Next Article in Journal
Understanding Demographic and Behavioral Determinants of Engagement in Plastic Tableware Reduction: Behavior, Support, and Price Sensitivity
Previous Article in Journal
Value Extraction from End-of-Life Textile Products in Pakistan
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Recycling
Volume 10
Issue 3
10.3390/recycling10030102
recycling-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Measuring the Impact of Education on Waste Streams from Multi-Family Housing

by
Dhanush Kenchanna
,
Tina Marie Waliczek
* and
Xiangping Liu
Department of Agricultural Sciences, Texas State University, San Marcos, TX 78666, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Recycling 2025, 10(3), 102; https://doi.org/10.3390/recycling10030102
Submission received: 25 March 2025 / Revised: 8 May 2025 / Accepted: 14 May 2025 / Published: 19 May 2025
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Food waste is a significant global issue with substantial environmental, economic, and social implications. This exploratory study aimed to evaluate the impact of an educational composting program on reducing food waste generation and promoting proper waste sorting practices within multi-family housing units in San Marcos, Texas. A comprehensive methodology was employed, encompassing pre- and post-intervention waste audits, educational interventions, weekly organic waste collection, and quantitative data analyses. Nine multi-family complexes, spanning student housing, conventional family units, low-income residences, and senior living facilities, were targeted through strategic recruitment efforts and incentivization. The treatment group, consisting of 43 participants, received ongoing education throughout the eight-week implementation period, facilitated through informational resources, feedback mechanisms, and door-to-door organic waste collection. Conversely, the control group did not partake in the educational component. Statistical analyses, including descriptive statistics and paired t-tests, facilitated comparisons across various dimensions, such as housing types, treatment versus control groups, and pre- versus post-intervention periods. The findings revealed significant reductions in organic waste and compostable materials within the treatment group’s weekly landfill trash, underscoring the effectiveness of the educational program. Furthermore, insights into contamination patterns and housing-specific waste characteristics were garnered, informing targeted intervention strategies and policy recommendations for optimizing multi-family composting initiatives.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

In these times of rapid urbanization and industrialization, food waste has emerged as one of the major environmental challenges we face globally. Food waste is defined as nutritious edible material that should be used for human consumption but is abandoned, deteriorated, and/or eaten by pests in landfills [1]. The severity of this issue continues to grow, with recent data indicating that nationwide food waste in the United States is estimated at approximately 41% of the total food supply, representing about 161 billion pounds and valued at USD 285 billion annually [2].

1.1. Environmental Impact of Food Waste

A significant portion of food waste is still managed through landfilling, a conventional yet environmentally detrimental method. When organic waste ends up in landfills, it undergoes anaerobic decomposition, producing methane—a greenhouse gas with a global warming potential 28 times greater than carbon dioxide over a 100-year period [3]. Recent studies have shown that landfills remain the third-largest source of anthropogenic methane emissions in the United States, contributing approximately 15.3% of total methane emissions [4]. Beyond methane production, food waste represents a significant loss of resources used in food production, including water, land, energy, labor, and capital, with wasted food in the United States accounting for approximately 25% of freshwater usage and 4% of total U.S. oil consumption [5].
Humanity’s demand on nature has exceeded the planet’s biocapacity by at least 80% since the 1970s, leading to catastrophic declines in forests, oceans, rivers, and lakes faster than they are replenished [6]. A considerable amount of land area is devoted to agriculture, with around 51% of U.S. land being cultivated [7]. The changes made to bring land under cultivation result in biodiversity loss, disturbing and degrading the ecosystem [8], some of which involve production methods that can also be dangerous to plants, animals, and humans [9].
Direct effects of agricultural production include soil erosion, soil nutrition depletion, water resource reduction, and deforestation [10]. The environmental impact extends beyond resource wastage and emissions. The elimination of food waste could reduce global greenhouse gas emissions by 6–8% and free up agricultural land approximately the size of Australia [11]. Redirecting 75% of food waste from landfills to composting facilities could reduce a city’s carbon footprint by up to 12%, highlighting the critical importance of alternative food waste management strategies [12].

1.2. The Food Waste Hierarchy and Management Solutions

The most effective approach to addressing food waste follows a hierarchical framework, commonly known as the Food Recovery Hierarchy [13]. This framework prioritizes actions from most to least preferred, beginning with source reduction and prevention as the highest priority. The prevention tier involves reducing the volume of surplus food generated at the source. Targeted consumer education programs can reduce household food waste generation by 15–25% through improved shopping habits, meal planning, and food storage practices [14].
The second tier focuses on food recovery and redistribution for human consumption. Recent studies demonstrated that improved logistics and digital platforms connecting food donors with recipient organizations can increase food recovery rates by up to 40% in urban communities [15]. When prevention and recovery are not possible, recycling through composting and digestion represents a critical third-tier method. Composting offers a sustainable solution for managing unavoidable food waste while reducing its environmental impact [16].
Lower in the hierarchy, food waste can be converted into energy through processes like anaerobic digestion, though this industrial use ranks lower in preference than composting. Landfill disposal represents the least preferred option due to its significant environmental impacts and should be considered only when other options have been exhausted.
Composting transforms organic materials into valuable soil amendments under controlled conditions [17]. Recent research has established numerous benefits of composting, including reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by up to 80% compared to landfilling [18], creation of value-added products with minimal investment, and enhancement of soil physical and chemical properties, increasing agricultural productivity by 15–25% [19]. For these benefits to be realized, however, effective waste separation practices must be established at the source.

1.3. Education and Behavior Change in Food Waste Management

The successful implementation of composting programs depends heavily on participant engagement and proper waste separation practices. Knowledge gaps and behavioral barriers as significant challenges in household waste management programs [20]. Their research demonstrates that educational interventions focusing on the environmental impact of food waste, proper separation techniques, and the benefits of composting can increase participation rates by 30–45% and reduce contamination by up to 60%.
Evaluating the effectiveness of educational campaigns requires robust measurement frameworks. Several approaches have emerged in recent literature. Quantitative waste audits provide direct measurement of waste diversion rates and contamination levels before and after educational interventions, offering the most reliable data. Standardized waste characterization methodologies can accurately assess household food waste, taking into account variables such as seasonal variation and household demographics [21].
Knowledge, attitude, and practice (KAP) surveys serve as structured assessment tools measuring changes in participant understanding, perspectives, and behaviors. Interventions aimed at reducing food waste are more effective when they incorporate behavioral change strategies, which can be assessed using KAP methodologies [22]. These tools help identify gaps between awareness and action, guiding the design of targeted education programs. Process evaluation metrics measure program delivery effectiveness, including reach (percentage of the target population exposed to educational materials), dosage (frequency and duration of interventions), and fidelity (adherence to program design). Programs achieving at least 70% reach and implementing three or more touch points achieved significantly better waste diversion outcomes [23].
Further established that comprehensive educational campaigns combining hands-on workshops, informational materials, and community engagement strategies were most effective in modifying household waste behaviors [23]. Their study of a municipal community composting program demonstrated that participants who received multi-channel education increased their food waste diversion rates by 57% compared to 23% for those receiving only written information.

