Introduction
In recent years, ethical waste disposal, the disposal of waste in an environmentally conscious way, has become increasingly important as rates of waste pollution have reached an all-time high. As stated by Akil, Johar, and Ho (2015), each year since 2012, “waste generation [has] increased by 3% which [is] of critical concern” (p. 2). While sustainable habits, specifically recycling, have begun to increase in response to growing levels of pollution, it has not yet been established if recycling programs in Harford County public high schools (HCPHS) are effective in reducing waste. The location, Harford County, Maryland, was selected due to proximity to the researcher. To advance environmental sustainability, it is important to determine if HCPHS recycling programs are effectively meeting material waste reduction standards. Material waste reduction is defined in the following research as meeting or exceeding a 35% recycling rate, the baseline percentage for Maryland businesses as proposed by the Maryland Recycling Act (Maryland Recycling Act Report for Businesses, 2024). This rate is considered “above average” for recycling rates in the United States (Holtmeyer, 2024). While only Maryland businesses are mandated to recycle to the 35% baseline, it was used to evaluate Maryland high schools recycling program efficacy due to schools’ operational similarity to businesses. The following research aims to analyze the current research gap by comparing schools’ recycling programs at capacity to the Maryland baseline. For the purposes of this study, it is assumed that all trash and recycling dumpsters at schools were at capacity, 100% full, when collected weekly. While it is not ensured that schools are reaching waste capacity weekly, this assumption enables an evaluation of school’s recycling capability based on available equipment and processes, such as dumpster size and collection frequency. Waste is defined in this study as combined recycling and trash.
Literature Review
Public Resistance to Recycling
Waste pollution in the U.S. has been exacerbated by a lack of united efforts across the United States to reduce this pollution. Recycling program implementation and efficacy vary considerably across states due to differences in infrastructure, policy enforcement, public participation, and funding mechanisms. In 2005, state-reported recycling rates ranged from 1.6% of total waste recycled in Mississippi to over 50% in California, reflecting substantial disparities in program outcomes and resource allocation (Simmons et al., 2006). The primary difference between Mississippi and California at the time of the study was that California had passed multiple state regulations, including an ambitious “Zero Waste” goal, aimed at uniting the state, citizens, and corporations in the fight against plastic pollution (Nixon & Saphores, 2009). While state laws necessitating recycling have been proven to greatly increase recycling rates, only 25 states, including Maryland, have passed laws pertaining to recycling (Bell, 2019). States’ failure to address the handling of accumulated waste through effective recycling practices has played a large role in allowing plastics and other recyclable waste to become major pollutants despite their ability to be recycled. A survey of over eighty participants found that, when recycling is “less convenient” whether the cause is inaccessible recycling bins, unclear labeling of recycling bins, or high collection costs, people are far less likely to recycle (Vogt et al., 2021). Successes in state-level regulations and prevailing public opinion indicate that effective recycling programs are attainable under favorable conditions; however, a coordinated and unified national approach is essential to effectively address the broader waste management challenge in the United States.
Opposing Viewpoints Regarding Recycling Programs
While recycling rates have increased in recent years, rates of waste production are still much greater (EPA, 2024). Recycling rates have increased from approximately 8,000,000 tons in 1960 to 70,000,000 tons of recycling in 2018. Despite the significant increase in recycling rates from 1960, rates of waste generation are still much greater, ranging from approximately 100,000,000 tons in 1960 to almost 400,000,000 tons in 2018.
Although some experts claim that recycling programs keep trash out of landfills and have environmental benefits, others argue that recycling programs are not economic or publicly engaging (Behm, 2022; Lui, 2024; Williamson, 2024). Despite current dissent, researchers generally agree that recycling programs are crucial to prevent the pollution of ecosystems as it is virtually impossible to keep plastic from entering ecosystems through landfills (Richard et al., 2024; Simmons et al., 2006; Vogt et al., 2021). For most recycled materials, however, it must be acknowledged that the cost of processing used materials is higher than the cost of simply producing a product with non-recycled materials (Lui, 2024). Summarizing the complexity of this issue, Kassim (2012) states, “Society demands that waste management must be sustainable. The proper management of solid waste needs appropriate technology, which is economically affordable, socially accepted and environmentally friendly” (p. 45). Adhering to all these standards is nearly impossible given the current funding and public disregard for recycling programs. This literature review will proceed to outline the challenges and benefits of modern-day recycling.
