DEFRA‟s 2011 Anaerobic Digestion Strategy explains the process as follows: AD is a natural process in which microorganisms break down organic matter, in the absence of oxygen, into biogas (a mixture of carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane) and digestate (a nitrogen-rich fertiliser). The biogas can be used directly in engines for Combined Heat and Power (CHP), burned to produce heat, or can be cleaned and used in the same way as natural gas or as a vehicle fuel. The digestate can be used as a renewable fertiliser or soil conditioner. (p.5) In order to assess the feasibility of a small-scale biodigester it is important to understand how much feedstock could be derived from UoL food waste to add to manure and organic farm waste. Relevant factors include:   

The cost of a small-scale bio digester; Available feedstock from university food waste; and Potential CO2 savings derived from using a biodigester.

After consideration of these aspects, the project should provide a recommendation with regards to the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of a small-scale bio digester for the University. After consultation with several senior and principal consultants at CO2Sense it was determined that the costs for a small-scale AD facility would be between £300,000 and £400,000 but the return on investment could be as little as 8 years. This is due to the benefits of an AD plant which include:    

Feed-in tariffs for produced electricity; Digestive as fertilizer for the farms; Heat, and Independence from National Grid (cost savings).

Most suitable would be “a modular system which is highly scalable from 500-20,000t throughput generating between 50KW-1MW of electrical output dependant on input material” (CO2Sense 2011). UoL maintains three research farms, all of which produce a substantial amount of organic waste which could be combined with the food waste generated on campus and used for AD. UoL has seen increasing numbers of segregated food waste in the last three years which is mostly due to increasingly sophisticated segregation methods rather than increasing amounts of food waste. The increasing quantities of food waste are illustrated in figure 16. In 2011, UoL will segregate and recover in the region of 287 tonnes of food waste (forecast) which could be used as feedstock for a micro biodigester. Depending on the amount of

Figure 16: UoL feedstock from food waste (Source: Data provided by Premier Waste)

220

Schmieder T (2012) Food waste at the University of Leeds – Maximising opportunities Earth & E-nvironment 7: 201-231

slurry and organic farm waste to which it could be added, the amount of feedstock from food waste should be a supporting factor for the decision to invest in a biodigester. Another factor to consider in the decision for or against a small-scale biodigester is the amount of carbon reduction which can be achieved. Generally, the most suitable treatments of food waste from an economic and environmental point of view are composting and AD. According to DEFRA‟s carbon emission indicators and as illustrated in figure 11, anaerobic digestion reduces carbon emissions far more than composting and would make a significant difference in decreasing UoL‟s carbon footprint (2011b). Figure 17 applies DEFRA‟s carbon emission indicators to UoL‟s food waste and shows that AD could reduce CO 2 emissions by approximately 40,000 net kg per year whereas composting would save approximately 10,000 net kg CO2 emissions per year. With a reduced carbon footprint and reduced waste management costs combined with the aforementioned benefits of AD, a small-scale biodigester would provide a wealth of long-term advantages to UoL that would vastly outweigh the initial high investment costs.

Figure 17: CO2 emissions by food waste treatment method (Source: Defra 2011b, data provided by Premier Waste)

While permitting may present a barrier to this development, it is not a part of this project and requires further investigation in the feasibility study.

Recommendations It is recommended that UoL undertakes efforts to measure and record the potential amount of feedstock from manure and organic waste at the research farms. At the same time, a behaviour change programme with a strong focus on increased source segregation recycling efforts will enable UoL to segregate the necessary amount of food waste at source to be used as campus feedstock and to be combined with the farm feedstock. It is further recommended that UoL make initial contact with CO2Sense to discuss their requirements and undertake a detailed feasibility study which takes into account investment costs, permitting requirements, full feedstock potential, return on investment, usability of the heat and fertilizers produced as well as costs of cleaning the generated biogas and its usability across campus.