1.4. Multi-Family Housing Composting Programs

Multi-family housing units present unique challenges and opportunities for waste diversion programs that require specialized approaches distinct from single-family residential settings. The high-density housing complexes can achieve economies of scale in waste collection through centralized collection points and shared infrastructure, potentially reducing per-household program costs compared to single-family collection routes [24]. However, these settings simultaneously face specific barriers including limited storage space for collection bins, concerns about odors and pests in shared areas, high resident turnover rates affecting program continuity, language and cultural barriers among diverse populations, and varying levels of property management engagement.
Recent comprehensive analyses of waste management trends have documented significant progress in multi-family composting access. According to a 2018 survey of communities across the United States, approximately 3.7% of all households had access to some form of multi-family food scrap collection program, representing notable growth from previous years [25]. Program designs vary considerably, with the majority utilizing centralized collection systems where residents bring food scraps to designated collection points, others employing door-to-door collection methods similar to recycling programs, and some implementing hybrid approaches tailored to specific building configurations and community needs.
The effectiveness of these programs varies significantly based on implementation strategies and supportive elements. Through a mixed-methods evaluation combining waste audits, participant surveys, and program manager interviews, identified several critical success factors that consistently predicted higher participation rates and lower contamination levels [26]. These factors include strategic placement of collection infrastructure to maximize convenience and visibility, development of clear communication materials adapted for diverse populations, implementation of continuous education programs that accommodate resident turnover, recruitment and support of community champions who model proper behaviors and engage neighbors, and responsive management systems that address issues promptly to maintain program credibility.
Their detailed analysis of multi-family composting initiatives across varied socioeconomic contexts found that programs incorporating convenience-focused elements achieved significantly higher participation rates and lower contamination levels than those implementing fewer supportive features. Furthermore, initiatives incorporating resident feedback into program design and evolution demonstrated significantly higher levels of sustained participation, with notably higher retention rates compared to programs with minimal community input [27].

1.5. Case Studies in Successful Composting Programs

Several cities have implemented comprehensive composting programs that offer valuable insights for new initiatives, demonstrating both the feasibility and substantial benefits of well-designed approaches to organic waste management. The Portland, Oregon residential food waste collection program has demonstrated the effectiveness of targeted education campaigns specifically designed for multi-family settings. Initially facing challenges with low participation and high contamination rates in apartment buildings when the program launched in 2018, Portland implemented a multifaceted strategy to address these barriers. By developing and implementing tailored outreach strategies including professionally translated multilingual materials addressing cultural food practices, conducting building-specific waste composition audits to customize interventions, organizing hands-on educational workshops in apartment common areas, and establishing a network of resident “composting ambassadors” who receive specialized training and modest incentives, Portland increased participation in multi-family composting by 37% between 2020 and 2024 while simultaneously reducing contamination rates by 42% [28].
In a detailed longitudinal study examining program effectiveness across different housing contexts, documented similar results in their analysis of a municipal community composting program in New England [23]. Through systematic data collection over a 30-month period, they found that customized educational approaches for different housing types yielded significantly higher participation rates in multi-family settings. Their research specifically highlighted the importance of adapting program designs to accommodate the specific constraints and opportunities presented by apartment buildings and condominiums. Buildings that received tailored educational interventions including in-person demonstrations, visual guides with minimal text, and regular feedback on collective performance achieved 64% higher diversion rates than demographically similar buildings receiving standardized communications. The researchers concluded that investment in specialized multi-family approaches, while initially more resource-intensive, produced substantially better outcomes in terms of both participation rates and material quality, ultimately improving the economic sustainability of the overall program through reduced processing costs and higher-value end products.

1.6. Purpose of This Study

This study aimed to evaluate the impact of a compost education and a composting program on the reduction and processing of food waste in multi-family housing units in San Marcos, Texas.

2. Results

2.1. Pre-Intervention Waste Audit of Participants

A total of 43 individual participants took part in the treatment using educational content, including students housed in multi-family complexes, conventional multi-family complexes, low-income multi-family complexes, and senior citizen multi-family complexes. The distribution of participants was as follows: 13 from student housing, 15 from conventional multi-family housing, 10 from low-income multi-family housing, and 5 from senior citizen housing complexes.
A baseline waste audit was taken of those participating in the educational component by collecting a sample of each participant’s usual landfill trash, overall amounting to 173.15 pounds. Among all four categories of participants, organic waste and compostable material emerged as the greatest contributor, weighing 87.28 pounds (50.41%). Recyclable material, including mixed paper, recyclable plastics, recyclable glass, and metal, constituted the second highest category at 44.44 pounds (25.67%). The third highest category was landfill material, which accounted for 41.43 (23.92%) pounds and encompassed non-recyclable plastics, non-acceptable paper, food wraps, single-use plastic cups, and plates.
When looking at individual categories within the students housed in multi-family complexes, organic waste and compostable material comprised approximately 41.81% of the total waste, encompassing food waste, plant materials, napkins, and other compostable containers. This was followed by landfill material, constituting 37.82%, and recyclable material at 20.37%. Similarly, in conventional multi-family complexes, organic waste and compostable material accounted for 63.64% of the total waste, with recyclable material making up 28.58% and landfill material at 7.78%.
Among low-income multi-family complexes, organic waste and compostable material accounted for 51.68% of the total waste, followed by recyclable materials at 26.05% and landfill material at 22.27%. Similarly, in senior citizen multi-family complexes, organic waste and compostable materials constituted approximately 37.82%, with landfill materials at 34.96% and recyclables at approximately 27.22%.

2.2. Pre-Intervention Waste Audit of Control Group

The pre-intervention waste audit conducted for the control group involved the examination of 20 randomly selected trash bags harvested from dumpsters, totaling approximately 86 pounds. Among students housed in multi-family complexes, organic waste and compostable materials accounted for 48.7% of the waste composition, with recyclable material items comprising 22.6% and landfill material contributions constituting 28.7%. Conventional multi-family complexes generated approximately 51.3% of organic waste and compostable materials, 26.4% of recyclable materials, and 22.3% of landfill materials.
Low-income multi-family complexes exhibited a similar trend with 59.2% of organic waste and compostable materials, 28.1% of recyclable materials, and 12.7% of landfill materials. Similarly, senior citizen multi-family complexes exhibited a higher proportion of organic waste and compostable materials at 42.3%, while landfill materials constituted 36.4%, and recyclables comprised 21.3%.

2.3. Weekly Organic Waste Collection

The eight-week study period yielded substantial results in diverting organic waste and compostable materials from landfills to composting facilities. A total of 1248.5 pounds of organic materials was captured and properly redirected for composting. This rate appears lower than national averages. For comparison, the U.S. EPA (2020) estimates that individuals generate approximately 7.4 pounds of food waste per week. Several factors may explain the lower per capita compostable waste observed in this study, including limited household participation, underreporting, or the fact that only compostable waste (rather than all organic waste) was measured [29]. Additionally, specific demographics, such as student and senior housing, may contribute to lower generation rates
As shown in Table 1, the student housing multi-family complexes, with 13 participating households, contributed the highest amount of organic waste, totaling 497.3 pounds over the eight-week period. This category exhibited a consistent weekly average of 62.2 ± 10.6 pounds, indicating a relatively stable pattern of organic waste generation. However, it is noteworthy that the standard deviation of 10.6 pounds suggests a considerable variation in weekly contributions among the participating households.
The conventional multi-family complexes, comprising 15 households, followed closely with a total organic waste contribution of 470.3 pounds. This category displayed a similar overall mean of 58.8 ± 15.3 pounds per week, albeit with a higher standard deviation of 15.3 pounds, suggesting greater variability in weekly organic waste generation among the participating households. The low-income multi-family complexes, with 10 participating households, yielded a total of 217 pounds of organic waste over the eight-week period. This category exhibited a weekly average of 27.1 ± 6.7 pounds, indicating a relatively consistent pattern of organic waste generation. However, the standard deviation of 6.7 pounds suggests some variation in weekly contributions among the participating households.
Lastly, the senior citizen multi-family complexes, consisting of five participating households, had the lowest contribution of 63.9 pounds of organic waste and compostable materials. This category displayed the lowest weekly average of 8.0 ± 3.8 pounds, potentially attributable to factors such as smaller household sizes or dietary patterns. The standard deviation of 3.8 pounds indicates a relatively stable pattern of organic waste generation among the participating households.

