The university previously posted signs and recycling bins in the cafeteria for their polystyrene materials. These contaminants led to the bags being thrown out due to the non-recyclable material. The positive reinforcement contingencies (i.e., the draw and competition) increased the amounts of paper delivered to the residence collection rooms above baseline levels and above the levels observed after the distribution of leaflets encouraging paper recycling behavior for the improvement of ecology (i.e., the fast condition ) (Austin & Vancouver, 1996).
These signs were placed in the busiest areas in Grove and Circle. The logo was a result of the original "I heart New York" shirts, but was related to the school situation and read "I Tree Grove". The word "tree" wasn't actually on the shirt, but a picture of a tree was. The use of many modeling instructions was in the form of images via social media.
The tweet said: “Remember to recycle in the Grove tomorrow and keep the Grove beautiful. Don’t forget to RECYLE Ole Miss fans!” The incentive is probably in a win against a rival. The stadium again used direct prompting with volunteers at the entrances and a jumbotron announcement.
Fans pictured in the Grove of Circle reenactment had a chance to be recognized on the jumbotron during the game. Signs were used in the tailgate and recycling bags were distributed at each tent. These were the signs posted in the Grove and Circle every game that read "Please Recycle".
Game 2 Game 3 Game 4 Game 5 Game 6 Game 7
The total diversion rate, recycling per person in the stadium, recycling per person in the tailgate, and total recycling per person were also given by Landscape Services and recalculated by the Green Grove Coordinator. Recycling per person in the stadium, tailgate and total (stadium and tailgate combined) was calculated based on stadium attendance. The tailgate recycling per person plus the stadium recycling per person equaled the total recycling per person.
Again, the stadium and tailgate distraction rates were added together to equal the game's total distraction rate. The tailgating education and encouraging interventions resulted in a fairly good tailgate diversion rate of 1.13% and 960 pounds of recyclables. The stadium's simple effort resulted in a very good diversion rate of 0.28% and 240 pounds of recyclables.
Total conversion rate for game no. 1 was 1.41% and averaged about 40 pounds of recycled materials per volunteer (see Table 2 and Table 3). The education and promotion interventions resulted in the second highest diversion rate of 1.24% and 1,140 pounds of recycled materials. A live announcement on the jumbotron in the stadium resulted in a fairly high conversion rate.
These factors are probably the reason why match number two had the highest conversion rate in the stadium. Only 800 pounds of recycling was collected at tailgates where only direct signs were used, a 0.5 percent diversion rate. The game resulted in the highest diversion and recycling rate per person of any game.
The tailgate also collected .04 pounds of recycling per person; it was significantly higher than any other game. Race seven relied only on the use of direct cues in the tailgate and had a diversion rate of 1.12% and 1480 pounds of recovery. The stadiums redirection rate was .15% and the total redirection rate was 1.17%, both quite low rates.
Game 2 Game 3 Game 4 Game 5 Game 6 Game7 Game Stats
Game 2 Game 3 Game 4 Game 5 Game 6 Game7 Total (Tailgate + Stadium)
For example, the second highest play for recycling per person was at game number three of the season. This incentive appeared to result in the large increase in recycling per person, especially at the stadium, where it went from >.022 pounds per person to 0.029 pound person. For example, game six used all 11 intervention methods and saw the first implementation of reusable bags at each tent, modeling prompts, and a competition incentive.
For example, after the education volunteers were used in all previous games, they were removed in the fifth game of the season. Diversion rates were second lowest in game number seven, where education was also not used. This means that this evaluation does not determine whether the interventions were a direct result of the observed changes.
It is possible that factors outside of the Green Grove initiatives could have led to the increase in recycling during the 2012 football season. For example, researchers could use alternating treatment designs in which some measures vary systemically by game. Limitations of this case study include many contextual factors in the game that are not controlled by researchers.
It can also include factors such as weather on match days or the time of the game. For example, in match number five it rained throughout the day and during waste and recycling cleanup. Many of the metrics required the involvement of others, including Landscape Services, rather than the researcher.
Game number five had so many estimated stats that it was thrown out as irrelevant. For example, placing recycling bags at each tent appears to be particularly effective in making recycling more convenient. For example, game number three had fewer volunteers than game number two, but more recycling was collected.
For example, game number one and game number three had roughly the same number of volunteers (ie, game one: 33, game three: 40). The third game collected 57.5 pounds of recycling per volunteer, while the first game only collected 36.5 pounds per volunteer.
