Fostering a Sustainable Campus: A Successful Selective Waste Collection Initiative in a Brazilian University

Abstract

This study reports a successful selective waste collection initiative led by UFSC’s Araranguá campus in a municipality without a recycling system. The initiative, named “Recicla UFSC Ara”, was structured around three main components: (i) the installation of color-coded bins for recyclable waste (including paper, plastic, metals, and polystyrene) and non-recyclable waste in indoor and common areas; (ii) the establishment of a Voluntary Delivery Point (PEV) to gather specific recyclable materials, such as glass, electronics waste, plastic bottles, writing instruments, and bottle caps; and (iii) the execution of periodic educational community-focused campaigns aimed at encouraging participation from both the university and the broader local community. Recyclables were manually sorted and weighed during regular collection rounds, and contamination rates were calculated. Quantitative data collected from 2022 to 2025 were analyzed using descriptive statistics and one-way ANOVA to assess waste generation and contamination trends. Gathered recyclables were directed to appropriate partner institutions, including local “Ecoponto”, non-profit organizations, and corporate recycling programs. The study also conducted a literature review of similar university-led waste management programs to identify standard practices and regional specificities, providing a comparative analysis that highlights both shared elements and distinctive contributions of the UFSC model. Results demonstrate a significant volume of waste diverted from landfills and a gradual improvement in waste disposal practices among the university community. Targeted communication and operational changes mitigated key challenges, improper disposal, and logistical issues. This case underscores the role of universities as agents of environmental education and local sustainable development.

1. Introduction

Managing municipal solid waste is a significant challenge contemporary societies face, mainly due to population expansion, rapid urbanization, and the increasing consumption of disposable goods [1]. In 2020, researchers estimated global solid waste production at 2.1 billion tonnes. Projections indicate a 56% increase by 2050, reaching 3.8 billion tonnes if current trends continue unchecked [2]. Given this, waste collection emerges as an effective measure to minimize environmental impacts, reduce the volume of waste sent to landfills, and promote a circular economy [3,4,5]. Its effective implementation directly contributes to several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) established by the United Nations (UN) in the 2030 Agenda, such as SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities), SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production), and SDG 13 (Climate Action) [6].

In Brazil, the challenges of implementing waste collection systems remain significant. According to the Overview of Solid Waste in Brazil 2023, only 14.7% of the urban population can access door-to-door waste collection [7]. Even though the country’s southern region presents higher coverage (31.9%), many municipalities still lack structured systems. The absence of adequate infrastructure for the separation and proper destination of recyclables increases the amount of waste sent to landfills and limits opportunities for recycling and community engagement. These shortcomings underscore the need for local initiatives to address these gaps and promote sustainable waste management practices. Considering this, understanding universities’ role in sustainability is important for tackling these challenges, especially in regions where local governments have yet to implement effective recycling systems [8,9].

Universities are key in advancing sustainable development through education and implementing practical solutions to environmental issues on their campuses and within local communities. Managing waste in higher education institutions is a complex task that requires multidisciplinary expertise, stakeholder engagement, effective communication, and collaborative research [10]. These institutions can promote sustainable practices, raise awareness, and engage students, staff, and the community in transformative actions [11,12]. Implementing solid waste management in educational settings can act as an informal learning process, fostering environmentally responsible habits among students likely to be transferred to their households. Consequently, well-executed campus initiatives have the potential to catalyze broader behavioral change within surrounding communities [8]. Current studies have explored university students’ attitudes toward solid waste generation and disposal practices, which can help optimize, design, and manage waste systems more effectively on campuses [8,9].

Although some Brazilian universities have implemented waste collection systems, researchers have documented few of these experiences in the academic literature. Existing studies, such as the permanent waste collection program developed at the Federal University of Itajubá, Minas Gerais [13] and the successful solidarity-based waste collection initiative at the Federal Center for Technological Education, Rio de Janeiro [14], demonstrate the potential of such actions to foster sustainability within higher education institutions. Nonetheless, given the limited number of published experiences, especially those offering detailed assessments of structure and operational outcomes, expanding the body of evidence through detailed documentation and analysis is crucial for scaling and refining such initiatives and supporting the development of similar efforts. Within this broader context, the Federal University of Santa Catarina (UFSC) developed a Continuous Waste Collection Project in the municipality of Araranguá. A previous study [15] detailed the project’s initial implementation, while this article expands the analysis by examining its progress, current results, and ongoing challenges.

The UFSC, with over six decades of experience in teaching, research, outreach, and innovation, operates across five campuses. The Araranguá campus, established in 2009 as the first expansion beyond the university’s original campus in the capital city of Florianópolis, hosts the Center for Sciences, Technologies, and Health. This center offers five undergraduate programs, four graduate (master’s) programs, and one doctoral program, serving approximately 1390 students and supported by nearly 153 teachers and 75 administrative staff members. Araranguá, located in the extreme southern region of Santa Catarina, has a population of approximately 71,000 inhabitants [16]. Despite municipal regulations addressing urban solid waste management, the city lacks an official implementation plan and does not operate a selective waste collection system. Furthermore, there is no formal association of waste pickers. However, the municipality maintains an “Ecoponto” facility where residents may dispose of recyclable materials, which individual waste pickers or recycling companies subsequently gather.

Although several studies have documented selective waste collection initiatives in universities, most focus on institutions in cities with established municipal recycling systems or regions with more structured waste management infrastructures. There is a notable gap in the literature regarding practical models implemented in smaller campuses within municipalities lacking formal recycling programs, especially in developing countries. This study addresses this gap by presenting the “Recicla UFSC Ara” initiative, which operates in Araranguá, a municipality without a structured selective collection system. The project’s implementation under these unique conditions, engagement strategies, and operational adaptations distinguishes it from previously reported cases. By providing detailed quantitative and qualitative analysis, this work offers valuable insights for similar institutions facing structural and behavioral challenges in implementing sustainable waste management.