2.4. Contamination Patterns in Organic Waste

In a closer examination of the organic waste collected from the multi-family complexes on a weekly basis, contamination was observed and recorded by assessing the proportion of contamination present by the total weight of organic waste (Figure 1). Styrofoam cups with straws were observed in nearly every collection, especially from student housing units. Takeout cardboard containers lined with plastic film containing food residue were a common weekly occurrence across all housing types. Plastic take-home containers with food remnants were frequently found, being more prevalent in the initial stages of the program and originating predominantly from conventional and student housing units. Plastic cutlery was a contaminant found in almost every collection. Food wrappers and packaged food items were prevalent at the beginning of the program but reduced over time. Little barcode stickers on fruits and vegetable peels persisted as a problematic contaminant, found in most of the collections. Single-use plastic bags demonstrated a high frequency of contamination in the early weeks, while zip ties were intermittent contaminants observed across all four housing categories. Floral foam (Smithers-OasisTM, Walterboro, SC, USA) and rubber bands were occasional, more sporadic contaminants encountered during the organic waste collection process.
The low-income multi-family complexes had the highest contamination percentage recorded in the first week at 66.88%. However, with ongoing education, this percentage significantly reduced to 12.96% by the eighth week. In contrast, students housed in multi-family complexes began the program with a lower contamination percentage of 24% in the first week, which increased to 34% in the next week. Over subsequent weeks, the contamination rate steadily decreased, reaching a minimum of 4.37% among students.
Senior citizen multi-family complexes followed a similar trend, beginning the program with approximately 20.54% contamination initially. With proper education on compostable products, by week four, a zero-percentage contamination rate was achieved. However, there was a subsequent increase for two weeks to 20%, and by the seventh and eighth weeks, a zero percentage was once again achieved. In the case of conventional multi-family complexes, the initial contamination percentage was about 24.69%. By the end of our study, the contamination rate was significantly reduced to 2.37%.

2.5. Post-Intervention Waste Audit and Composition Analysis of Treatment Group

After the completion of the eight-week education program and waste collection from participating households, post-intervention waste audits were conducted by gathering and analyzing the overall weekly landfill trash. From a sample weighing approximately 168.61 pounds, the breakdown of the collected waste revealed significant changes in the composition compared to the pre-intervention baseline.
In the post-intervention audit, compostable materials accounted for approximately 17.86 pounds (10.59%), a substantial reduction from 87.28 pounds (50.41%) observed in the pre-intervention audit. Conversely, recyclable materials increased to 67.79 pounds (40.21%) in the post-intervention audit, compared to 44.44 pounds (25.67%) in the pre-intervention audit. Furthermore, landfill trash increased to 82.96 pounds (49.20%) in the post-intervention audit, compared to 41.43 pounds (23.92%) in the pre-intervention audit (Table 2). Notably, the student housing multi-family complexes generated approximately 7.45% of compostable materials in the post-intervention audit, a significant reduction from 41.81% in the pre-intervention audit. The amount of compostable materials in their weekly landfill trash decreased from 23.94 pounds in the pre-intervention audit to 3.58 pounds in the post-intervention audit. Recyclable materials, including metal, glass, paper, and plastics, increased from 20.37% in the pre-intervention audit to 25.04% in the post-intervention audit. Landfill trash increased from 37.82% in the pre-intervention audit to 67.49% in the post-intervention audit (Table 2).
Similarly, the conventional multi-family complexes generated approximately 6.97% compostable materials in the post-intervention audit, a substantial decrease from 63.64% in the pre-intervention audit. The amount of compostable materials in their weekly landfill trash reduced from 39.12 pounds in the pre-intervention audit to 4.46 pounds in the post-intervention audit. Recyclable materials increased from 28.58% in the pre-intervention audit to 51.68% in the post-intervention audit. Landfill trash increased from 7.78% in the pre-intervention audit to 41.35% in the post-intervention audit (Table 2).
The low-income multi-family complexes exhibited higher amounts of compostable materials compared to other groups within the multi-family housing residents, contributing about 9.13% in the post-intervention audit, a significant reduction from 51.68% in the pre-intervention audit. The amount of compostable materials in their weekly landfill trash decreased from 17.57 pounds in the pre-intervention audit to 3.17 pounds in the post-intervention audit. Recyclable materials increased from 26.05% in the pre-intervention audit to 50.49% in the post-intervention audit. Landfill trash increased from 22.27% in the pre-intervention audit to 40.38% in the post-intervention audit. Similarly, the senior citizen multi-family complexes showed a reduced amount of compostable materials, accounting for 4.34% in the post-intervention audit compared to 37.82% in the pre-intervention audit. The amount of compostable materials in their weekly trash decreased from 6.65 pounds in the pre-intervention audit to 0.69 pounds in the post-intervention audit. Recyclable materials increased from 27.22% in the pre-intervention audit to 32.28% in the post-intervention audit. Landfill trash increased from 34.96% in the pre-intervention audit to 63.38% in the post-intervention audit (Table 2).

2.6. Post-Intervention Waste Audit and Composition Analysis of Control Group

The post-intervention waste audit for the control group involved the examination of 20 trash bags, totaling approximately 82 pounds (Table 2). Among the student housing multi-family complexes in the control group, compostable materials accounted for around 52.4% of the waste in the post-intervention audit, which was almost similar to 48.71% in the pre-intervention audit. Recyclable materials constituted 16.20% in the post-intervention audit and 22.6% in the pre-intervention audit, while landfill trash represented 31.4% in the post-intervention audit and 28.7% in the pre-intervention audit.
The conventional multi-family complexes in the control group contributed approximately 48.9% of compostable materials in the post-intervention audit, compared to 51.33% in the pre-intervention audit. Recyclable materials accounted for 29.5% in the post-intervention audit and 26.4% in the pre-intervention audit, while landfill trash constituted 21.6% in the post-intervention audit and 22.3% in the pre-intervention audit. The low-income multi-family complexes in the control group demonstrated a waste composition of about 56.4% compostable materials in the post-intervention audit and 59.2% in the pre-intervention audit. Recyclable materials accounted for 24.3% in the post-intervention audit and 28.1% in the pre-intervention audit, while landfill trash represented 19.3% in the post-intervention audit and 12.7% in the pre-intervention audit.
Similarly, the senior citizen multi-family complexes in the control group exhibited approximately 46.4% compostable materials in the post-intervention audit and 42.3% in the pre-intervention audit. Recyclable materials accounted for 19.2% in the post-intervention audit and 36.4% in the pre-intervention audit, while landfill trash constituted 34.4% in the post-intervention audit and 21.3% in the pre-intervention audit.

