E-Waste Management at Dalhousie University:

Final Research Report

April 11th, 2014Prof. Hendricus Van WilgenburgT.A. Jessica EllisThe Campus as a Living Lab ENVS/SUST 3502Dalhousie University

Leah Morris - B00580356 - International DevelopmentEsteban Villasis - B00561125 - Business ManagementTyler Pearson - B00585046 - BiologyKelsey Brasil - B00573146 - Community DesignObelem Erekosima - B00551004 - Environmental Science, Sociology & Social Anthropology

Executive Summary: The following report critically analyzes the current electronic waste (e-waste) disposal program at Dalhousie University. This topic is timely, with 20 to 25 million tons of e-waste being disposed annually worldwide; releasing toxic chemicals into the air and water (Robinson, 2009). This project uses exploratory research to critically assess the capabilities of Dalhousie’s current system, asking How This inductive process takes place in two steps: a pre-evaluation and an evaluation. The pre-evaluation assesses the management and facilitation of the program at Dal-housie through a series of interviews, with those currently involved in the operation of the pro-ject. The evaluation is a more extensive process, compiling data from faculty as the participants in the program. The results have shown three main problematic areas: education, funding, and overall efficiency. These themes were re-occurring amongst participants involved in both opera-tions and utilization of the system. Further, the research hopes to make recommendations for the program tackling these three issue. Differing from previous student analyses, the project’s participants are those directly involved in managing and using the program: faculty and facilities management. Conclusions will be drawn on the extent to which this program can function on campus. With these results, potential improvements are suggested to ameliorate the access to on campus drop off sites and to provide a system available not only to faculty, but extending to students in the area and even-tually expanding to the general public.

1.1: Objectives 62.1: Reliability and Variability 62.2: Limitations 63.1: Pre-evaluation - Interviews 73.2: Evaluation - Survey Results 9

1: IntroductionPurpose of research, problems and justifications:

Electronic waste, often referred to as e-waste, simply refers to any old, broken, obsolete or discarded electronic device and its parts. Examples include computer towers and monitors, mobile phones, television sets, scanners, printers, projectors, keyboards, game consoles, bat-teries, and more––almost any household or business item with circuitry or electrical components with power or battery supply. Electronic products have become ubiquitous in today’s society, leading to an increase in the growth of the electronic market globally. It is well known that with increasing consumption comes increasing waste production, to the point where waste manage-ment and e-waste management has become a large sustainability challenge. Further, e-waste is a major concern because of the many toxic components that are not easily biodegradable, or not biodegradable at all (Bhutta, Omar & Yang, 2011).

The amount of e-waste found in landfills is increasing, therefore it is important that any recyclable components are properly managed to curb potential environmental issues. When these products are placed in landfills or incinerated, they pose health risks due to the hazardous materials they contain such as: heavy metals, plastics, chlorofluorocarbons, flame-retardants, and other hazardous compounds (Srivastava et al, 2011; Wath et al, 2011). These can pollute or contaminate the air, soil and water. Many electronic products can be reused, refurbished or re-cycled so an effective e-waste disposal is necessary. Dalhousie University has a population (faculty, students, and staff) that is constantly consuming and disposing electronics and so it is important to have and implement an effective e-waste management. Further, the global production of e-waste is estimated to be 20-25 million tonnes per year (Robinson, 2009). Modern electronic devices contain numerous environmentally harmful and carcinogenic metals, including lead, mercury, cadmium, chromium, copper, (Kaushal and Nema, 2013), as well as many different types of plastics (Robinson, 2009). Deleterious health effects from cadmium primarily take the form of kidney damage, but cadmium can also lower bone den-sity causing fractures (Jarup, 2003). The negative effects of mercury have been known for cen-turies, and include damage to the nervous system, kidneys and reproductive system (Frumkin et al, 2001). The plastics found in e-waste are often carcinogenic, and mostly take the form of polybrominated diphenyl ethers, aromatic hydrocarbons, polychlorinated biphenyls, and chloro-fluorocarbons. Aside from cancers, they can also cause organ damage, nervous system dam-age and endocrine malfunction (Robinson, 2009).

