1

Plastic-Free Skidmore? A Feasibility of Reducing the Purchasing and Use of Single-Use

Plastics on Skidmore College’s Campus

Abstract:
Our year-long research investigated the feasibility of Skidmore College becoming a
plastic-free campus, in collaboration with student interns working with the non-profit OCEANA.
There has not been a plastics-free analysis of Skidmore college’s campus, which we found to be
surprising. We looked at the current distribution of single-use plastics by vending operations and
Dining Services and determined whether or not Skidmore could reduce and replace these items
with sustainable alternatives in a typical (non-COVID) year. After doing a literature review of
the global implications and impacts of plastics, we conducted action and archival research on
campus, such as participating in a plastic clean up and discussion, as well as studying a dining
hall invoice and calculating per-item costs of several commonly-used plastic items. We also
conducted semi-structured interviews with the larger college community and regional
stakeholders, and distributed a college campus survey to over 210 respondents to gauge student
perceptions about single-use plastics on campus. Overall, we determined that going plastics-free
would provide multiple positive benefits for Skidmore College, including positive optics,
economic savings of $115-175 per 1000 uses per item replaced with alternatives, and positive
contributions to regional waste management and Skidmore’s Sustainability goals. This transition
is supported by Skidmore’s Student Government Association, which passed a plastics-free
resolution to help reduce single-use plastics on campus. We conclude by suggesting several
recommendations that the college can adopt, such as having plastics items by request only,
implementing the Sustainability Office’s Sustainable Workplace Initiative--which is currently
being drafted--replacing single-use items with compostable, wooden, and/or reusable
alternatives, and continued communication between campus community members. Further
research and student support should be invested in the issue, as well as dialogue between all
actors on campus, in order to prompt Skidmore to reduce its reliance on single-use plastics on
campus.
 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page

ABSTRACT……………………………………………………………………………..………. .1

TABLE OF CONTENTS……………………………………………………………….….…….. 2

CHAPTER

1. INTRODUCTION…………………………………….…………………………..4

2. PURPOSE STATEMENT…………………………………………………….…...8

2.1 Arguments for Single Use Plastics Reduction…………………...……8

2.2 Economic Benefits……………………………………………….……9

2.3 Local Policy Impacts and Changes…………………………………..10

3. LITERATURE REVIEW…………………………………………………...……10

3.1 Global Plastics Abundance and Environmental Health……………...10

3.2 Plastics and Politics…………………………………………………..12

3.3 Role of COVID-19………………………………………………..….14

3.4 Campus Initiatives…………………………………………………...15

4. RESEARCH METHODS….………………………………………………….....17

5. RESEARCH QUESTIONS……………………………………………………...17

6. RESEARCH RESPONDENTS AND SETTING……………………………......18

7. QUALITATIVE INSTRUMENTATION AND SAMPLING TECHNIQUES…..19

7.1 Surveys…………………………………………………………….....19

7.2 Semi-Structured Interviews and Focus Groups……………………...19

7.3 Action Research..…………………………………………………….19

7.4 Archival Research.…………….……………………………………..19

 3

8. DATA ANALYSIS AND LIMITATIONS.……………………………………....20

9. DATA COLLECTION AND FINDINGS..……………………………………....21

9.1 Stakeholders’ Perspectives...………………………………………....21

9.2 Dialogue & Discovery……………………………………………….21

9.3 Economic Findings….……………………………………………….23

9.4 Public Perceptions…………………………………………………...25

10. RECOMMENDATIONS………………………………………………………...31

11. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS………………………………………………...33

11.1 Research Discussions ……………………………………………....33

11.2 Research Conclusions………………………………………………33

BIBLIOGRAPHY………………………………………………………………………………..35

1.) Introduction:
 4

While most people are familiar with The 3 R’s: Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle, recycling is
often considered the last option, although at times, feels like the only option---which is why the
practice is broken in the United States. In the 1990’s, China was bringing cargo ships into the US
with goods for sale, and empty plastic water bottles were loaded onto returning cargo ships and
thus, the U.S. recycling market expanded. However, in 2018, China’s economy evolved and
instituted a new plan called the National Sword: only purchasing spotless plastic items, perfectly
sorted, and accepting 24 fewer types of materials. The recycling market shriveled up, and
negatively impacted U.S. recycling markets. The fossil fuel industry is losing a tremendous
amount of market share thanks to the emergence and increasing prevalence of renewable energy
sources. Now, the fossil fuel industry has resorted to Plan B: copious plastic production,
followed by melting plastics and turning them into fuel (Beyond Plastics, 2020).
Plastic is the salvation of the fossil fuel industry. Regaining and maximizing profit within
the fossil fuel industry means nothing more than changing the polluting vessel; instead of fueling
cars, like other fossil fuel consumptive things, the fossil fuel industry is turning fossil fuels into
single-use plastic. A larger problem persists: single-use plastic remains pervasive and degrades
human and environmental health. Thus, we encounter a resolution to the daunting question:
What is the efficacy of individual action and productivity of collective consciousness? If
collective demand can influence and ultimately change the polluting vessel (from vehicle fuel to
single-use plastics), we can assume a similar response from the fossil fuel industry when we
reject the consumption of single-use plastics. If the fossil fuel industry sustains, what will the
next polluting vessel be changed to? Will the response be more elusive and less tangible? Will
the market for single-use plastics shrivel up? Before we can answer these questions, we must
create the conditions for a reality that prompts such considerations on Skidmore’s campus.
Increased individual awareness on campus among students, staff, and professors can facilitate
pro-environmental behavior on and off campus. Skidmore’s collective consciousness behind the
plastics-free initiative does not exist inside a vacuum; it’s origins are derived from the
institutional scale. Colleges and universities around the nation have catalyzed this initiative, and
their existence inspires institutions like Skidmore. Institutions are composed of constituents that
should take advantage of their capacity to pressure elected officials. Congressmen are aware of
anti-plastics bills (see Break Free From Plastics bill), and a loud voice paired with decisive,
strategic actions is the advocacy that is the key in the democratic process to push legislation.

While our qualitative Action Research focuses on plastics reduction and disposal on
college campuses, it is important to understand the broader arena within which plastics
production and disposal operates. Since the 1950s, plastic pollution and its proper disposal have
been problems that have affected the environment, economics, politics, and society. “Plastic is an
inexpensive, plentiful, and versatile man-made organic compound that has grown rapidly in
terms of the production and consumption of goods since the 1950s...” (Geyer, Lambeck &
Lavender, 2017, p.1). When plastic production took off in the 1950s, it was seen as an
opportunity for growth, development, and convenience for the producer and consumer alike.
Plastic promised to be cheap, durable, and versatile material that could simply be used and
disposed of without second thought. However, as plastic has become more prevalent, the
attributes that once made it seem so attractive have posed long-term consequences; because it is
not a natural material and is designed to be durable, plastic does not decompose easily. Now,
microplastics have been found in almost every corner of the planet, contributing to the
 5

destruction of ecosystems, food chains, and species. Every single piece of plastic produced still
exists on Earth.

Since 1967, global plastic production has risen from around 2m tonnes a year to 380m
tonnes (Geyer, 2017). Figure 1 shows global primary plastics production (in millions metric tons)
according to industrial use sector from 1950 to 2015. Figure 2 is a representation of global
primary plastics waste generation (in million metric tons) according to industrial use sector from
1950 to 2015.

Figure 1: Global primary plastics production (in millions metric tons) by industrial use sector from 1950 to 2015

Figure
2: Global
primary
plastics
 6

waste generation (in million metric tons) by industrial use sector from 1950 to 2015.

Unfortunately, of the 6.3bn tonnes of plastic waste produced since the 1950’s, only 9%
has been recycled and another 12% incinerated; the rest has been landfilled or scattered
throughout the oceans and natural environment. Often, as with disposable coffee cups, drink
bottles, plastic wrappers, plastic utensils, and other packets that account for much of the plastic
produced in Europe and America, are used for one-off indulgence (single-use plastics). In normal
conditions, plastic simply accumulates in the environment, much as carbon dioxide does in the
atmosphere. The oceans have been identified as a common pool resource that are susceptible to
degradation and over exploitation. In our modern “plastic era” plastic debris in the marine
environment has become as much a “commons” and a “tragedy” as is the very oceans they reside
in. It is now estimated that 8,300 metric tons of plastic have been produced by humans since the
1950s, and if these rates continue, 12,000 metric tons will be in the natural environment by 2050
(Geyer et al., 2017). 80% of plastic in oceans is sourced from litter, and currently only 8.5% of
plastic in the United States is recycled. In the next 8 - 9 years, there will be one pound of plastic
for every three pounds of fish in the oceans. Plastic waste can have a negative effect on people,
animals, and ecosystems. When plastic waste ends up in the oceans, marine wildlife suffer, and
there is an annual death of more than 100,000 marine mammals and turtles and 1 million sea
birds (Surfers Against Sewage, 2020). When sea creatures die and suffer from plastic waste, this
inevitably rises up the food chain to impact humans. This catastrophe is an environmental,
economic, and ethical dilemma: What will happen to the communities that rely heavily on fish as
their exclusive food source? Solutions to managing the tragedy of plastic pollution, as any
commons, are multifaceted requiring a mixture of regulation, economic/market and
community-based efforts. They range from local community efforts to global actions.

As discussed above, plastic waste and its disposal and recycling is a problem, and
“...plastic waste exports have flowed from affluent OECD countries to poorer East Asian and
Pacific nations, who received 70% of OECD plastic waste in 2016” (Brooks, Wang & Jambeck ,
2018, p.1). Developing countries are plagued with plastic waste, which contributes to a
systematically unfair and unsustainable system of waste accumulation and treatment. Policies to
combat this unfair distribution of plastic waste have been created, but more needs to be done. For
instance, in 2017, China, one of the countries which receives the most plastic waste from other
countries, banned imported plastic from nonindustrial sources (municipal waste). At that point,
many countries, such as the United States, needed to find alternative ways to sell and recycle
their plastic waste.

Until businesses and governments are held accountable for the plastic waste crisis, the
burden lies on everyday humans to change the single use plastic mentality. A
not-in-my-backyard (NIMBY) attitude exists among the human population. Attitudes like this
only exacerbate the plastic waste problem because even though the plastic waste may not be in
someone’s “backyard,” the waste is still somewhere on Earth and having a lasting negative
impact. Public support runs generally high for this apolitical environmental issue. Risk
perceptions can be improved by greater stakeholder involvement and utilization of citizen
science and thereby improve the foundation for timely and efficient societal measure (Syberg,
2015).
 7

When the Chinese Government’s National Sword policy was passed in 2018, it impacted
the US on the federal, state, and regional level. What is the fate of a plastic after it meets a
recycling bin? Hint: not new bottles. Peculiarly, plastics are made into things like fleece and
sleeping bags after the fact, but only after scrambling US recycling markets searched for
alternative markets to occupy. A low-cost input and an output that could retail for dozens of
times more, this helps explain the power of the recycling market. When the National Sword was
signed into legislation, the recycling market crippled virtually overnight. Recycling plants
located in the US now had no vendor to purchase the piled plastic, faced with dealing with the
heaps of plastic on their own. This yielded horrifying sights: boats full of plastics drifting around
the Pacific waiting for a place to dump it, landfills at overcapacity. If the balance of the recycling
market can be so easily disturbed and for the effects to translate into human
wellbeing/environmental concerns suggests that we code less to recycling as a tool for mitigating
CO2 emissions.