Criticisms of Recycling Programs
The significant amount of waste in landfills has led some experts to conclude that recycling programs in the United States are ineffective (Vogt et al., 2021). Bryan Vogt, a member of the department of Chemical Engineering at Penn State University, stresses that although some postconsumer recycling programs are over 50 years old, they still fail to defer a significant amount of waste from landfills (Vogt et al., 2021). Researchers Vogt, Lui, and Ackerman draw attention to the various failures of plastic recycling, blaming the inefficacy on costs (Ackerman, 1997; Lui, 2024; Vogt et al., 2021). They argue that the cost of collection, facility maintenance, and the price of sorting raw material make recycled materials too expensive to compete in current consumer markets. Author Lindsay Williamson states that “America enjoys a consumerist-based society, where most people do not hesitate to dispose of products that could be recycled and reused for other purposes” (Williamson, 2024). Williamson blames the inefficacy of current recycling programs on consumers who choose to dispose of recyclable products for the purpose of convenience. While researchers disagree on the underlying causes behind recycling program’s limited efficacy in reducing landfill contributions in the U.S., there is broad consensus that current recycling programs are flawed in terms of financial sustainability and public understanding or engagement.
Commendations of Recycling Programs
Haghighatjoo, Tahmasebi, and Noroozi (2020) explain that, despite claims of other researchers (Ackerman, 1997; Lui, 2024; Vogt et al., 2021), recycling programs can be economically sustainable as they prevent more costly environmental issues such as water and soil pollution which pose an extreme threat to public health and safety. Corroborating the idea that recycling can be economically beneficial, Ikerd (n.d.) explains that “The real economic benefits of recycling are long run, rather than short run, in nature. They will accrue as economic benefits to those of future generations, well beyond any rational economic planning horizon” (p. 2). Recycling is a significant investment, but in the long term it can be a potentially profitable practice through its ability to improve the environment and prevent future, more costly and irreversible, environmental issues. Along with its environmental value, researchers have found a major benefit of recycling is its ability to keep plastics out of landfills. Akil et al. (2015) argue that, while waste production continues to increase, recycling becomes exponentially more important as landfills are continually becoming fuller. This claim is validated by Haghighatjoo et al. (2020), who agree that recycling programs are critical to the ethical disposal of waste as they function to divert harmful waste from landfills. Haghighatjoo et al. (2020), Ikerd (n.d.), and Akil et al. (2015) all reference the different benefits of recycling given the current prevalence of waste pollution. The researchers above promote recycling as one of the most promising practices for disposing of waste.
Summary of Opposing Viewpoints
Some researchers (Ackerman, 1997; Nixon & Saphores, 2009; Vogt et al., 2021; Williamson, 2024) believe that recycling programs are not financially feasible or sustainable, while others (Akil et al., 2015; Haghighatjoo et al., 2020; Ikerd, n.d.) argue that the environmental benefit of recycling outweighs the monetary cost. These two opposing viewpoints have been widely disputed, but there is a dearth of research which has explored whether recycling programs are truly effective in their purpose of diverting waste. Many of the studies applauding the environmental sustainability of recycling programs have not studied if recycling programs contribute to material waste reduction once they have been established (Akil et al., 2015; Haghighatjoo et al., 2020; Kassim, 2012).
Recycling in Maryland Institutions
Maryland has required the practice of recycling in commercial buildings, institutions, and residential neighborhoods since 1988. In the Harford County 10-year Solid Waste Management Plan published in 2025, Maryland executives formulated a comprehensive plan setting forth the policies and goals for the management of solid waste in Harford County (County Council of Harford County Maryland, 2024). This plan outlines strategies to promote recycling throughout Harford County. While this plan has renewed the mandate of recycling in the aforementioned buildings it does not necessarily ensure higher waste reduction rates.
Novelty and Contributions to Research
This study will explore if recycling programs throughout HCPHS are effective in reducing waste, which assesses their viability as a solution to ongoing plastic pollution. While instating recycling programs has been a major goal for Harford County, the amount of waste reduction provided by recycling programs at high schools is left unquantified as schools are not required to track or report their waste metrics (Maryland Recycling Act Report for Businesses, 2024). Many researchers have examined factors such as public perception, convenience, and recycling education which contribute to the productivity of recycling programs; however, very little published research has worked to determine how much waste certain recycling programs divert (Akil et al., 2015; Haghighatjoo et al., 2020; Kassim, 2012). This study will examine the efficacy of recycling programs at HCPHS by analyzing the volume, number, and collection frequency of trash and recycling dumpsters. The aim is to assess whether schools possess adequate infrastructure to handle the amount of recyclable material generated, as limitations in dumpster size or collection frequency may result in recyclable waste being diverted to landfills. The results of this research will indicate if recycling programs at high schools in Harford County are materially effective at reducing waste given that they are recycling at capacity. Results of this study will improve current knowledge of the efficacy of HCPHS recycling programs, and which schools are unable to effectively recycle due to their recycling infrastructure. This study focuses only on one county in the U.S. meaning that results may not necessarily be directly generalizable to other geographic regions, however, it can serve as a starting point in understanding if the volumes of recycled waste in a typical high school meet its associated state’s objectives and the methodology of the study may be repeated on different schools throughout the country to show whether they have effective recycling programs.