Subsequently, the improper disposal of electronics has become problematic throughout the developed world. The human health effects of e-waste are mirrored in the environmental ef-fects; ecosystems are accumulating harmful non-biodegradable chemicals, and the flora and fauna of the ecosystems are suffering for it (Robinson, 2009). Most e-waste ends up in landfills, and while some recycling programs exist, they are not always environmentally sound. In some locations where large-scale e-waste recycling occurs, the concentration of the harmful chemi-cals is significantly higher than is considered safe. However, since these polluted locations are most often in developing countries such as India, the Philippines, and China, first-world govern-ments often turn a blind eye to issues (Robinson, 2009). Despite this, the pollution in these ar-eas will migrate to areas of lower pollutant concentrations; spreading to the unaffected, devel-oped areas. Further, recycling techniques in poor countries often include the burning off of un-wanted plastics to get at the valuable metals underneath (Schmidt, 2002). This has been miti-gated in developed countries with recycling techniques that have been developed to lessen the environmental impact.

4 of 24

Spinney (2012) detailed the phenomenon of psychological obsolescence, where both construction quality and marketing strategies of electronics companies have led many people to feel the need for an upgrade of electronic devices before its physical obsolescence. The ability for consumers to research the technology before they make a purchase, has led companies to produce upgraded technologies faster, therefore encouraging consumer’s to upgrade in a shorter timespan (Spinney, 2012). In addition, rapid consumption of electronics can be demon-strated in cell phone usage. This is due to the short term mobile contracts in the developed world, which artificially enforce a deadline to upgrade personal devices (Geyer & Blass, 2009). Consumers often upgrade to a new phone, despite the old phone remaining functional.

Formation of research focus and research question: In 2010, the Canadian government announced a federal e-waste strategy with the inten-tions of decreasing Canada’s contribution to global issues from previous disposal of electronic devices (Public Works and Government Services Canada, 2013). The government sought to define e-waste and focus on reduction of packaging, and proper disposal by encouraging reuse and environmentally sound recycling. Implementation of e-waste disposal programs was left to the provinces. Nova Scotia established a not-for-profit organization, called the Electronic Prod-ucts Recycling Association (EPRA), which handles provincial e-waste recycling duties. The pro-gram is funded through a fee imposed during the sale of electronic goods. There are 39 drop-off locations, scattered generously throughout the province for ease of use. The program uses only recyclers audited and approved by the Recycling Qualification Program (RQP), which was de-signed by the electronics manufacturers themselves to ensure safe and environmentally sound recycling (EPRA, 2013). This ensures that the e-waste is not simply shipped to a developing country to be dealt with remotely. Universities and similar institutions can play a pivotal role in lowering improper e-waste disposal. The use of technology in the classroom has skyrocketed since the dawn of the internet age. While laptops, tablets, and mobile phones are not mandatory for in-class note-taking, mate-rial is often presented in a technology-friendly manner. Lectures are given via PowerPoint, and notes are often taken by annotating the lecture files. Also, there are many computer labs open to students on all campuses. This means that in every classroom, there are a great number of technological devices, which will need to be upgraded or disposed of at some point. Over the last few decades, universities strive for environmentally sustainable campuses. Despite this, the technological advances in recent years rapidly render computers, cell phones, printers, projec-tors, and more, useless; thus making an e-waste disposal strategy vital to sustainability efforts.