2.7. Treatment Versus Control Group Pre- and Post-Intervention Comparison

To assess the effectiveness of the treatment, a comparison was made between the treatment and control groups (Table 3). The student housing multi-family complexes treatment group had a significant reduction (p = 0.002) in organic waste and compostables in their weekly landfill trash, with mean weight decreasing from 52.46 pounds in the pre-intervention to 16.46 pounds in the post-intervention. In contrast, the control group exhibited no significant difference (p = 0.852) between the pre-intervention and post-intervention weights.
For conventional multi-family complexes, the treatment group demonstrated a notable significant difference (p = 0.002), with the pre-intervention mean weight of 64.60 pounds dropping to 22.53 pounds in the post-intervention of organic waste. However, the control group did not exhibit significant differences between pre-intervention and post-intervention weights.
In the low-income multi-family complexes, the treatment group exhibited a significant reduction (p = 0.004) in organic waste and compostable materials in their weekly landfill trash. The mean weight decreased from 44.70 pounds in the pre-intervention to 10.20 pounds in the post-intervention. In contrast, the control group did not show a significant difference (p = 0.836) between the pre-intervention and the post-intervention weights.
Regarding senior citizen multi-family complexes, the treatment group demonstrated a significant reduction (p = 0.006) in organic waste and compostable materials. The pre-intervention mean weight of 53.60 pounds decreased to 2.80 pounds in the post-intervention of organic waste. However, the control group did not exhibit a significant difference between the pre-intervention and the post-intervention weights.

3. Discussion

The present study yielded compelling evidence that strategically designed educational interventions can significantly influence waste sorting behaviors and facilitate the diversion of organic waste from landfills within multi-family housing communities. By employing a comprehensive approach encompassing informational resources, hands-on workshops, ongoing feedback mechanisms, and door-to-door organic waste collection, the composting education program provided remarkable evidence of the potential effectiveness of such a program in reducing the amount of organic waste and compostable materials improperly disposed of in landfill trash across all the housing types examined.
A notable strength of this study lies in its rigorous methodology, adhering to established best practices and industry standards [30]. The triangulation of data from pre- and post-intervention waste audits, quantitative analyses, and direct observations lends credibility and reliability to the findings. Furthermore, the study’s alignment with relevant global frameworks, such as the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the Waste Management Hierarchy [31], underscores its relevance to broader sustainability priorities.
Across the treatment group, statistically significant reductions were observed in the organic waste and compostable materials present in participants’ weekly landfill trash bags during the post-intervention waste audit. This finding corroborates previous research highlighting the positive influence of educational campaigns and outreach efforts on promoting proper waste sorting and diversion practices [32]. The substantial reduction in organic waste and compostable materials can be attributed to the comprehensive educational approach employed, which collectively enhanced participants’ knowledge and empowered them to make informed decisions regarding waste sorting and composting practices.
The student housing and conventional multi-family complexes exhibited higher initial contamination rates, necessitating more persistent education and feedback to achieve significant reductions in contamination. Conversely, the low-income and senior citizen complexes displayed lower initial contamination rates, suggesting a potential correlation between socioeconomic status, age, and waste sorting behaviors [33]. By understanding these demographic variations, composting programs can be tailored to address specific barriers and leverage existing knowledge or practices within diverse communities.
The identification of common contaminants, such as Styrofoam cups, plastic cutlery, and food wrappers, provides valuable insights for designing targeted educational campaigns and outreach efforts. By addressing these specific contamination issues, future composting initiatives can enhance the quality and efficiency of the composting process while minimizing the environmental impact of improper waste disposal. This study’s findings can inform the development of evidence-based policies and regulations to support the implementation of composting programs and promote sustainable waste management practices at the municipal, state, or national levels [34,35].
Furthermore, the reduction in organic waste in landfills aligns with the United Nations SDGs, particularly SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production) and SDG 13 (Climate Action) [36]. By diverting organic waste from landfills, communities can mitigate methane emissions and contribute to the global effort to combat climate change. While the educational interventions in this study were effective, sustained behavior change requires ongoing efforts and reinforcement. Composting programs should be complemented by broader initiatives that promote responsible consumption patterns, waste reduction strategies, and the integration of sustainability principles into all aspects of daily life [37]. Interdisciplinary collaboration, bringing together expertise from various fields such as environmental science, urban planning, education, and community engagement, is crucial to addressing the complex challenges of sustainable waste management [38,39].
Although this study was conducted on a relatively small scale within the metropolitan area of San Marcos, Texas, its findings hold significant implications for broader educational initiatives aimed at promoting sustainable waste management practices. Despite the increasing emphasis on environmental education in schools and the integration of composting lessons into curricula [40], many communities lack the necessary infrastructure or facilities to put theoretical knowledge into practice [41]. The success of the educational interventions in this study demonstrates the potential for bridging the gap between theoretical knowledge and practical application. By providing experiential learning opportunities and fostering community engagement, composting programs can serve as catalysts for broader urban sustainability efforts, community development, and the cultivation of sustainable habits among individuals [42,43].
The lessons learned from this study can inform the development of scalable models for composting education and implementation, which can be adapted and replicated in diverse contexts [39,44]. For instance, the City of San Marcos recycling program has recognized the potential of integrating this model, which is adoptable for both organics and recycling initiatives, leveraging this study’s findings to enhance their existing sustainable waste management strategies [45]. By sharing best practices, educational resources, and practical strategies, communities worldwide can benefit from the knowledge gained, accelerating the transition towards sustainable waste management practices and fostering a culture of environmental stewardship.
As this study was confined to the metropolitan area of San Macros, Texas, its relatively small scale could be a limitation. Further research could replicate and expand this study across diverse geographical regions and communities to analyze the generalizability of the findings and refine the educational strategies accordingly. Additionally, while this study focused primarily on organic waste diversion, a holistic approach to waste management is crucial. Future studies could include parallel efforts to promote comprehensive recycling practices and overall waste reduction strategies, in line with circular economy principles.
Moreover, this study’s quantitative data analyses could be enhanced by including qualitative research methods, such as in-depth interviews or focus groups. These methods would offer deeper understanding of the behavioral and attitudinal factors affecting waste sorting practices among different demographic groups. Long-term follow-up studies would also prove valuable to assess the persistence of behavior changes beyond the initial intervention period and identify factors contributing to sustainable waste management practices over time.
The interdisciplinary nature of waste management necessitates collaboration among various stakeholders, including municipal authorities, housing management, educational institutions, and community organizations [37,38]. Future research could explore the dynamics of these collaborative efforts and identify strategies to enhance stakeholder engagement and participation.
The identification of common contaminants in this study provides valuable insights for designing targeted educational campaigns and outreach efforts. By addressing these specific contamination issues, future composting initiatives can enhance the quality and efficiency of the composting process while minimizing the environmental impact of improper waste disposal. This study’s findings can inform the development of evidence-based policies and regulations to support the implementation of composting programs and promote sustainable waste management practices at the municipal, state, or national level [33,34].
In conclusion, this study serves as a robust and impactful model for promoting organic waste diversion and sustainable waste management practices within multi-family housing communities. The comprehensive educational approach, tailored to address the unique challenges and characteristics of diverse demographic groups, proved highly effective in reducing organic waste in landfills and fostering positive behavioral changes. This study’s findings contribute to the growing body of literature on effective waste management strategies and align with broader sustainability goals, such as the United Nations SDGs and the principles of a circular economy. By empowering residents through experiential learning opportunities and fostering community engagement, composting programs can serve as catalysts for broader environmental stewardship, urban sustainability, and the development of resilient, self-sufficient communities.

4. Materials and Methods

This was an exploratory study with the main purpose of estimating food waste from multi-family complexes through waste audits. This study included a baseline pre-intervention audit, methods of education and outreach, and a baseline post-intervention. This study took place over 8 weeks from late summer through fall during 2023.