We remain reliant on incrementalism, but it is being weaponized to stifle progressiveness.

How can incrementalism be more efficient on the mitigation approach? We see the massive
collection of plastic floating off the coast of California, met with the news title “A teenager’s
plan to trawl for plastic in the Pacific becomes reality” (The Economist, 2018, p.1). This teens
project is an extraordinary example of innovation, yet as stewards of our Earth’s physical
condition, we face a dilemma when we hear about civic efforts of sustainability and
environmentalism. This innovation serves as an excellent medium for environmental education
in media; something adults rarely receive or seek out in comparison to their reliance on the
Earth’s resources. This innovation could be developed to maximize productivity. It instills hope
into US citizens that issues as large as climate change effects can be challenged in a
boots-on-the-ground way. Even better, this innovation will clear some of the plastic out of the
Pacific and relieve the affected aquatic ecosystems of some external pollution pressures. Yet,
how efficient can this strategy be if the rate of oceans’ plastic input exceeds the rate of
point-source collection?

Mitigatory legislation is quite literally compared to the “upstream approach,” closely

monitoring the problem at the source. Adaptation is reliant on the negative externalities being
relatively reliable, controllable, and for combative resources to be stable and plentiful. We
understand that there are many implications to reducing plastic production, specifically in
relation to the economy. Amidst a lot of sad news, there's a glimmer of light -- there's a very
strong new federal bill that could begin to address our plastic pollution crisis in the U.S: The
Break Free From Plastic Pollution Act (SB 3263/ HR 5845) is considered to be the gold standard
of federal legislation to make meaningful reductions in the amount of plastic pollution in the
U.S. This policy proposal pushes for: a circular model to shift the responsibility from local
governments to the producers, a national container deposit with a ten-cent national refund for all
beverage containers, a ban on export of plastic waste to OECD countries, and a pause on new
plastic facilities while federal updates regulations. (Beyond Plastics, 2020).

2.) Purpose Statement:

In addition to the mitigation and adaptation approaches mentioned above, students in
colleges across the United States are taking action to decrease single-use plastic purchasing and
usage, such as in Haverford, Middlebury, and Wesleyan College in order to decrease plastic
 8

production and demand. Oceana, a national nonprofit organization in the U.S., is attempting to
help reduce plastic waste in oceans by promoting plastic-free movements across the country,
such as the Break Free from Plastics Pledge (Oceana, 2020).

The purpose of this qualitative Action Research is to better understand the social,
political, and economic feasibility of Skidmore banning or reducing the prevalence of single-use
plastics on campus. Our research also works to better understand if having Skidmore College go
“plastic-free” would offer a variety of other benefits, none of which are exclusive or limited to
Skidmore College’s campus and property itself. Further, our research hopes to present these
outcomes to Skidmore College and the community so that possibly, new policies and procedures
can be realized, in order to bolster campus sustainability initiatives in relation to procurement
and the management of plastic solid waste.

2.1 Arguments for Single Use Plastics Reduction: Sustainability and Human Health
Changes in purchasing and the extent of use of single-use plastics by Skidmore College
could possibly make the college campus a more sustainable enterprise, as it would be reducing a
large component of worldwide waste streams. Plastic material specifically makes up a sizable
part of the municipal solid waste stream in the United States, an estimate being 10% by mass
(Barnes, 2009). However, this number is probably much higher, due to a higher use of plastic
materials used for packaging in recent years, in addition to increases in the number of plastic
bags and single-use items as a result of safety precautions for COVID-19. Additionally, while
plastics make up only a small portion of the entire waste stream in weight, they take up a large
portion in volume (Thompson, 2009). Therefore, shifting from single-use plastics to reusable
containers, bags, etc. would not only reduce the amount of municipal solid waste being generated
on campus and in traditional waste streams, but it would contribute to the campus sustainability
goals by adding more reusable and multi-use materials to campus.

On the other hand, reducing the amount of plastics used by Skidmore College would
greatly contribute to improving local environmental and human health, as well as larger
environmental systems, such as the world’s oceans. Plastic contamination of natural
environments can be found across a wide range of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. Plastics
have long lifespans, are persistent in their environments, provide vehicles for invasive species,
break down into microplastics, and can attract other pollutants as they decompose (Barnes, 2009;
Oceana, 2020; Thompson, 2009). Most of these plastics end up in the world’s oceans and shores,
in some cases making up 50–80% of all the oceans’ and shorelines’ waste (Barnes, 2009). As
plastics degrade and make their way into bodies of water and the world’s oceans, they float, are
washed ashore, and are in either case eaten by fish and other aquatic animals, causing various
injuries, health complications, and death to wildlife (Barnes, 2009: Thompson, 2009; Zaman,
2011). In addition to the harm this causes these organisms, the plastic they have ingested
bioaccumulates in their bodies and tissues, working its way up the food chain until it reaches
humans in highly concentrated forms (Zaman, 2011). Plastic production and pollution have a
wide variety of known and unknown adverse health effects on humans. Toxic chemicals such as
Phthalates and Bisphenol A (BPA) can leach from plastics, such as bottles and other food-grade
plastic containers. These toxins have been linked to human health complications such as
testicular, prostate, and breast cancers, potential neurological disorders, premature and still-born
births, and other birth defects (Zaman, 2011; Thompson, 2009). Subsequently, reducing the
 9

college’s use of these plastics will, in turn, reduce the amount of plastic pollution and detrimental
health effects that impact human and natural environments.

2.2 Economic Benefits:

Shifting to reusable containers and discarding single-use plastics can potentially have a
large effect on the College’s finances and make economic sense. By running cost-benefit
analyses of single-use plastics vs multi-use alternatives for Skidmore College at multiple levels,
it is possible to determine if Skidmore College can save money by switching to alternatives. In
addition to the sheer amount of plastics used on campus, and the plastic waste that Skidmore
accumulates, the current fulfilment economy promises to generate more plastic waste and
increase costs for waste disposal. Therefore, switching away from this waste and economy could
have positive financial benefits in the future (both short and long-term). According to Langloss,
this can be used not only as incentive for investment into reusables, but also the saved money can
be funneled in other projects, such as financial aid or work-study programs, among others. As a
result, potential savings from ending purchases of single-use plastics can be used to benefit
multiple programs in, around, and off campus (personal communication, October 1, 2020).

Meanwhile, shifting away from single-use plastics has the additional advantage of ending
Skidmore’s reliance on an unsustainable and unstable technology and market. From a production
standpoint, limited fossil fuel reserves, landfill capacity, and single/short use of plastics makes
the continued use of plastics in their current capacity unsustainable and non-perpetual
(Thompson, 2009). Additionally, with the recent import restrictions of China, (one of the world’s
largest plastic waste importers and recyclers), on the recycling market, it is estimated that 111
million metric tons of plastic waste will be displaced by 2030 (Brooks et al., 2018.) Continuing
to rely on this non-marketable product can have dire economic consequences in the long-run, and
it is best that Skidmore, along with other colleges that have already done so, consider reducing or
ending the purchasing and use of plastic in light of these policies.

2.3 Local Policy Impacts and Changes:

Whereas part of our project and research is directed to better understand the benefits to
Skidmore College itself, our research works in partnership with OCEANA, to direct local policy
towards removing plastics to help the environment (Oceana, 2020; B. Langloss, personal
communication, October 1, 2020). If Skidmore College goes plastic-free, then it will have a large
impact on plastic purchasing and management policies for other colleges and civil society
organizations, and has the potential for other constituents to also go “plastic-free.” This includes
other colleges and school districts that have not, or have partially implemented plastic-free
campus initiatives, as well as local businesses and municipalities. Additionally, Skidmore has a
large amount of influence on the NY-21 Congressional District. Having the College go plastic
free would potentially help to support bipartisan agreement on policies that work to reduce
plastic and use in NY state and beyond. Lily Feldman and Brian from Oceana are both working
on a plastic campaign which involves Skidmore college. Their campaign and our research will be
combined to produce information on whether Skidmore College can go plastic free.

3.) Literature Review:

Both before and during our capstone project, we researched numerous articles, findings,
and journal articles that detailed the extent of research into the global plastics abundance
 10

problems on the environment, global health, and the impacts of COVID-19 on the plastics
problem. Furthermore, we looked at various campus initiatives that have been done in the past in
order to reduce their reliance on plastic products, to varying degrees of success. In compiling an
extensive literature review, we can acknowledge previous work that has been done in these areas,
address their findings, and state with purpose what it is we hope to add to the existing body of
literature by completing our capstone research project.
3.1 Global Plastics Abundance and Environmental Health:
Barnes’ “Accumulation and Fragmentation of Plastic Debris in Global Environments”
(2009) is an often-cited text that provides a key background to the global plastics problem. This
paper details the effect of plastics on global environments, mainly aquatic, ocean, and coastal
areas, opening up with the line:
“One of the most ubiquitous and long-lasting recent changes to the surface of our planet is the
accumulation and fragmentation of plastics. Within just a few decades since mass production of
plastic products commenced in the 1950s, plastic debris has accumulated in terrestrial
environments, in the open ocean, on shorelines of even the most remote islands and in the deep
sea” (Barnes, 2009, p.1985).
In addition to this research, it also examines the general characteristics of waste streams
and disposal, as well as describing the abundance of plastics in waste streams. The paper looks
mainly at the US, having determined that it is difficult to determine types and content of waste
streams in other countries. The paper uses various published data, as well as surveys and
observations in order to reach its data conclusions and present new data questions. Overall, this
paper provides a good background into the general problems of waste management and
generation, as well as abundance of plastic in the United States’ waste stream. Additionally, it
provides the environmental and environmental health component to the argument as to why the
use of (single-use) plastics is bad and should be banned or reduced, as it states that …we have
made little progress in reducing the release of plastic to the environment (Barnes, 2009).
Building directly off the findings and argument of Barnes (2009) is Thompson’s
“Plastics, the Environment and Human Health: Current Consensus and Future Trends” (2009).
This paper focuses on the environmental and human health effects, as well as the economic
unsustainability of plastics. More specifically, it describes 7 focuses: “Plastics as materials;
Accumulation of plastic waste in the natural environment; Effects of plastic debris in the
environment and on wildlife; Effects on humans; Production, usage, disposal and waste
management solutions; Biopolymers: degradable and biodegradable polymer solutions; and
Policy measures” (Thompson, 2009, p.2153-2154).
Thompson (2009) provides a detailed background on the overall prevalence of plastics in
environments around the world, and how this affects (marine) wildlife. Thompson also includes a
note that plastics have the potential to leech toxic chemicals into the environment, which can
have detrimental effects on wildlife as well as humans (p.2156-2159). Thompson includes
various focuses on reducing plastic use, production, and reliance, such as the 5 R’s of plastics
(reduce, reuse, recycle, recovery, redesign), and solutions that utilize the public, industry, and
policy. For example, the author calls for a redesigning of plastic packaging so that they are more
efficient and use less plastics, are streamlined and are labeled in order to be made easier to
recycle suggesting a “traffic light” system, where different plastics can be labeled with different
colored dots to represent their recyclability (Thompson, 2009, p. 2160). Additionally, the paper
 11

discusses the potential for future plastic policy, “emphasizing the need for policy relating to
plastic to weigh societal and economic benefits against environmental and health concerns,”
(Thompson, 2009, p. 2163). Data for this paper was taken from other published sources and
writings and compiled into this report.