For this reason, Dalhousie University and many other institutions have implemented an e-waste disposal strategy. Unfortunately, it is designed only for use by the faculty (Facilities Management, n.d.c.), which is not pragmatic when students are often the earliest adopters of new technologies (Lee, 2014). This is because peer influence creates a vacuum of consumption and disposal among college students, therefore it follows that any collegiate institution should focus their e-waste system on students (Lee, 2014). The University of Idaho, a school of 12,000 students, has 18 collection sites; one in each of its educational and administrative buildings (University of Idaho, 2014). The University of Toronto’s Mississauga campus, another 12,000 student campus, has partnered with the Ontario Electronic Stewardship to create an e-waste strategy that has only one drop-off location, but it accepts a very large variety of e-devices. This location is open to both students and faculty, offering free pick-up for heavy or bulk items (Uni-versity of Toronto Mississauga, n.d.c.). Another school with 18, 000 students, The University of British Columbia, offers a single drop-off location, and is open to any community member (Uni-versity of British Columbia, n.d.c). Dalhousie, at 18,000 students, has no strategy for students looking to dispose of e-waste. In 2012, students at Dalhousie found that 58% of student were not aware that Nova Scotia required e-waste recycling by law. They concluded that 49% of stu-dents were not aware that Dalhousie had an e-waste recycling program, albeit the majority of

5 of 24

students who responding to the questionnaire would willingly find a campus drop-off location for e-waste disposal (Gezelius et al, 2012).

1.1: Objectives

How can the current e-waste program at Dalhousie University be improved or extended?

This study aims to critically assess the capabilities of Dalhousie’s current e-waste man-agement system, and provide recommendations for continuing the program as is, extending the program to students, or cutting the program entirely. The immediate output is to offer research that identifies the problems with the current e-waste program and make recommendations. The intended outcome is to create impetus for change to the current system, as well as generating awareness of this program at Dalhousie University. The study projects the long-term impact, be-yond the scope of this project, to fuel program expansion on campus, and progressively create an exemplary community model.

2: Research Method The mixed method research undertaken was exploratory in nature seeking to understand why electronics are being improperly disposed of at Dalhousie University. This problem has been exposed in previous research conducted by Dalhousie students (Gezelius et al, 2012). In order to assess how effective the current program is, we interviewed the person in charge of the program. The interview was a long-form interview where a member of our team spoke with this person for an hour and recorded the interview. We then listened to the interview and developed a coding system to analyze the responses. The key coding terms included: education, aware-ness, funding, efficiency, time management. These were further reduced to education, funding, and efficiency. From this information, we developed a survey for the faculty members who work on Studley Campus, to assess their awareness and use of the e-waste management program. We created 10 questions for an online survey conducted through SurveyMonkey.com. A link to this survey was e-mailed to 266 professors, which is roughly 15% of the faculty. This was a non-proportional purposive sample, where professors with accessible e-mail addresses were chosen from several departments located on the Studley Campus; three departments from the Faculty of Science, two departments from the Faculty of Arts, and two departments from the Faculty of Management. The survey website provided detailed statistics, along with the raw data we then analyzed ourselves.

2.1: Reliability and Variability

Our survey questions asked whether faculty members had used the program, how they felt about the program, and whether they were aware and concerned about the issue. The reli-ability of the data is therefore dependent on the honesty of the individual faculty members. The long-form interview was with someone involved in the program, so the coding system for analyz-ing the interview resolved the inherent bias in the responses.

2.2: Limitations There were various limitiations in this project concerning the research methods. A major limitation was the amount of time for collecting data, and therefore limiting the sample size. The evaluation sample size was further reduced to one of the three campuses of Dalhousie Univer-sity. The only outreach tool used was the e-mail, and the survey was not advertised to generate interest. Further, the questionnaires were limited in the number of questions due to time constra-

6 of 24

ints on the particpants’ commitment. The pre-evaluation interviews were limited in scope due to time, and accessibility of those who manage the program. The temporal limitation was two weeks to complete the interview and analysis, which resulted in only a few hours of interview time. An increased amount of time may have opened the study to key coding terms, which would help to further understand limitiations in the current e-waste system at Dalhousie Univer-sity. A longer time span to both interview and collect questionnaire responses would result in a more representative sample of qualitative data. Therefore, the scope of the project was small, due to the nature of the project as a fourth month, academic exercise.