Given this context, the present study aims to present the successful case of the UFSC Araranguá campus waste collection initiative. The initiative stands out for its successful implementation in an environment lacking structured waste management systems, innovative approaches to integrating sustainability into the university’s operations, and engagement with the local community. The research analyzes the initiative’s structure, impacts, and challenges to demonstrate its effectiveness and potential as a replicable model for other institutions. It also identifies key issues related to waste separation and operational logistics, outlining strategies that have improved the system’s efficiency. By comparing this case with similar initiatives in academic environments, the study highlights the unique contributions of the UFSC model and the standard practices shared with other institutions. Ultimately, the findings reinforce the role of universities as drivers of local sustainable development and contribute to the broader discourse on institutional sustainability and integrated waste management in higher education.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Initial Phase of the Selective Waste Collection Project

The Continuous Selective Waste Collection Project, named in Portuguese “Recicla UFSC Ara”, was initiated in April 2022 at UFSC, Araranguá campus, in Santa Catarina, southern Brazil (Figure 1). The first phase displaced color-coded bins to separate recyclable and non-recyclable waste in indoor spaces such as administrative and teachers’ offices. In October of the same year, the project was expanded to the university corridors, ensuring greater reach and access to the selective collection for the entire academic community [15].

The system uses the standard color-coding widely adopted in waste collection programs: green bins with blue bags for dry recyclables and gray bins with black bags for non-recyclables. Staff place 30 L bags in indoor areas and 100 L bags in corridors, with higher waste volume. The team has installed approximately 100 bins indoors and 14 in corridors, distributing them across various university points. Figure 2 shows the identification signage used for these bins. Explanatory posters around campus reinforce the visual signage and guide the university community in proper disposal practices.

The management of waste collection and disposal on campus follows a well-structured flow, with active involvement from various sectors of the academic community. The project’s current operational structure is divided into core components, which are described in the following sections.

2.2. Selective Waste Collection Procedures

Recyclable waste gathered in the bins includes paper, plastic, metal, and polystyrene, while non-recyclable waste includes used napkins, food scraps, chewing gum, adhesive materials, and any wet or dirty waste. The outsourced cleaning team gathers daily waste from all bins. It transfers it to larger 1000 L containers, which adhere to the same color-coding system: green for recyclables and gray for non-recyclables. Approximately every 50 days, the project team manually collects the waste accumulated in the green containers. With support from volunteer students, they begin by removing improperly discarded materials. They then open all the bags and analyze and classify the contents into the following categories:

• General Recyclable Waste: Clean and properly discarded paper, plastic, and metal items suitable for recycling are separated, packed, and later delivered to the Municipal “Ecoponto”, as described in Section 2.3.
• Specific Recyclable Waste: Items such as glass, electronics waste, plastic bottles, writing instruments, and bottle caps that require differentiated selective collection are redirected to designated PEV containers, as described in Section 2.2.1. Section 2.3 details the destination of these items.
• Non-Recyclable Waste: Contaminated items, improperly discarded materials, or those with no recycling potential are separated and placed in gray bins designated for non-recyclable waste. The cleaning team then gathers these materials and forwards them to the municipal waste service for disposal at licensed landfills in accordance with the official municipal waste disposal schedule.

This collection process serves a dual purpose: it improves waste separation efficiency and enables the academic community to monitor disposal practices on an ongoing basis. The data collected supports educational actions and system adjustments, fostering continuous improvement of the waste management strategy.

2.2.1. Voluntary Delivery Point (PEV)

In July 2023, the university installed a Voluntary Delivery Point (PEV, Ponto de Entrega Voluntária) near the main entrance of the campus. The PEV is accessible to students, staff, outsourced workers, and the public. A bulletin board with sustainability-related content, including information about selective collection dates and logistics, is also available. PEV allows for the disposal of special recyclable materials not accepted in regular bins, such as glass, electronics waste, plastic bottles, writing instruments, and bottle caps. Figure 3 illustrates the PEV organization and the waste gathered. PEV is a strategic infrastructure that allows university community members to dispose of pre-sorted recyclable materials directly.

This source-based separation eliminates the need for subsequent manual collection and improves overall efficiency in waste processing. The main types of materials gathered at the PEV, and their respective destinations are:

• Glass, Electronic Waste, and Plastic Bottles: Delivered to the Municipal “Ecoponto”. Glass items are reused by local artisans or sent for industrial recycling. Electronic waste, depending on its condition, may be recycled or repurposed. Plastic bottles were recently included in the PEV system to facilitate collection and recycling. These materials are transported to the “Ecoponto” by UFSC staff on the same day as the recyclable waste from common bins, typically every 50 days.
• Bottle Caps: These are stored in 5 L containers and delivered to the Association of Parents of Autistic Individuals of Southern Santa Catarina. Depending on the accumulated volume, these containers are sent approximately every four months.
• Writing Instruments: Stored in cardboard boxes (30 × 30 cm) and shipped via mail to TerraCycle as part of the Faber-Castell^® Writing Instruments Recycling Program. Shipments occur approximately every four months.

It is important to note that this system does not cover hazardous waste, such as batteries, light bulbs, and materials with biological or chemical risks. Their collection and disposal follow specific contracts established by the university.

2.2.2. Community Engagement and Recycling Campaigns

The project team conducted four major recyclable waste collection campaigns in June 2022, May 2023, June 2024, and November 2024, alongside the regular Continuous Waste Collection Project. These initiatives encouraged the academic community and people from outside the UFSC community to bring the recyclable waste generated in their homes to the campus instead of collecting only the waste produced within the university. The recyclable waste was sorted over 1 to 6 weeks (depending on each campaign and time of the year) and stored in dedicated containers, distinct from those used in the campus’s regular Continuous Waste Collection Project. Therefore, we present the data on the quantities of these materials separately. The team categorized the collected waste during the campaigns into three groups: “paper, plastics, and metal” (referred to as “PPM”), “glass,” and “electronic waste” (Figure 4).

The campaigns were publicized through posters displayed in high-traffic areas across the campus and electronic communications disseminated through the university’s official channels (such as institutional email addresses and student forums). The sorted material was further processed and disposed of, as mentioned in Section 2.3.