Similar to Thompson (2009), Siracusa (2008) gives a background into the overproduction
and abundance of plastics, but focuses mainly on advocating for biodegradable plastics. Siracusa
et. al 2008 describe the bioplastics market, stating that “Bioplastics development is just
beginning; until now it cover[s] approximately 5–10% of the current plastic market, about
50,000 t in Europe.” (Siracusa, 2008, p.10). Siracusa argues that while not all biodegradables
right now are compostable, nor are they made up of 100% renewable materials, fully
biodegradable plastics would require less energy to dispose of than recycling regular plastics.
Siracusa also states that bioplastics currently contain more than 50% by weight renewable
resources, and claims that in a 100% renewable system, (emphasis added), composting plastics
would also help grow new products that can be made into biodegradable/compostable plastics
(Siracusa, 2008).

Geyer (2017) provides background to how detrimental the plastic problem is in terms of
various statistics. Geyer calculates how much the global production of resins has increased over
time, and provides a model for how long plastics are used before they reach the end of their
lifetimes and are discarded and/or too degraded for use. The history of plastics and plastics
production, plastic recycling, plastic incineration, and plastic discard rates are provided within
the paper. Overall, Geyer concludes that disposing of plastic has been a problem since it was first
invented, and it continues to be an issue which globally affects a huge proportion of people.

Brooks (2018) provides background of the negative impacts of plastic around the world.
Over half of the plastic intended to be recycled ends up being exported globally. China has
imported 45% of plastic waste since 1992 and recently put in place a policy which bans the
importation of plastic waste in 2018. This is a problem that affects countries around the world
(especially the US) as China has been the biggest buyer of recyclables and other plastic waste.
Commodity trade data is used to illustrate the higher-income countries export plastic waste to
lower-income countries. This information can be used to demonstrate the extent to which plastic
is a global problem and offers ideas and actions for reducing nonrecyclable plastic, redesigning
products, and funding domestic management which can mitigate plastic.

Zaman, author of “The Prevalence and Environmental Impact of Single-Use Plastic

Products,” takes a more specific look at the prevalence and harm of single-use plastics,
(particularly packaging/container plastics,) in the environment and in human health (2010). The
paper mostly talks about specific effects of toxins in these plastics have on human and animal
health, and suggests the often-debated process of bioaccumulation of plastics in fishes reaching
up the food chain towards humans. The paper also poses various alternatives and remedies to
plastics, ranging from the general and specific “reduce reliance on plastics,” to more specific
“I.e. impose a tax on plastic products on businesses.” (Zaman, 2011, p.5-6). The paper also calls
for more research into certain fields like bioplastics and biodegradable plastics, and states that
banning plastics would only be feasible after implementing several other prevalent
plastic-reduction measures and alternatives (Zaman 2011, p.6-7).
 12

3.2 Plastic in Politics

One of the largest areas of study in the global environmental plastic problem is in marine
environment research; where most plastics end up. While discussed previously by authors such
as Barnes (2009) and Thompson (2009), Whitehouse and Murkowski (2017) takes the approach
that marine debris is one of the few environmental issues of the modern era that has broad
bipartisan support for action in the United States Congress. The Environmental Caucus' made
significant legislative progress in recent years, and in ocean data collection and monitoring. The
Caucus brought these issues into the Save Our Seas Act, which the source names as a “truly
bipartisan bill” it cosponsored with six other members of the Senate Oceans Caucus (Whitehouse
and Murkowski, 2017).

At the time of this writing, the bill just passed the Senate Commerce, Science, and
Transportation Committee unanimously and is heading to the floor for consideration. NOAA's
Marine Debris Program already does essential work recovering fishing gear, 43 supporting
cleanups, 44 and promoting the Works Committee. The wide support of this bill is
understandable, considering how low-reaching the bill is. Part of Oceana’s mission is to pass the
competing plastics-reduction bill Break Free From Plastic Pollution Act (which upon partnership
we have inherited as our own,) and it is important to understand the political landscape as we
push our initiative towards the Republican NY-21 Congressional District, which will be essential
for shifting larger plastic policy in and around Skidmore College.

Similar to Whitehouse and Murkowski, Northup’s 2019 “Legislation to Reduce

Microplastic Pollution: Understanding the Factors that Facilitated Passage of the Federal
Microbead-free Waters Act of 2015” focuses on political action regarding the global plastics
problem. Centered around the passage of the Microbead-free Waters Act of 2015, this study
offers steps to policy negotiation under the general agreement that a plastic microbead ban was
appropriate. The foremost topics of policy negotiation included 1. the definition of plastic
microbead, 2. the timeframe for phasing out personal care products containing plastic
microbeads, and 3. the preemption of state and local laws.

This study also analyzes the political factors at play during the consideration of the
Microbead-free Waters Act of 2015, finding that despite a highly partisan political environment
(including stark policy divides on environmental legislation), three political factors allowed the
bill to pass rather quickly: stakeholder buy-in, bipartisan support stemming from shared interests
to protect the health of the Great Lakes, and finally, sponsorship of the bill by the leadership of
the committee of jurisdiction. Skidmore could replicate conditions to appeal to the same three
aforementioned political factors. Initial bipartisanship followed by forward-moving
incrementalism can lead to progressive policy, as portrayed by the Child Health Insurance Safety
Net implemented from 1982–1997 (Flint, 2014).

Although it has been established that plastic pollution itself is viewed negatively by the
two leading political parties in the US, discourse on policy solutions remains highly divided.
Oftentimes, as depicted in a legislative meeting between Senator Lott and Vice President Al
Gore, this division sometimes exists for reasons that do not seem pertinent to policy content. J.L.
Hilley recounts this interaction in the journal “The challenge of legislation: Bipartisanship in a
partisan world” (2008). Vice President Gore responded forcefully to Sen. Lott, stating that the
 13

administration would insist on having financially solvent polluters pay the major share of
cleaning up hazardous waste sites. This position was “anathema to most Republicans, who
preferred to have the public pick up rather substantial costs of cleanup.” Representative Gephardt
followed, insistent on keeping the peace and calling for “the regular order, including committee
consideration” so as to prevent leadership-driven initiatives to end-run Congress (Hilley, 2008,
p.32-33). We should prepare for the ideological disparities between Skidmore College/Saratoga
Springs (Dem) and the NY-19 District (Rep) when considering the potential policy
implementation following Skidmore’s plastic-free initiative.

The behavioral response of consumers--or lack thereof--elicited by the Portuguese plastic

carrier bag tax is valuable to note. A study by Martinho et al. in 2017 provides research on
plastic bag taxes which may be an option for Skidmore if they cannot go plastic free completely.
The results demonstrated a reduction of plastic bag consumption and an increase of reusable
plastic bags. However, the consumption of garbage bags increased. The tax had no effect on
consumer’s perceptions of litter in the ocean or the negative impact of plastic bags, and instead
the tax was agreed upon but also considered extra revenue to the State. The methods were
face-to-face surveys conducted near shops, and some of the questions on the surveys may be
useful to include in our surveys regarding plastic consumption. Consumers’ behavior is
important because if consumers do not want to go plastic free, then it is difficult to go plastic
free.

The intertwining of governments and markets is nothing new, but only in the past century
have there been noted environmental externalities of this phenomenon. Wen et al.’s study on
“Reverse logistics” (2010) looks exclusively at governments and enterprises that choose whether
or not to engage in “reverse logistics” that is, reducing, reusing, recycling, repairing, and other
operations that increase use, utility, and materials, with a focus on the Chinese economic system.
The paper uses various figures and variables to describe the costs/benefits of governments
choosing whether or not to punish or fine entrepreneurs, and whether or not those entrepreneurs
choose to recycle. The conclusion is that with a higher potential fee or punishment for choosing
not to recycle, more businesses will choose to recycle, and demonstrably, the number of
fines/punishments enacted will decrease: “So the effective implementation of government laws
and regulations can promote the recycle of products packaging” (Wen et al, 2010, p.4). In theory,
if a large enough penalty or potential negative effect is held over participating parties, they can
be encouraged to reduce plastic use with minimal actual enactment of those penalties.
3.3 Role of COVID-19
Silva (2020) writes, since COVID-19, an increase in single use plastics has occurred. At
national and regional levels, plastic reduction has been disrupted by COVID-19. More than 40%
of the total production of plastics are single use plastics (SUPs). Since July 2018, 127 countries
implemented legislation which targeted SUPs. Bans, restrictions on the manufacture, production,
importation, and retail distribution have been some of the policies enacted. Environmental taxes,
waste disposal fees or charges, and extended producer responsibility measures are some other
plastic reduction policies. However, since COVID-19, reusable containers and bags have brought
concerns over cross contamination which have led to withdrawals of SUP bans and fees. Masks
have been required in over 50 countries, and disposable masks have increased in production.
Cleaning microfibre wipes, disposable feet protection, head caps and cuffs, protective plastic
films have all increased in production to avoid contamination by air droplets. Redesigning
 14

plastics and making them bio-based is one solution to the plastic problem during COVID-19.
Reusable masks, bags, and other alternatives may lead to less plastic waste. Fees, taxes, and bans
on SUPs should remain intact.

According to Hale (2020), single use plastics end up in aquatic ecosystems and result in
wildlife mortalities. In medical facilities, single use plastics such as gowns, syringes, and gloves
provide protection from infection. The debate between the virus can impact people from surfaces
and whether the virus does not live on surfaces exists. Supporters of COVID-19 infecting others
through the surfaces propose to lift restrictions on single use plastics because of the health and
safety of others. Human-to-human contact would be more likely to spread the COVID-19 than
infrequently handled reusable grocery bags, and paper bags is a solution which may be safer than
single use plastic grocery bags.

Riccardo (2014) introduces a framework for the integrated design of a food packaging
and food distribution network. A sustainable and efficient eco-design solution is provided and
compared with traditional single use packaging. The remainder of the paper includes a literature
review of studies on sustainability in packaging design and selection, includes a conceptual
framework for designing food packages, includes analyzed scenarios and cost benefit analyses,
and includes further research. The paper uses a life cycle assessment methodology to evaluate
the carbon footprint of packages in the network. Sensitivity analysis is used to determine how
drivers and parameters (RPC lifespan, washing rate, waste disposal treatment, network
geography) change the environmental and economic impacts.
Ross and Evans (2003) provides a very in-depth view of the exact energy components
and inputs that go into creating plastic-based food packaging. Taking a LCA of a type of plastic
packaging used by Email Ltd, an Austrian Refrigerator company, the authors look at energy
inputs (such as fossil fuels) and waste potential for the various components needed for the
packaging, as well a proposed additional component that can be used to increase durability and
reusability (high-impact polystyrene (HIPS)). The authors conclude that plastic-based packaging
(as opposed to paper and other packaging) can have significant reductions in waste generation
and overall energy inputs (more so with HIPS.) Additionally, recycling plastic products can
reduce overall energy consumption, while reusing the products reduces this even more.