3: Results

3.1: Pre-evaluation - Interviews

In 2008 Atlantic Canada Electronics Stewardship (ACES) was developed to adhere to the new regulations regarding the recycling of electronic waste (e-waste) in Atlantic Provinces. Dalhousie University held a committee involving Facilities Management (FM), Information Technology (IT), the Director of Purchasing, and the Director of Sustainability to create a program that will abide to the requirements that concern the disposal of e-waste. Facilities Management are responsible to oversee and manage the overall waste, including e-waste. Since there was no previous work done in this area, the committee worked along the non-profit organization ACES – now known as Electronic Products Recycling Association (EPRA). The program branched out from the At-lantic Province to nationwide due to national legislation, making such programs mandatory. EPRA is a non-profit organization interested in providing an appropriate system or serv-ice that deals with the disposal or recycling of electronics. The goal of this program is to mitigate electronics being disposed in landfills, and overseas dumping sites. Materials like plastic, glass, metal, and others are separated, recycled, and reused within Canada; the program also deals with the dangers of toxic waste, ensuring that it is properly disposed. This is a fantastic program used by Dalhousie University, open to the public, and financed by the government. Unfortunately, there are flaws within the EPRA e-waste management system. EPRA works with a fixed list of accepted items, this makes it difficult to recycle the items that do not adhere to their list. Furthermore, the dumping sites are not easily accessible, especially for those without access to transportation. The program is not well known by the public, making it difficult to be successful. Raising public awareness on the issue of e-waste and the provided services will help improve the successfulness of the Finally, the service provided is given only to those products that through paying the Environmental Handling Fee (EHF) tax have indirectly funded the program. Products that do not pay the EHF tax, such as microwaves, typewriters, and laboratory equipment will ultimately be disposed in landfills or sent overseas due to the lack of coverage. Floor-model printers used in faculties such as Dalhousie are part of the exceptions to the type of printers accepted in the program. EPRA is evolving and as they do the organization is dealing with more types of electron-ics. EPRA deal with desktop computers, portable computers, computer peripherals (i.e key-boards and mice), desktop printers, and displays and display devices. This list of items may be considered their phase one, and it is by no means a modest list. Consider that for each category there is an array of machinery. Handling monitors for example is an arduous job in itself, and EPRA accepts many kinds, such as: Cathode Ray Tube (CRT), flat panels (LCD, LED, and plasma), and even projectors. In their second phase EPRA has included portable audio/video systems, vehicle audio/video systems, home theatre systems, home audio/video systems, and non-cellular telephones which are the wired phones used in office spaces or in homes. In this list cellphones are not in-cluded, but in the organization’s website EPRA directs the customer to an organization that spe-