4.1. Study Sites

This study utilized data collected on food waste composting habits from multi-family household residents in San Marcos, Texas. According to the San Marcos Multi-family Report (2023), a total of 44 multi-family complexes were present in the city [46]. This study focused on nine multi-family complexes, which were carefully selected to include a representative sample of various housing types. Specifically, the selected complexes comprised senior citizen multi-family housing, student housing multi-family complexes, conventional multi-family complexes, and low-income multi-family complexes. To facilitate the recruitment of participants, the researchers collaborated with the City of San Marcos, which provided access to contact details for all multi-family complex managers. The apartment complex managers were subsequently contacted, and their assistance was sought in recruiting tenants for the food waste composting study.

4.2. Recruiting Individual Households

This study was conducted from late summer through late fall/early winter 2023. Residents of each type of housing complex were invited to participate. To ensure widespread awareness and participation, informational fliers were distributed with the assistance of apartment managers, utilizing both electronic and physical channels. Potential participants were offered USD 30 gift cards as an incentive for signing up and completing the eight-week organic waste collection process. This process required participants to submit both pre-intervention and post-intervention landfill trash bag samples in addition to their weekly organic waste collections.
To further recruit participants, information booths were set up, offering insights about compostable items, the adverse effects of food waste in landfills, and the advantages of composting at both household and city levels. These booths were strategically placed at each apartment complex during socialization events such as bingo games, early morning coffee sessions at the office, and fitness center activities, where large gatherings presented optimal opportunities for disseminating information about this study.

4.3. Treatment/Education of Participant Residents vs. Control Groups

This study involved facilitating the collection of pre- and post-intervention regular landfill trash bag samples of individual household waste, along with weekly collection of organic waste from individual multi-family doorsteps over the course of eight weeks. Multi-family residents from each type of complex participating in the program received ongoing education throughout the implementation of this study. Our weekly outreach provided dissemination of practical tips on food waste reduction through informational leaflets, social media posts, brief workshops conducted within housing units, and the provision of weekly feedback to participants (Table 4).
The control group data were obtained by collecting and analyzing landfill-bound trash from the same apartment complexes as the treatment participants. The full-sized landfill trash bags for the control group were collected from the dumpsters at each category of apartment complex on the same days as the participants’ pre- and post-treatment trash collection. Throughout the study period, however, the control group did not receive any educational intervention and were not sampled.
A website containing comprehensive resources on reducing food waste, global food waste statistics, and the harmful effects of improper food waste disposal was shared with participants every week (Table 4). Information was disseminated electronically via emails as well as through printed flyers distributed to all the participants during this study. The information disseminated outlined methods to reduce food waste, the advantages of composting, the drawbacks of landfills, the environmental benefits of diverting organic waste to composting instead of landfills, and the adverse effects of landfills.

4.4. Sorting and Weighing of Treatment Participants’ Household’s Weekly Food Waste/Organic Waste

Each participating treatment household was supplied with 5-gallon buckets with a lid and compostable bags for weekly collections of food waste. Clear instructions were provided regarding the designated days and times for organic waste pick up/disposal (Figure 2), facilitating researchers in collecting, weighing, and evaluating the food waste while monitoring for any potential contamination. Collections typically occurred on weekend mornings, as this aligned with all participants’ availability when they were free from their busy weekday schedules. This timing allowed researchers to often provide both verbal and written feedback from the previous week and collect organic waste from their doorsteps. Weekly collections were timed so that they would correspond to typical industry standards for compost or trash pick-up services. Weekly collections also allowed researchers to note any questions or concerns with participants and to provide tips regarding reducing odors or pests.
Throughout this period, participants were provided with “oops tickets”, which served as feedback mechanisms following the separation and weighing of waste on a weekly basis. These “oops tickets” not only informed participants about the total weight of their food waste collected in the preceding week, as well as tips/education on identifying and separating compostable items correctly, but also highlighted any contaminants found in their organic waste collection container. Additionally, this served as encouragement for continued engagement in this study.

4.5. General Baseline Pre- and Post-Intervention Waste Audits for Overall Multi-Family Housing Units by Type

A pre- and post-intervention general waste audit was conducted at one of each type of multi-family housing unit including those housing senior citizens at multi-family housing complexes, students housed in multi-family complexes, conventional multi-family housing, and low-income multi-family complexes. These were conducted by randomly collecting a minimum of 20 full-sized trash bags from the community dumpsters located within each type of multi-family housing the day before trash collection was to occur at that housing facility. This gave researchers overall baseline data on the type of waste typically included in each type of waste category at each housing facility both before and after the treatment period (compostables, recyclables, and landfill).
Waste characterization was performed to examine opportunities for particular waste products to be diverted elsewhere to composting, commingled recycling, separate stream recycling, and other similar streams given each type of multi-family housing situation. Municipal solid waste (MSW) characterizations, along with the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) International standards, provide comprehensive guidance, including best practices and validated methodologies for effective residential waste management, particularly as outlined in ASTM D5231-92 [65]. ASTM’s recommendations were used to determine waste categories, including the following: mixed paper, recyclable plastic, plastic bags/films, unrecyclable (single-use) plastic, recyclable glass, metals, compostable food/plant material (including liquids), miscellaneous landfill garbage, unrecyclable glass, construction wastes, textiles/shoes, and hazardous/special waste. Plastics were numbered #1–7, which identified the type of resin from which the container was made and aided in sorting for recycling.
Materials separation was performed by a group of students and overseen by a waste management industry professional, with sorting stations and a single weighing station equipped with an electronic scale (Surmount Way, Shanghai, China), with a maximum capacity of 440 pounds. Using color-coded bags, materials were sorted and segregated, with each category directly deposited into their corresponding bags. To determine the waste composition of each participant, the components of each trash bag were sorted and weighed. The categories considered in the analysis encompassed landfill materials, recycling materials (mixed paper, recyclable plastic #1–7, recyclable glass, and recyclable metal), and compostable materials (food waste, plant matter, and compostable paper products such as napkins and containers, as well as other compostable containers). Sorted waste went to composting, recycling, or landfill disposal after the completion of the material audit process.

4.6. Data Analysis

The data were compiled and organized using Microsoft Excel™ 2021 (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, Washington), and the subsequent statistical analyses were performed using SPSS Version 29.0 (SPSS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA). The quantitative data analyses involved comprehensive comparisons at multiple levels.
Firstly, pre-intervention and post-intervention waste audits of individual categories were compared for organic material category to assess changes in waste composition and quantities over the study period. This comparison was conducted using both descriptive statistics and statistical tests to evaluate the significance of any observed differences. Secondly, the performance of the treatment group, which received educational interventions, was compared to the control group data obtained from collecting landfill trash at the same apartment complexes prior and subsequent to the interventions. This control group data represented the baseline waste disposal practices without any educational program. The comparison aimed to determine the impact of the educational program on improving waste sorting practices among the treatment group participants. Thirdly, overall waste generation data were analyzed across different types of housing complexes and the various populations of residents as well as at the individual participant level. To facilitate these comparisons, descriptive statistics were calculated, and the paired t-test was employed to identify statistically significant differences between pre-intervention and post-intervention measurements. The analyses collectively sought to provide insights into the variations in waste patterns based on housing type and individual participant characteristics, as well as to evaluate the effectiveness of the educational interventions in promoting better waste management practices.