Similar to Ross and Evans (2003), Arena (2003) looks at plastics recycling in “Italian
system of plastic packaging waste recycling, active until 2001, that collected and mechanically
recycled the post-consumer PE and PET liquid containers.” They worked with Italian
Consortium for Packaging (CONAI) and other companies to analyze the effectiveness of this
recycling program and system from an energy, environmental, and economic standpoint. Their
findings discovered that at the minimum, half (and likely more) of the energy used to
manufacture these plastics is recovered from recycling, making the program extremely
environmental and cost-effective.

Arena (2003) discusses conventional methods of food packaging and other packaging
products, and argues for the justification of recycling plastic containers. According to Arena,
shrink-wrap plastic packaging and plastic as substitutes for other packaging is more efficient,
overall uses less material, and can be recycled afterwards. While it does not seem to talk about
reusing containers first, this can be complied with Ross and Evans to tote the value of
recyclables/renewables on campus. However, it is important to note that the savings are more
 15

“general,” reflecting overall savings in energy and amount of material used in packaging, which
is a benefit more likely to be experienced on the supply side, (like companies and manufacturers,
that make these products) as opposed to the demand side, (like Skidmore College and other
buyers).

3.4 Campus Initiatives

Miller (2011) provides key research into the use of plastic bags on (the University of
Alabama’s) college campuses. It details the Oxymoronic and Paradoxical views of plastic (bags),
and cognitive dissonance (attitude vs behavior,) that are experienced by students and other
members of the local community. Despite majority agreements that plastic bags are harmful and
that reusables are good, most reusable bags are not utilized, and students continue to use plastic
(bags), as they are too common to evoke a response (blend into the background), and is a more a
matter of convenience, rather than not wanting to recycle. The research methods for this paper
are well thought out, using IRB approved and edited surveys with a large body of campus, as
well as observations in the local community. Research questions are well thought out and mirror
our own (with a focus on just plastic bags as opposed to plastics in general), though with
minimal initial thought to alternatives.

Choate et al. (2018) looks at the factors that determine plastic single-use water bottle
usage at Allegheny College. Overall, the paper determines that simply banning plastic (water
bottles) may not be enough for college campuses, since outside influences are always an issue. It
instead calls for a (non-specific) multi-item agenda to reduce plastic waste, and cautions that
there is no one-size-fits-all solution, such as programs aimed specifically towards certain
behavioral changes. As for Allegheny College, the school provided incoming freshmen with
large, stainless-steel water bottles, added more refill stations on campus, and increased public
knowledge on the safety of tap water. Research was done via an IRB survey to students and
members of the campus body, then run through various data analysis and algorithms to sort the
data based on different test subject variables, such as class year.

Lopez (2019) details an initiative which included the school of forestry engineering and
natural resources. Inventories of waste were characterized over a three year period. There were
various activities students and faculty were encouraged to carry out such as challenge recording,
skittles with plastic bottles, initiative presentation, and miscellaneous activities. The study
showed it is possible to reduce single use plastic consumption and waste generators, equipment,
and catering suppliers were important inclusions.
“Plastic free schools is a program that aims to measurably reduce plastic pollution on
school campuses around the world, with a special focus on the reduction of elimination of plastic
bottles, plastic straws and utensils, and plastic food packaging” (Plastic Pollution Coalition,
2017, p. 19). This manual provides important steps a college should take in order to go plastic
free. It talks about going plastic free, campus and community infrastructure, taking action, next
steps, education and outreach, and resources and support. With alternatives to single-use plastics,
it mentions education as an alternative, refusing single-use items or providing upon request,
encouraging reusable items, alternatives through procurement, and cross-disciplinary
alternatives.
 16

The project implemented by the Caradine-Taber study aims to reduce plastic waste of the
Grab n’ Go food service at St. Mary’s College of Maryland by stopping the usage of plastic bags
and by replacing plastic utensils with compostable wooden utensils. Although on a smaller
campus scale compared to all of Skidmore going plastic-free, this study does not analyze the
economic prospects of eliminating plastic from the university-setting. However, it does offer
insights on the misleading biodegradability of PLA plastics (an alternative to single-use plastics)
and the steep cost of this alternative (almost double the cost of petroleum-based products).

Marsh (2007) aligns the mission of a plastic-free initiative with that of the EPA. The EPA
considers source reduction the best way to reduce the impact of solid waste on the environment
because it encompasses using less packaging, designing products to last longer, and reusing
products and materials. The study specifies ways that Skidmore could incorporate more of a
regulatory approach (more upstream than the existing recycling program): the inclusion of
lightweighting packaging materials, purchasing durable goods, purchasing larger sizes (which
use less packaging per unit volume) or refillable containers, and selecting toxic-free products.

Berman (2015) states how single use plastic water bottles significantly contribute to the
waste stream; Americans use approximately 50 billion plastic bottles each year, 38 billion of
which end up in landfills (Berman, 2015). When compared with sugar-sweetened bottled
beverages, single-use plastic water bottles provide a healthy alternative. “According to
independent research by the Beverage Marketing Corporation, approximately 73% of the growth
in bottled water consumption in recent years has come from those who previously drank caloric
drinks, such as soft drinks, juices, and milks” (Berman, 2015, p.1). This study looked at how the
removal of bottled water at the University of Vermont and the implementation of a minimum
healthy beverage requirement affected the amount of bottled beverages purchased, the
healthiness of the beverage choices, and calorie, total sugar, and added sugar consumption.
Studying the impacts of plastic water bottles at a university campus is significant to our study.
During the months of spring 2012, the control before changes occurred was at this time,
beverage changes were changed to 30% healthy beverages in fall 2012, and bottled water was
removed from drink options while keeping the 30% healthy beverage ratio in spring 2013.
Between Spring 2012 and fall 2012, the number of bottles per capita shipped to the university
campus did not change by a lot. When bottled water was banned, during fall 2012 and spring
2013, the per capita number of bottles shipped to campus increased significantly (Berman, 2015).
Some bottled water consumers chose to buy sugar-sweetened beverages. The ban did not appear
to decrease the number of single use plastic bottles entering the waste stream from the University
of Vermont, and instead demonstrated how consumers’ preferences add to their liquid calorie and
added sugars consumption.

4.) Research Methods

Our qualitative case study action research is a collaboration with the non-profit
organization Oceana, in partnership, to reduce the procurement and use of single-use plastics on
the campus of Skidmore College. We chose the case study approach as we sought to understand
people’s lives, perspectives, contextual conditions, and multiple sources of evidence (Yin, 2011,
p. 8). Action Research methods can be described as a collaborative approach “as a means to
systematic action in an effort to resolve social and environmental conditions” (Creswell, 2003, p.
10). According to Berg (2004), “Action research is one of the few research approaches that
embraces principles of participation, reflection, empowerment, and emancipation of people and
 17

groups interested in improving their social situation or condition” (p. 195). Daymon and
Holloway explain that action research is “develop[ing] best practice as well as contribut[ing] to
new knowledge about professional communication” (p.111). We will be collaborating with
Oceana and other stakeholders to understand the design of a plastic free campus and how a
plastic free campus is perceived among students, administrators, and other interviewees.

Our research works to better understand the harms that single-use plastics cause on and
off campus, and the extent to which economic and environmental benefits can be realized via
“going plastic-free.” Additionally, by working with Oceana, we were hoping to broaden our
outreach to include the larger NY-21 Congressional District, peer and aspirant schools, and
influence broader plastic policies at the municipal, district, county, and state levels.

Through source and method triangulation we have compiled our data into a feasibility
report/executive summary that culminates in a suite of recommendations that Skidmore College
can implement to go “plastic-free.” Our discussion and recommendations explore the diversity of
factors that currently serve as barriers to going plastic-free, the opinions and perceptions of
students, faculty, staff, and college officials regarding making Skidmore College a plastic-free
campus, a cost/benefit analysis of the college going plastic free, and easy first steps the college
can take to start the initiative.

5.) Research Questions

Five overarching research questions guided this qualitative case study action Research effort:

1. To what extent can Skidmore College reduce its reliance on single-use plastics?

This is a question that needs to be considered holistically. Our research explored

Skidmore College’s capabilities based on existing student/administrative needs, campus
infrastructure, Skidmore’s relationships with Casella and the plastic supplier/s, and
finances. This question could be reevaluated/reconsidered on an annual basis to sustain
pressure on campus to embrace stronger sustainability initiatives. Apart from Skidmore’s
ability to go plastic free, our research analyzes Skidmore’s willingness to go plastic free,
as well as student demand and preferences.

2. What social and economic factors currently inhibit the college’s ability to go single-use
plastic-free?

We hypothesized that these factors might include, but are not limited to: Skidmore’s path
dependency (the prospect that Skidmore’s only history has included plastics; the
administration might face difficulty in considering/implementing sweeping policy
change), student behavior/culture (unwillingness/inability to change/lack of interest), and
financial concerns (cost of alternatives being more expensive than single-use plastics).

3. To what extent can alternatives to single-use plastics be implemented?

 18

For this research question we will specifically orient our data collection around existing
literature concerning the safety of reusables (and other alternatives to
recyclable/single-use plastics) during the COVID-19 Pandemic.

4. What are the student and administration’s opinions in relation to making Skidmore College a
plastic free campus?

This question helped us to better understand the initial limitations regarding

recommended implementation of the proposed initiative. On the basis of opinions: we
will determine where education can be improved on campus, where campus culture can
be changed, and how to market/present the initiative to students and administration so as
to best appeal to existing perspectives and attitudes.

5. What is the cost/benefit to going plastic free, and where can cost savings be realized and
reinvested?

This question is the economic lens that was utilized during our data collection, analysis,
recommendations, and conclusions, and a lens through which many environmental
initiatives are considered. Cost benefit analysis is an objective, easily translatable
consideration supported by Oceana.

6.) Research Respondents and Setting

Our research engaged primarily with the student body, faculty, and staff on Skidmore
College’s Campus, to capture the respondents that most likely contribute to plastic procurement
and use on campus. Off-campus students that physically visited the campus were also included.
It was important to collect data from students, as they are the largest of the respondent groups,
and are likely the biggest contributors to single-use plastics waste on campus. Additionally,
students primarily contribute to, and make up the College culture, which is a key component to
analyze and break down for the purposes of this research. They will also be instrumental in
voicing further support or momentum for plastic reductions efforts on campus. Faculty, staff, and
administrators were also key respondents, as they (directly or indirectly) set and uphold the
college’s policy in relation to procurement and use of single-use plastic objects. Finally, we
contacted a local business and other colleges with similar plastics-reduction initiatives in order to
get a better understanding of alternative product implementation, as well as insights into what
recommendations should be proposed to Skidmore.