221

Schmieder T (2012) Food waste at the University of Leeds – Maximising opportunities Earth & E-nvironment 7: 201-231

Policies and structures University Structures and Policies The fourth leg of the project takes a look at the UoL waste policy and current communication structures across the organisation which are relevant to waste management. It aims to understand the factors which encourage UoL to commit to sustainable development as well as the internal barriers which prevent effective integration of sustainability in UoL‟s operations. HEFCE distributes public funding to higher education institutes and is UoL‟s largest income stream according to their Annual Report 2009/10. HEFCE‟s funding, however, is linked to UoL‟s performance in carbon management and will decrease should UoL fail to reduce their carbon footprint in line with HEFCE‟s requirements. Figure 18 shows HEFCE‟s carbon reduction requirements as sector targets and compares them with UoL‟s own target reductions. The University aims to reduce its carbon emissions by 35% by 2020/21, against the 2005/06 baseline (2011b). Waste is an important source of CO2 emissions and needs to be part of UoL‟s CO2 saving efforts. There are currently several initiatives in place which encourage sustainable development and thereby carbon reduction: the Environmental Coordinator programme, Green Impact, LUU‟s sustainability commitment plan, as well as a big energy savings programme by UoL Figure 18: HEFCE and UoL carbon reduction targets (Source: UoL which is starting in September. Environmental Management System) While most of these initiatives can be considered behavior change programmes, it is especially the energy savings programme which is likely to result in the biggest change of attitude towards energy consumption. This is mostly because it focuses on both, staff and students and will involve different activities over a long period of time to enable sustainable behavior to be embedded in everyday routines. Sustainable development has had a place in UoL‟s culture for a long time. Plans are now in place to promote one member of the senior management team as Head of Sustainability (Schmieder 2011f). This means a move from sustainability that is predominantly a part of the culture of UoL to sustainability that is a part of the governance of the organization. Sustainability will come to the fore and be highly visible thereon. Sustainable development as a senior management responsibility will receive a lot more consideration in the social, environmental, operational and academic areas of UoL through the implementation of a top-down approach. When sustainability becomes a more important point on UoL‟s agenda, the first step should be to integrate sustainable procedures across the organization and adjust UoL‟s policies accordingly. UoL‟s waste and recycling policy (2011d) needs a general updating and to include clearer targets and strategies. Staff and students need to be made aware of UoL‟s sustainability efforts at an early stage of their involvement with UoL. There used to be a dedicated induction programme for new staff but it has been disbanded for several months (Schmieder 2011f). No alternative has been put into place and it is left to the departments to introduce new staff to the relevant policies. Without a general event to introduce staff to sustainable development at UoL, it is virtually impossible for UoL‟s sustainability team to communicate the topic effectively across the university due to limited workforces.

222

Schmieder T (2012) Food waste at the University of Leeds – Maximising opportunities Earth & E-nvironment 7: 201-231

It is impossible for one team to attend all student induction events and present sustainability and waste management topics during induction at the busiest time of the year. A potential alternative could involve academic staff and course leaders. By giving the course leaders an overview of the issues relating to sustainability and waste management and letting them present it as part of their induction speech it is possible to reach a large audience of students and make them familiar with UoL‟s green efforts and how they could personally take on responsibility to make a difference. However, this attempt would only work effectively if UoL‟s staff is sufficiently educated about matters relating to a sustainable university and how to contribute themselves. A huge barrier to successful communication of sustainable waste management is the fact that UoL is officially stating a recycling rate of 92% which gives little incentive to staff or students to increase their recycling efforts at source. While the attempt to communicate UoL‟s recycling and recovery success is positive, it would make sense to make staff and students aware of the difference between source-segregation and MRF recovery. The knowledge that source segregation of paper and cardboard, plastics, glass and cans as well as the food waste could be increased by 86% is likely to make a big difference in the perception of personal recycling responsibility among staff and students. A final barrier to sustainable waste management appears to be the communication among UoL departments. Throughout the interview undertaken with several UoL managers who are relevant for the waste management process it appeared that different areas of the university work with different sets of information. While the UoL Waste Manager stated that all UoL coffee bars are supplied with food waste bins, the UoL Catering Operations Manager explained that the food waste collection across the coffee bars had been stopped. Through communication between the cleaning services and the catering services department the contradictory situation could be resolved quickly. Investigations into the area revealed that some coffee bars across campus were using food waste bins and some were not. Recommendations Recommendations include a biannual waste management meeting with relevant departments and the UoL Waste Manager. These meetings should be helpful to increase understanding among the departments about constraints and successful strategies in different areas of the university. It would also enable the UoL Waste Manager to actively involve the departments in waste management decisions and receive input on the quality and practicality of waste management routines across the campus. UoL‟s Environmental Management System states that “while no formal target has been identified, it would seem practicable that the University seek at least to maintain its excellent 90% recycling rate” (2011). Rather than combining source-segregation and MRF recovery in the term recycling, it seems useful to split the figure into the two and stress the source-segregation level as an area of necessary improvement. This clear split of waste treatment methods should then be communicated to staff and students. In order to effectively communicate the university‟s sustainability efforts, staff and students should be educated about sustainable development at UoL as soon as they get involved in UoL. For staff, this could be through an induction event with a dedicated presentation of UoL‟s sustainable development. For students, this could be a short presentation during their course induction event, provided through the course leader. Policy documents, such as the Waste and Recycling Policy, should be reviewed and updated on a regular basis and integrate the new focus on sustainability. Equally, UoL should set ambitious and achievable targets in areas of sustainable development as a basis to continuously improve UoL performance. The new Head of Sustainability should preferably be closely involved in this process and ensure that responsibilities are clear, manageable and comprehensive.