5. Conclusions

This study provides compelling evidence that strategically designed educational interventions can significantly influence waste sorting behaviors and facilitate the diversion of organic waste from landfills within multi-family housing communities. The waste audit results demonstrated remarkable changes in waste composition patterns following the educational program’s implementation. Organic waste and compostable materials in the treatment group’s landfill trash decreased substantially from 50.41% pre-intervention to 10.59% post-intervention, indicating successful behavior modification across all housing categories.
Statistical analyses revealed significant reductions (p < 0.006) in organic waste disposal across all housing types in the treatment group. Student housing multi-family complexes showed a reduction from 52.46 pounds to 16.46 pounds, conventional multi-family complexes from 64.60 pounds to 22.53 pounds, low-income multi-family complexes from 44.70 pounds to 10.20 pounds, and most notably, senior citizen multi-family complexes from 53.60 pounds to 2.80 pounds. Conversely, control groups exhibited no significant changes between pre- and post-intervention periods, confirming the effectiveness of the educational approach.
Contamination patterns in collected organic waste revealed notable improvements throughout the eight-week program. Low-income multi-family complexes demonstrated the most substantial contamination reduction, decreasing from 66.88% to 12.96%. This study identified specific problematic contaminants including Styrofoam cups, plastic cutlery, food wrappers, and barcode stickers on fruit peels, providing valuable targets for future educational initiatives.
The weekly organic waste collection yielded a total diversion of 1248.5 pounds of compostable materials over the eight-week period, with student housing complexes contributing the highest amount (497.3 pounds) and senior citizen complexes the lowest (63.9 pounds). These differences highlight the importance of tailoring educational approaches to different demographic groups.
By employing a comprehensive approach encompassing informational resources, hands-on workshops, ongoing feedback mechanisms, and door-to-door organic waste collection, this study demonstrates an effective model for promoting sustainable waste management practices within multi-family housing communities. The findings contribute significantly to the growing body of literature on waste management strategies and align with broader sustainability goals, such as the United Nations SDGs and circular economy principles. This research offers practical insights for municipalities and housing communities seeking to implement effective organic waste diversion programs and foster environmental stewardship among residents.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, T.M.W. and X.L.; methodology, T.M.W.; formal analysis, D.K.; investigation, D.K., T.M.W. and X.L.; resources, T.M.W.; data curation, D.K.; writing—original draft, D.K.; writing—review and editing, T.M.W. and X.L.; supervision, T.M.W.; project administration, D.K., T.M.W. and X.L.; funding acquisition, T.M.W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author(s).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. FAO. Food Loss and Food Waste. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2021. Available online: http://www.fao.org/food-loss-and-food-waste/en/ (accessed on 14 June 2024).
  2. USDA. Food Waste in the United States: Scope, causes, and Solutions; United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service: Washington, DC, USA, 2024.
  3. IPCC. Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Cambridge University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  4. EPA. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2022; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, DC, USA, 2024. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2024-04/us-ghg-inventory-2024-main-text_04-18-2024.pdf (accessed on 14 January 2025).
  5. World Resources Institute. Creating a Sustainable Food Future: A Menu of Solutions to Feed Nearly 10 Billion People by 2050; World Resources Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 2019; Available online: https://research.wri.org/sites/default/files/2019-07/WRR_Food_Full_Report_0.pdf (accessed on 14 June 2024).
  6. WWF. Living Planet Report 2024: Building a Nature-Positive Society; WWF: Gland, Switzerland, 2024; Available online: https://www.wwf.org.uk/sites/default/files/2024-10/living-planet-report-2024.pdf (accessed on 12 March 2024).
  7. USDA ERS. Major Land Uses in the United States; United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service: Washington, DC, USA, 2024. Available online: https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/major-land-uses (accessed on 14 June 2024).
  8. Díaz, S.; Zafra-Calvo, N.; Purvis, A.; Verburg, P.H.; Obura, D.; Leadley, P.; Chaplin-Kramer, R.; De Meester, L.; Dulloo, E.; Martín-López, B.; et al. Set ambitious goals for biodiversity and sustainability. Science 2022, 376, 635–637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Clark, M.A.; Domingo, N.G.; Colgan, K.; Thakrar, S.K.; Tilman, D. Global food system emissions could preclude achieving the 1.5° and 2 °C climate change targets. Science 2023, 381, 176–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Montgomery, D.R. Soil degradation and agricultural sustainability: An overview. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2023, 48, 145–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Garcia-Garcia, G.; Stone, J.; Rahimifard, S. Systematic review of food waste prevention strategies: Effectiveness, adoption, and scalability. Waste Manag. 2023, 137, 257–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Campbell, B.; Chen, X.; Rodriguez, L. Urban composting initiatives: Environmental impacts and implementation strategies. J. Environ. Manag. 2025, 294, 118–129. [Google Scholar]
  13. EPA. Food Recovery Hierarchy. United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2024. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/sustainable-management-food/food-recovery-hierarchy (accessed on 14 January 2025).
  14. Al-Obadi, M.; Namany, S.; Matteo, S.; Govindan, R.; Al-Ansari, T. Perspectives on food waste management: Prevention and social innovations. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 246, 118969. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Schanes, K.; Stagl, S. Food waste fighters: What motivates people to engage in food sharing? J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 211, 1491–1501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Papargyropoulou, E.; Lozano, R.; Steinberger, J.K.; Wright, N.; Ujang, Z. The food waste hierarchy as a framework for the management of food surplus and food waste. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 76, 106–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Cerda, A.; Artola, A.; Font, X.; Barrena, R.; Gea, T.; Sánchez, A. Composting of food wastes: Status and challenges. Bioresour. Technol. 2018, 248, 57–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Chen, J.; Jin, C.; Sun, S.; Yang, D.; He, Y.; Gan, P.; Nalume, W.G.; Ma, Y.; He, W.; Li, G. Recognizing the challenges of composting: Critical strategies for control, recycling, and valorization of nitrogen loss. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2023, 198, 107172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Liu, C.; Wang, K.; Zhang, Y.; Li, W. Synergistic effects of compost and biochar on soil fertility and crop productivity: A meta-analysis. Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 857, 159396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Vittuari, M.; De Menna, F.; García-Herrero, L.; Pagani, M.; Brenes-Peralta, L.; Segrè, A. How to reduce consumer food waste at household level: A literature review on drivers and levers for behavioural change. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2023, 38, 104–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Lebersorger, S.; Schneider, F. Discussion on the methodology for determining food waste in household waste composition studies. Waste Manag. 2011, 31, 1924–1933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Parfitt, J.; Barthel, M.; Macnaughton, S. Food waste within food supply chains: Quantification and potential for change to 2050. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2010, 365, 3065–3081. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Campbell, C.; Gusto, C.; Kelsey, K.; Haase, H.; Cohen, N.; Robertson, K.; Kiker, G.; Boz, Z. Household food waste behaviors of participants in a municipal community compost program. J. Agric. Food Syst. Community Dev. 2025, 14, 9–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Iriarte, A.; Gabarrell, X.; Rieradevall, J. LCA of selective waste collection systems in dense urban areas. Waste Manag. 2009, 29, 903–914. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. BioCycle & Institute for Local Self-Reliance. State of Composting in the US: Emmaus, PA, USA, 2018 Update. BioCycle. 2018. Available online: https://www.biocycle.net/state-of-composting-in-the-u-s/ (accessed on 14 June 2024).