2.3. Destination of Recyclable Waste

The effectiveness of the selective waste collection system on campus relies heavily on partnerships with institutions that receive recyclable materials and ensure their environmentally responsible disposal. These collaborators are crucial in maintaining sustainable practices while supporting social and educational initiatives. The main partner destinations for waste sorted on campus are:

• City “Ecoponto”: Located approximately 1 km from campus, the “Ecoponto” is an initiative of the Araranguá City Hall, managed by the Municipal Environmental Foundation. It acts as a link between waste generators and either independent collectors or recycling companies, ensuring appropriate environmental disposal of materials.
• Association of Parents of Autistic Individuals of Southern Santa Catarina: Located about 3 km from campus, the association is a non-profit organization that supports children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and their families. Collecting plastic bottle caps is a source of income to fund the organization’s activities, with the materials later sold to recycling companies.
• TerraCycle/Faber-Castell^® Initiatives: The Faber-Castell^® Writing Instruments Recycling Program is a free initiative promoting the responsible disposal and recycling of used writing instruments, regardless of brand. The items are processed through collection, shredding, extrusion, and pelletizing, resulting in plastic pellets used to manufacture new products such as benches, trash bins, and plant pots.

3. Results

3.1. Impact of the Selective Waste Collection Program

Since April 2022, the project team has recorded data on the number of recyclable materials collected through three complementary strategies: the Continuous Waste Collection Project, the PEV, and targeted recycling awareness campaigns. For data presentation purposes, the team combined materials collected through the continuous source-separated waste collection and the PEV into a single category since the team implemented both strategies jointly. Although operationally distinct, these two methods do not generate separately recorded data. Consequently, the team presents their combined totals while separately reporting the materials collected during targeted campaigns. These data serve as a key tool for evaluating the project’s effectiveness and communicating its results and challenges to the university community.

3.1.1. Continuous Waste Collection Project and PEV

The team categorizes the collected materials into “effectively recyclable waste” and “recyclable waste lost due to contamination”. The loss of recyclable waste due to contamination typically results from the inadvertent mixing of non-recyclable materials with recyclable ones, rendering them unsuitable for recycling.

The graph below illustrates the evolution of materials gathered from the recycling bins and PEV (Figure 5). In addition to the waste quantified at the PEV, the team collected eleven 5-L containers filled with bottle caps and three 30 × 30 cm cardboard boxes containing used writing instruments; the team did not include these items in the figure. During the project’s first year (April 2022–March 2023), the team gathered 729.90 kg of waste, of which 698.45 kg was suitable for recycling, indicating a 4.1% loss due to contamination with non-recyclable materials. In the second year (April 2023–March 2024), the project reached the amount of 897.50 kg, with 817.80 kg being recyclable materials and a loss of 8.2%. In the third year (April 2024–March 2025), the team recorded an increase in the total amount collected, reaching 993.94 kg, and designated 895.78 kg for recycling. Unfortunately, in year 3, an increase in loss was also observed, reaching 11%.

Over the years, the team has progressively increased the total amount of materials collected, likely due to key changes implemented in the selective waste collection system. First, at the end of the project’s first year, recyclable and rejected trash cans were added in the hallways. Before that, separate trash cans were only available in administrative rooms. Moreover, in the project’s second year, the implementation of the PEV allowed the university community to dispose of glass and electronic waste, contributing to the overall increase in recyclables gathered. In the third year, the positive results were primarily driven by spreading information, particularly through creating an Instagram account and publishing a pocket guide [18]. Both platforms serve as key communication tools, providing practical guidelines, educational content, and updates on the selective waste collection project results. These initiatives and the other actions detailed in Section 4.1 played a crucial role in advancing the program and fostering greater community engagement.

The frequency of material trialing varied as previously described, and to obtain more reliable data, we divided the total amount of material gathered by the gathering interval in days. This data helps to understand whether the total amount per day in every collection increased over the years of the project. Because of the increase in information dissemination, we would expect an increase in the total amount gathered daily, but no statistical difference was observed (Figure 6A, one-way ANOVA; F = 22.24; p = 0.128). Because the analysis yielded a power of 0.235, below the desired threshold of 0.800, the team must interpret this inference cautiously and collect more data to increase the sample size. The team reached the same conclusion for the percentage of loss by collection over the years, as they observed no statistical difference; however, due to low power (0.242), this conclusion is not secure (Figure 6B, one-way ANOVA; F = 2.281; p = 0.124).

Given the variability in material trialing frequency, we investigated whether an extended collection interval correlates with an increased percentage of loss due to contamination. The team based this hypothesis on the premise that prolonged co-storage of non-recyclable and recyclable waste increases the risk of contamination by organic or hazardous materials, thereby hindering recycling efforts. To examine this hypothesis, we conducted a Pearson’s correlation analysis. However, as illustrated in Figure 7, no significant correlation was observed (Pearson’s correlation coefficient = −0.0571; p = 0.777).

3.1.2. Recycling Awareness Campaigns

Awareness campaigns function as effective tools to engage the university community and disseminate information about selective waste collection. As detailed in the methodology, these initiatives allow university members to bring recyclable materials from their homes and those collected at the PEV.

Over the three years of the project, the team conducted four awareness campaigns: one in the first year, one in the second, and two in the third.

Table 1. Collected materials during awareness campaigns. The table summarizes the quantities collected in the four campaigns, organized by project year.

	Year 1	Year 2	Year 3	Total
PPM (kg)	189.50	15.00	55.60	260.10
PPM Lost (kg)	0.00	0.00	4.65	4.65
Glass (kg)	34.50	25.00	145.45	204.95
Electronics (kg)	3.00	6.00	38.40	47.40
Gathering Interval (days)	9	14	77	100

presents the total amount of materials collected. The team gathered 512.38 kg of recyclable waste, including 260.03 kg of PPM (paper, plastic, and metal), 204.95 kg of glass, and 47.40 kg of electronic waste. In the third year, the amount of collected glass and electronic waste increased, while the amount of PPM decreased compared to the first campaign year.

The team attributes the reduction in PPM collected during the awareness campaigns to the greater presence of household waste already placed in campus bins. This pattern is evident, as waste brought from home typically lacks the standard bags used within the university. Although the team did not design the permanent selective waste collection system to receive external household waste, they chose not to restrict these contributions due to the municipality’s failure to provide adequate alternatives.

Only 1.7% of PPM was lost due to contamination across all campaigns. This lower contamination rate, compared to the continuous waste collection system, highlights the university community’s awareness and engagement during the campaigns. The team also noted that individuals tend to separate materials more carefully when they voluntarily bring them to campaign collection points instead of routine disposal at the waste generation site.