223

Schmieder T (2012) Food waste at the University of Leeds – Maximising opportunities Earth & E-nvironment 7: 201-231

6. Summary of Recommendations This project provides various recommendations for the University of Leeds which aim to take advantage of the opportunities presented by food waste. There are several actions which the university could look at and impleme with few financial means within short notice. These include the following: A changed recycling message Explaining the university‟s 92% recycling rate and recycling efforts in terms of source segregation and MRF recovery stresses source segregation as an area of necessary improvement. Monitor and record CO2 emissions from waste DEFRA‟s Greenhouse Gas Conversion Factors for Company Reporting are free and simple to use and provide the university with an understanding of its carbon emissions, not only from waste but from all areas of operations. Monitor and record macerated food waste volume, water and energy consumption from maceration The installation of energy and water meters is inexpensive and provides Catering Services and Residential Services with an understanding of the operation cost of macerators as well as an indication of their environmental impact. Closer estimations of the volume of macerated waste food would provide a clearer understanding of available food waste for alternative treatment options. Share recorded data with university’s Waste Manager The records of food waste volumes arising at Catering Services provide helpful information for the university‟s waste manager and may facilitate future waste management decisions. Exchange experiences between LUU and university University‟s Catering Services and Leeds University Union have different requirements towards their food waste disposal and therefore use different options. It may be useful for both to exchange their experiences with food waste bins and maceration to better understand the benefits and constraints of both alternatives. This could facilitate future decision-making for LUU and UoL with regards to food waste disposal. Educate staff and students about areas of sustainability as soon as they get involved with the University Staff and students should be made aware of the university‟s sustainability efforts as soon as they get involved with the organisation. For staff, this could be in the form of a presentation during an induction event. For students, this could be through university staff, like their course leader at the course induction event. Both staff and students should actively be encouraged to participate in the existing sustainability initiatives. Review and update policies with a focus on sustainable development Some of the university‟s policies, like the waste and recycling policy, need to be reviewed and brought up to date. It makes sense to review these with a focus on sustainable development. Arrange biannual waste management meetings A waste management meeting twice a year would enable the university‟s waste manager to have an exchange about opportunities and problems related to waste with representatives of the departments. It would also enable the Waste Manager to actively involve the departments in waste management decisions and receive input on the quality and practicality of waste management routines across the campus. The recommendations with the highest potential to reduce costs and carbon emissions for the university need to be considered with a long-term view on their benefits as they mostly need initial investment from the 224

Schmieder T (2012) Food waste at the University of Leeds – Maximising opportunities Earth & E-nvironment 7: 201-231

university and take time to implement. These are a feasibility study for a small-scale biodigester project at the university‟s research farms, a behavior change programme with a focus to increase source segregation by staff and students across the university and a potential feasibility study for a composter at the Leeds University Union. The table below lists these recommendations in order of priority and states the actions by which CO2Sense can support the UoL with its expert subject knowledge: Recommendation Small-scale biodigester

Behavior change programme

LUU Composter

Actions Feasibility study; Analysis of feedstock from slurry across the three university research farms