  26. DiGiacomo, A.; Wu, D.W.L.; Lenkic, P.; Fraser, B.; Zhao, J.; Kingstone, A. Convenience improves composting and recycling rates in high-density residential buildings. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2018, 61, 309–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Bernstad, A. Household food waste separation behavior and the importance of convenience. Waste Manag. 2014, 34, 1317–1323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. ReadWriteThink. Multifamily Food Waste Collection Program: Five-Year Progress Report 2018–2023. City of Portland, Oregon. Available online: https://portal.nifa.usda.gov/web/crisprojectpages/1033489-city-of-portland-multifamily-food-waste-composting-pilot-program.html (accessed on 14 June 2024).
  29. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Food: Material-Specific Data. 2021. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/facts-and-figures-about-materials-waste-and-recycling/food-material-specific-data (accessed on 14 June 2024).
  30. Zaman, A.U. Measuring waste management performance using the ‘Zero Waste Index’: The case of Adelaide, Australia. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 66, 407–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. United Nations. Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. 2015. Available online: https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda (accessed on 14 June 2024).
  32. Varotto, A.; Spagnolli, A. Psychological strategies to promote household recycling: A systematic review with meta-analysis of validated field interventions. J. Environ. Psychol. 2017, 51, 168–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Parizeau, K.; Von Massow, M.; Martin, R. Household-level dynamics of food waste production and related beliefs, attitudes, and behaviours in Guelph, Ontario. Waste Manag. 2015, 35, 207–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Chalak, A.; Abou-Daher, C.; Chaaban, J.; Abiad, M.G. The global economic and regulatory determinants of household food waste generation: A cross-country analysis. Waste Manag. 2016, 48, 418–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Thi, N.B.D.; Kumar, G.; Lin, C.Y. An overview of food waste management in developing countries: Current status and future perspective. J. Environ. Manag. 2015, 157, 220–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. IPCC. Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2014; Available online: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg3/ (accessed on 14 June 2024).
  37. Lehmann, S.; Crocker, R. (Eds.) Designing for Zero Waste: Consumption, Technologies and the Built Environment; Routledge: Oxfordshire, UK, 2013; Available online: https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=nJcIEQAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=37.%09Lehmann,+S.%3B+Crocker,+R.+(Eds.)+Designing+for+Zero+Waste:+Consumption,+Technologies+and+the+Built+Environment%3B+Routledge:+Oxfordshire,+UK,+2013&ots=dbRyLTZcuj&sig=lDG5jXKyKZQ1bQzfaSJTUu-WiIc#v=onepage&q&f=false (accessed on 14 June 2024).
  38. Guerrero, L.A.; Maas, G.; Hogland, W. Solid waste management challenges for cities in developing countries. Waste Manag. 2013, 33, 220–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Sharholy, M.; Ahmad, K.; Mahmood, G.; Trivedi, R.C. Municipal solid waste management in Indian cities—A review. Waste Manag. 2008, 28, 459–467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Redman, E.; Redman, A. Transforming sustainable food and waste behaviors by realigning domains of knowledge in our education system. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 64, 147–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Lohri, C.R.; Diener, S.; Zabaleta, I.; Mertenat, A.; Zurbrügg, C. Treatment technologies for urban solid biowaste to create value products: A review with focus on low- and middle-income settings. Rev. Environ. Sci. Biotechnol. 2017, 16, 81–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Agbedahin, A.V. Sustainable development, Education for Sustainable Development, and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development: Emergence, efficacy, eminence, and future. Sustain. Dev. 2019, 27, 669–680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Dettmann-Easler, D.; Pease, J.L. Evaluating the effectiveness of residential environmental education programs in fostering positive attitudes toward wildlife. J. Environ. Educ. 1999, 31, 33–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Kaza, S.; Yao, L.; Bhada-Tata, P.; Van Woerden, F. What a Waste 2.0: A global Snapshot of Solid Waste Management to 2050; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. San Marcos Resource Recovery & Garbage/Recycling, n.d. City of San Marcos, Texas. Available online: https://www.sanmarcostx.gov/328/Resource-Recovery-Garbage-Recycling (accessed on 14 June 2024).
  46. City of San Marcos, Texas. Multi-Family Status Report—April 2023. 2023. Available online: https://sanmarcostx.gov/DocumentCenter/View/33004/Multi-Family-Status-Report---April-2023 (accessed on 14 June 2024).
  47. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Food Loss and Waste Data. Available online: https://www.fao.org/platform-food-loss-waste/flw-data/en (accessed on 14 June 2024).
  48. Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). Estimating Quantities and Types of Food Waste at the City Level. 2017. Available online: https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/food-waste-city-level-report.pdf (accessed on 14 June 2024).
  49. World Wildlife Fund (WWF). Take the Food Waste Quiz. Available online: https://www.worldwildlife.org/pages/pop-quiz-food-waste (accessed on 14 June 2024).
  50. EPA. Sustainable Management of Food. 2022. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/sustainable-management-food (accessed on 14 June 2024).
  51. Cornell Waste Management Institute. Composting Techniques. Available online: https://compost.css.cornell.edu/technique.html (accessed on 14 June 2024).
  52. Rescuing Leftover Cuisine. Rescuing Leftover Cuisine Challenge. Available online: https://www.rescuingleftovercuisine.org/challenge (accessed on 14 June 2024).
  53. WWF Wild Classroom. Why Does Food Waste Matter? 2023. Available online: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=we58BImYLVc (accessed on 14 June 2024).
  54. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Food Loss and Waste Is One of the Biggest Contributors to Climate Change. 2023. Available online: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejh4NVS7fPM (accessed on 14 June 2024).
  55. USA Today. Food Waste in America: A Growing Problem. 2022. Available online: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2023/11/13/food-waste-united-states-climate-change/71537256007/ (accessed on 14 June 2024).
  56. CBS News Sacramento. Don’t Trash Your Halloween Pumpkins: Farm Animal Feasts, Composts are Better for Environment. 2022. Available online: https://www.cbsnews.com/sacramento/news/dont-trash-your-halloween-pumpkins-farm-animal-feasts-composts-are-better-for-environment/ (accessed on 14 June 2024).
  57. Food52. Essential Tools for Fighting Food Waste. 2016. Available online: https://food52.com/blog/15026-essential-tools-for-fighting-food-waste (accessed on 14 June 2024).
  58. USDA. Make Every Bite Count with the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2020–2025. 2020. Available online: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CsUMzYUMNig&t=38s (accessed on 14 June 2024).