7.) Qualitative Instrumentation and Sampling Techniques

Our case study action research triangulated data collection methods via an online
Qualtrics survey, four semi-structured interviews, archival research, and action research
methodology, as detailed below.

7.1 Surveys
We created an online Qualtrics survey consisting of 21 questions to obtain the attitudes of
Skidmore students, faculty, and staff towards a plastic free campus. This survey was distributed
using a purposive sampling method to a core audience of Skidmore students, faculty, and staff
across the student body and advertised via email across class lists, weekly bulletins, posters, and
 19

social media, including Facebook, and Instagram. Campus community members responding to
the online survey were entered into a raffle for gift cards as an incentive. Out of all survey
recipients, we received a total of 210 responses.

7.2 Semi-Structured Interviews and Focus Groups

Semi-structured interviews consisted of approximately four items and took an average 60
minutes to complete. Interview respondents included Young Grguras, from the Post Landfill
Action Network; Karina Berkley, a student activist from George Washington University; Jen
Natyzak and Levi Rogers, from Skidmore’s Sustainability Office; and Charlie Uras, owner of the
Barrelhouse Restaurant in Saratoga Springs, New York. Semi-structured interviews were
conducted online (via Zoom), in-person, and over the phone, and recorded using a digital voice
recorder.

7.3 Action Research

We conducted a plastic waste cleanup in coordination with Oceana’s on-campus intern, Lily
Feldman. This effort worked to gather physical data in relation to locations of plastic waste on
campus. We wrote notes on trace evidence (collected waste represents more than plastics, some
plastics degraded or thrown deep into bushes), etc. Plastic waste was collected for a total of two
hours, with a drop-off of materials scheduled an hour into the event. Additionally, a plastics art
show was conducted with the collected materials to increase campus visibility and awareness of
its use of single-use plastic. Finally, an open plastics discussion and forum was conducted in the
spring semester to inform campus community members of the research conducted by Oceana’s
on-campus interns and ourselves.

7.4 Archival Research

We researched and received data from various stakeholders and parts of campus. These included
documents such as published statements on sustainability efforts and goals by Skidmore College,
Dining Hall invoices and financial data regarding purchases towards single-use plastics and
retail, and tonnage/tipping data to Casella were all gathered from the College’s websites and
offices (for instance, past and more contemporary Campus Sustainability Reports). We then
analyzed these findings for facts and figures, as well as calculating costs per item for single-use
plastic items for our own cost-benefit analysis. Additionally, we looked at the Dining Hall
invoice for single-use plastic items bought from 2018-2019, and used this to create a cost
analysis of single use items versus alternatives in our data findings.

(8.) Data Analysis and Limitations

Semi-structured interviews were conducted online (via Zoom), and were recorded using
zoom’s recording function and digital voice recorders. The recordings from these interviews
were transcribed to word processing software (Trint) and then edited to fix any transcribing
errors. Data from the Qualtrics surveys was collected, compiled and coded for common
responses/patterns of responses/and deviant cases. All open-ended responses on the survey, as
well as interviews, were analyzed and were categorized to represent common answers as well as
any significant outlier responses (Creswell, 2013). Other more deviant or discrepant information
were selected and noted, to increase data validity (Creswell, 2013). These were compiled into
quote charts, using representative responses, along with longer descriptive narratives, and Type 1
Tabulations – percentages were assigned to the frequency of many responses (Silverman, 2006).
 20

As per action research, photos were taken of plastic collection and locations on campus, and total
amounts of plastic waste were measured and recorded. Archival research was conducted via
Skidmore’s Sustainability Office annual reports and inventories, as well as the other materials
posted on the College’s websites. Additionally, research and figures were taken from the Dining
Services and the Sustainability Office in dealings with plastic-supplying companies and waste
utilities.

Social limitations from COVID-19 do not go unmet within the scope of our study. We
hypothesized that one of the most significant implications to launching a plastics-free initiative
during this pandemic would be the concern over human health and safety; the rate of production
and consumption of single-use plastics has largely increased because single-use plastics are
widely considered to be a low-contact vessel (as oppose to reusable vessels). To account for this,
we sought out existing peer-reviewed publications to compile a literary analysis as a means to
determine the true validity of the notion that single-use plastics are safer than reusable
alternatives. COVID-19 also made it more difficult to meet and discuss our findings, as well as
potentially limiting our number of survey responses.

Regardless of our conclusions derived from the literary analysis, the limitation of health
concerns will remain a barrier to implementing plastics reduction efforts during the COVID-19
pandemic. If we determine that there is no basis to this concern and single-use plastics will be
eliminated on campus, then comes the concern of campus optics being compromised--we want to
avoid Skidmore College being perceived as an institution that values anything over the health
and safety of students and staff.

Our process of quantifying plastic inputs and outputs on campus included data from
Skidmore’s Dining Services. COVID-19 complicates our communication and outreach efforts,
and compromises the degree of communal. We were limited to interviews and did not count the
plastics ourselves, so to some degree, we are unable to know the exact amount of plastics (only
approximate). Similarly, we could not accurately account for the single-use plastics that students
bring from off-campus and discard on-campus. Further constrictions on the study include limited
funding for single-use plastics alternatives and finite time to compile data and expand project
scope.

9.) Data Collection and Findings

9.1 Stakeholders’ Perspectives

Name Organization Position

Young Grguras Post Landfill Action Network Regional Director

Karina Berkely George Washington Student Activist

University

Jennifer Natyzak and Levi Skidmores Sustainability Sustainability Coordinators

Rogers Office
 21

Charlie Uras The Barrelhouse Restaurant Owner

Table 1: Interviewed Stakeholders and Organizations

During our research process, we reached out to the following stakeholders for
information regarding single-use plastics reduction efforts. Young Grguras has extensive
experience working with colleges around the nation to invigorate colleges and universities to
transition towards single-use plastics free. The Post Landfill Action Network (PLAN) provides
institutions with an operational framework and template that guides them towards an efficient
pursuit of a plastics-free horizon. For Karina Berkely, the “plastic free” horizon has become a
reality for George Washington University. Berkeley is a student activist who has sewn the
aspiration to be single-use plastics free into GWU’s administrative framework, and provided us
insights in regards to amending campus vending contracts. We worked extensively with Jennifer
Natyzak and Levi Rogers, who are the Sustainability Coordinators of Skidmore’s Sustainability
Office. They were instrumental to our decision-making process by providing us with the
strengths and weaknesses of prior student-led initiatives on campus. Charlie Uras manages The
Barrelhouse, a Saratoga restaurant that greets it’s customers with alternatives to single-use
plastics sourced from the vendor “FoodStix”. The following compiled data is a collection of
qualitative information gathered to facilitate institutional change.

9.2 Dialogue & Discovery

We found that our research question and greater initiative works in conjunction with
Skidmore College’s 2015-2025 Campus Sustainability Plan and specifically promotes the
fulfillment of the campus’s Waste Goal. This goal provided us a framework to operate
within--this proved advantageous by helping us understand the extent to which Skidmore has
fulfilled this Waste Goal. The goal is twofold, calling for a 60% waste diversion rate from
routine operations and a 50% diversion rate for special projects (Skidmore 2019). Our initiative
is concerned with maximizing the waste diversion rate for routine operations which currently
rests at 32%, despite a slew of completed efforts to further this goal. Several completed
initiatives include: a revision of Skidmore’s purchasing policy to encourage the purchase of some
goods with higher recycled content; a transition to a zero-sort recycling program in September
2013 with Casella Resource Solutions; and the installation of 18 water bottle refill stations
around campus to encourage the use of reusable bottles. This initiative would increase
Skidmore’s waste diversion rate, and pressure the Waste Goal to meet and surpass 60%. By
aspiring to meet and create more ambitious sustainability goals, Skidmore can expect to progress
as an institution that prides itself in its pro-environmental behavior and practices.
Skidmore’s Sustainability Plan is not the only framework internalized by campus
operations that would be furthered. Skidmore’s Plastic-Free Campus initiative supports several
facets of the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which professors in the
Environmental Studies and Sciences Department also incorporate into their curriculum. The
actions of this institution should align with its environmental philosophies. Here are the Goals
outlined in the SDGs that would be furthered by this initiative:

Global Goal #3: Good health & Well-Being

● When we consume food and drink from single-use plastic containers, we are exposed to
chemicals connected to the public health crisis of our time, including ADD/ADHD,
 22

obesity, and cancer.

Global Goal #10: Reduced inequalities--Plastic production and plastic pollution are
environmental and social justice issues
● Plastic production damages local communities where plastic is made with toxic air and
water pollution.
● Fossil fuel companies are locating new and expanded plastic production facilities near
existing fossil fuel infrastructure, which includes targeting the Gulf Coast, the Ohio River
Valley, Appalachia, and other frontline and fenceline environmental justice communities.
These plastic industrial sites have a disproportionate impact on low-income communities,
rural communities, and communities of color
Global Goal #12: Responsible Consumption & Production
● Compostable and reusable alternatives mitigate the impacts of the broken recyclable
market, whereas plastic bottles are “downcycled” into other materials such as polyester
clothing, carpeting, decking material, etc., that are most likely never recycled again
Global Goal #13: Climate Action
● Most plastics are made from virgin (not recycled) materials created from chemicals
sourced from fossil fuels, including an oversupply of fracked gas, which is leading to a
global boom in new plastic production. Plastic production fuels the climate crisis through
the release of greenhouse gases.
Global Goal #14 and #15: Life Below Water and Life on Land
● Plastics and microplastics harm wildlife, land, rivers, lakes, shorelines, and oceans.

The institutional shift towards plastic-free spaces has commenced, and there little case to
be made relating the success of this transition to the location, focus, and size of institutions that
have embraced this shift. Table 2 is a visualization of several colleges and universities that
employ plastic-free initiatives. We expected a disproportionately high concentration of initiatives
to be among small, coastal institutions that are environmentally focused. However, the shift is
just as prevalent within institutions that: don’t see the impacts of plastics in oceans; have a high
number of undergraduate students; and are not necessarily environmentally-focused. The plastic
catastrophe is not going anywhere, and this transition will continue to popularize among
institutions. Grguras’s job with PLAN didn’t exist ten years ago, and “campuses didn't even think
about eliminating single-use plastic ten years ago. So, the change can happen quickly” (Young
Grguras). It is in Skidmore’s best interest to begin the transition now, and delaying this initiative
is a disservice to Skidmore’s Sustainability Goal and risks the optics of Skidmore as an
environmentally-conscious institution.