4. Discussion

4.1. Experience, Challenges, and Progress of the Selective Waste Collection Program

One of the main challenges in implementing the selective waste collection system at the UFSC campus in Araranguá is the incorrect disposal of waste in bins designated for recyclable materials. People frequently place items such as napkins, dirty packaging, and food scraps in blue-bag bins, compromising collection efficiency and contaminating materials that others could otherwise reuse. This issue stems mainly from a lack of awareness within the academic community about proper waste separation.

Informal consultations with students and staff revealed recurring doubts about the recyclability of various items. For instance, the team has not yet separated organic waste within the project due to the lack of an appropriate destination for this type of material. Nevertheless, many users dispose of it with recyclables, leading to contamination and the loss of recoverable materials. Frequent confusion also exists regarding items such as blister packs and fabrics: the former, containing chemical residues, must be discarded at pharmacies or specialized collection points; the latter, although not recyclable through conventional systems, can be reused or donated.

In addition to internal challenges, the external context imposes further obstacles. Araranguá does not have a structured municipal selective collection system or a formal waste-gathering association, which hinders proper waste management coordination between the university and the local community. Although a municipal “Ecoponto” exists, transporting recyclables to the site depends on the availability of university vehicles, exposing the absence of integrated public logistics and placing an additional burden on the institution to ensure appropriate material disposal.

Another critical issue involves the collection process, which relies primarily on volunteers. These participants require adequate ongoing training to ensure proper waste separation, especially given the variability in types and volumes of waste generated throughout the year.

Although the ANOVA did not detect statistically significant differences in contamination rates of recyclables between the years analyzed, the observed increase from 4.1% to 11% deserves careful consideration. Several factors may contribute to this trend. First, the overall increase in waste generation on campus over the years, both in volume and in the variety of materials discarded, may have contributed to higher contamination rates. As the selective collection program expanded and more users engaged with the system, the complexity of the waste stream also grew, potentially making it more difficult for users to separate recyclable and non-recyclable items correctly. Second, the project team may have improved the rigor of material triage over time, applying stricter criteria for what constitutes “contaminated” waste. This evolution in classification practices could account for higher contamination figures, even if user behavior did not deteriorate. Additionally, the constant turnover of students and staff presents a recurring educational challenge, as new members may not be fully aware of proper disposal practices. Lastly, the lack of a structured municipal recycling system and limited public environmental education outside the university context may influence disposal habits.

Such operational limitations mirror those experienced by other institutions in different contexts. Frequently reported barriers include lack of community awareness, limited resources, resistance to behavioral change, illegal disposal, and technological constraints [10,11,12,19]. The “Recicla UFSC Ara” project likewise encountered structural, behavioral, and logistical challenges, particularly in its early stages. These experiences reinforce the need for a continuous environmental education strategy and participatory, integrated waste management.

Lack of information and knowledge is recognized as one of the main barriers to participation in recycling schemes [20,21]. Then, the team adopted various strategies to improve the system’s efficiency. One example is the visual differentiation of waste bags: black for non-recyclable waste and blue for clean recyclables. This measure has helped reduce errors in material separation. Additionally, installing a drop-off point (PEV) in a strategic campus location has facilitated collection by providing specific containers for each type of waste and shortening the distance between the waste generator and the point of segregation, which helps to improve the recycling behavior [22].

Furthermore, the project team promotes continuous awareness-raising activities. During Freshman Week, they present the project to new students; during Environment Week, they organize thematic activities focused on sustainability; each year, they deliver lectures at local and regional events, aiming to motivate the academic community and the public [23]. In addition, periodic training sessions are conducted with the cleaning staff and project members, followed by integration activities that strengthen a collaborative culture within the university environment.

Issues related to the incorrect disposal of waste in recycling bins are also frequently discussed among project members during team meetings. Based on these discussions, updated guidance is developed and shared with the academic community through institutional emails, social media posts, and a dedicated Instagram account created specifically for the project. This platform was designed to centralize and disseminate information about the selective waste collection system, making practical guidelines, educational materials, and updates on project results widely accessible to the university audience. This kind of feedback strategy commonly led to an improvement in recycling behavior among the community [24].

As part of these ongoing efforts, in 2024, the team published a guidance manual for the academic community containing a historical overview of the process, the workflow, the locations of bins and the PEV, and the waste classification [18]. This material has been essential in increasing understanding and ensuring the smooth operation of the recycling system implemented at the university.

Openness to voluntary participation in collection activities is also a central component, as it reinforces a sense of shared responsibility and enhances the educational impact of the initiative. Another relevant aspect is the strengthening of external partnerships, such as those with the municipal “Ecoponto”, the Association of Parents of Autistic Individuals of Southern Santa Catarina, and companies like Faber-Castell, which play a key role in consolidating an efficient chain for the appropriate destination of recyclable materials. Despite progress, the project’s maintenance requires continuous efforts in environmental education. Improper disposal remains a recurring issue, reinforcing the need for more frequent, creative, and diverse educational campaigns.

Table S1 (Supplementary Materials) summarizes the primary outreach and educational activities conducted from 2022 to 2025 to better assess the potential relationship between educational events and improvements in waste collection performance. This timeline includes presentations, training sessions, public campaigns, and material releases. Such efforts contributed to the increased collection of recyclable waste and the gradual reduction in improper disposal behaviors.

Although a direct quantitative assessment of individual educational events was not possible due to data aggregation, a qualitative analysis suggests a potential influence of these initiatives on the outcomes observed. For instance, the project’s third year featured the highest number of outreach actions, such as releasing the guidance manual and more frequent updates via the project’s social network account and recorded the highest volume of recyclable materials collected. Moreover, this period coincided with materials diversification and increased campaign participation. These patterns suggest that sustained communication and educational strategies contributed to greater community engagement and more accurate waste-sorting behavior.

The experience of the “Recicla UFSC Ara” project offers valuable lessons for other institutions seeking to implement or improve their waste management systems. Key takeaways include: (a) the importance of clear and visual communication at disposal points; (b) engagement of the entire academic community to participate in actions related to the project; (c) the necessity of external partnerships to ensure proper final disposal; and (d) the inclusion of ongoing educational actions in the institutional calendar.

Thus, the project is a replicable and adaptable model, particularly in contexts where public authorities do not yet offer an effective selective waste collection system. The initiative demonstrates that even in the face of structural limitations, significant change is possible through institutional commitment and active community engagement.

4.2. Similar University-Led Waste Collection Programs

University campuses worldwide have increasingly served as strategic environments for implementing and assessing sustainable solid waste management (SWM) systems [13,25,26]. This subsection reviews 15 case studies of selective waste collection programs led by higher education institutions, highlighting standard practices, regional specificities, and the study’s contributions to the existing literature.

A search was conducted in the Scopus scientific database using the query (“Waste Collection” OR “Selective Waste Collection” OR “Selective Collection”) AND (“University” OR “College”), applied to the fields Article Title, Abstract, and Keywords. The search was limited to research articles and carried out on 1 June 2025, yielding 120 documents. The team screened and evaluated each article for thematic relevance and methodological rigor, then refined the set to 15 (Table 2). These represent initiatives directly led by universities and serve as the foundation for the comparative analysis presented in this section.

4.2.1. Overview of University Initiatives

The selected literature encompasses programs from institutions across Latin America, Asia, Africa, and Europe, addressing a variety of waste streams, including recyclables, organic waste, e-waste, and hazardous materials [27,28,29]. Common strategies among universities include the implementation of source-segregated waste collection systems (e.g., the University of Brasília and Marmara University) [27,30], educational campaigns (e.g., UMSA in Bolivia and ESPOL in Ecuador) [26,31], and the integration of waste processing infrastructure, such as composting units [25].

Most programs focused on collecting recyclable waste, particularly paper, plastics, and metals. At UNIFEI in Brazil, the Permanent Selective Collection Program (PSCP) achieved a 90% recycling rate, which avoided the emission of 7 tCO₂eq [13]. The team used LandGEM software simulations to estimate the year of peak biogas production for this case, in which they projected an energy yield of 1424.60 kWh. Similarly, Marmara University reported a 69% recycling rate with limited awareness among its community [30].

Some institutions employed lifecycle assessments (LCA) to evaluate environmental impacts under different SWM scenarios [32]. Their findings indicated that increasing source segregation from 50% to 90% reduced emissions by up to 86.5%, underscoring the benefits of integrated management strategies.

E-waste management emerged as a critical yet often neglected domain. In Zimbabwe and Mexico, initiatives faced barriers such as low public awareness and the absence of institutional policies [28,33]. Nevertheless, programs like Recyclatron in Mexico collected over 28 tons of e-waste across four campaigns, coupling recovery efforts with educational objectives [28].

Regarding organizational structure, programs ranged from student-led initiatives to fully institutionalized systems supported by dedicated infrastructure and funding.

4.2.2. Similarities and Differences

The initial lack of institutional policy frameworks, infrastructure, and stakeholder engagement was a challenge across nearly all cases. Effective implementation often requires iterative development and sustained investment in education and communication. Engaging the university community, students, faculty, and staff was crucial for long-term success [34]. Technological sophistication distinguished many programs. While specific campuses relied on manual sorting, others employed advanced technologies such as GIS-based route optimization (university campuses in Bucharest) or automated food waste collection systems [35]. These innovations yielded tangible benefits in operational efficiency, emissions reduction, and cost savings.

Contextual factors such as geography and economic conditions also influenced program design. Universities in low- and middle-income countries prioritized community involvement and cost-effective approaches, whereas institutions in high-income settings employed more automated and digitally monitored systems [26,28,31]. Unlike previous studies that lacked post-implementation assessments or long-term monitoring, this project incorporates detailed performance tracking, stakeholder feedback, and an expanded classification of waste types, including streams often overlooked, such as glass, electronics, and food waste. This comprehensive perspective enhances understanding of material flows and systemic inefficiencies.

4.2.3. Contribution to the Literature

This study addresses several key gaps in the existing literature. In contrast to some studies focusing on recyclables or mixed waste, this research quantifies recyclable, contaminated, and non-recyclable fractions across multiple waste categories, including underrepresented materials like glass and electronics. By examining regular collection practices and special initiatives, the study captures seasonal variations, shifts in user behavior, and the comparative effectiveness of different outreach strategies.

The project leverages precise per capita waste generation data and composition metrics, establishing a robust baseline for evaluation. It further quantifies year-over-year changes in efficiency and contamination rates. The model proposed emphasizes practical and scalable solutions suitable for institutions in the country. The initiative embeds waste management within the university’s educational mission, fostering experiential learning and promoting environmental responsibility among students.

Therefore, this study consolidates best practices from international university-led waste programs and expands the field through a multidimensional approach that blends operational efficiency, community engagement, environmental impact, and academic integration. It offers a replicable, context-sensitive model for sustainable waste management in higher education institutions.

Table 2. Similar studies led by universities.

Title	Main Wastes Evaluated	Important Information	Reference
Food waste generation in a university and the handling efficiency of a university catering facility-scale automatic collection system	Organics	The study demonstrated that adopting an automated food waste collection system in university canteens increased collection efficiency by 30%, reduced water consumption by 20%, and increased energy consumption by 4.4 times.	[36]
Sustainable integrated solid waste management for a university campus: A case study of the Federal University of Technology Akure (FUTA), Nigeria	Plastics, organics, paper, glass, metals, electronics, wood, leather, and ash	The study characterized the generation and composition of solid waste in FUTA, estimating an average of 952.3 kg per day, with a per capita rate of 0.046 kg per day. The analysis revealed that 81% of the waste has recycling potential, highlighting opportunities for implementing a sustainable integrated management system based on the circular economy. Most of the waste was composed of polyethylene and paper.	[34]
Students’ awareness and attitudinal dispositions to e-waste management practices at a Zimbabwean university	Electronics and printing cartridges	The study investigated students’ perceptions and behaviors regarding electronic waste management at a university in Zimbabwe. Although more than two-thirds of students recognized the environmental and health risks of e-waste, 63.4% still disposed of their devices with regular trash, and only 0.9% sent them for recycling. Most stated they were unaware of any national (97.2%) or institutional (94.9%) policy for managing this waste.	[33]
Design of a solid waste separation, valuation and recycling centre on a university campus: Case study	Organics, plastics, paper, glass, and electronics	The article presented the design of a separation, recovery, and recycling center for the Escuela Superior Politécnica del Litoral University campus, with a processing capacity of up to 297 tons of waste per year. The proposal included the technical selection of the site, architectural and structural design, and the design of 11 internal routes and one main route for efficient collection. The center will occupy 146.37 m2 and have specific collection, classification, shredding, compaction, and weighing areas. The estimated cost for implementation is USD 28,623.25.	[31]
E-waste recycling assessment at university campus: A strategy toward sustainability	Electronics	The article evaluated the Recyclatron program, a selective collection and recycling system for electronic waste implemented at the Universidad Autónoma de Nayarit. In four biennial editions of the program, 28,836 kg of e-waste were collected, with an exponential growth trend, with an estimated 60 tons for the next edition. The process involves five stages: collection, classification, quantification, recovery of reusable fractions, and marketing. The most valuable recyclable materials include motherboards, copper wires, and general scrap.	[28]
Characterization of solid wastes as a tool to implement waste management strategies in a university campus	Organic, recyclable, hazardous, and sanitary	The study assessed the generation, composition, and recycling potential of solid waste on the University of Brasília (UnB) campus. An average of 148 kg of waste was generated daily, with 92 g per person. Most of the waste (67%) was recyclable, with plastic, paper, and cardboard standing out. Organic waste represented 57% of the total generated by the university restaurant. The management of hazardous laboratory waste was carried out via the UnB RESQUI program. After the implementation of selective collection in 2016, permanent educational actions were developed with the academic community.	[27]
Solid waste generation, characteristics and material recovery potentials for Landmark university campus	Organics, plastics, paper, metals, wood, electronics, and glass	The study characterized the generation and composition of solid waste at Landmark University, which produces an average of 1785.4 kg per day, with a per capita rate of 0.36 kg per person per day. The most common wastes were polyethylene, organic materials, and plastic bottles. Approximately 86% of the waste has recycling potential, while 14% can be reused through incineration or composting. The article proposes an integrated management model based on the concept of “zero waste”, suggesting installing a sorting center (LUWASC), using bins by type of waste, composting, environmental education, and acquiring equipment for processing recyclables.	[37]
Solid waste management approach at the university through living labs and communication strategies: Case studies in Italy and Portugal	Paper, plastics, metals, glass, and organics	The article described the implementation of solid waste separation and management models in two European universities using the concept of “living labs”. In Milan, the initiative involved the complete replacement of individual bins with selective collection islands, the use of an app for monitoring and parallel actions such as the installation of drinking fountains and the distribution of reusable bottles, reducing CO2 emissions by 45% and increasing the waste separation rate from 27% to 70%. In Lisbon, the pilot project adopted a similar strategy in a single building, including composting, removal of internal bins, and communication campaigns, with an increase of up to 58% in separating recyclables. Both projects emphasized the importance of community participation, multidisciplinary planning, and effective communication as critical factors in the success of sustainable waste management in higher education institutions.	[38]
Design and implementation study of a permanent selective collection program (PSCP) on a university campus in Brazil	Paper, organics, plastics, and metals	The study presented the design, implementation, and evaluation of a PSCP at the Federal University of Itajubá (UNIFEI). Solid waste generation was characterized by sampling and gravimetric analysis, emphasizing paper and organic matter as the main components. The program included educational actions, collection infrastructure, diagnosis through questionnaires, and environmental simulations with the LandGEM and WARM models. With 90% recycling, avoiding the emission of up to 7 tCO2eq was possible. The project also implemented composting with food waste and prunings. The program’s initial cost was estimated at BRL 157 thousand, with monthly maintenance of BRL 3.3 thousand.	[13]
Environmental impact evaluation of university integrated waste management system in India using life cycle analysis	Organics, plastics, paper, cardboard, metals, glass, leather, and electronics	The study used life cycle analysis to compare different solid waste management scenarios on a university campus in India. In the current scenario, which represents uncontrolled landfill disposal, greenhouse gas emissions were 1388 kg CO2eq per tonne of waste. Adopting integrated systems with 50% and 90% source segregation reduced emissions by 50.9% and 86.5%, respectively. The most efficient scenarios included anaerobic digestion, composting, and landfilling without energy recovery, allowing for greater material recovery and lower environmental impact.	[32]
Low carbon solid waste collection and transportation route in university: A case study	General	The study assessed the waste collection and transportation system at Mae Fah Luang University, identifying operational flaws that increased carbon emissions. The conventional model used twelve collection points and three daily routes, resulting in 13.58 kg CO2eq daily. Two new routes were proposed: Route A, with a reduction to 6 points and two daily shifts, resulting in 1.97 kg CO2eq per day, and Route B, based on waste separation, with a total emission of 3.36 kg CO2eq per day. The routes were planned with the support of Google Earth and considered strategic location, shorter collection time, reduced overhead, and improved logistics.	[39]
Case study of solid waste management at a college campus	Organics, paper, plastics, glass, metals, rubber, construction, sanitary, and electronics	The study evaluated the waste management system on a university campus with approximately 8000 people. Waste was collected from various sources (accommodation, canteens, laboratories, university hospitals, and construction sites) and taken to the Recycling Centre (RC). Segregation was done at source only in the staff accommodations; in other sectors, waste was segregated at the RC, with colored bins for different types. Biodegradable waste was composted, resulting in fertilizer being used at the university. Non-biodegradable waste was segregated by plastic, paper, metal, or glass type and sold. The program generated monthly savings of approximately BRL 25,540.	[29]
Separate waste collection in higher education institutions with its technical and social aspects: A case study for a university campus	Paper, plastics, metals, glass, organic, and non-recyclable waste	The study assessed the technical and social aspects of selective waste collection on a university campus based on a daily weighing of waste before and after implementing the system. After separation, the waste was classified as 35% plastic/metal, 10% paper, 10% glass, 14% compostable, and 31% non-recyclable, with an estimated total recycling rate of 69%. However, the social analysis revealed low community awareness: only 16% of respondents were aware of the Zero Waste Regulation (Published in Turkey on 12 July 2019), and many separated wastes without knowing its purpose. The most conscious participation was observed among faculty members. The study concludes that the effectiveness of selective waste collection depends on adequate infrastructure, incentives, and continuous environmental education and that it is necessary to strengthen the perception of collective responsibility among campus users.	[30]
Optimal planning of selective waste collection	Paper, plastics, and glass	The paper presented an optimization model for selective collection on university campuses in Bucharest based on geographic information systems (GIS) and routing algorithms. The model considered the location of collection points, depots, and road networks, with the aim of minimizing total transportation time, vehicle number, and logistics costs. A pilot project between February and July 2006 collected twenty-two tons of recyclables, including twelve tons of paper, seven tons of plastic, and three tons of glass.	[35]
Selective collection of recyclable waste in universities of low-middle income countries: Lessons learned in Bolivia	Plastics, paper, cardboard, organics, metals, glass, and non-recyclable waste	The UMSA-recycle project introduced a selective collection system for paper and plastic at one of the largest universities in La Paz. After implementation, a significant improvement in student awareness and behavior was observed, as measured by questionnaires administered in 2018 and 2019. In one month, 15 kg of plastic and 37.1 kg of paper and cardboard were collected from the estimated potential, with greater adherence to paper separation. The project followed a five-stage methodology: diagnosis, institutional approval, stakeholder engagement, implementation, and evaluation. The work of volunteers and awareness-raising campaigns were essential to its success. Despite financial and infrastructure limitations, the model proved replicable for other universities in low- and middle-income countries, highlighting the importance of institutional engagement and coordination with municipal policies to formalize the recycling chain.	[26]