7 of 24

cifically deals with the disposal of cellphones. Cell phone recycling is managed by the Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association (CWTA). Dalhousie University uses IT services serve as a filter to the process of disposal. The information in that some electronics carry are highly sensitive, so is their responsibility to wipe memories before these are disposed. To do so, Dalhousie trucks leave electronics in the hands of IT personnel. When the trucks leave a load IT will charge a new load that is already wiped-out so trucks can take the electronics to the recycling sites. The director of Sustainability will ar-range a time with EPRA for the trucks to leave the electronics. Notice that it takes various de-partments and to arrange this type of disposal. Before the EHF there was a group of graduate students who did this type of job on campus. They took the responsibility of picking any type of electronics people would like to dispose and they will erase data, separate materials, and dis-pose the components respectively. This independent project stopped working when EPRA started their program. The current model held at Dalhousie University is solely directed for staff and faculty. The question we ask ourselves is; why isn’t this program extended to students? We believe that the university can channel this service indirectly. The university forms a community; its services are catalysts to the larger impacts of the community. A large number of students in the faculty are unaware of the internal work Dalhousie does, and is unaware of their responsibility to correctly dispose electronics. Even though EPRA is open to the public many students have either not heard of it or find it inconvenient to drive to the sites provided. After accruing information about the program held at Dalhousie an important factor came in to play that allow us to understand the position the university is in and the reasoning behind their decisions. The program lacks funding. Apart of being somewhat improvised and scattered there is not enough resources to create a coherent internal program that is managed under the mandate of someone who is specialized solely on this area. FM does a good job, but it becomes dele-gated and dependant of other departments. The disposal program could be managed com-pletely by a department of disposal instead of FM. Currently FM receives forms that specify the name and department of the person who wants to make a disposal. There is a comment box in case that person has items that are not covered in the program. If there are other items then Fa-cilities Management does the best they can to redirect that person to the correct program; how-ever, sometime some items are not recycled because of the amount of steps it takes to jump from service to service and fill forms. Lack of funding prevents this, but if done it could create a more congruent system that is intertwined. If the director of this proposed program is facing an item that may be toxic and therefore cannot be disposed with electronics, then that director can easily send that item to the section of their department that works with this type of items. Currently there are too many pieces to the process that are not working under one leadership. The e-waste program is not directed to students according to the comity because the in-ternal handing costs and processing already is expensive. Adding individual electronics to the process will require additional funding and staffing. Since Dalhousie uses a non-profit organiza-tion that is open to the public it is naturally expected of students to do their own disposals as in-dividuals. If the program was extended to personal e-waste items, as I said, the program will re-quire paying the handling and processing of personal items. FM accept the resources they are given and work under the constraints with a positive attitude. Every electronic that is in its end-of-life, which is when a product is no longer function-ing, will be going under FM’s management. Outsourcing to an external business that would deal fully with Dal’s e-waste would be a great solution for the faculty, however, there is no business doing this yet and there is no funding to use such service if there were. The conversations that each department has regarding e-waste is based on internal and external administration. The relationship they have with the sustainability department, however, makes them work on prod-ucts that should no longer be used on campus even though these may still be functioning. Take for example the CRVC monitors which were completely eliminated from campus due to their in-satiable power usage. This beneficial decisions are practical to have in faculties.

8 of 24

There are alternatives to the internal disposal system. For example if faculty members fill the forms for electronic product disposal then the product will be uploaded online and sold. Sales are based on bid sales, so who ever bids the highest gets the products. Since the site is open to the public even people that are not Dalhousie members can acquire the products. This are usually not end-of-life products. There are more alternative option offered at Dalhousie; for example, there are a couple of bins for cellphone on campus, and some for electronics provided by a business. Now, the Cellphone recycling association does offer free bins and pick up as part of their program. Some of these are in the Killam Library. Furthermore, the university leases their computers from PCPC for around three years. This technique was introduced to cut-costs, help upgrades, and decrease the reuse equipment. It is the leasing company’s responsibility to deal with the recycling of their computers. Currently the university is working with the Electronics Recycling association to offer a drop off site on Saturday April 26 in collaboration with Dump and Run, a service that lets mem-bers of the faculty leave their unwanted goods so these can be resold on campus - profits go to charity. If it goes well the university will continue with this program. There is also a What Go Where guide off campus options for recycling. Nevertheless, students are opening their own al-ternative unofficial options. These are unofficial dumping sites in buildings were students throw their old printers or computers in a piled corners. Even though there are various alternative and attempts to get students engaged there is still the feeling of impromptu and informality. Alterna-tive options that are not consistent, poorly presented and marketed, and are only used by a small population. Along the university’s values and claims it is crucial for the faculty to invest in this area. Not because it is legislated and morally valuable, but because it is efficient and long-term bene-ficial. Investments of this sort push the system and the general public’s practices. Participants that are not environmentally directed should do this too. This services should be invisible and engraved in the processes of our disposal systems. Nevertheless, this systems should not be done in closed doors. The public should be aware of these services, and the best way to edu-cate is through channels of education, such as higher education faculties. Notwithstanding, the university does not take the time to do so for two reasons. As men-tioned before, if they mediate they process then it increasing costs to their operations. Secondly, the faculty will not take responsibility for marketing a third-party organization for the sake of di-recting students to this service. It is easy to turn a blind eye to these matters and assume that students know that these services exist. It is easy to say that students are disposing their elec-tronics correctly because there is access to these services. The business problem here is that the assumption from businesses is that the customer has to reach service, instead of the service has to reach the customer. On campus it is evident that students are not fulfilled with the e-waste services provided in the city. These students either don’t know about the correct way of disposing their electronics or decide not to use them. There are various unofficial dumping sites in faculty building, as men-tioned before. This problem is one Dalhousie does not want to deal with, nevertheless, student continue dumping their printers, computers, and gadgets in corners where they see other stu-dents do it. It is easy to see the uncontrolled, uncoordinated, and unplanned effects of unawareness and unwillingness. However, from this bad situation we may learn an enriching lesson. The rea-son this unofficial dumping works is because it is visible, accessible, and convenient. What if a better presentation, along with information was attached to fixed spaces want for the disposal of these items. Surely, a cost analysis must be done to see if the university can handle the items; however, if the spaces are filled and emptied at the end of long periods of time then the costs of transporting these items will not be as much of a concern. There are ways to tackle these prob-lems, but there is not yet a team or the funding to coordinate the appropriate solutions.