Benefits Costs Payback Biogas; £300,000 – Less than 8 Feed-in tariffs for produced 400,000 project years ROI electricity; Digestive as investment plus fertilizer for the farms; consultancy fees Heat; Independence from National Grid; Enables UoL to meet its carbon reduction targets The small-scale biodigester is the highest priority recommendation as a feasibility study could be undertaken as soon as possible as the project could reduce the university‟s carbon footprint significantly and allow UoL to reach its GHG reduction targets. It would also provide a number of benefits to the university, many of which will have a positive financial impact. Also, this report has already begun to look at the feedstock volume from campus food waste and therefore effectively made a start on the project. Contact UoL Raises awareness for source- Depends on Immediate Sustainability Team segregation; dimension and results and LUU; Reduces costs and carbon timescale of Prepare one footprint; programme programme Enables UoL to meet its bespoke to UoL carbon reduction targets students and one to UoL staff The behavior change programme is the second highest priority as it is a long-term scheme which will take a large amount of time and effort to put into place. It has, however, the highest potential for the university to save costs through increased source segregation and to reduce its carbon footprint. This programme increases the feasibility of the small-scale biodigester investment significantly and both projects should therefore go hand in hand. Get in touch with Cost savings on waste Rocket Unknown at LUU sustainability management contract; Composter from this point officer; Carbon savings; £5,000; cost Feasibility study on Compost for food growing depends on food waste volume project Barden Grange capacity of and potential composter composting output Despite a lot of interest in a composting scheme which would enable LUU to save costs and reduce its carbon footprint while producing rich compost for their food growing programme, this project is currently classed as lowest priority. However, if LUU decides to move forward with a composter, a feasibility study could be undertaken by CO2Sense within a short time frame.

225

Schmieder T (2012) Food waste at the University of Leeds – Maximising opportunities Earth & E-nvironment 7: 201-231

7. Conclusions The effective management of food waste provides many opportunities for the university. These include operational cost reductions of around £6,000 per year through efficient source segregation and carbon emission reductions of up to 40,000 netkg CO2 per year through an AD investment. Food waste also presents the university with an opportunity to fulfil its role as a contributor and facilitator for sustainable development in society. A survey by Franz-Bahlsen and Heinrichs found that 95% of respondents agreed that “higher education institutions should be examples for society” (2007 p. 438). Food waste allows UoL to comply with these expectations and lead by example through the implementation of sustainable and innovative technologies as AD. An investment into a small-scale biodigester with initial costs of up to £400,000 would provide the university with a strong focus point for its sustainability efforts and its communication thereof to staff, students and other stakeholders. While this AD project presents one of the biggest opportunities for UoL, it is unlikely to be a success story without additional measures to guarantee a continuous supply of feedstock from food waste. One of the biggest challenges for UoL is to increase source segregation across the campus. While the informing of staff and students of the university‟s sustainability efforts and areas of improvement is a necessary first step, and while the AD investment is sure to raise awareness, these measures are not sufficient by themselves. “Information does not necessarily lead to increased awareness, and increased awareness does not necessarily lead to action. Information provision, whether through advertisements, leaflets or labelling, must be backed up by other approaches.” (Demos & Green Alliance 2003, in DEFRA 2006) This project recommends an extensive behaviour change programme to complement the aforementioned measures. Changing the behaviour in correlation with the effective communication of positive consequences of that behaviour change to staff and students is particularly challenging as well as essential. Arbuthnott explains that “we are less likely to make behavior changes when we believe that our efforts will not make a difference” (2008, p. 155). UoL therefore needs to take great care in communicating the positive results of increased source segregation and how it supports the university‟s sustainability effort. In order to increase the amount of source segregated food waste, which serves as feedstock for the potential biodigester project, which in turn enables the university to reduce its carbon footprint, thereby complying with its GHG reduction target and securing continuous high funding from HEFCE, it is necessary for UoL to communicate transparent and comprehensive waste management information to staff and students to raise awareness about their positive contribution to sustainable development. This creates lasting change towards sustainable behaviour in the form of increased source segregation, which will in turn make the success of the small-scale biodigester project a lot more likely. This project provided a number of recommendations to UoL which, if implemented successfully, allow the university to “produce competent environmental decisionmakers, competency development and consciousness-raising” (Lozano 2006, p.758) through the sustainable management of its food waste.

226

Schmieder T (2012) Food waste at the University of Leeds – Maximising opportunities Earth & E-nvironment 7: 201-231

Acknowledgments I would like to thank Steven Ogden and James Richardson from CO2Sense for their continuous support, enthusiasm and encouragement throughout this project. Without them, I would still be doubtful whether my work can add value in any way. I am equally grateful for the input and helpful advice of the CO2Sense team. Many of my colleagues provided me with in-depth information and happily shared their wealth of experience about the waste industry. Furthermore, I thank Dr. Louise Ellis and Claire Bastin for their constructive advice on the project and dissertation, and their patient support in what was a challenging time for me. Finally, I would like to express my gratefulness to Pierre Gaite and Ruta Dauksaite for being a constant source of support while keeping me focused throughout a fascinating and challenging project.