Name of College Inland or Focus Size

Coastal

College of the Atlantic Coastal Environmentally 355

Focused

Eckerd College, Florida Coastal Non-Environme 2007

ntally Focused
 23

SUNY ESF Inland Environmentally 1812

Focused

Sterling College Inland Environmentally 643

Focused

University of California Inland Non-Environme 31543

ntally Focused

Marshall University Inland Non-Environme 9415

ntally Focused

Emory College Inland Non-Environme 7118

ntally Focused
Table 2: Institutions of Higher Education with Plastic Free Initiatives

9.3 Economic Findings:

We reached out to Dining Services during our research, who provided us with the
following invoice data for single-use plastic items for the 2018-2019 school year. We wanted to
make sure this reflected a typical year of operations, instead of the most recent invoice, which
would contain increased single-use plastic purchases as a result of COVID-19. Using the
purchasing data, we were able to calculate a per-item cost, as well as an average price per plastic
item (Figure 3). After calculating the per item price of several common single use plastic items,
we compared them with pricing data of alternatives products available online, such as products
from Foodstiks. We were able to come up with the following cost analysis, which found an
average savings of $115 - $175 per 1000 uses per plastic item replaced with alternatives (Table
3). This does not include costs saved from less disposal costs and other waste management
techniques that alternatives and reusables are exempt from.
 24

Figure 3: Skidmore College Dining Hall’s 2018-2019 Invoice for Single-Use Plastics. The invoice of the largest
provider of single-use plastics on campus--the Dining Hall--was instrumental in our quantitative research. Annually,
Skidmore spends $25,000 for single-use plastics to be implemented in the Dining Hall, with the average item priced
at $0.26. This is a cost isolated to this institution, but even further: when we consider the life of this plastic after it
leaves Skidmore campus, the cost climbs and accumulates between waste disposal costs, human and environmental
health impacts (which are far less quantifiable). The economic, social, and environmental burdens will be shifted to
less-equipped communities and ecosystems when these single-use plastics leave Skidmore.

Cost/Piece Cost/Piece Cost/1000 sets

Dining Hall Single-Use
Plastic
Sustainable Alternative

Plastic Clamshell $0.32 $320.00

Alternative Clamshell $0.24 $240.00

Plastic Cups $0.21 $210.00

Alternative Cups $0.09 - 0.15 $90.00 - $150.00

 25

Plastic Utensils $0.17 $170.00

Alternative Utensils $0.195 $195.00

Total Savings: $115 - $175

Table 3: Saved Costs/Maximized Returns: Comparing Single-Use Items with Cost-Competitors. This is an excellent
visualization of the economic feasibility of shifting suppliers. Here, we extrapolated the costs of three single-use
plastics that we saw on the dining hall’s invoice and compared them with the cost of three price-competitive
alternatives offered by a local restaurant. Upon comparison, we see that the switch from plastic to compostable items
per 1000 sets would save Skidmore somewhere between $115 and $175. We predict this figure to accrue quickly,
saving money and furthering the waste sustainability goal.

9.4 Public Perceptions

The following graphs and tables were derived from the results of our student, staff, and
faculty surveys. Included in these data tables include public perceptions and willingness for
Skidmore to go single-use plastics free and other plastics reduction programs, the distribution of
survey respondents by college community demographics, and quote charts responding to why
respondents would or would not agree with different degrees of proposed plastics reductions
efforts. These quotes were broken up and divided based on topic, and if they were in favor or
against the proposed plastics reduction method. As a disclaimer, topics that did not receive any
associated quotes for a particular question omitted from the quote chart. Similarly, not all topics
received corresponding negative responses.

Figure 4: Percentage of Respondents by Category for “I would be supportive of Skidmore College becoming a
"Plastic Free Campus" out of 200 responses.
 26

Figure 5: Number of Respondents to Various Public Perceptions about Plastics and Plastics Reduction Efforts

Figure 6: Community Group Demographics by Percent of 200 Survey Respondents. The majority of survey
responses came from community members that identified as students.

Positive Response to a Plastic Ban Negative Response to a Plastic Ban

 27

Everyone needs to do their part to create a more Mainly, again, access, as it would make certain things
sustainable world and getting rid of single-use plastic more mental labour heavy for me. Some products that
items is a step in the right direction. are single use plastics are ones I use when I physically
don't have the energy to make the better choice and
need a quick solve because I'm too overwhelmed.

I feel that reusable utensils and takeout containers Banning plastic bottles would negatively affect me
would be just as useful as well as hygienic and i think it because plastic bottles can be closed but aluminum
would be more beneficial to the environment cans cannot make it a potential spill hazard on my desk
and keyboard. However, the availability of fountain
drinks that can be poured into non-disposable
containers would make this less of a negative but it
would have to be widely available like the soda
machines are.

There are so many other plastics alternatives that are Just cost and resources. There's not enough time to eat
cheaper AND better for the environment nutritiously or heat up food. Some offices on campus
don't even have break rooms to do meal prep or sit
down privately.

Skidmore's student, staff, and faculty culture is defined The impact on me personally wouldn’t be a huge deal,
by people who are dedicated to social change. but it’s nice to have plastic utensils to fall back on on
Transitioning to non-plastic products and reusable days when I just can’t bring myself to deal with dishes.
items aligns with these values, since plastics rely on I use the ones sold on campus currently, though, which
climate- and community-destructive fossil fuels and are actually reusable. Idk if a ban would affect those.
pollution. Furthermore, it is entirely feasible to Also I like to reuse plastic bags as liners for my
transition with more reusable items and 100% wastebasket, otherwise it gets gross.
compostable wares.

I would not have the guilt. Not all faculty and staff are able to take a sit-down
meal in the dining hall or Spa. Eliminating the ability
for take-away options will change how employees can
interact with food options on campus.
Table 4: Qs 2A/2B. “Please describe the reasons why or why not you would be supportive of Skidmore College
becoming a “Plastic Free Campus.” Responses by Positive or Negative Decisions

Sustainability Accessibility/ Economic Skidmore College Skidmore College Behavior Mental Health
Convenience Costs Culture Policy/Politics

Plastic waste is I feel that reusable There are so I think it is important to Skidmore is a part of the I think college is a My housemate
harmful for the utensils and many other reduce waste when global system of time when a lot of doesn’t drink water
environment in a takeout containers plastics feasible, and I definitely unsustainable students are from anything
variety of ways and would be just as alternatives that think it's feasible at consumption and developing a sense except single use
can hurt both useful as well as are cheaper Skidmore with a little bit consumerism, and as a of autonomy, so plastic water bottles
people and the hygienic and i AND better for of thought and passion college campus it is a spending 4 years in (no tap cups or
planet. think it would be the environment from the administration place of innovation and an environment of britta) and it’s super
more beneficial to and students moral impetus, and with no plastic would (I wasteful and driving
the environment that we have the believe) set more of me insane
responsibility to do the us up to continue
work to make our with those practices
operations responsible for post-college, too.
people and the planet.
 28

Everyone needs to Sustainability Use I am sure there Skidmore has always Institutional changes are Collective change it’s so sad seeing so
do their part to of metal utensils is are budgetary made great strides in likely more effective than can be easier (and many plastic food
create a more accessible constraints, but ensuring a "green" individual ones, and as more powerful) containers when
sustainable world can't imagine campus environment. By long as there are still than individual there are so many
and getting rid of they are taking this step towards a ways to do what people change. more sustainable
single-use plastic insurmountable plastic free environment it need to do, it seems like a options out there. i
items is a step in would not only emphasize good idea feel like everywhere
the right direction. our college's beliefs i go i see a plastic
towards supporting a bottle on the
healthy planet, but it ground. i always
would also benefit the feel guilty taking a
campus itself by to go box back to
minimizing litter and trash my dorm when the
around campus. sustainability office
is right there.

Plastic doesn't Plastic is an I would be It would allow for a large, Because we as a society If you don’t make
disappear once it accessibility issue. supportive of campus wide initiative have a huge plastic waste plastic an option,
leaves our sight. Many ppl w/ either become that would make a problem that is wreaking people will adapt
Plastic is a huge disabilities need plastic free or significant impact on the havoc on our ecosystems. and we will all be
problem for items such as developing ways waste and plastic usage of I have been trying to better off for it.
animals, people, straws for various that we might Saratoga. incorporate low wastes
and the reasons and cannot repurpose the practices into my life but
environment. I use alternatives. I plastics. Also, at the end of the day it’s
think Skidmore has would be there is likely to on governments and
the resources and supportive of a be long term institutions (like
platform to make a campaign to savings. Skidmore) do something
difference and a reduce plastic use about our pollution
statement. on campus, but a problem, the blame
ban would be shouldn’t fall on
harmful. individuals.

I think it’s a great It is good for the Single-use plastics are a Plastic is extremely I always feel guilty
initiative and could environment, huge issue on campus and detrimental to the taking a to go box
substantially help but it is a little have only gotten worse environment and as a back to my dorm
the environment! I hard and costly with the pandemic. I think small private college, when the
do worry that it’s to be it would be possible for Skidmore is in the sustainability office
not completely plastic-free. Skidmore to eliminate position to at least is right there.
possible because of single-use plastics, and significantly reduce their
the needs of this would greatly reduce plastic consumption,
certain students, our impact as well as set starting with d-hall.
accessibility and an example for other
financial issues schools.
and when in
quarantine the
inability to use
reusable items.

I think there are so I do not trust I would support I try to live a low waste Skidmore has both the
many alternatives Skidmore college a Plastic lifestyle and Skidmore resources and student
to plastic and to go plastic free Reduction makes that extremely support to go plastic-free.
Skidmore has the with any attention Campus, but not difficult. The college should get a
funds to invest in to the needs of a plastic free headstart on a plan that
these alternatives disabled folk. I do campus. To go will inevitably become
not trust Skidmore plastic free is more popular in the
to find reliable and just not a reality. coming years. I also think
or sustainable To many things this will make the college
sources as they are pack with more attractive to
already have large plastic and the prospective students.
issues sourcing price difference
packaging as is. would be passed
on to the
customer.
 29

We use way too This would restrict dining Skidmore's student, staff,
much plastic on services in a lot of way, and faculty culture is
campus and there plus the vending would be defined by people who
are not enough impacted going plastic are dedicated to social
efforts to look for free. I think it's a great change. Transitioning to
other effective idea to reduce, but plastic non-plastic products and
products that can free is a bit drastic in the reusable items aligns with
do the same job as reality of what is going on these values, since
the plastics and the situation in the plastics rely on climate-
sustainably . virus. and
community-destructive
fossil fuels and pollution.

Table 5: Qs 2A / 2B “Please describe the reasons why or why not you would be supportive of Skidmore College becoming a
“Plastic Free Campus” Responses by Category. Positive responses are colored green, and negative responses are colored red.

Sustainability Accessibility/ Economic Costs Skidmore College Behavior Mental Health

Convenience Culture

I would feel better The reduction of Food price items will I would be happy to live on a It would force me to get in I don’t think it would make
about my carbon single-use plastics increase campus that is conscious of the habit of not relying on much of a difference in my
footprint would positively its plastic use and dedicated single use plastics and get daily life but it would make me
affect me because me ready for transitioning feel better about my impact on
to finding alternatives and
it would not out to a low impact lifestyle the environment.
consume so much reducing its plastic waste. I
space in my trash would prefer to use reusable
can and I wouldn’t items and not have to waste
have to keep all single-use items.
the utensils I had
to get from the
breakfast bags

Getting rid of single I think right now I'll feel better about the It would both force me to Makes me feel sad and hopeless
use plastic will help especially during college I chose. I'll feel better stay strict with myself as I
all of us. COVID reducing about the planet and my try to achieve a more
future. I want Skidmore to be plastic-free lifestyle
single use plastic
more green.
is better than
banning. Students
need to be in the
go, and food
needs to be
transported
efficiently.

Hopefully by The reduction of I try my best not to use them Providing more sustainable Reducing them would make me
reducing single-use single-use plastics but I see plastic containers and reusable options to happier. I feel strongly about
plastic people will would positively piled in trash cans outside of replace single-use plastics recycling correctly and seeing
be more aware would allow me to reduce
affect me because burgers and dhall. Especially others doing it wrong frustrates
about how much my waste and wastefulness,
waste they are it would not since COVID, there has been reducing clutter in my room and angers me.
causing and will use consume so much a ton of single use plastic in and reducing the overflow
more eco-friendly space in my trash trash cans all over campus. It of garbage bins.
things can and I wouldn’t m
have to keep all
the utensils I had
to get from the
breakfast bags
 30

It would make me . Reducing single-use plastic

feel better about my would make me feel more
impact on the relieved that we are not
contributing to destroying the
environment.
earth

Table 6: Q7A / 7B “Please describe the reasons why reducing single-use plastic item availability on campus would positively or negatively
affect you” Responses by Category. Positive responses are colored green, and negative responses are colored red.

Sustainability Accessibility/C Economic Skidmore Skidmore Behavior Mental Indifference

onvenience Costs College Culture College Health
Policy/Politics

If single-use It would create more I think when you I would feel proud of It would reassure It would help me I honestly feel Wouldn't really
plastic was banned accessible reusable buy something, our college for taking me that our campus get into more of a good about have an affect on
on campus, I think options. like a drink from action against plastic is committed to habit of using myself when I me
it would reduce the Burgess for use. sustainability. reusable water use my
amount of litter example, you're bottles and other reusable
that can buying the item items bamboo
accumulate in plus the plastic. In utensils for
places like Spa and the long run what lunch. They
in Northwoods. I've learned from were a gift so it
There isn't a ton of others is that also makes me
litter, but I think you'd be saving a happy to think
that any litter at all few cents each about the
is still too much. time person who
which would add gave them to
up later on. me.

It would help to An all out ban may It would require I don’t know if they Again, because Would help me I wouldn't I don't use them
reduce plastic in negatively impact of me to find a should be banned, but Skidmore would be avoid single use worry that anyway, so I
our environment. I disabled students more long term it should be a making positive plastic as a whole. people are wouldn't be
think many of the and students with item that I should by-request thing. steps and when I do using affected. I do
single use plastic weakened immune be using anyways, need to get single-use recognize this is a
items available systems who need which would something on plastics privileged
today could be single use products likely allow for campus I will not without being perspective to
traded for to keep themselves long term saving. have to worry that conscious of it, have though!
environmentally safe. I think not an it will be encased in of disposing of
friendly all-out ban, but a plastics them
packaging. Water severe reduction afterwards, etc.
for example. from the college
would be best.

This would benefit Banning plastic We would be I would like to see I would love to be it would force me I would not I don't really need
me in the same bottles would forced to purchase Skidmore as a place attending an to be creative and have the guilt. them so not
way as reducing negatively affect me other more where students and institution that did resourceful having them as an
them, just to a because plastic expensive faculty are all in nothing contribute option would be
better extent. bottles can be closed sustainable items agreement about the to the problems that good.
Waste would be but aluminum cans out there passing negative impacts of single use plastic
reduced, bins cannot making it a on the cost to the plastics and they are cause for the Earth
would be less potential spill hazard customer. willing to do
overloaded, and on my desk and something about it
reusable options keyboard.
are overall more
convenient.

Banning plastic on Just cost and It would be difficult I would prefer to It would force me I would feel The impact on me
campus would resources. There's for planning things have the default to think about my better about personally
positively affect not enough time to like drinks and takeout option be to use own habits more skidmore and wouldn’t be a
me because I eat nutritiously or on campus but would reusable items or and do better. my impact on huge deal, but it’s
would not have to heat up food. Some be a good step that the stores on the nice to have
 31

feel like I need to offices on campus campus make more environment plastic utensils to
re-use every single don't even have of a priority to fall back on on
utensil/carton/bag break rooms to do ensure students days when I just
I get from the meal prep or sit who can don't can’t bring myself
campus that is down privately. waste single-use to deal with
plastic. I know that items. dishes.
re-using plastic is
not the best.

Better for the There may not be Policies can be Some products I'm just the
environment. acceptable substitutes challenging at that are single consumer. I will
Skidmore. We use plastics are buy whatever is
would need a ones I use available to me.
commitment to when I
canned water or physically
some other realistic don't have the
and accessible energy to make
alternative to even the better
consider a policy choice and
ban. need a quick
solve because
I'm too
overwhelmed.

Table 7: Qs 8A / 8B “Please describe the ways in which banning single-use plastic sales on campus would positively or negatively
affect you” Responses by Category. Positive responses are colored green, and negative responses are colored red.

10.) Recommendations
We propose the following recommendations for initial steps that Skidmore College could
implement on campus. One recommendation is having “Plastic by Request,” which gives
Skidmore students, faculty, and staff the option to partake in single-use plastic consumption if
needed. Otherwise, the default option will be reusables and sustainable alternatives as opposed to
plastics. Another recommendation is to implement the Sustainable Workplace Initiative which
includes a series of recommendations that would improve the sustainability of working spaces,
including having utensils in office spaces.

Undoubtedly, there should be changes implemented to vending operations on campus; the

other largest distributor of single-use plastics on campus other than Dining Services. According
to Karina Berkley, “Vendors want to maintain their consumer base. College kids are a pretty
consistent stream of consumers. And so if college students really care about having a plastic free
campus, you know, they're going to want to purchase from vendors who have reusable options.
And so, that's another front on which students want to purchase from vendors that don't sell
reusable or single use plastics. It's another economic incentive for the university to adopt.”
Skidmore College could focus on facilitating sustainable vending contract options and provide
alternatives to single-use plastics. Lots of options for alternatives are now becoming available
through distributors, including canned water options from our contract with Pepsi (Jennifer
Natyzak) and sustainable utensil companies like Foodstiks (Charlie Usas). $25,000 is the total
annual cost to maintain single-use plastics in the Dining Hall. This cost is isolated to this
institution, but even further: when we consider the life of this plastic after it leaves Skidmore
campus, the cost accumulates between waste disposal costs and human and environmental health
impacts (which are far less quantifiable). The burden of these economic, social, and
environmental impacts will be shifted when these plastics leave Skidmore to reside in
less-equipped communities and ecosystems.
 32

We found that it is extremely important to have student surveys & solidarity/support

regarding the Plastics Free movement. According to George Washington University’s student
activist Karina Berkley, “the trajectory of student involvement at GW first took place in our
student association, where our student association passed a resolution saying that it would not
give any money to student organizations that used Single-Use Plastics at their events. And so
from there, the student association then passed another resolution that just called for the
university to have more water refilling stations so that we could reduce and eventually phased
out our use of single use, plastic water.” Young Grguras states, “administrators want to know
about what the students want...and that's where a lot of the campaign work happens.”

In order for change to occur, Skidmore’s bureaucracy has to be involved and actively
support the initiative. According to Young, “the idea behind having a presidential commitment is
that it gets the whole school on the same page in regards to what we're doing with plastic. And it
prevents any type of pushback that you'd get from just like players in it.” At George Washington
University, “the university started a single use plastics task force. And the aim of this task force
was to develop some plan of how the university would either reduce or eventually phase out or
use plastics” (Karina Berkley). Students, faculty, staff, and others need to be on the same page;
“Everybody who's involved with plastic on campus needs to be in the same room so we all
understand where we’re headed. If you think about the way plastic moves on campus, it's
touched so many hands” (Young Grguras).

There must be a continued collaboration between students, administration, sustainability

office, procurement, dining hall and all other groups on campus. Young Grguras states,“the
purpose of this proposal is to aspire: It's not going to be perfect, and the college and students are
going to figure it out as it goes along” and “the movement works at the city level, the community
level, and the national level. This is the essential mindset to getting the groundwork of the
plastics reduction established, and working in conjunction with all campus community groups
with this in mind is very important.” Karina Berkley states, “collective support and collective
effort is definitely one of the morals of the story.” Therefore, inducing a positive communal
impact should be considered or incorporated into each decision made. Skidmore. On the other
hand, we also recommend that Skidmore College takes the initiative to reduce or ban single-use
plastics by a certain deadline that they specify to the students, faculty, and staff, so that they be
held accountable.

Regarding some of the concerns about Skidmore College becoming plastic free, one
described people with disabilities such as, “many people with disabilities need items such as
straws for various reasons and cannot use alternatives.” Similar to George Washington
University, “there were logistical issues and concerns surrounding the ban, specifically
accessibility for students with certain disabilities who often rely on single-use plastic straws.
That was the main concern. And so, we eventually communicated this concern to members on
the Single-Use Plastics Taskforce and there would be, I guess, like, an exception for Single-Use
plastic straws, considering that one, they don't really comprise that big a proportion of plastic
waste anyway and to the whole point of environmental justice is to improve the material
conditions of the people who need it most. And making accessibility to straws harder isn't
making anybody's life any easier” (Karina Berkley). We are not looking to exacerbate the
 33

hardships of those with disabilities, and we will make an exception, so they will still be able to
use any single-use plastic items they need.

11.) Discussions/Conclusions:

11.1 Research Discussions

Overall, the sources that we uncovered in our literature review provided us with the base
framework to conduct our research. For example, Thompson provides a lot of good detail and
backgrounds on all of the listed focuses of the paper, and is very useful in justifying plastic
banning, correcting misconceptions, and recommending courses of actions. The proposed
solutions in this paper fall a bit short, however, for the purposes of our paper, in that they
describe what should be done, rather than how, and/or they focus on groups (I.E. scientific
design and industry).

Additionally, sources like Choate’s paper and findings can be specifically useful to
Skidmore’s future efforts to go plastic free for a variety of reasons. To start, Allegheny College
could be added to a list of aspiriant colleges to look towards when designing plastic reduction on
Skidmore’s campus, and their work can be mirrored here. Second, what applies to plastic water
bottles can also apply to plastic bags or other single-use plastics. More research is needed linking
behaviors surrounding these objects, but like plastic bags, can be used as a case study or mirror
for the larger problem of plastics. Third, the detailed data gathering survey methods and data
analysis might be used to guide our survey process and data analysis. Fourth, the paper briefly
provides some additional direct research on green college campuses and responsibility of higher
education to support social changes. Finally, the paper offers a comparable counter-perspective to
the idea of plastic-reductions or banning on Skidmore’s Campus, outlining a potential pitfall to
actually increase single use items existing on campus or brought in from outside. This may
require us to rethink our strategy to prevent this or include additional programs to affect
single-use plastic behavior beyond the ban, as outlined in the paper.

We are a bit dubious of Siracusa’s claims of the benefits of biodegradable and

compostable plastics, as most of these plastics currently in the market leach toxic chemicals and
microplastics into the environment when they degrade. Although composting and biodegrading
plastics rather than recycling them is cheaper, the paper doesn’t seem to consider or address the
costs of producing new plastics that the act of recycling offsets? More research into exact types
of plastics in use here is needed, and alternative items and reusable items should be prioritized
over these types of plastic items.

11.2. Research Conclusions

Based on the positive supportive responses for a plastic free campus, there is
overwhelming support by the Skidmore College students, faculty, and staff. This includes a new
Student Government Association resolution which is “A Resolution of Support for Skidmore
Plastic Free Zone Project,” and the intent is to support a “Break Free from Plastic” pledge that
would phase out unnecessary single-use plastic items on campus over time. Skidmore students’
support for a plastic free campus included reasons such as sustainability goals, accessibility,
economic costs, mental health, institutional change, and positive changes in behavior.
 34

A plastic free Skidmore College would also create a positive impact on waste
management on Skidmore College and in Saratoga Springs and hopefully provide the framework
to influence other campuses to become more sustainable too. It is bad optics for Skidmore if we
don’t jump on it now. Skidmore will eventually need to go plastics-free; so why not now, during
a time when the operations of waste management are dynamic, and we are providing the
framework. Skidmore would be at the forefront of pro-environmental initiatives/behavior.
According to Karina Berkley, “ it would actually be saving the university money because they
wouldn't have to dedicate so much of a proportion of their operations budget to waste
management.”

We have gained valuable insight from Young Grguras, Karina Berkley, and Charlie Uras,
and they have influenced sustainable change for other colleges to follow. Eckerd College
inspired the city of St. Petersburg, Florida, to also write a similar pledge for their city. Marshall
University works closely with their community and an organization called Ohio River Valley
Environmental Coalition. They're able to work with them and Marshall is going to be running
and installing an industrial compost facility that should be able to take waste from the
community. The Break Free from Plastic movement, which is global, started in the Philippines.
The change to reduce or ban plastics would provide positive optics for Skidmore’s commitment
to waste reduction and promote Skidmore Sustainability Goals. Additionally, there would be an
economic benefit to going plastic free and cost savings for Skidmore College of approximately
$115 - $175 per 1000 uses.

In conclusion, as the college considers implementing a single-use plastics reduction,

further research and student support should be invested in the issue, as well as dialogue between
all actors on campus. It is imperative that all parties on campus be included in this discussion, so
that no one is left out and that everyone is informed on what changes are taking place. Constant
student support and pressure are needed in order to prompt Skidmore to reduce its reliance on
single-use plastics on campus, and connections with stakeholders and other aspiring institutions
should continue to be cultivated and tended to. While it may take time to have single-use plastic
items banned on campus, implementing our recommendations and following up with community
support, petitions, and dialogue will help move the college along towards this goal.
 35

Bibliography:

Arena, U., Mastellone, M. L., & Perugini, F. (2003). Life cycle assessment of a plastic packaging
recycling system. The international journal of life cycle assessment, 8(2), 92.

Arvanitoyannis, I. S., & Bosnea, L. (2004). Migration of Substances from Food Packaging
Materials to Foods. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 44(2), 63-76.

Barnes, D. K., Galgani, F., Thompson, R. C., & Barlaz, M. (2009). Accumulation and
fragmentation of plastic debris in global environments. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal
Society B: Biological Sciences, 364 (1526), 1985-1998.

Berg, B.L., 2004. Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences. Pearson Education Inc,
Boston.

Berman, E. R., & Johnson, R. K. (2015). The unintended consequences of changes in beverage
options and the removal of bottled water on a university campus. American journal of public
health, 105(7), 1404-1408. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4463390/

Break Free From Plastic Pollution Act (SB 3263/ HR 5845)

https://beyondplastics.org/article/the-break-free-from-plastic-pollution-act/

Brooks, Amy L., Wang, Shunli., Jambeck, Jenna R. (2018). The Chinese import ban and its
impact on global plastic waste. Science Advances. Volume 4. 2018.

Caradine-Taber, S. (2015). Greening the Grab n'Go: Reducing the Plastic Waste of Dining
Services at St. Mary’s College of Maryland.
https://mdsoar.org/handle/11603/3116

Chaabane, A., Ramudhin, A., & Paquet, M. (2012). Design of sustainable supply chains under
the emission trading scheme. International journal of production economics, 135(1), 37-49.

Choate, B., Davis, B. Y., & Verrecchia, J. (2018). Campus bottled water bans, not always the
solution. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education.
https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/IJSHE-06-2017-0089/full/html

Creswell, J.W., 2003. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods
approaches. Sage Publications, London.

Davoudi, S. (2000). Planning for waste management: changing discourses and institutional
relationships. Progress in Planning, 53(3), 165-216.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305900699000239

Daymon, C., Holloway, I., 2011. Qualitative Research Methods in Public Relations and
Marketing Communications. Routledge, USA.

Geyer, Jambeck, Jenna R., Law, Kara Lavender. (2017). Production, use, and fate of all plastics
ever made. Science Advances. Volume 3.
 36

Hale, R. C., & Song, B. (2020). Single-use plastics and COVID-19: scientific evidence and
environmental regulations. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/acs.est.0c02269
Hilley, J. L. (2008). The challenge of legislation: Bipartisanship in a partisan world. Brookings
Institution Press

Hotchkiss, J. H. (1997). Food‐packaging interactions influencing quality and safety. Food

Additives & Contaminants, 14(6-7), 601-607.

J.V. López. (2019). Transferring the plastic-free forestry school environmental experience to the
classroom as a component of environmental education in higher education: a case study.
Environmental Innovation Group. Universidad Politécnica de Madrid (SPAIN).

Kandziora, J. H., Van Toulon, N., Sobral, P., Taylor, H. L., Ribbink, A. J., Jambeck, J. R., &
Werner, S. (2019). The important role of marine debris networks to prevent and reduce ocean
plastic pollution. Marine pollution bulletin, 141, 657-662.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0025326X19300499

Marsh, K., & Bugusu, B. (2007). Food packaging—roles, materials, and environmental issues.
Journal of food science, 72(3), R39-R55.

Martinho, Graça. Balaia, Natacha. Pires, Ana. (January 26 2017). The Portuguese plastic carrier
bag tax: The effects on consumers’ behavior.

Miller, K. E. (2011). Student attitude and action regarding the single-use plastic shopping bag
on the University of Alabama campus (Doctoral dissertation, University of Alabama Libraries).
https://ir.ua.edu/bitstream/handle/123456789/1048/file_1.pdf?sequence=1

Northrup, A.K. (2019) Legislation to Reduce Microplastic Pollution: Understanding the Factors
that Facilitated Passage of the Federal Microbead-free Waters Act of 2015. State
University of New York at Albany, ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. https://search.pro
quest.com/openview/7f5037cd86a6b9f6b5b3685f5002058a/1?pq-origsite=gscho lar&c
bl =18750&diss=y

Oceana. (2020.) Plastics: Ending single-use plastics: How you can help save our oceans from
plastic pollution.
https://oceana.org/our-campaigns/plastics

Plastic Pollution Coalition and Post Landfill Action Network. (2017). Plastics Pollution
Coalition Manual. 1-75.
https://www.postlandfill.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Plastic_free_campus_updated_intro.pd
f

Riccardo Accorsi Alessandro Cascini Susan Cholette Riccardo Manzini Cristina Mora. (June
2014). Economic and environmental assessment of reusable plastic containers: A food catering
supply chain case study. International Journal of Production Economics. Volume 152. Pages
88-101.
 37

Ross, S., & Evans, D. (2003). The environmental effect of reusing and recycling a plastic-based
packaging system. Journal of Cleaner Production, 11(5), 561-571.

Samuel S. Flint, How Bipartisanship and Incrementalism Stitched the Child Health Insurance
Safety Net (1982–1997), Health & Social Work, Volume 39, Issue 2, May 2014, Pages 109–116,
https://doi.org/10.1093/hsw/hlu019

Silva, A. L. P., Prata, J. C., Walker, T. R., Campos, D., Duarte, A. C., Soares, A. M., ... &
Rocha-Santos, T. (2020). Rethinking and optimising plastic waste management under COVID-19
pandemic: Policy solutions based on redesign and reduction of single-use plastics and personal
protective equipment. Science of the Total Environment, 742, 140565.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969720340870

Silverman, D., 2006. Interpreting Qualitative Analysis: Methods for Analyzing Talk, Text and
Interaction. Sage, London.

Siracusa, V., Rocculi, P., Romani, S., & Dalla Rosa, M. (2008). Biodegradable polymers for food
packaging: a review. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 19(12), 634-643.

Skidmore College. (2015). Sustainability Plan (2015-2025).

https://www.skidmore.edu/sustainability/documents/2015CampusSustainabilityPlan.pdf

Skidmore College. (2019). Skidmore College Annual Report (2018-19).

https://www.skidmore.edu/sustainability/inventories-reports/2018-19AnnualReport.pdf

Surfers Against Sewage (2020:) Plastic Free Communities.

https://www.sas.org.uk/plastic-free-communities/

Syberg, K., Khan, F. R., Selck, H., Palmqvist, A., Banta, G. T., Daley, J., Sano, L., & Duhaime,
M. B. (2015). Microplastics: addressing ecological risk through lessons learned. Environmental
toxicology and chemistry, 34(5), 945–953.

The Economist, Marine litter: A teenager’s plan to trawl for plastic in the Pacific becomes
reality. Science & technology, 2018.
https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2018/09/13/a-teenagers-plan-to-trawl-for-pl
astic-in-the-pacific-becomes-reality

Thompson, R. C., Moore, C. J., Vom Saal, F. S., & Swan, S. H. (2009). Plastics, the environment
and human health: current consensus and future trends. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal
Society B: Biological Sciences, 364(1526), 2153-2166.
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/abs/10.1098/rstb.2009.0053

Wen, L., Yunxian, H., Anan, M., & Yuguo, H. (2010, June). Reverse logistics: The game between
government and distribution centers on recycling products packaging. In 2010 7th International
Conference on Service Systems and Service Management (pp. 1-4). IEEE.
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/5530264
 38

Whitehouse, S., & Murkowski, L. (2017). Picking Up the Pieces: Congress's Role in Combating
the Global Issue of Marine Debris. Roger Williams UL Rev., 22, 352.
https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/rwulr22&id=368&
men_tab=srchresults

Wong, S. (2017). China’s National Sword policy and its future ban on certain types of plastic
scrap are affecting global markets. Recycling today.
https://www.recyclingtoday.com/article/national-sword-china-plastics-recycling/

Zaman, T. (2010). The prevalence and environmental impact of single use plastic products.
Public Health Management & Policy: An Online Textbook, 11th edition Retrieved November, 23,
2011.
https://scholar.googleusercontent.com/scholar?q=cache:i4ai3xZwN_YJ:scholar.google.com/+alte
rnatives+to+single-use+plastics&hl=en&as_sdt=0,33