Table 2. Similar studies led by universities.

Title	Main Wastes Evaluated	Important Information	Reference
Food waste generation in a university and the handling efficiency of a university catering facility-scale automatic collection system	Organics	The study demonstrated that adopting an automated food waste collection system in university canteens increased collection efficiency by 30%, reduced water consumption by 20%, and increased energy consumption by 4.4 times.	[36]
Sustainable integrated solid waste management for a university campus: A case study of the Federal University of Technology Akure (FUTA), Nigeria	Plastics, organics, paper, glass, metals, electronics, wood, leather, and ash	The study characterized the generation and composition of solid waste in FUTA, estimating an average of 952.3 kg per day, with a per capita rate of 0.046 kg per day. The analysis revealed that 81% of the waste has recycling potential, highlighting opportunities for implementing a sustainable integrated management system based on the circular economy. Most of the waste was composed of polyethylene and paper.	[34]
Students’ awareness and attitudinal dispositions to e-waste management practices at a Zimbabwean university	Electronics and printing cartridges	The study investigated students’ perceptions and behaviors regarding electronic waste management at a university in Zimbabwe. Although more than two-thirds of students recognized the environmental and health risks of e-waste, 63.4% still disposed of their devices with regular trash, and only 0.9% sent them for recycling. Most stated they were unaware of any national (97.2%) or institutional (94.9%) policy for managing this waste.	[33]
Design of a solid waste separation, valuation and recycling centre on a university campus: Case study	Organics, plastics, paper, glass, and electronics	The article presented the design of a separation, recovery, and recycling center for the Escuela Superior Politécnica del Litoral University campus, with a processing capacity of up to 297 tons of waste per year. The proposal included the technical selection of the site, architectural and structural design, and the design of 11 internal routes and one main route for efficient collection. The center will occupy 146.37 m2 and have specific collection, classification, shredding, compaction, and weighing areas. The estimated cost for implementation is USD 28,623.25.	[31]
E-waste recycling assessment at university campus: A strategy toward sustainability	Electronics	The article evaluated the Recyclatron program, a selective collection and recycling system for electronic waste implemented at the Universidad Autónoma de Nayarit. In four biennial editions of the program, 28,836 kg of e-waste were collected, with an exponential growth trend, with an estimated 60 tons for the next edition. The process involves five stages: collection, classification, quantification, recovery of reusable fractions, and marketing. The most valuable recyclable materials include motherboards, copper wires, and general scrap.	[28]
Characterization of solid wastes as a tool to implement waste management strategies in a university campus	Organic, recyclable, hazardous, and sanitary	The study assessed the generation, composition, and recycling potential of solid waste on the University of Brasília (UnB) campus. An average of 148 kg of waste was generated daily, with 92 g per person. Most of the waste (67%) was recyclable, with plastic, paper, and cardboard standing out. Organic waste represented 57% of the total generated by the university restaurant. The management of hazardous laboratory waste was carried out via the UnB RESQUI program. After the implementation of selective collection in 2016, permanent educational actions were developed with the academic community.	[27]
Solid waste generation, characteristics and material recovery potentials for Landmark university campus	Organics, plastics, paper, metals, wood, electronics, and glass	The study characterized the generation and composition of solid waste at Landmark University, which produces an average of 1785.4 kg per day, with a per capita rate of 0.36 kg per person per day. The most common wastes were polyethylene, organic materials, and plastic bottles. Approximately 86% of the waste has recycling potential, while 14% can be reused through incineration or composting. The article proposes an integrated management model based on the concept of “zero waste”, suggesting installing a sorting center (LUWASC), using bins by type of waste, composting, environmental education, and acquiring equipment for processing recyclables.	[37]
Solid waste management approach at the university through living labs and communication strategies: Case studies in Italy and Portugal	Paper, plastics, metals, glass, and organics	The article described the implementation of solid waste separation and management models in two European universities using the concept of “living labs”. In Milan, the initiative involved the complete replacement of individual bins with selective collection islands, the use of an app for monitoring and parallel actions such as the installation of drinking fountains and the distribution of reusable bottles, reducing CO2 emissions by 45% and increasing the waste separation rate from 27% to 70%. In Lisbon, the pilot project adopted a similar strategy in a single building, including composting, removal of internal bins, and communication campaigns, with an increase of up to 58% in separating recyclables. Both projects emphasized the importance of community participation, multidisciplinary planning, and effective communication as critical factors in the success of sustainable waste management in higher education institutions.	[38]
Design and implementation study of a permanent selective collection program (PSCP) on a university campus in Brazil	Paper, organics, plastics, and metals	The study presented the design, implementation, and evaluation of a PSCP at the Federal University of Itajubá (UNIFEI). Solid waste generation was characterized by sampling and gravimetric analysis, emphasizing paper and organic matter as the main components. The program included educational actions, collection infrastructure, diagnosis through questionnaires, and environmental simulations with the LandGEM and WARM models. With 90% recycling, avoiding the emission of up to 7 tCO2eq was possible. The project also implemented composting with food waste and prunings. The program’s initial cost was estimated at BRL 157 thousand, with monthly maintenance of BRL 3.3 thousand.	[13]
Environmental impact evaluation of university integrated waste management system in India using life cycle analysis	Organics, plastics, paper, cardboard, metals, glass, leather, and electronics	The study used life cycle analysis to compare different solid waste management scenarios on a university campus in India. In the current scenario, which represents uncontrolled landfill disposal, greenhouse gas emissions were 1388 kg CO2eq per tonne of waste. Adopting integrated systems with 50% and 90% source segregation reduced emissions by 50.9% and 86.5%, respectively. The most efficient scenarios included anaerobic digestion, composting, and landfilling without energy recovery, allowing for greater material recovery and lower environmental impact.	[32]
Low carbon solid waste collection and transportation route in university: A case study	General	The study assessed the waste collection and transportation system at Mae Fah Luang University, identifying operational flaws that increased carbon emissions. The conventional model used twelve collection points and three daily routes, resulting in 13.58 kg CO2eq daily. Two new routes were proposed: Route A, with a reduction to 6 points and two daily shifts, resulting in 1.97 kg CO2eq per day, and Route B, based on waste separation, with a total emission of 3.36 kg CO2eq per day. The routes were planned with the support of Google Earth and considered strategic location, shorter collection time, reduced overhead, and improved logistics.	[39]
Case study of solid waste management at a college campus	Organics, paper, plastics, glass, metals, rubber, construction, sanitary, and electronics	The study evaluated the waste management system on a university campus with approximately 8000 people. Waste was collected from various sources (accommodation, canteens, laboratories, university hospitals, and construction sites) and taken to the Recycling Centre (RC). Segregation was done at source only in the staff accommodations; in other sectors, waste was segregated at the RC, with colored bins for different types. Biodegradable waste was composted, resulting in fertilizer being used at the university. Non-biodegradable waste was segregated by plastic, paper, metal, or glass type and sold. The program generated monthly savings of approximately BRL 25,540.	[29]
Separate waste collection in higher education institutions with its technical and social aspects: A case study for a university campus	Paper, plastics, metals, glass, organic, and non-recyclable waste	The study assessed the technical and social aspects of selective waste collection on a university campus based on a daily weighing of waste before and after implementing the system. After separation, the waste was classified as 35% plastic/metal, 10% paper, 10% glass, 14% compostable, and 31% non-recyclable, with an estimated total recycling rate of 69%. However, the social analysis revealed low community awareness: only 16% of respondents were aware of the Zero Waste Regulation (Published in Turkey on 12 July 2019), and many separated wastes without knowing its purpose. The most conscious participation was observed among faculty members. The study concludes that the effectiveness of selective waste collection depends on adequate infrastructure, incentives, and continuous environmental education and that it is necessary to strengthen the perception of collective responsibility among campus users.	[30]
Optimal planning of selective waste collection	Paper, plastics, and glass	The paper presented an optimization model for selective collection on university campuses in Bucharest based on geographic information systems (GIS) and routing algorithms. The model considered the location of collection points, depots, and road networks, with the aim of minimizing total transportation time, vehicle number, and logistics costs. A pilot project between February and July 2006 collected twenty-two tons of recyclables, including twelve tons of paper, seven tons of plastic, and three tons of glass.	[35]
Selective collection of recyclable waste in universities of low-middle income countries: Lessons learned in Bolivia	Plastics, paper, cardboard, organics, metals, glass, and non-recyclable waste	The UMSA-recycle project introduced a selective collection system for paper and plastic at one of the largest universities in La Paz. After implementation, a significant improvement in student awareness and behavior was observed, as measured by questionnaires administered in 2018 and 2019. In one month, 15 kg of plastic and 37.1 kg of paper and cardboard were collected from the estimated potential, with greater adherence to paper separation. The project followed a five-stage methodology: diagnosis, institutional approval, stakeholder engagement, implementation, and evaluation. The work of volunteers and awareness-raising campaigns were essential to its success. Despite financial and infrastructure limitations, the model proved replicable for other universities in low- and middle-income countries, highlighting the importance of institutional engagement and coordination with municipal policies to formalize the recycling chain.	[26]

5. Conclusions

This article presented the results achieved through a selective waste collection initiative led by the Federal University of Santa Catarina (UFSC) at its campus in the city of Araranguá, in Santa Catarina, southern Brazil. In this municipality, there is no official recycling system in place.

The selective collection started three years ago on campus and has shown significant results. These include: (i) an increase in the amount of material collected and sent for recycling; (ii) environmental education and engagement of the university community; (iii) collection campaigns with participation from the broader community; (iv) partnerships with local institutions such as Ecoponto and Association of Parents of Autistic Individuals of Southern Santa Catarina, as well as initiatives like TerraCycle/Faber-Castell; (v) the development of strategies for selective waste collection in a municipality lacking an official system; and (vi) a reduction in the amount of recyclable material sent to landfills, ensuring proper redirection to appropriate destinations.

Despite the positive outcomes, implementing the selective waste collection initiative encountered several challenges. Persistent improper disposal of waste, especially mixing organic or contaminated items with recyclables, remained a barrier to maximizing material recovery. The absence of a structured municipal recycling system and limited logistical support also burdened the university. Furthermore, sustaining volunteer participation and ensuring consistent adherence to project actions required continuous training and communication efforts. Based on these challenges and insights gained throughout the project, we propose a set of practices that may support ongoing improvements and serve as recommendations for similar initiatives: (i) establish more transparent and more consistent visual communication at disposal points; (ii) institutionalize environmental education activities to reinforce community engagement; (iii) strengthen partnerships with local organizations and recycling agents; and (iv) implement systematic monitoring tools to evaluate program performance over time. While some of these measures are already underway, others represent important future directions to enhance the program’s efficiency and replicability.

In addition, the article included a literature review of other waste management programs implemented at universities. The review aimed to identify similarities and differences among these programs. The sample included universities from Latin America, Africa, Asia, and Eastern Europe. Positive results were primarily achieved through community engagement and cost-benefit considerations in low-income countries. In middle-income countries, automation and digitalization largely drove collection system efficiency.

The study conducted at the Araranguá campus of the UFSC contributes to the literature by providing data on the quantification of recyclable and non-recyclable waste and materials such as glass and electronics over three years. Another important contribution is that other campuses can replicate the experience developed at the Araranguá campus. Based on both the practices implemented and the literature review, some improvements could be adopted, considering the presence of degree programs in energy engineering, computer engineering, and medicine in the Araranguá campus: (1) controlling and data presentation of total CO₂eq per day using electronic/digital devices; (2) data presentation on the relationship between waste collection and energy production potential as well as waste collection and public health.