227

Schmieder T (2012) Food waste at the University of Leeds – Maximising opportunities Earth & E-nvironment 7: 201-231

References Arbuthnott, K. (2009) Education for sustainable development beyond attitude change, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 10 (2) pp. 152-163 Arvanitoyannis, I. et al (2007) Presentation and comments on EU legislation related to food industries – environment interactions and waste management, International Journal of Food Science and Technology 41, pp. 96 - 129 Audit Commission (1997) Waste Matters – Good Practice in Waste Management, Oxon: Audit Commission Publications Audit Commission (2008) Well disposed – Responding to the waste challenge, London: Audit Commission Publications Baptista, M. et al. (2011) Diagnosis and optimization of the composting process in full-scale mechanical – biological treatment plants, Waste Management & Research 29, pp. 565 - 573 Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management (CIWEM) (2003) CIWEM Policy Position Statement: Food Waste Disposers, The Journal, V17 N3, pp. 191 - 193 Clay, S. (2005). Increasing university recycling: Factors influencing recycling behaviour among students at Leeds University. Earth and Environment 1, 186-228. CO2Sense (2011) Correspondence with SRC Ltd., 26th July Davidson, S. (2010) Up-scaling Social Behaviour Change Programmes: The Case of Eco-Teams, in Whitmarsh, L. et al (2010) Engaging the public in climate change behavior, London: Earthscan DEFRA (2006) Changing behavior through policy making, [available online] [accessed 20th August 2011] available on World Wide Web via http://archive.defra.gov.uk/sustainable/government/documents/change-behaviour-model.pdf DEFRA (2011a) Government Review of Waste Policy in England 2011, London: Crown Copyright DEFRA (2011b) 2011 Guidelines to DEFRA/DECC‟s GHG Conversion Factors for Company Reporting, [available online] [accessed 20th August 2011] available on World Wide Web via http://archive.defra.gov.uk/environment/business/reporting/pdf/110819-guidelines-ghgconversion-factors.pdf DEFRA (2011c) Anaerobic Digestion Strategy and Action Plan – A commitment to increasing energy from waste through Anaerobic Digestion, London: Crown Copy Department for Education and Skills (2003) Sustainable development action plan for Education and Skills, London: Crown Copyright EAUC (2010) Waste Reduction and Recycling Improvement at City College Norwich, [available online] [accessed 20th May 2011] available on World Wide Web via http://www.eauc.org.uk/waste_reduction_and_recycling_improvement_at_ci Environmental Agency (2009) EA Notice LATS MRF Reject, [available online] [accessed 2nd August 2011] available on World Wide Web via http://www.wastedataflow.co.uk/htm/datasets.aspx#EnglandGuidance European Parliament (2008) Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on waste and repealing certain Directives, Official Journal of the European Union, L, pp. 312/3 – 312/30 Evans, T. (2007) Environmental Impact Study of Food Waste Disposers, [available online] [accessed 27th July 2011] available on World Wide Web via http://www.insinkerator.com/environmental/global.shtml

228

Schmieder T (2012) Food waste at the University of Leeds – Maximising opportunities Earth & E-nvironment 7: 201-231