There is much debate over current recycling programs. While some consider programs to be effective at reducing waste pollution and promoting sustainability, others argue that they are not financially feasible or effective at reducing waste. Despite the current disagreement among researchers, Maryland regulations require recycling programs in all commercial buildings, institutions, and residential neighborhoods. The efficacy of recycling programs in HCPHS after instatement is a largely understudied area of research. This study will work to bridge the gap in research and establish the efficacy of recycling programs at HCPHS by finding how many have the infrastructure to reach the 35% recycling baseline for Harford County businesses (Maryland Recycling Act Report for Businesses, 2024). The hypothesis for this paper is as follows: Recycling programs in high schools located in Harford County, Maryland will not be able to meet the Maryland baseline percentage for businesses’ minimum required recycling given current recycling infrastructure.
Methods
Study Design
To measure the efficacy of recycling programs at HCPHS, a mixed method experimental design was chosen, combining an interview with the Senior Lead of Recycling Programs at the Maryland Environmental Services and a survey of recycling administrators at nine different HCPHS. The mixed-method procedure allowed for a deeper understanding of the functions of recycling programs throughout HCPHS.
Setting and Subjects
Interview
The interview portion of the study consisted of a semi-structured set of questions which were answered by the Senior Lead of Recycling Programs at the Maryland Environmental Service. The questions aimed to establish the recycling practices and dumpster volume, number, and collection frequency of HCPHS.
Survey
Recycling administrators at nine different HCPHS were selected for participation in the recycling survey. The schools that participated in the survey were contacted based on a convenience sample. The survey aimed to obtain specific numerical data about the volumetric waste production of schools such as the volume of trash and recycling dumpsters and the frequency of their collection. Interview communications were facilitated through mobile telecommunication. Following these communications, written responses were exchanged via Microsoft Outlook, summarizing and reiterating certain ideas which were discussed. Numerical data sets regarding recycling at HCPHS were also exchanged.
All nine schools participating in the study received a Microsoft Forms survey sent to one recycling representative from each school. This survey was distributed to participants via Microsoft Outlook. The nine participating schools were sent emails including a personal introduction, summary research goals, and an in-depth explanation of the project. The survey consisted of two multiple choice and ten free response questions, primarily inquiring about the cubic yardage of recycling and trash dumpsters at each school.
Data Organization and Analysis
Data collected was synthesized using Microsoft Excel. All communications held with the Senior Lead of Recycling Programs at Maryland Environmental Service, including interview notes and data sets, were documented in Microsoft Word and Microsoft Excel respectively. Two Excel data sheets were used to separate quantitative and qualitative data received from the survey so that they could be analyzed separately.
Procedure
The first portion of data collection involved a comprehensive interview with the Senior Lead of Recycling Programs at Maryland Environmental Services. Initial contact was made via email, providing an introduction and contact information to facilitate further communication. The interview was primarily composed of quantitative questions to develop a general understanding of the current state of recycling within HCPHS. These interview questions were chosen based upon the methods in The Social Context of Recycling (Derksen & Gartrell, 1993). The questions establishing the efficacy of Harford County recycling programs such as “Given that a school recycles, do you know to what capacity or extent of total waste is entered into recycling programs” and “Is there a way that schools can determine how much they are recycling” were based closely on questions from The Social Context of Recycling (Derksen & Gartrell, 1993). To transcribe interview data, a set of guideline questions was decided beforehand, and all prompted responses were recorded on a data sheet in Microsoft Word. Interview questions focused on recycling practices and the capacity of recycling programs at different high schools.