3.2: Evaluation - Survey Results

9 of 24

As noted in the research methods in section 2, an e-mail with a link to our questionnaire was sent out to Faculty members. We anticipated getting a minimum of 284 questionnaires completed to have a representative sample of the Dalhousie faculty members; however, we only received 24 completed questionnaires. This high estimate was a representative sample of the total 1805 Professors currently employed at Dalhousie University. In total, 67% of respondents were aware of, and had used the e-waste recycling program on campus. While 15 respondents did not indicate interest in using the program, 8 respondents indicated they would use the pro-gram if knew it were available. The results show that 96% of respondents were concerned about the environmental impacts of e-waste, and 88% are currently aware of the impacts. Further dis-cussion will be listed below.

The survey focused on questions relating to (See Appendix B):

• The awareness of faculty members on the Dalhousie University e-waste recycling program• Their knowledge of and concerns for the environmental impacts of e-waste• Their opinion about the cost and implementation of an effective e-waste program

The survey resulted in a range of responses that are represented in figures excluding Question 9 (See Appendix C)

4: Discussion The interest for this project originated from the team’s curiosity about electronic waste. Before we criticized and suggested solutions to solve the growing problem of electronic waste management we embarked on a study to understand the current model that attempts to solve this problem. The study was directed to understand the students’ relationship with e-waste. Consequentially, the faculty of interest, Dalhousie University, was questioned about its contribu-tion towards this dilemma. We learned that the university does offer a program; nevertheless, it is a closed program directed to faculty and staff members. The university may be a key player to mediate this service, but they are not doing so. This study is constructed to understand the cur-rent model at Dalhousie University, and the awareness from students about this issue. Significant findings in this study show that there is little to no awareness about the pro-grams offered either on campus or outside of it, and alternative solutions are not always under-stood or are unknown. It is worth noting, that 100% of participants were concerned about the environmental impacts of e-waste, yet only 67% of respondents had used the Dalhousie e-waste management program. Furthermore, the interviews provided information that enlightened our understanding of the current situation. Primordially the reasons for the effectiveness and exten-sion of the internal program at Dalhousie. Lack of funding was a key word during the interviews; however, current business model and management appeared to be a barrier in this system. The program does as much as it can with the funds it has, and if they expanded the program to pro-vide the service to students then it would be a major increment in the cost of their operations. However, at least information about EPRA could be channeled through the university.