Evans, T. (2010) Surahammar: a case study of the impacts of installing food waste disposers in 50% of households, Water and Environment Journal 24, pp. 309 - 319 Ferrer-Balas, D. et al. (2010) Going beyond the rhetoric: system-wide changes in universities for sustainable societies, Journal of Cleaner Production, 18, pp. 607 - 610 Forum for the Future (2004) Communicating for Sustainability: Guidance for Higher Education Institutions, Forum for the Future, London: Forum for the Future Franz-Bahlsen, A. , Heinrichs, H. (2007) Managing sustainability communication on campus: experiences from Lüneburg, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 8 (4), pp. 431 - 445 Genovese, J (2008) Behaviour Change for Comating Climate Change, [available online] [accessed 12th May 2011] available on World Wide Web via http://learningfundamentals.com.au/wpcontent/uploads/behaviour-change-for-combating-climate-change.pdf Gitter, M. (2006) Summary of Research regarding the Environmental Efficacy of Food Waste Disposers [available online] [accessed 27th July 2011] available on World Wide Web via http://www.insinkerator.com/environmental/reports.shtml Harper, D. (1998) An Argument for Visual Sociology, Prosser, J. (1998) Image-based research: A sourcebook for qualitative researchers, London: Falmer Press HEFCE (2008) Strategic Review of Sustainable Development in Higher Education in England. [available online] [accessed 27th July 2011] available on World Wide Web via http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/rdreports/2008/rd03_08/rd03_08.pdf HEFCE (2010) Carbon reduction target and strategy for higher education in England, [available online] [accessed 12th May 2011] available on World Wide Web via http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/hefce/2010/10_01/ Hobart (2010) Waste Disposal Units [available online] [accessed 18th August 2011] available on World Wide Web via www.hobartuk.com/hobart/files/pdfs/waste.pdf IEMA (2011a) Waste review rubbished, The Environmentalist (7), p. 4 IEMA (2011b) Looking at GHG reporting, The Environmentalist (8), p. 21 IEMA (2011c) What to do with our waste food, The Environmentalist (7), p.24 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2008) Mitigation of global greenhouse gas emissions from waste: conclusions and strategies from the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. Working Group III (Mitigation) Waste Management & Research 26, pp. 11 - 32 Lozano R. (2006) Editorial: Sustainability in higher education: What is happening? Journal of Cleaner Production 14, pp. 757-760 Marashlian, N., El-Fadel, M. (2005) The effect of food waste disposers on municipal waste and wastewater management, Waste Management & Research 23, pp. 20 - 31 McDonald, S. (2011) Green behavoiur: Differences in recycling behavior between the home and the workplace, in The British Psychological Society (2011) Going Green: The Psychology of Sustainability in the Workplace, Leicester: The British Psychological Society Moller, J. et al (2009) Anaerobic digestion and digestate use: accounting of greenhouse gases and global warming contribution, Waste Management & Research 27, pp. 813 - 824 Papageorgiou, A., Karagiannidis, A. (2009) Municipal solid waste management scenarios for Attica and their greenhouse gas emission impact, Waste Management & Research 27, pp. 928 - 937

229

Schmieder T (2012) Food waste at the University of Leeds – Maximising opportunities Earth & E-nvironment 7: 201-231

Parker, R. (2011) Green organizational performance: Behavioural change interventions based on the theory of planned behavior, in The British Psychological Society (2011) Going Green: The Psychology of Sustainability in the Workplace, Leicester: The British Psychological Society Parsons, S. Kriwoken, L. (2010) Report: Maximizing recycling participation to reduce waste to landfill: a study of small to medium-sized enterprises in Hobart, Tasmania, Australia, Waste Management & Research 28, pp. 472 - 477 Plank, R. (2011) Green behavior: Barriers, facilitators and the role of attributions, in The British Psychological Society (2011) Going Green: The Psychology of Sustainability in the Workplace, Leicester: The British Psychological Society Premier Waste (2011) Waste Recovery Data, in Schmieder, T. (2011) Correspondence with Premier Waste, 18th July Price, J., Joseph, J. (2000) Demand Management – A basis for waste policy: A critical review of the applicability of the waste hierarchy in terms of achieving sustainable waste management, Sustainable Development 8, pp. 96 - 105 Resourcefutures (2009) Resource Efficiency Guidance: Legislation, Leeds: CO2Sense Ltd.. Resourcefutures (2009) Resource Efficiency Guidance: Why and How to be more Resource Efficient, Leeds: CO2Sense Ltd. Robson, C. (2002) Real World Research, 2nd Edition, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd. Rosenwinkel, K.-H., Wendler, D. (2001) Influences of food waste disposers on sewerage system, waste water treatment and sludge digestion, [available online] [accessed 18th August 2011] available on World Wide Web via http://drtice.bond.cz/studie/studie-hannover-eng.pdf Rubin, H. and I. (2005) Qualitative Interviewing – The art of hearing data, 2nd Edition, London: Sage Publications Sakar, S. et al. (2009) Anaerobic digestion technology in poultry and livestock waste treatment – a literature review, Waste Management & Research 27, pp. 3 - 18 Schmieder, T. (2011a) Interview with Janet Willis, 21st July Schmieder, T. (2011b) Interview with Ian Addy, 25th May Schmieder, T. (2011c) Correspondence with Premier Waste, 18th July Schmieder, T. (2011d) Correspondence with Darren Buntin, 29th July Schmieder, T. (2011e) Interview with Darren Buntin, 5th August Schmieder, T. (2011f) Interview with James Dixon-Gough, 15th July Schöpfel, Joachim (2006) Observations on the Future of Grey Literature. The Grey Journal 2:2 pp: 67-76, [available online] [accessed 28th June 2011] available on World Wide Web via http://archivesic.ccsd.cnrs.fr/docs/00/16/89/98/PDF/TGJ_2006_2_2.pdf Smith, S, Jasim, S. (2009) Small-scale home composting of biodegradable household waste: overview of key results from a 3-year research programme in West London, Waste Management & Research 27, pp. 941 - 950 Stephens, J.C. et al. (2008) Higher education as a change agent for sustainability in different cultures and contexts, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 9 (3), pp. 317 - 338 Strutz, W. (1998) Life Cycle Comparison of five engineered systems for management food waste, [available online] [accessed 27th July 2011] available on World Wide Web via http://www.insinkerator.com/environmental/reports.shtml 230

Schmieder T (2012) Food waste at the University of Leeds – Maximising opportunities Earth & E-nvironment 7: 201-231

Thomas, P. (2011) The effects of food waste disposers on the waste water system: a practical study, Water and Environment Journal 25, pp. 250 - 256 UK Government (1990) Environmental Protection Act 1990, [available online] [accessed 18th September 2011] available on World Wide Web via http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/43/section/34 UK Government (1991) Environmental Protection Regulations 1991 (Duty of Care) [available online] [accessed 18th September 2011] available on World Wide Web via http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1991/2839/introduction/made UK Government (2005) Animal By-Products Regulations 2005, [available online] [accessed 18th September 2011] available on World Wide Web via http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2005/2347/contents/made UK Government (2011) The Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2011, [available online] [accessed 18th September 2011] available on World Wide Web via http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2011/988/made University of Leeds (2010) Waste Production 2005 – 2010 [available online] [accessed 18th May 2011] available on World Wide Web via http://www.leeds.ac.uk/estate_services/environment/progress.htm University of Leeds (2011a) Annual Review 2009/10 [available online] [accessed 19th August 2011] available on world wide web via http://www.leeds.ac.uk/downloads/file/403/annual_report_and_accounts_2009-2010 University of Leeds (2011b) Environmental Management System – Phase 1 Stage 4: Developing Environmental Indicators, [accessed 19th July 2011] [available online], available on World Wide Web from www.leeds.ac.uk/estate_services/downloads/Developing%20Environmental%20Indicators.pdf University of Leeds (2011c) University Waste Data 2005 – 2011. Unpublished University of Leeds (2011d) Waste and Recycling Policy, [available online] [accessed 19th August 2011] available on world wide web via http://www.leeds.ac.uk/estate_services/downloads/2006recyclingpolicy.pdf Velasquez, L., Munguia, N. and Sanchez, M. (2005) Deterring sustainability in higher education institutions, Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 383-91 Wastewatch (2005) Resource Management in the Education Sector – Education Mass Balance Study (Biffaward) [available online] [accessed 18th August 2011] available on World Wide Web via http://www.thinkleadership.org.uk/pdf/EducationSectorReport-final.pdf Water UK (2009) UK Water Position February 2009 Waste Macerators – the Impact on Sewers, [available online] [accessed 19th August 2011] available on the world wide web via http://www.water.org.uk/home/policy/positions/waste-macerators-position-paper Wilson, D.C. (2007) Development Drivers for Waste Management, Waste Management & Research 25, pp. 198-207 Winston, B. (1998) „The Camera Never Lies‟: The Partiality of Photographic Evicence, in Prosser, J. (1998) Image-based research: A sourcebook for qualitative researchers, London: Falmer Press WRAP (2007) Understanding Food Waste – Research Summary, Banbury: WRAP YorkshireWater (2011) Taking responsibility for the water environment for good [available online] [accessed 18th August 2011] available on World Wide Web via http://www.yorkshirewater.com/publicaffairs/read-our-white-paper-online.aspx#/24/ Zhang, N. et al (2011) Greening academia: Developing sustainable waste management at Higher Education Institutions, Waste Management 31, pp. 1606 - 1616 231