The second portion of data collection involved the surveying of nine different HCPHS. This survey aimed to establish a better understanding of the material waste reduction of HCPHS as well as the perception of recycling programs. Quantitative questions about the number of dumpsters, dumpster pickup frequency, and dumpster volume were designed to determine numerical amounts of waste reduction at each school. Questions allowed for the identification of differences between schools’ recycling processes. Qualitative questions were either free response or utilized the Likert scale, measuring individual agreement or disagreement to given statements on a scale from “Very effective” to “Very ineffective.” The survey was estimated to take approximately 15–20 minutes. Questions focused on schools’ capacity to recycle by examining recycling program infrastructure such volume of bins and collection frequency.
The mixed method procedure allowed for both qualitative and quantitative data to be collected. This structure was ideal because it allowed for an overview of the efficacy of recycling processes at the nine participating high schools to be measured and for the efficacy-perception of schools to be measured. The study methodology was designed to address whether recycling programs at HCPHS are conducive to notable waste reduction based on Maryland standards. To measure notable waste reduction, rates of recycling at schools were calculated by taking the ratio of recyclable waste to total waste generated. This generated ratio was then compared to the minimum recycling rate (35%) required for businesses in Maryland (Maryland Recycling Act Report for Businesses, 2024). Businesses are the building type most closely related to schools as they, like schools, pay for a recycling service and have bins collected regularly. Businesses were used for the baseline due to their operational similarity to schools (Recycling and Waste Reduction: A Guide for Schools, n.d.).
Nine out of twelve HCPHS participated in the survey. Each participating school received a cover letter informing them of their rights as a research participant. By surveying HCPHS, data is provided on a previously understudied geographic group.
The interview portion conducted during the study closely follows the methods in The Social Context of Recycling (Derksen & Gartrell, 1993). An interview was used to isolate different factors which have been found to affect recycling. The Social Context of Recycling provided a baseline for how to calculate recycling averages given waste and recycling capacity and how to conduct a proper interview. The survey provided by the study makes use of the survey portion of Ann Carlson’s study in Recycling Norms (Carlson, 2000). Carlson’s study provides several different examples of sampling, providing a guide for an effective survey.
Results
Data Analysis Method
A one-proportion Z-test was used to determine whether recycling programs at different schools have the recycling capacity to meet the state-required baseline for waste reduction based on the capacity of their recycling and trash bins. A one-proportion Z-test is a statistical test used to compare the proportion of a sample to a known population proportion (One proportion Z test, 2023). A one-proportion Z-test was the optimal method for analysis because data collected represented a ratio which could be directly compared to Maryland’s baseline recycling percentage. Using the one-proportion Z-test determined whether the collected data showed a significant statistical difference from the baseline percentage of 35%. The quantitative survey data was not considered in statistical analysis.
The baseline percentage (35%) was chosen as the sample proportion the one-proportion Z-test based upon the minimum recycling percentage required for Harford County established in the Maryland Recycling Act requiring Harford County businesses to meet minimum recycling regulations based on waste generation (Maryland Recycling Act Report for Businesses, 2024). The following figures and tables include the collected school recycling program metrics divided into three categories: school demographics, waste capacity of schools, and one-proportion Z-test results.
_per_week.png)
Total populations (students & faculty) in public schools were compared to schools’ total capacity for waste and recycling. Total capacity for each school was calculated by summing the total cubic yardage of waste dumpsters and recycling dumpsters for each school. The population of the different schools was not proportional to the total capacity of waste and recycling allocated to each school.
The majority of HCPHS (55.55%) have the ability to meet the baseline percentage for recycling in Maryland. However, four of the nine schools in the data set do not. Waste Capacity refers to the total cubic yardage of waste that a school may produce each week. Recycling Capacity refers to the total cubic yardage of recycling that a school may produce each week. Schools may produce more recycling each week but, if so, they would not have the capacity to recycle it. Reduction capacity (recycling capacity/ (waste capacity + recycling capacity)) shows the percentage of waste that schools can recycle given the volume of their trash and recycling bins at capacity. The baseline percentage is the minimum amount that can be recycled in Maryland as determined by the MRA (Maryland Recycling Act Report for Businesses, 2024). The capacity to meet baseline shows if the given schools meet the baseline percentage for recycling given their reduction capacity assuming maximum capacity during pickup.
.png)
The One-Proportion Z-test determined whether a school was likely to meet the State baseline, unlikely to meet the State baseline, or if it was undeterminable whether a school was likely or unlikely to meet the baseline. Table 3 shows the results from the One-Proportion Z-test. The results of the test show that although most of the schools in the data set can recycle at a percentage above the minimum baseline (Table 2), they did not show statistical significance in determining with relative certainty whether they are recycling at, above, or below the baseline percentage. Only schools two and three showed statistical significance during the One-Proportion Z-test with school two having a high likelihood for recycling at a rate greater than 35% and school three having a high likelihood for recycling at a rate less than 35%. The proportion section of the table shows whether the reduction rate is above, below, or approximately equal to 35%. The Baseline section indicates the baseline percentage of 35% established by the MRA (Maryland Recycling Act Report for Businesses, 2024). The Statistical Significance section of the table indicates whether the p-value of each school has shown statistical significance above or below the baseline recycling percentage given a p-value less than 5% indicates significance.
Discussion
Results from Interview
The analysis conducted on the dataset obtained from the interviews, using a One-Proportion Z-test, indicated that, for most HCPHS, the collected information was not significant enough to support or reject the hypothesis that recycling rates are not high enough to reach Maryland’s baseline percentage for required recycling in businesses. The p-value for most schools being surveyed was greater than 5%, meaning that it cannot be definitively concluded, based on the standards for the one-proportion Z-test, whether schools in Harford County are recycling in accordance with the baseline percentage legally required of Maryland businesses (One proportion Z test, 2023). Schools were not found to be statistically above or below the studied baseline percentage, indicating that compliance with recycling program regulations could neither be confirmed nor refuted and therefore, program efficiency could not be evaluated. The most significant outcome identified in the study was that four of the schools in the dataset are not able to reach the baseline recycling percentage while producing waste at full capacity (Maryland Recycling Act Report for Businesses, 2024). This finding indicates that some HCPHS are not prepared to meet the Maryland requirements for recycling in businesses through their recycling infrastructure. Although schools are not expressly required to recycle to this minimum percentage as they are not considered businesses under Maryland law, it does suggest that because school recycling programs share many similarities to business recycling programs, schools need to improve current infrastructure.
Results from Survey
Survey respondents’ perception regarding the efficacy of their given recycling programs largely varied. The survey results show that most respondents viewed their recycling program to be effective, with only 25% of respondents viewing their recycling program to have any level of inefficacy. In the survey, School 2 responded “Very effective” and displayed statistical significance for recycling above the baseline. Schools 1 and 5 responded “Somewhat effective” but did not display statistical significance for recycling at or above the Maryland baseline. School 8 responded “Somewhat ineffective” and showed no statistical significance for recycling at or above the recycling baseline (Carlson, 2000).
Connections of Results
Most schools in the dataset showed no statistical significance in recycling above or below the Maryland baseline percentage when assuming maximum waste and recycling capacity based on available infrastructure. Among the schools analyzed, only two yielded statistically significant results. School 2 was found to be recycling at or above the baseline level, indicating compliance, whereas School 3 was determined to be below the baseline, indicating noncompliance. The results of the survey indicated that, out of those who responded, a majority viewed their recycling programs to be effective. This indicates that respondents generally overestimated the efficacy of their given recycling programs as proven by the One-Proportion Z-test, which was unable to confidently indicate that all but one school recycled effectively (One proportion Z test, 2023).
Implications of Results
It was found that the majority of HCPHS are not running recycling programs that are ensured to meet the minimum business recycling ratio according to the MRA, and further, that schools are not effectively monitoring metrics of their recycling programs. Some schools were found to lack the ability to recycle at or above the 35% baseline, indicating a need for improvement in recycling infrastructure, tracking, and policies so that all schools can effectively track and meet state baselines at capacity (Maryland Recycling Act Report for Businesses, 2024).
Given that only 75% of HCPHS were surveyed, it is important to consider that schools which recycle less or more than the baseline could have been excluded from the dataset. It is also important to consider, for the schools which did not show statistical significance in the One-Proportion Z-test, the possibility that they are meeting the baseline recycling percentage some weeks during waste collections but not on other weeks. Of the nine HCPHS monitored, only a single school had enough recycling capacity to almost certainly collect volumes that meet the State baseline, one school almost certainly does not have enough capacity, and the remaining schools are borderline. In the interest of increasing recycling volumes, bins must be convenient, widely available, and ubiquitous. This study highlights the concern that high schools in Harford County simply don’t have enough collection capacity. The results of the study suggest that many of the recycling programs at HCPHS could be greatly improved so that they are more effective at reducing waste and can display definitive waste reduction. It is also important to consider that this study focuses only on one county, meaning that the results of the study may not necessarily be widely generalizable to different geographic locations in the United States (Richard et al., 2024; Vogt et al., 2021).
Connections to Literature
The results of the study, showing that many HCPHS are failing to ensure that they meet the minimum recycling baseline for businesses in Maryland, coincide with literature on the topic. Much of the literature surrounding recycling programs in schools confirms that recycling programs are not as effective or efficient as they have the potential to be. Sources agree that although recycling programs are important to waste reduction, they have existed for a long period of time with little success in significantly helping to keep large amounts of plastic waste out of landfills, oceans, and terrestrial ecosystems (Richard et al., 2024; Vogt et al., 2021).
The results of the survey also agree with much of the current literature calling for a reformation of recycling practices in the larger United States. The way in which schools are currently recycling has proven to be somewhat ineffective in reducing and tracking waste production at capacity. While this could be due to a multitude of factors such as high recycling costs, overestimation of recycling rates, and apathy towards recycling, schools across the county have been shown to lack the infrastructure and adequately sized recycling dumpsters to facilitate recycling rates high enough to ensure they are meeting the minimum required recycling percentage in Maryland (Maryland Recycling Act Report for Businesses, 2024). This suggests that there may be an inherent problem with the current recycling programs implemented at HCPHS. Although further research is necessary to verify this proposition, expert Lindsay Williamson has corroborated this proposition emphasizing a need for change in recycling programs across America due to public recycling resistance and heightened waste production rates (Williamson, 2024).
Limitations
Numerous limitations need to be considered. The sample size of the study was a significant limit. Of the twelve public high schools located in Harford County, the recycling data of only nine schools was collected by the interview portion of the study, and the data of four schools for the survey portion. While the sample size is likely too limited to support broad conclusions for high schools within Harford County specifically, it may be applicable to counties with comparable geographic and cultural characteristics throughout the United States (Maryland Recycling Act Report for Businesses, 2024).
Another limitation of the study is that the data collected was able only to confirm the definitive waste reduction of schools using their total capacity. This means that all statistical analyses only consider that schools are fully filling both their trash and recycling dumpsters every week. It is very likely that the amount of waste and recycling that is produced by Harford County schools each week may vary, meaning that much of the data analysis may not be accurate to the material trash and recycling production of different schools (Maryland Recycling Act Report for Businesses, 2024).
The most notable limitation of the project was that some data had to be discarded due to statistical irrelevance. Using a mixed-method approach to collect data made it so that the study was receiving two different data inputs. Certain quantitative data about the volume and collection frequency of dumpsters at different schools received differing interview and survey responses. Because some of the responses conflicted, the dataset which was confirmed to be more accurate to reality (interview) was kept for analysis while the other dataset (survey) was discarded for continuity of the study. Discarding the inaccurate dataset could have resulted in potentially valuable data being discarded. This limitation is most significant as it suggests that schools in Harford County may not be properly aware of their recycling metrics (Carlson, 2000).
Applications for Future Research
Since it was established that most recycling programs in HCPHS are likely not operating at their potential efficacy, future research could explore the most efficient ways that recycling programs in schools can be improved. Given that many of the schools which were surveyed did not show statistical significance in ensuring that they were meeting the recycling baseline, it is important to determine how this may be accomplished in the future and how schools can work towards reducing material waste. Additionally, future research could explore the exact amount of waste and recycling which is being produced by HCPHS so that more specific conclusions can be drawn about material waste reduction. Future research could enable schools to effectively track and determine rates of waste production and reduction. Future studies should explore recycling programs at different geographic locations to determine if material waste reduction at American high schools widely varies between different geographic areas. By collecting the recycling metrics of American high schools, ineffective recycling programs can be identified and compared to other areas such as European nations who currently recycle 47% of produced waste through their prioritization of recycling education and implementation of waste-reducing practices such as a circular economy (Lee et al., 2022).
Conclusion
Sustainability is a crucial issue given the current disregard for and pollution of the environment. The results of this study show that HCPHS are not very effective at significantly reducing or monitoring material waste production and reduction at capacity. Because this study was conducted only based upon high schools in the Harford County, Maryland region, no claims can be made about high school recycling programs on a wider scale. However, future research could aim to make more definitive judgments on the efficacy of recycling programs at a wider scale by researching the efficacy of high school recycling programs in locations across America. Because recycling is one of the most accessible and easy ways to improve global sustainability and to help the environment, as iterated by Haghighatjoo, Tahmasebi, and Noroozi (2020) and Akil, Johar, and Ho (2015), it is important to understand if recycling programs are functioning at a rate that is meaningful to waste reduction.