5: ConclusionMost participants expressed their desire to see an effective e-waste recycling program that in-cludes the entire university population: students, faculty and staff at Dalhousie University. Most participants also thought that the program is needed and worth investing in. However, some par-ticipants suggested that access to this program should be made simple and should not copy government programs already in existence. Most participants suggested that it is important to educate the entire university popula-tion on e-waste recycling and the risks involved. Also a participant suggested that it would be

10 of 24

interesting to find out what the students think about promoting awareness and securing a sus-tainable funding model. Next research should look at the current model used at Dalhousie and together with the faculty design or simply reassess the management of waste in Dalhousie University. Gathering more information on how the system works, who knows about it and what will make more people interested in using the program, will help in the design of an improved program. It is mandatory that a new program be much more cohesive and supported throughout the University. Estab-lishing a committee that is more unified and organized, with individuals that want to take part rather than being 'volun-told'. Additionally, any alternative practice should be easily integrated into the lives of students, faculty members, and hopefully community members. The group discussed possible design methods that would make the disposal of e-waste easy to access, understand, and follow. Eliminating unofficial drop-off sites, i.e. In stairwells, can be achieved by establishing an official site on campus where faculty and students can recycle their electronics. In order to make this design a reality, further research is needed. Projected costs of this project would have to be de-termined and a proposal given to the school for funding of this project. Once funding for the pro-ject is given, further research on best practice by other institutions will provide different methods to try at Dalhousie. E-waste is an issue that currently is not being effectively dealt with on campus. Our pro-ject has determined that the main limitations at Dalhousie regarding this concern is the lack of awareness, enthusiasm by program managers, and funding by the school. Our survey results show that people are concerned of e-waste disposal, that they are interested in using a program that will relieve the environmental stress of e-waste, and that generally the public is unaware of the current system at the university. Through comments made by faculty members and inter-viewees, all that is needed is a more organized, well integrated, and better advertised system designed for anyone.

11 of 24

ReferencesBhutta, S.K., Omar, A., & Yang, X. (2011). Electronic Waste: A growing concern in today’s

environment. Economics Research International, 2011. doi:10.1155/2011/474230

Facilities Management. (n.d.c). Waste management and recycling services. Retrieved from http://fm.dal.ca/waste.htm

Frumkin, H., Letz, R., Williams, P.H., Gerr, F., Pierce, M., Sanders, A., … & Taylor, B.B. (2001). Health effects of long-term mercury exposure among chloralkali plant workers. American Journal of Industrial Medicine. 39(1). 1-18. Doi 10.1002/1097-0274

(200101)39:1<1::AID AJIM1>3.0.CO;2-N

Geyer, R., Blass, V.D. (2010) The economics of cell phone reuse and recycling. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 47(5-8). 515-525. Doi:

10.1007/s00170-009-2228-z

Gezelius, M., Childs, A., Hristow, C., Williams, H., & Wilson, M. (2012). E-waste and battery re cycling at Dalhousie University. Retrieved from http://www.dal.ca/content/dam/dalhousie/pdf/science/environmental-science-program/ENVS%20 3502%20projects/2012/EWaste_and_Battery_Recycling.pdf

Jarup, L. (2003). Hazards of Heavy Metal Contamination. British Medical Journal 68,1:167-182. doi: 10.1093/bmb/ldg032

Kaushal, R. K., & Nema, A. K. (2013). Multi-stakeholder decision analysis and comparative risk assessment for reuse–recycle oriented e-waste management strategies: a game theoretic approach. Waste Management & Research, 31(9), 881-895.

Electronic Products Recycling Association. 2013. FAQs. Retrieved from www.recyclemyelectronics.ca/ns/what-can-i-do/faqs/

Lee, S.Y. (2014). Examining the factors that influence early adopters’ smartphone adoption: The case of college students. Telematics and Informatics 31(2). 308-318.

Public Works and Government Service Canada. (2013). Federal Electronic Waste Strategy. [PDF].Retrieved from www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/ecologisation-greening/dechets-waste/

index-eng.html

Robinson, B.H. (2009) E-waste: An assessment of global productions and environmental impacts. Science of the Total Environment 408(2). 183-191. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2009.09.044

Schmidt, C.W. (2002). E-Junk explosion. Environmental Health Perspectives 110(4). A188- A194.

Spinney, J., Burningham, K., Cooper, G., Green, N., & Uzzell, D. (2012). ‘What I’ve found is that your related experiences tend to make you dissatisfied’: Psychological obsolescence, consumer demand and the dynamics and environmental implications of de-stabilization in the laptop sector. Journal of Consumer Culture, 12(3), 347-370.

12 of 24

Srivastava, A. K., Kesavachandran, C. N., & Kumar, S. (2011). Evaluating risks of acquired clinical vulnerability among subjects exposed to e-waste. Reviews of Environmental Con-tamination and Toxicology, 214, 1-14. doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-0668-6_1

University of British Columbia. (n.d.c.) E-waste. Retrieved from http://sustain.ubc.ca/campus- initiatives/recycling-waste/e-waste

University of Idaho. (2014). Sustainability Center. Retrieved from http://www.uidaho.edu/community-connections/office-of-community-partnerships/sustainability-center/sustainability-projects/recycling-materials-and-waste/electronic-waste

University of Toronto Mississauga. (n.d.c.). E-waste recycling. Retrieved from www.utm.utoronto.ca/green/green-team/e-waste-recycling

13 of 24

Appendix A: Ethics Application

14 of 24

15 of 24

16 of 24

Appendix B: Research Proposal

17 of 24

Appendix C: Survey questions

Sample Questionnaire:

A Critical Analysis of Dalhousie University’s E-waste Recycling Program:All personal information gathered from this survey will be kept confidential. No names will be used in association with the project.

NAME:DATE:OCCUPATION:FACULTY:AGE RANGE: 18-30, 31-40, 41-60, 61+ SEX: M / F

Q1: Are you aware of the e-waste recycling program on campus? YES / NOQ2: Have you used the e-waste recycling program for you faculty?YES / NOQ3: If the above answer was no, would you use a program if you knew about it? (where “1” is not at all, and “5” is definitely)1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5Q4: If the above answer is yes, how easy was it use the program? (“1” being the easiest, “5” be-ing the most difficult)1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 Q5: Are you aware of the environmental impacts of electronic waste?YES / NOQ6: Are you concerned about the environmental impacts of electronic waste?YES / NOQ7: Do you believe the costs of this recycling program are worth the potential benefits?YES / NOQ8: Do you have any further suggestions? Please leave any further comments at the bottom.

ACTIVITY AWARENESS PROBLEMS SUGGESTIONS

Pick-up sites on campus

Drop-off sites in Halifax

Types of e-waste that can be collected

Rules and regulations of program

Environmental Impact in Halifax

18 of 24

ACTIVITY AWARENESS PROBLEMS SUGGESTIONS

Environmental Impact Globally

19 of 24

Appendix D: Raw Data

20 of 24

67%

33%

Yes No

Figure 2. Have you used the e-waste recycling program for your faculty? (n=24)

67%

33%

Yes No

21 of 24

0

4

8

11

15

potentially not sure probably definetly skipped

Nu

mb

er

of

resp

on

den

ts

Willingness to use e-waste facility

Figure 3. If the answers Q1 and Q2 were no, would you use a program if you knew about it? (n=24)

0

3

5

8

10

very difficult difficult neither easy very easy skipped

Nu

mb

er

of

resp

on

den

ts

Categories of response

Figure 4. If the answer to Question 2 is yes, how easy was it use the program? (n=24)

22 of 24

4%

Figure 5. Are you aware of the environmental impacts of electronic

waste?

Figure 6. Are you concerned about the environmental impacts

of electronic waste?

88%

8%

4%

Yes No Skipped

23 of 24

Yes No Skipped

Yes

No

Skipped

0 8 15 23 30Number of respondents

Resp

on

ses

Figure 7. Do you believe the costs of this recycling program are worth the

potential benefits?

4% 4%

Appendix E: Answers to the last survey question

24 of 24

Yes NoSkipped

Figure 8. Do you think the university should invest in the

e-waste program?