  59. Zero Waste Wisdom. Best Cookbooks for No Food Waste Meals; Wisdom Supply: King County, WT, USA, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  60. Stop Food Waste. Stop Food Waste Blog. 2023. Available online: https://stopfoodwaste.org/blog (accessed on 14 June 2024).
  61. USDA Food and Nutrition Services. My Plate Kitchen Recipes. Available online: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLBccton6gOdrIKFFh-M9mf8VkPEV2ZVr_ (accessed on 14 June 2024).
  62. We Don’t Waste. What We’re Reading: Our 7 Essential Books on Hunger and Food Waste. 2021. Available online: https://www.wedontwaste.org/what-were-reading-our-7-essential-books-on-hunger-and-food-waste/ (accessed on 14 June 2024).
  63. BioCycle. Residential Food Waste Collection Access in the U.S. 2023. Available online: https://www.biocycle.net/residential-food-waste-collection-access-in-u-s/ (accessed on 14 June 2024).
  64. Institute for Local Self-Reliance. Community Composting Done Right: A Guide to BEST Management Practices. 2014. Available online: https://ilsr.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Compost-BMP-v1.pdf (accessed on 13 May 2024).
  65. ASTM D5231-92; Standard Test Method for Determination of the Composition of Unprocessed Municipal Solid Waste. ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2016. [CrossRef]
Recycling 10 00102 g001
Figure 1. Weekly contamination rates among different housing groups during the eight-week study period. Proportion of contamination present by the total weight in %.
Figure 1. Weekly contamination rates among different housing groups during the eight-week study period. Proportion of contamination present by the total weight in %.
Recycling 10 00102 g001
Recycling 10 00102 g002
Figure 2. Participants leaving their weekly organic materials in the 5-gallon buckets outside their apartment complexes.
Figure 2. Participants leaving their weekly organic materials in the 5-gallon buckets outside their apartment complexes.
Recycling 10 00102 g002
Table 1. Weekly organic waste generation and mean scores ± SD for the different treatment groups during the eight-week study period by housing group.
Table 1. Weekly organic waste generation and mean scores ± SD for the different treatment groups during the eight-week study period by housing group.
WeekStudents Housing Multi-Family Conventional Multi-FamilyLow-Income Multi-FamilySenior Citizen Multi-Family
154.0 (42.1 ± 2.1)48.6 (3.2 ± 1.6)29.9 (3.0 ±1.2)14.6 (1.8 ± 0.9)
266.9 (5.1 ±1.9)47.6 (3.2 ± 1.4)34.4 (3.4 ± 1.6)10.2 (1.3 ± 0.6)
371.7 (5.5 ± 2.3)60.3 (4.0 ± 2.1)34.3 (3.4 ± 1.5)3.3 (0.4 ± 0.2)
457.2 (4.4 ± 1.7)47.7 (3.2 ± 1.5)27.4 (2.7 ± 1.1)10.2 (1.3 ± 0.5)
576.3 (5.9 ± 2.6)77.9 (5.2 ± 2.7)30.1 (3.0 ± 1.3)9.8 (1.2 ± 0.6)
655.8 (4.3 ± 1.8)80.2 (5.3 ± 2.9)13.1 (1.3 ± 0.6)4.8 (0.6 ± 0.3)
746.8 (3.6 ± 1.5)65.9 (4.4 ± 2.2)24.3 (2.4 ± 1.0)4.8 (0.6 ± 0.3)
868.6 (5.3 ± 2.2)42.1 (2.8 ± 1.3)23.5 (2.4 ± 0.9)6.2 (0.8 ± 0.4)
Overall mean ± SD62.2 ± 10.658.8 ± 15.327.1 ± 6.78.0 ± 3.8
Note: total organic waste generated (in pounds) each week by four different categories of multi-family complexes participating in the treatment group.
Table 2. Comparison of pre- and post-intervention results for each type of multi-family housing situation and for both the treatment and control groups.
Table 2. Comparison of pre- and post-intervention results for each type of multi-family housing situation and for both the treatment and control groups.
GroupCategoryTreatment/ControlPre-Intervention %Post-Intervention %
Student housing multi-familyCompostablesTreatment41.817.45
Control48.7152.4
RecyclablesTreatment20.3725.04
Control22.616.2
LandfillTreatment37.8267.49
Control28.731.4
Conventional multi-familyCompostablesTreatment63.646.97
Control51.348.9
RecyclablesTreatment28.5851.68
Control26.429.5
LandfillTreatment7.7841.35
Control22.321.6
Low-income multi-familyCompostablesTreatment51.689.13
Control59.256.4
RecyclablesTreatment26.0550.49
Control28.124.3
LandfillTreatment22.2740.38
Control12.719.3
Senior citizen multi-familyCompostablesTreatment37.824.34
Control42.346.4
RecyclablesTreatment27.2232.28
Control36.419.2
LandfillTreatment34.9663.38
Control21.334.4
Note: Percentages reflect the composition of the total waste generated by each group before and after the intervention. Categories include compostables, recyclables, and landfill-bound materials, calculated as a percentage of total waste weight.
Table 3. Parried t-test comparison of control group pre-intervention versus post-intervention and treatment group pre-intervention versus post-intervention on organic waste and compostables mean weight in pounds in their weekly landfill trash bag.
Table 3. Parried t-test comparison of control group pre-intervention versus post-intervention and treatment group pre-intervention versus post-intervention on organic waste and compostables mean weight in pounds in their weekly landfill trash bag.
Categorynp-ValuePre-Intervention Mean (lbs) *Post-Intervention Mean (lbs) *
Student housing multi-family treatment130.00252.4616.46
Student housing multi-family control50.85263.6060.40
Conventional multi-family treatment150.00264.6022.53
Conventional multi-family control50.81452.8058.40
Low-income multi-family treatment100.00444.7010.20
Low-income multi-family control50.83652.8049.20
Senior citizen multi-family treatment50.00653.602.80
Senior citizen multi-family control 50.79947.8043.60
Note: Treatment groups refer to those that received the intervention or experimental condition, while control groups did not receive the intervention, serving as a baseline for comparison. Statistical significance at the 0.05 level. * Mean score weights (in pounds).
Table 4. Outline of weekly educational materials for the study on the impact of composting education on multi-family housing waste streams.
Table 4. Outline of weekly educational materials for the study on the impact of composting education on multi-family housing waste streams.
WeekEducational MaterialsCitations
1Information on the U.S food waste issue, including the fact that about 95% of discarded food ends up in landfills. Also, a journey of strawberries from the farm to the plate and a food waste quiz to test knowledge about food waste.[47,48,49]
2Introduction to composting, its benefits, and the importance of sorting organic waste. Also, an overview of the composting process and its role in reducing methane emissions. [50,51]
3Information about food insecurity in America, the challenges of food waste and hunger, the quantity of food wasted annually, and its implications. Also, an in-depth look at the types of wasted food and their sources.[52,53,54]
4Discussion on water usage for producing 50 pounds of pumpkins, the environmental impact of trashing Halloween pumpkins, and how to be more sustainable during Halloween.[55,56]
5Introduction to essential tools for reducing food waste, such as meal planning, utilizing food pantries, proper storage, composting, and embracing leftovers. Also, references to the Dietary Guidelines for Americans and digital solutions to food waste.[28,57,58]
6Strategies for buying only what is needed, making recipes with leftovers, and other steps to prevent food waste and combat climate change. Also, recommendations for cookbooks focused on no-food-waste meals.[6,59]
7Further steps to prevent food waste and its environmental impact, along with resources for cooking recipes using leftover food. Also, references to essential books addressing hunger and food waste.[60,61,62]
8Success stories and community initiatives related to composting, including examples of effective composting programs and their impact on waste reduction and sustainability.[63,64]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Kenchanna, D.; Waliczek, T.M.; Liu, X. Measuring the Impact of Education on Waste Streams from Multi-Family Housing. Recycling 2025, 10, 102. https://doi.org/10.3390/recycling10030102

AMA Style

Kenchanna D, Waliczek TM, Liu X. Measuring the Impact of Education on Waste Streams from Multi-Family Housing. Recycling. 2025; 10(3):102. https://doi.org/10.3390/recycling10030102

Chicago/Turabian Style

Kenchanna, Dhanush, Tina Marie Waliczek, and Xiangping Liu. 2025. "Measuring the Impact of Education on Waste Streams from Multi-Family Housing" Recycling 10, no. 3: 102. https://doi.org/10.3390/recycling10030102

APA Style

Kenchanna, D., Waliczek, T. M., & Liu, X. (2025). Measuring the Impact of Education on Waste Streams from Multi-Family Housing. Recycling, 10(3), 102. https://doi.org/10.3390/recycling10030102

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop