Sei sulla pagina 1di 10

International Journal of Hospitality Management 43 (2014) 1322

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Hospitality Management


journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijhosman

Green strategies for hotels: Estimation of recycling benets


Nripendra Singh a,1 , David Cranage b , Seoki Lee b,
a
b

Jaypee Business School, A Constituent of JIIT University, A-10, Sector-62, Noida 201307, India
School of Hospitality Management, The Pennsylvania State University, United States

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Keywords:
Recycling
Hotel waste
Salvage value
GHG emission
Environment benets

a b s t r a c t
Today is the Green Economy era and green strategies, like recycling can provide a great benet to hotel
industry. However, there is a lack of research to support these nancial benets. Therefore, this study
investigates the role of recycling to enhance hotel businesses by contributing to its bottom line. The study
uses a waste-audit technique on ve hotel properties and conducts costbenet analysis based on the
waste-audit results. Furthermore, the study estimates potential environmental impacts from recycling
in terms of greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction. Findings suggest that hotels should practice recycling more
rigorously not only to help the environment, but also to realize some potential monetary benets. Additionally, participation of the hotel guests in this process is also recommended to make it more affordable
and lucrative for the industry.
2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Most human activities create waste, and the way this waste is
handled, stored, collected and disposed of can pose risks to the environment and to public health (Zhu et al., 2008). With the increase
of business activities as well as rapid urbanization, the generation of waste has also increased. Improper management of this
waste has led to various hazards not only for human beings but
also for the whole ecosystem. Recycling has been at the forefront
of successfully managing the problem related to waste. It is one of
the processes that is used in Integrated Solid Waste Management
(ISWM) along with reduce and reuse (Memon, 2010). Much of the
progress in the concept of recycling happened in the 1990s and
this is called the decade of recycling in America. The remarkable
increase in the recycling rate rose from 9% in 1989 to 28% in 1996
indicating robust popular support and suggests that this form of
civic environmentalism has entered the mainstream of behavioral
norms in America (Goldstein, 1997).
Total municipal solid waste (MSW) generation in 2010 was
250 million tons in the United States. Organic materials continue to
be the largest component of MSW. Paper and paperboard account
for 29% and yard trimmings and food scraps account for another
27%. While plastics comprise 12%; metals make up 9%; and rubber, leather, and textiles account for 8%. Whereas wood follows at

Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: nripendra.singh@jiit.ac.in (N. Singh), dac2@psu.edu
(D. Cranage), leeseoki@psu.edu (S. Lee).
1
Tel.: +91 120 2400973 975.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2014.07.006
0278-4319/ 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

around 6% and glass at 5%. Other miscellaneous waste makes up


approximately 3% of the MSW generated in 2010 (www.epa.gov,
2013). Recycling and composting prevented 85.1 million tons of
material from being disposed of in 2010, up from 15 million tons
in 1980. This prevented the release of approximately 186 million
metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent into the air in 2010
(www.epa.gov, 2013) (Fig. 1).
Disposing of waste in landlls produces greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions leading to environmental degradation. The unmanaged
waste dumped in landlls cause anaerobic decomposition producing methane, a greenhouse gas, which is 25 times more potent than
carbon dioxide. It also leads to groundwater contamination through
leachate, surface water contamination through runoff, and air contamination due to emission of harmful gases. Waste prevention
and recycling, commonly referred to as waste reduction, helps better management of solid waste, which leads to reduced dumping
in landlls and thus less emissions of GHG.
The hotel industry is one of the major contributors of
organic/wet waste in landlls, which is the main cause of GHG
emission. Bacot et al. (2002) reveals that for commercial sector
facilities, which hotels represent 23%, generate around 45% of all
municipal solid waste. The solid waste generated from the hotels
is disposed off primarily in landlls. Hotel waste can be broadly
classied as wet and dry waste. Wet waste comprises mainly the
organic waste (food waste, garden waste and cooking oil waste)
and dry waste includes recyclable waste like metal (cans), plastic,
paper, linen and others.
The literature reveals that proper management of waste can lead
to higher protability for hotel and save environmental pollution. In
one of the studies conducted in Bali, it was found that participation

14

N. Singh et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 43 (2014) 1322

Fig. 1. Municipal solide waste (MSW) recycling rates.


Source: www.epa.gov.

in a waste management program provided direct economic benets to the hotels (through waste minimization), indirect benets
such as a better corporate image, and avoided costs (liability) (Tang,
2004; Vahatiitto, 2010). Studies have shown that tourists (hotel
guests/clients) are willing to pay more for environmental friendly
products and services such as hotel accommodation (Kang et al.,
2012; Masau and Prideaux, 2003). Many hotels are practicing environmentally friendly policies and recycling to manage waste, which
is benetting them by an increase in prot and getting positive customer response and improved corporate brand image (IHRA, 1995).
This line of research can be supported by the instrumental stakeholder theory, suggesting that rms implement socially responsible
activities to eventually enhance their performance and value
(Donaldson and Preston, 1995; Freeman, 1984). In other words,
rms perceive their participation in socially responsible activities, including environemtnally friendly activities, instrumental to
improve their performance. According to the instrumental stakeholder theory, not only shareholders, but also other stakeholders
such as employees and customers inuence rms strategies and
performances, and thus, rms should strive to satisfy all stakeholders in a balanced manner to maximize their value. For example,
rms may improve their employees organizational commitment
by implementing environmentally friendly practices in their businesses, thus enhance retention rate which will consequently help
rms to increase their performance. Several hotel studies were
empirically conducted based on this theory in the context of corporate social responsibility which is a broach concept including
environmental issues, and generally supported the theory (for
example, Inoue and Lee, 2011; Kang et al., 2010; Lee and Park, 2009).
It was, however, also found in some studies that small hotels and
restaurants tend to place environmental concerns as the second priority (rst being revenue generation) in their businesses (Goodall,
1995). As hotels are one of the major sources of solid waste generation, for reducing the volume of this waste, Kirk (1995) focused
on purchasing policies (develop partnership, products with sensible packing), waste management (minimize waste in the operation,

reuse and recycle) and waste disposal (partnership with disposal


companies, sound disposal methods) by hotel to meet environmental responsibility and reduce the burden of waste. Considering the
signicant role of the hotel industry in terms of waste generation
(half a pound to 28.5 pounds of trash per day per room) and the
fast growth of the industry, adopting a number of environmental best practices with quantiable measures, including areas of
benchmarking and auditing, nancial analysis to facilitate informed
decision making, and operational training, becomes important due
to certain factors such as increasing regulation and rising utility
costs (Goldstein and Primlani, 2012). Thus, this study looked at ve
hotels in Center County, Pennsylvania to understand the waste generation and its management for estimating the monetary benets
of recycling for the industry and the environment. Findings of this
study support the instrumental stakeholder theory.
This study has the following objectives:
To examine the current status of solid waste generation in hotels
by conducting waste audits. It includes both qualitative and quantitative aspects of the problem.
To understand waste minimization and disposal mechanisms,
including collection, segregation, recycling, composting and combustion techniques.
To develop strategies or best practices for waste management to
make it protable, sustainable and environmental friendly.
2. Literature review
2.1. Waste and recycling
Waste or wastes are terms for unwanted materials. Waste
material can be solid, liquid, gaseous or radioactive. It includes
municipal solid waste (household trash/refuse), wastewater and
others. The term is often subjective because waste to one person is
not necessarily waste to another. Also, when scrap metal is sent to

N. Singh et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 43 (2014) 1322

landlls, it is inaccurate to classify them as waste, because they are


recyclable. Similarly, soiled or spoiled food is a substantial part of
the waste from the hotel industry, but can be healthy food for pigs
in piggeries or used in a composting program. The term usually
relates to materials produces by human activity, and the process
is generally undertaken to reduce their effect on health, the environment or esthetics. Thus, this paper deals with current practices
used for waste management in hotels, which includes collection,
transportation, processing or disposal, managing and monitoring
of waste materials (Bartone et al., 1990).
Recycling is a resource recovery practice that refers to the
collection and reuse of waste materials such as empty beverage
containers. The materials from which the items are made can be
reprocessed into new products. Material for recycling may be collected separately from general waste using dedicated bins and
collection vehicles, a procedure called curb side collection. In some
communities, the owner of the waste is required to separate the
materials into various different bins (e.g., for paper, plastics, metals)
prior to its collection. In other communities, all recyclable materials are placed in a single bin for collection, and the sorting is
handled later at a central facility. The latter method is known as
single-stream recycling (OECD, 2007; Wilson et al., 2006).
The most common recycled material from hotels include aluminum such as beverage cans, copper such as wire, steel from food
and aerosol cans, old steel furnishings or equipment, polyethylene and PET bottles, glass bottles and jars, paperboard cartons,
newspapers, magazines and light paper, and corrugated berboard
boxes. This can be useful in generating substantial revenue in terms
of savings of hauling fee and salvage value of the waste, apart
from savings to environmental degradation. In addition, a major
portion of the waste include recoverable materials that are organic
in nature, such as plant material, food scraps, and paper products.
It can be recovered through composting and digestion processes
to decompose the organic matter. The resulting organic material is
then recycled as mulch or compost for agricultural or landscaping
purposes. Also, waste gas from the process (such as methane) can be
captured and used for generating electricity and heat (Federation
of Canadian Municipalities, n.d.; UNEP, 2005).
2.2. Environmental management in the hotel industry
In recognition of environmental degradation, governments,
along with the green movement within the hotel and tourism
industry, and travelers, have become increasingly aware of the need
for more effective measures to protect the environment. In order
to achieve noticeable improvement, hotel managers and operators
must be willing to act in an environmentally responsible manner. In the survey performed among Swedish and Polish hoteliers
(Bohdanowicz, 2006), it was found that their facilities inuence
the natural surroundings, although the magnitude of the impacts
is often underestimated. The hoteliers are also aware that the hotel
industry would benet from environmental pro-activeness among
operators (Bohdanowicz, 2006). Hotel and tourism associations,
including hotel corporations, are believed to have an important role
in promoting environmental awareness and advocating more sustainable practices among the operators of the hospitality industry
(CSD, 1999). Thus, there is a pressing need for hotels to take care of
their waste. Also, if the benets can be estimated, it can be source
of motivation for hoteliers rather than a compulsion.
It has been estimated that 75% of all environmental impacts
created by the hotel industry can be attributed to the excessive
consumption of local and imported non-durable goods, energy and
water, followed by emissions released to air, water and soil (APAT,
2002). A typical hotel guest is estimated to produce at least 1 kg
of waste per day (IHEI, 2002). A large proportion (5060%) of this
waste could be recycled or reused (Smith et al., 1993). Waste is

15

thus a substantial cost in terms of hauling fees, which can be


saved and transformed to revenue by recycling and its salvage
value.
According to Kasim (2009), environmental management is
important in ensuring a good future for small and medium hotels,
but only a small majority agrees that environmental management
could reduce the operational costs. Thus to convince the hoteliers
to practice waste management for environment, there is a need to
quantify its benets.
Assessing the success of waste minimization, clubs requires the
use of cost benet analysis. Costbenet analysis (CBA) is becoming
increasingly popular for evaluating policy and investment within
the UK (Pearce, 1998). In a survey conducted on eight Clubs in
UK regarding revenue generated from waste management, the
reported nancial savings appear very impressive. Waste costs as
around 500,000. Audits showed that it was in fact 12,870,000,
some 4.5% of total turnover. Some 3,000,000 of savings was considered to be achievable and this corresponded to around 1.1% of
total turnover. One of the clubs like LWMI resulted in savings of
747,000, which were 0.26% of total turnover. The total savings
of year one and two were 1,266,000, which was 0.47% of total
turnover (Phillips et al., 2001).
Radwan et al. (2010) framed a solid waste management (SWM)
model for hotels to achieve zero waste. The model considers four
main steps, which mainly focuses on hotel commitment to owning
environmental responsibility toward reducing and recycling waste
according to the legislation, considering suitable waste carrier, conducting waste audit, keeping records of audits and disposal routes
to measure the effectiveness of the processes, assessing disposal
costs, and adapting to the waste hierarchy like prevention, minimization, reuse, recycle, compost and landll to achieve zero waste.
This study, however, lacks in estimating the cost of adopting and
implementing the proposed model.
In another recent study (Malik and Kumar, 2012), practical
remedies are suggested to ensure lower waste generation and
better waste management without adding much to the cost. For
example, minimizing or avoiding use of plastic bags, plastic liners in garbage bins, replace use of diluted cleaning and laundry
solutions by concentrated products, distribution of newspapers
in rooms can be replaced by positioning them in news stands at
central locations such as lobby or restaurant. Purchase of cloth
material of high thread count for longer life, use of pump-style
sprays in-place of aerosol cans, use of rellable dispensers for soap,
shampoo and other toiletries in guest rooms to eradicate waste
soap pieces, wrappers and plastic bottles. Use of damaged bath,
hand, face towels as cleaning cloth and paper products and furniture made from recycled material. Sridang et al. (2005) also found
that the average waste ranges between 0.05 and 17.35 kg/room/day
or 3.51 kg/room/day in the two cities of Hat Yai and Phuket in
Southern Thailand, which is further segregated into food waste,
glass and cardboard. Though food waste is generated from other
sources as well like the main kitchen, prepared food, guest room
and staff cantina, which is 75.9% of the total waste. But the
study did not estimate costs and benets from managing this
waste.

3. Methodology
A waste-audit was conducted at ve hotels in University Park,
Center County, Pennsylvania, to nd out the contents of the trash
in their dumpsters and their recycling status. The ve hotels were
selected based on their consent/approval to participate in the
waste-audit in the study area. This paper refers the ve hotels as
Hotels AE for anonymity. Three of the ve (Hotels AC) operate
with food and beverage (F&B) services while the other two (Hotels

16

N. Singh et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 43 (2014) 1322

Table 1
Hotels with F&B services.
Hotel names

Plastic bottle
Other plastic
Terracycle
Aluminium
Glass
Newspaper
Mixed ofce
Cardboard
Compost
Trash
Total

Hotel A

Hotel B

Hotel C

Price

AVE

Waste

AVE

Waste

AVE

Waste

61
16.33
15.00
48.33
27.00
31.67
55.00
0.00
259.33
75.67
589.33

10%
3%
3%
8%
5%
5%
9%
0%
44%
13%
100%

21.96
5.88
5.40
17.40
9.72
11.40
19.80
0
93.36
27.24
212.16

57.5
10.67
22.50
16.83
39.67
30.67
32.00
7.00
286.67
65.33
568.83

10%
2%
4%
3%
7%
5%
6%
1%
50%
11%
100%

20.70
3.84
8.10
6.06
14.28
11.04
11.52
2.52
103.20
23.52
204.78

61.33
4.00
20.00
21.33
40.00
68.67
20.67
24.67
306.67
104.67
672.00

9%
1%
3%
3%
6%
10%
3%
4%
46%
16%
100%

22.08
1.44
7.20
7.68
14.40
24.72
7.44
8.88
110.40
37.68
241.92

Hotel A

Hotel B

Hotel C

Salvage income
$350
200
10
1300
5
35
40
100
Income

$7686
1176
54
22,620
49
399
792
0
$32,776

$7245
768
81
7878
71
386
460
252
$17,141

$7728
288
72
9984
72
865
298
888
$20,195

Notes: AVE represents average pounds per day; waste represents total waste in tons per year; price represents price per tons.

D and E) operate without it. The waste-audit was performed for


four hotels (Hotels AD) on November 14 (Thursday), 16 (Saturday), and 19 (Tuesday) while for Hotel E on September 2 (Monday)
and 18 (Wednesday), and November 19 (Tuesday).
According to the chamber of commerce of Pennsylvania, there
are approximately 100 hotels within Centre County, and the sampled ve hotels include both hotels with and without F&B services
which should reasonably represent the hotel population in the
county. However, generalizability of these ve hotels to other areas
or regions of U.S. is limited. A waste audit was conducted randomly,
without any prior notication of the visit to ensure unbiased audits
and avoid any deliberate action by the hotels to manipulate their
recycling status.
At each site, auditors randomly selected trash bags from each
dumpster, approximately 1015% of the total trash by weight. The
data was collected using a Hotel Waste-audit Sheet (see Appendix
1). One of the days was intentionally selected to fall immediately
after a football game, to see if there is any signicant difference
in the quantity of waste at a hotels maximum occupancy. It was
found that there is no major difference. Whatever difference was
visible may have been be due to the next day, Sunday, when the
trash is not hauled. It was however, more prominent in hotels with
F&B services.
The three state authorities concerned with waste management,
Center County Recycling and Refuse Authority (CCRRA), State College Borough, and Council of Government (COG) agreed to be a
part of this waste audit, which made it more reliable and appropriate with their wide experience in this eld for many years. They
provided resources for the waste audit including human resource,
bins, weighing machines, gloves, glasses, uniform (Tyvek-suits),
transportation facility, and infrastructure (space and set-up) for
segregating comingled waste. The results were used to extrapolate
on the 100 hotels within Center County for analysis. The rates used
to calculate salvage value of recyclable material is taken from the
Center County Authority, Bellefonte, PA. Estimation of greenhouse
gases (GHG) emission is calculated using the data generated from
these audits. The technique used for calculation is the Waste Reduction Model (WARM) developed by the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).2

2
According to EPA, WARM calculates and totals GHG emissions of baseline
and alternative waste management practicessource reduction, recycling, combustion, composting, and landlling. The model calculates emissions in metric tons
of carbon equivalent (MTCE), metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2E),
and energy units (million BTU) across a wide range of material types commonly
found in municipal solid waste (MSW). Relevant Information is available at:
http://epa.gov/epawaste/conserve/tools/warm/index.html.

4. Results
4.1. Waste audits
Table 1 shows waste information of three sampled hotels with
F&B services (Hotels AC). The data collected from Hotels AC
shows that out of total trash thrown in the dumpster for which
the hotels would be charged a hauling fee of $70 per ton, only 13%,
11%, and 16%, respectively are true trash, which should go to the
landll, the rest, 87%, 89%, and 84%, respectively, were recyclable. As
hauling charges are measured by weight and not by time, average
waste per day is multiplied by 360 for a year (assuming that average
working days in a hotel are 360 days) and converted into tons. Thus,
212.16, 204.78, and 241.92 tons of waste would be generated from
these three hotels in a year for which $14,851 (212.16 tons $70),
$14,335 (= 204.78 tons $70), and $16,934 (= 241.92 tons $70),
respectively, come as hauling charges. But as the true trash is only
13%, 11%, and 16%, Hotels AC need to pay only $1931, $1577, and
$2709 where three hotels can save $12,920, $12,758, and $14,225,
respectively, per year. The remaining waste (i.e., 87%, 87%, and 84%)
is recyclable, which could be segregated and sold as salvage value.
As per the approved rates of different waste material from the Centre County Authority, this hotel could earn additional revenue of
$32,776, $17,141, and $20,195, respectively, per year by selling the
recyclable material coming out of its waste stream (Table 1).
Similarly, data from the other two hotels (Hotels D and E), which
does not provide F&B services, shows that out of total trash only 12%
trash is the true trash and 88% of the trash is recyclable for the both
hotels (Table 2). Thus, out of the average amount paid as hauling
charges, which comes to $7914.20 per year for Hotel D and $6711.60
for Hotel E, only 12% needs to be paid and, the rest of $6964.49 for
Hotel D and $5906.21 for Hotel E can be saved along with the saving
of environmental pollution. In addition, the recyclable material has
a salvage value of $18,984.60 for Hotel D and $29,806.80 for Hotel
E per year, as per the approved rate.
An aggregate of the entire country would give a better picture
of the benets of managing the waste in the hotel industry. But due
to the large variation in the size of operations of the hotels, it may
not be valid to extrapolate this data at a country level. Therefore, it
is being done at the county level, which has hotels of fairly similar
size of operations. To nd the industry aggregate in the county and
the estimation of savings from hauling the true trash, the average
for hotels with and without F&B services is calculated separately
from the waste-audit in Tables 3a, 3b and 4a, 4b, respectively.
The data collected from the three hotels with F&B services is
used for calculating the average for Center County, and then multiplied by 50, which is the total number of such hotels in Center
County (refer Table 3a). The results show that 219.62 tons is the

N. Singh et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 43 (2014) 1322

17

Table 2
Hotels without F&B services.
Hotel names

Plastic bottle
Other plastic
Terracycle
Aluminium
Glass
Newspaper
Mixed ofce
Cardboard
Compost
Trash
Total

Hotel D

Hotel E

Price

AVE

Waste

AVE

Waste

52
17.00
18.33
21.67
46.80
9.00
20.07
14.33
78.40
36.47
314.07

17%
5%
6%
7%
15%
3%
6%
5%
25%
12%
100%

18.72
6.12
6.60
7.80
16.85
3.24
7.22
5.16
28.22
13.13
113.06

47
18.67
12.00
45.67
36.33
11.00
9.00
22.00
32.33
32.33
266.33

18%
7%
5%
17%
14%
4%
3%
8%
12%
12%
100%

16.92
6.72
4.32
16.44
13.08
3.96
3.24
7.92
11.64
11.64
95.88

Hotel D

Hotel E

Salvage income
$350
200
10
1300
5
35
40
100
Income

$6552
1224
66
10,140
84
113
289
516
$18,984

$5922
1344
43
21,372
65
139
130
792
$29,807

Notes: AVE represents average pounds per day; Waste represents total waste in tons per year; Price represents price per tons.

Table 3a
Average of hotels with F&B services.
Material

Hotel A

Hotel B

Hotel C

Avg/day

Avg/year (lbs)

Avg/year (tons)

Plastic bottle
Other plastic
Terracycle
Aluminium
Glass
Newspaper
Mixed ofce
Cardboard
Compost
Trash
Total

61.00
16.33
15.00
48.33
27.00
31.67
55.00
0.00
259.33
75.67
589.33

57.50
10.67
22.50
16.83
39.67
30.67
32.00
7.00
286.67
65.33
568.83

61.33
4.00
20.00
21.33
40.00
68.67
20.67
24.67
306.67
104.67
672.00

59.94
10.33
19.17
28.83
35.56
43.67
35.89
10.56
284.22
81.89
610.06

21,580.00
3720.00
6900.00
10,380.00
12,800.00
15,720.00
12,920.00
3800.00
102,320.00
29,480.00
219,620.00

21.58
3.72
6.90
10.38
12.80
15.72
12.92
3.80
102.32
29.48
219.62

Percent

Price per ton

Income from salvage

10%
2%
3%
5%
6%
7%
6%
2%
47%
13%
100%

$350
200
10
1300
5
35
40
100
Total income

$7553.00
744.00
69.00
13,494.00
64.00
550.20
516.80
380.00
$23,371.00

Table 3b
Estimation of savings from hauling true trash.
Weight per hotel (in
tons)
Current cost of hauling by hotels @ $70 per ton
Cost of hauling true trash @ 13%
Savings from NOT hauling recyclables @ 87%
Income from salvage @ 40%

219.62
29.48
190.14
87.84

Cost per hotel (in $)


15,373.40
1998.54
13,374.86
23,371.00

Weight for total hotels in


county-50 (in tons)

Cost for total hotels in


county-50 (in $)

10,981
1474
9507
4392

$768,670
99,927.10
668,742.90
1,168,550

Table 4a
Average of hotels without F&B services.
Material

Hotel D

Hotel E

Avg/day

Avg/year (lbs)

Avg/year (tons)

Percent

Price per ton

Income from salvage

Plastic bottle
Other plastic
Terracycle
Aluminium
Glass
Newspaper
Mixed ofce
Cardboard
Compost
Trash
Total

52.00
17.00
18.33
21.67
46.80
9.00
20.07
14.33
78.40
36.47
314.07

47.00
18.67
12.00
45.67
36.33
11.00
9.00
22.00
32.33
32.33
266.33

49.50
17.83
15.17
33.67
41.57
10.00
14.53
18.17
55.37
34.40
290.20

17,820.00
6420.00
5460.00
12,120.00
14,964.00
3600.00
5232.00
6540.00
19,932.00
12,384.00
104,472.00

17.82
6.42
5.46
12.12
14.96
3.60
5.23
6.54
19.93
12.38
104.47

17%
6%
5%
12%
14%
3%
5%
6%
19%
12%
100%

$350
200
10
1300
5
35
40
100
TOTAL INCOME

$6237.00
1284.00
54.60
15,756.00
74.82
126.00
209.28
654.00
$24,395.70

average waste per hotel, and 10,981 tons is the total waste from 50
hotels in one year. Out of the total waste, the true trash is approximately 13%, which is 29.48 tons per hotel, and recyclable material
is 87%, which is 190.14 tons per hotel per year on an average.

Cost estimation for the same is shown in Table 3b, which shows
a net saving of $13,374.86 for each hotel, and $ 668,742.90 for all
50 hotels in Center County with food and beverage. It also shows
the savings of 190.14 tons of trash from dumping in the landll

Table 4b
Estimation of savings from hauling true trash.

Current cost of hauling by hotels @ $70 per ton


Cost of hauling true trash @ 12%
Savings from NOT hauling recyclables @ 88%
Income from salvage @ 69%

Weight per hotel


(in tons)

Cost per hotel (in $)

Weight for total hotels in


county-50 (in tons)

Cost for total hotels in


county-50 (in $)

104.47
12.53
91.93
72.08

7312.90
877.50
6435.30
24,395.70

5223.50
627
4596.50
3604

365,645
43,875
321,765
1,219,785

18

N. Singh et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 43 (2014) 1322

Table 5
Costbenet analysis.
Category

Hotels with F&B

Hotels without F&B

Extra labor (persons per day)


Extra labor ($ charged per hour)
Extra labor (hours per day)
Extra labor ($ per year)
Refuse fee
Extra bins (100 and 300) at 100 each
Income from Salvage value
Current expenses
1st year
2nd year
3rd year (50% reduced labor cost experiential learning)
4th year (50% reduced labor cost experiential learning)
5th year (no additional cost of labor)
Savings from compost
Non-monetary benets (premium)

6 persons
$10
2
43,200
1998.54
30,000
23,371
15,373.4
51,827.54
21,827.54
227.54
227.54
21,372.46
20% of food waste (also sold)
Reduced GHG in the environment
Positive customer view
Satised staff

2 persons
$10
2
14,400
877.5
10,000
24,395.7
7312.9
881.8
9118.2
16,318.2
16,318.2
23,518.2
20% of food waste (also sold)
Reduced GHG in the environment
Positive customer view
Satised staff

causing environmental pollution from an average hotel each year.


In addition, the 87% recyclable material has a salvage value of
$23,371 for each hotel as per the rates of Center County Authority,
PA (Table 3b).
Similarly, the data collected from the two hotels without F&B
services has been used for calculating the average value for one
hotel and for all hotels in Center County, PA (Table 4a). The results
show that the total waste generated is 104.47 tons from an average
hotel without F&B services in one year, out of which the true trash
is 12% and recyclable materials 88%. Estimating the cost and savings
from hauling, a net saving of $6435.30 is estimated from each hotel
and $321,765 from all the hotels without F&B in Center County. In
addition, there can be savings of environmental pollution by not
dumping 4596.5 tons in the landll, plus 88% recyclable material
can earn a salvage value of $1,219,785 (Table 4b).

4.2. Costbenet analysis


The costbenet analysis is typically conducted by various organizations including private sector businesses to determine whether
a given project provides greater benets than costs or not. Jules
Dupuit, a French engineer developed this economic accounting
in 1848 and later, Alfred Marshall formalized basic concepts of
the analysis. The data for the current study was gathered from
waste-audits and was used for analysing the cost versus benets
of implementing the waste management program at hotels in Centre County, Pennsylvania. The study makes the following logics and
assumptions for the analysis based on the experience of the wasteaudit, discussions with practitioners like hotel managers and waste
management ofcers, and observations at the hotel facility:

Average cost of cleaning staff in hotels range from $710 per hour.
Time to sort the waste is estimated based on the time taken to do
it during our waste-audit of the ve hotels.
Cost of bins is estimated based on the available range from
$5 (recycling waste basket-14 quart) to $25 (waste basket
with hanging waste basket-28 quart) to $90 (16 gallons, Dualcompartment touchless recycle bin/trash can).
Reduction of labor cost by 50% from 3rd year due to experiential
learning, habit-development, training of the cleaning staff, and
no additional requirement from 5th year.
Compost selling price (for customers) varies from $5 to $20 per
40 pounds, but has not been shown in this calculation (due to
non-availability of the production cost), which will surely add to
hotels revenue. Also, food waste is reduced to 20% of its volume
when converted to compost.
Table 5 clearly depicts how a hotel, after incurring additional
expenses of $43,200.00 on labor and $30,000.00 on extra bins,
can generate considerable prots of approximately $21,372.46
within a ve-year period. There will be additional benets from
selling compost, savings from not having to buy fertilizer for garden/horticulture and landscaping, customer loyalty and a premium
on being eco-friendly in the form of staff satisfaction. One of the
most important additional benets will be for the environment,
which is reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emission from landlls.
It is clearly evident from Tables 3a and 3b, that hotels with
F&B services, which are paying $15,373.40 currently, will be
required to pay $51,827.54 in the rst year of implementation
of solid waste management program. The additional cost of bins
($30,000.00), extra labor ($43,200.00) and hauling charges/refuse
fee for the true trash ($1998.54), along with the revenue from

Table 6
Salvage value (revenue) from recycling in center county in 10 years.
Total value from hotels
with F&B

Total waste from 50


hotels without F&B

Waste material

Price per ton

Total waste from 50


hotels with F&B

Plastic bottle
Other plastic
Terracycle
Aluminium
Glass
Newspaper
Mixed ofce
Cardboard

350
200
10
1300
5
35
40
100

1079
186
345
519
640
786
646
190

377,650
37,200
3450
674,700
3200
27,510
25,840
19,000

891
321
273
606
748
180
262
327

4391

1,168,550

3608

Total

Total value from


hotels without F&B

Total (1 year)

Grand total (10


years)

311,850
64,200
2730
787,800
3741
6300
10,464
32,700

689,500
101,400
6180
1,462,500
6941
33,810
36,304
51,700

6,895,000
1,014,000
61,800
14,625,000
69,410
338,100
363,040
517,000

1,219,785

2,388,335

23,883,350

N. Singh et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 43 (2014) 1322


Table 7
Tonnage of recyclables saved from going to landll in center county (in 10 years).
Waste material
Plastic bottle
Other plastic
Terracycle
Aluminium
Glass
Newspaper
Mixed ofce
Cardboard
Compost
Trash
Total

Hotels with F&B

Hotels without F&B

Total

10,790
1860
3450
5190
6400
7860
6460
1900
51,160
14,740

8910
3210
2730
6060
7482
1800
2616
3270
9966
6192

19,700
5070
6180
11,250
13,882
9660
9076
5170
61,126
20,932

109,810

52,236

162,046

salvage value ($23,371.00) will be added, and current hauling


expenses ($15,373.40) will be subtracted from the total. In the second year of its operation the hotel will not be paying for bins,
therefore $30,000.00 will not be added in the second year. Thus,
it will need to pay be $21,827.54, which is almost equivalent to
their current expenses for hauling (as observed and conrmed from
the actual records-hauling fees). From its 3rd year of operation the
labor cost should ideally be reduced to half (50%) due to experiential learning and reduced extra incentive is required to be paid to
motivate the staff for some extra efforts, unlike the rst two years
of its implementation. Therefore, in the 3rd and the 4th year of its
operations they will be required to pay only $227.5. Finally, when
enough learning and training of the staff has happened and trash
segregation would become part of their work, the hotel will not
be required to pay for the extra labor cost. So, from the 5th year
onwards hotels instead of paying for the trash, the hotel will start
earning $21,372.46 every year, mainly from the salvage value of the
recyclable material.
Similarly, in case of hotels without F&B services, paying
$7312.90 currently would pay only $881.80 in the rst year of
implementation of solid waste management program. These hotels
will start earning immediately from the second year due to simple
reason that they have more recyclable material and therefore high
salvage value as compared to the hotels with F&B services. Their
earnings from the salvage value of recyclables would be $23,518.20
every year from the 5th year onwards. This is despite the fact
that they have invested $24,400 toward labor and bins in the rst
year.
Table 6 shows that, by adopting recycling and solid waste
management program, the hotels with and without F&B services
in the Centre County would save 4,391 and 3,608 tons respectively, of recyclable material from being dumped to the landll
each year. This average, if extrapolated for ten years duration
will show us a signicant impact on the environment. Thus, a
total of 162,046 tons (109,810 + 52,236) of recyclable material from
the hotel industry in the Centre County of Pennsylvania will be
saved from being dumped to the landll in 10 years (Table 6). The
amount of revenue which can be earned from its salvage value
is almost $23,883,350.00 in this time period. But more than the
money, this program will lead to environmental benets in terms
of reducing GHG emission in the atmosphere, which if not controlled can cause irreparable damage to our environment and to
people.
For calculating GHG emission reduction from this program,
the weight of the recyclable and trash material shown in Table 7
is used as input in the WARM model. The model will generate the metric ton carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2 E) which
this material would have generated from the landlls. It comes
out to be 198,922 MTCO2 E in the baseline scenario. The baseline scenario shows the current amount of waste that goes into

19

landll or is being recycled, combusted or composted, and calculates the amount of GHG emissions thus produced. This needs
to be compared to the alternate scenario. The alternate scenario
includes the reduced amount of waste, which will go to landll, as a result of waste management program. Thus, it shows
the change in GHG emissions as a result of new program. In
this case, it comes to 164,063 MTCO2 E in the alternate scenario.
The total change in GHG emissions as calculated by the WARM
model comes to 362,985 MTCO2 E. This shows how much reduction in GHG emissions can be achieved by waste management
programs.
This GHG emission in metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2 E) from the model is then used as input in the EPAs
greenhouse gas equivalencies calculator to convert it into different equivalencies like passenger car, gasoline, electricity etc. to
make it possible for the lay person to understand the consequences
of GHG emission and its reduction (greenhouse gas equivalencies
calculator).
The result generated by EPAs greenhouse gas equivalencies calculator for the GHG savings from all the hotels in Center County in
ten years, is shown below:
Emits 362,985 MTCO2 E in ten years equivalent to:
Annual greenhouse gas emissions from 75,622 passenger vehicles.
CO2 emissions from 40,693,386 gallons of gasoline consumed.
CO2 emissions from the electricity use of 54,339 homes for one
year.
CO2 emissions from the energy use of 18,682 homes for one year.
Carbon sequestered by 9,307,308 tree seedlings grown for 10
years.
Carbon sequestered annually by 297,529 acres of pine or r
forests.
Carbon sequestered annually by 2803 acres of forest preserved
from deforestation.
CO2 emissions from 15,124,375 propane cylinders used for home
barbeques.
Alternately, if we look at the GHG savings from an average hotel
in Center County in one year, listed below:
Emits 459 MTCO2 E in a year equivalent to:

Annual greenhouse gas emissions from 90 passenger vehicles.


CO2 emissions from 51,457 gallons of gasoline consumed.
CO2 emissions from the electricity use of 57.2 homes for one year.
Carbon sequestered by 11,769 tree seedlings grown for 10 years.
Carbon sequestered annually by 97.9 acres of pine or r forests.
Carbon sequestered annually by 4.5 acres of forest preserved from
deforestation.
CO2 emissions from 19,125 propane cylinders used for home barbeques.
5. Discussion
During the waste-audit process, it was observed that there was
considerable potential for savings and income in segregating bottles, cans, newspapers and cardboard. Similar nds have come
from other studies like The River Lee Hotel, where Cork was
awarded the winner of best repak recycling award 2012 (Repak
Best Practices Hospitality; Waste Management for the Hospitality
Industry). A considerable problem is not with the majority of the
recyclables, which are well known, easy to distinguish and segregate, but, the major concern is that there are several items, which
are recyclable but small and light in weight, yet they are in abundance in the waste stream. Materials like plastic forks and spoons,

20

N. Singh et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 43 (2014) 1322

straws and lids, milk cartons, chocolate and candy wrappers, juice cartons, small plastic bags, gift wrappers, clothes especially socks, soaps,
etc. are found in bulk which is yet to be segregated from the waste
streams. These materials are a main cause of concern to the waste
industry, as they get mixed with other waste especially wet waste
and forcing it to convert the majority of it to trash, which can only
go to landlls. If these waste items can be sorted out and made
good through recycling techniques, it will help the industry and
the environment in a big way.
Organic waste or the food waste from hotels can be very useful
when mixed with the green waste or horticulture waste to produce
good quality compost and soil conditioner. This organic or natural
compost is very useful for the long-term sustainability of the soil
and produces healthy fruits and vegetables on a continuous basis.
Most of the time this waste goes to the landll because it gets mixed
with non-compostable waste material like plastic and aluminum
foil etc. It is also observed that hotels do not segregate them at
the source. A common reason may exist from lack of commitment
due to being unaware about the benets to the business and environment, and a proper facility to process it. A probable solution is
to create a regional infrastructure, which can handle this type of
waste. It was observed that tons of dry leaves during the fall season can be turned to rich organic compost, if a mechanism can be
created to bring the abundant food waste (wet waste) from the
hotels and restaurants and processed properly. This is being done
successfully at the Penn State University using food waste from the
dormitories and kitchens and mixed with the horticulture waste
from gardens and farms.
Lack of stringent laws and enforcement is another reason for
an insufcient practice of recycling, especially in the commercial
sector like hotels and restaurants. It was observed that in hotels
and restaurants with small operations it is more common not to
practice recycling. This is true as they do not see the benet of
doing it. Therefore, creating stringent laws and enforcing them is a
must to increase recycling to the grass-root level. But doing it will
become more useful, if the segregation is done for the small and tiny
waste material, especially from the wet waste/organic waste/food
waste. For this to be implemented, reporting the benets to these
businesses is extremely important, along with providing support
of proper infrastructure.
It is estimated from this study that an average hotel can earn
around $23,371.0024,395.70 per year and can reduce GHG emissions equivalent to 90 passenger vehicles annually by proper
recycling of their waste. These ndings should encourage hotels
to consider implementing recycling at their facilities. Another reason why these hotels have not actively engaged in recycling is
that they feel that customers may not cooperate in segregating
the waste at the source (guest rooms). They do not feel comfortable asking guests to participate in recycling. They presume that
since guests pay hotels for their stay, if they are asked to segregate their waste into separate bins in the room, guests might feel
offended. These perceptions may be without base because, according to hotel managers of the studied ve hotels, many guests tend
to be sensitive toward the issue of recycling and do not hesitate
in helping. It has been also found that hotel guests feel good by
associating themselves with some noble cause like climate change
and waste management (Masau and Prideaux, 2003). According to
a new survey, most people are aware and concerned about damage to the environment and want to do something about it. They
strongly believe that mankind is abusing the planet and that interference with nature may produce disastrous consequences. There
is widespread optimism that it is not too late to do something about
climate change and that it is possible to overcome the worlds environmental problems (Paul, 2007). Thus, it is highly recommended
that hotels should use small size bins in the guest rooms and similar big size bins at common areas in the hotel for giving them an

opportunity to help in recycling. The Nittany Lion Inn at Penn


State main campus practices segregation at the source in the guest
rooms. They provide bins and plastic bags, along with a playcard/leaet/note for the guests, which helps them to understand
what to segregate in the plastic bags. This program is very successful and guests have a high appreciation for it. The rate of cooperation
from the guests is very high. This practice not only helps make the
guest feel part of a sustainability movement, and feel they are partnering with the hotel in this effort, but can also help drastically
reduce the cost to the hotel of separating the recyclable items from
the trash. Further research may be encouraged to develop better
designs for recycling bins for guest rooms. Liquid soaps, shampoos
and gels in dispensers may be used in place of soap bars and plastic
bottled shampoos and gels.
Another issue is whether or not there is any difference between
hotels with and without F&B services in terms of recycling. One difference found in this study between hotels with and without F&B
services is that hotels without F&B services have an advantage of
generating more revenue from the recyclable material, as they do
not have much compostable or organic waste. But, hotels with F&B
services can save on buying fertilizers from the compost they can
produce from the compostable material in their waste. Also, they
can sell extra compost to others, Another important question that
may arise, is recycling economically viable looking at the high realty
cost, especially when it comes to storing the waste inventory? Many
times big hotels need to keep the wet/organic/compostable/food
waste in air conditioned chambers or under refrigeration so that it
does not produce bad odors in the hotel, which further adds to the
cost of storing the waste inventory, especially during the summer
season. This study has not captured the data on these parameters.
There is another solution to it to reduce the space requirement for
keeping the inventory, which is simpler to process as well. Storing different types of recyclable material together comingled or
single stream recycling reduces the space and bins requirement
substantially. But this brings a lower rate by the salvagers, as they
need to segregate it later.
There is a big role which the packaging industry can play in not
only reducing the waste, but in recycling too. Designing of reusable
packaging material and an arrangement of taking the packaging
material back from the customers can be very useful in overall
reduction of waste. It has been observed that hotels have started
bargaining with the suppliers to supply materials in less packaging
to keep the cost as well as the waste low. This can also be achieved
by acquiring supplies from local vendors rather than being shipped
from long distances (Kirk, 1995).
Availability of salvagers for buying recyclable material is somewhat limited in United States as compared to other countries like
India, as most of it is controlled by the authorities. Third party
service providers may be considered as an alternative to the existing system, so that more and more business and individuals can
have easy access to salvagers, which can help in motivating them
to segregate and recycle and earn from the waste. Salvagers may
need to be trained to be more organized and to have wider networks
in order to keep the cost of operations to a minimum, and purchase recyclables from businesses, academic institutions, as well
as individual households.
In addition to what government agencies and businesses can
do, there is a lot which can be done by the teachers/academics in
modifying the behavior of our youth. Many schools and institutions
are adopting green initiatives, but it should be made compulsory
all the schools, as it leads to addiction/behavioral change. They
can also be a role model in segregating waste to bring in the
behavioral change in the society. Sustainability and environmental
management courses may be incorporated into curriculum
throughout different levels of school systems including higher
education. Economics and marketing principles dependent on

N. Singh et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 43 (2014) 1322

theories of consumption may be carefully taught with consideration of environmental issues. This may slowly but surely
bring in the desirable change in the society toward waste
management.
Last, this study makes its contributions to the existing literature
by providing ndings that support the instrumental stakeholder
theory. The environmental management strategy or green strategy
encompasses waste management and recycling, and according to
Donaldson and Preston (1995) and Freeman (1984), such strategy
as a part of a broader concept of corporate social responsibility (CSR) acts for rms as an instrument that eventually leads to
enhanced rm performance. Findings of the current study are also
consistent with the enlightened stakeholder theory proposed by
Jensen (2001); a rm cannot ignore its diverse stakeholders various interests if the rm wants to maximize its performance in a
long-run.

6. Conclusion
Based on the ndings of the current study, although the hotel
industry does a certain level of recycling, there is potential for
considerable improvement. Findings show that 87% and 88% of
total waste are either recyclable or compostable for the sampled
hotels with and without F&B services, respectively. Hotels may not
perceive the potential savings from recycling as substantial considering the necessary efforts to do it. However, this study argues
that such perception may not be correct based on the costbenet
analysis suggesting that hotels cannot only make environmentally friendly contributions, but also make prots out of a proper
recycling practice in a long-term. It has been also shown that
recycling saves GHG emission to a large extent. Hotels need to be
made aware of such potential monetary and non-monetary benets and should be encouraged to develop an appropriate recycling
system. Particular attention may need to be given to the areas of
recycling small and light materials (like plastic forks and spoons,
and straws) mixed with wet waste, and organic and food waste.
Hotels may further improve their waste management system by
having a stringent policy for recycling in place and enforcing it.
Finally, waste management and recycling is a concern for all. Therefore, society as a whole should be sensitized to do their part for the
good of the environment.

7. Future research and limitations


More research is needed to close the gap about the benets of
recycling and developing better understanding of this subject. It
is proposed that further research is needed to bring more clarity
and strengthen the idea of recycling. For example, a more comprehensive Environment costbenet analysis (ECBA) is required
to quantify the amount of prots for the hotels and the amount of
savings for the environment. Questions like, how much difference
can green promotion bring to a hotel, in terms of charging a premium from their customers, and, is there any signicant difference
between those who advertise about green issue and those who do
not, needs to be further studied.
The data is based on the waste-audit conducted on hotels in
State College of Pennsylvania; U.S. Hotels in other areas may have
a different practice for recycling which limits generalizability of
this studys ndings. Second, the estimation of labor cost may vary
from vendor to vendor, and from area to area. The price of salvage
may also change depending on the market demand. Last, it is also
important to mention here that situations like labor shortage and
other market conditions have not been considered in estimating
the sorting time.

21

Appendix 1. Hotel waste-audit sheet


Hotel waste-audit sheet
Hotel name
Audit date
Audit day
Plastic bottle
Other plastic
Terracycle
Aluminium
Glass
Newspaper
Mixed ofce
Cardboard
Compost
Trash

Avg

Percent

Total

References
APAT(Italian National Agency for the Protection of the Environment for Technical
Services), 2002. Tourist accommodation EU eco-label award scheme Final
Report. In: Italian National Agency for the Protection of the Environment and
for Technical Services, Rome, Italy.
Bacot, H., McCoy, B., Plagman-Galvan, J., 2002. Municipal commercial recycling:
barriers to success. Am. Rev. Public Admin. 32 (2), 145165.
Bartone, C., Bernstein, J., Wright, F., 1990. Investments in Solid Waste Management:
Opportunities for Environmental Improvement. Infrastructure and Urban Development Department, The World Bank, Available at: http://www.academia.edu/
5529217/Investments in solid waste management opportunities for
environmental improvement
Bohdanowicz, P., 2006. Environmental awareness and initiatives in the Swedish and
Polish hotel industriessurvey results. Int. J. hospital. Manage. 25, 662682.
CSD (Commission on Sustainable Development), 1999. Sustainable tourism: a nongovernmental organization perspective , New York, USA.
Donaldson, T., Preston, L.E., 1995. The stakeholder theory of the corporation: concepts, evidence, and implications. Acad. Manage. Rev. 20 (1), 6591.
Federation of Canadian Municipalities, n.d. Solid Waste as a Resource:
Review of Waste Technologies. Available at: https://www.fcm.ca/Documents/
tools/GMF/Solid Waste as a Resource Review of Waste Technologies EN.pdf
Freeman, R.E., 1984. Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Prentice Hall,
Englewood, Cliffs.
Goodall, B., 1995. Environmental auditing: a tool for assessing the environmental
performance of tourism rms. Geogr. J. 161 (1), 2937.
Goldstein, N., 1997. Biocycle nationwide survey: the state of garbage. Biocycle,
6067.
Goldstein, K.A., Primlani, R.V., 2012. Current trends and opportunities in hotels sustainability. In: HVS Global Hospitality Services, Available at: http://www.hvs.
com/Content/3218.pdf.
IHEI, 2002. Hotels Care: Community action and responsibility for the environment
, London, UK.
Inoue, Y., Lee, S., 2011. Effects of different dimensions of corporate social responsibility on corporate nancial performance in tourism-related industries. Tour.
Manage. 32 (4), 790804.
International Hotel & Restaurant Association, 1995. Environmental Good
Practice in Hotels: Case Studies From the International Hotel & Restaurant Association Environmental Award. http://www.pnuma.org/industria/
documentos/Environmental%20Good%20Practice%20in%20Hotels.pdf
Jensen, M.C., 2001. Value maximisation, stakeholder theory, and the corporate objective function. Eur. Finan. Manage. 7 (3), 297317.
Kang, K.H., Lee, S., Huh, C., 2010. Impacts of positive and negative corporate social
responsibility activities on company performance in the hospitality industry.
IJHM 29 (1), 7282.
Kang, K.H., Stein, L., Heo, C.Y.H., Lee, S., 2012. Views on environmentalism and consumers willingness to pay for environmental sustainability in the hotel industry.
IJHM 31 (2), 564572.
Kasim, A., 2009. Managerial attitudes towards environmental management among
small and medium hotels in Kuala Lumpur. J. Sustainable. Tour. 17 (6), 709725,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09669580902928468.
Kirk, D., 1995. Environmental management in hotels. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manage.
7 (6), 38.
Lee, S., Park, S.Y., 2009. Do socially responsible activities help hotels and casinos
achieve their nancial goals? IJHM 28 (1), 105112.
Malik, S., Kumar, S., 2012. Management of hotel waste: a case study of small hotels
of Haryana state. Journal of Economics and Management 1 (9), ISSN: 2278-0629.
Masau, P., Prideaux, B., 2003. Sustainable tourism: a role for Kenyas hotel industry.
Curr. Issues Tour. 6 (3), 197208.
Memon, M.A., 2010. Integrated solid waste management based on the 3R approach.
J. Mater. Cycles Waste Manage. 12 (1), 3040.
OECD, 2007. Improving Recycling Markets, Available at: http://www.oecd.org/
env/waste/38093900.pdf

22

N. Singh et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 43 (2014) 1322

Paul, E., 2007. Public Concerned on Environment, Survey Says. http://www.


telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/3312688/Public-concerned-on-environmentsurvey-says.html
Pearce, D., 1998. Cost benet analysis and environmental policy. Oxford Rev. Econ.
Policy 14 (4), 84100.
Phillips, P.S., Pratt, R.M., Pike, K., 2001. An analysis of UK waste minimization clubs:
key requirements for future cost effective developments. J. Waste Manage. 21,
389404.
Radwan, H.R.I., Jones, E., Minoli, D., 2010. Managing solid waste in small hotels. J.
Sust. Tour. 18 (2), 175190.
Repak, Best Practice Hospitality. http://www.repak.ie/Repak-Awards-2013.html
Smith, W.H., Hammer, M.S., Townsend, J.M., 1993. Eco Purchasing guide for hotels
and motels. University of Florida, Gainesville, USA.
Sridang, P., Chevagidagarn, P., Sawatasuk, P., Vanapruk, P., Kongnakhon, W., Danteravanich, S., 2005. Management of solid waste from hotels: a case study in Hat
Yai and Phuket cities in Southern Thailand. In: 7th World Congress on Recovery,
Recycling and Re-integration, Beijing, China.
Tang, J., 2004. A Case Study of a Hotel Solid Waste Management Program in Bali, Indonesia. http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/obj/s4/f2/dsk3/
OWTU/TC-OWTU-373.pdf

UNEP, 2005. Solid Waste Management. Chapter III: Waste Quantities and
Characteristics, Available at: http://www.unep.org/ietc/informationresources/
solidwastemanagementpublication/tabid/7 9356/default.aspx
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator.
http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-resources/calculator.html#results
Vahatiitto, J., 2010. Environmental Quality Management in Hospitality Industry Case Hotel K5 levi. http://epub.lib.aalto./en/ethesis/pdf/12433/hse
ethesis 12433.pdf
Waste Management for the Hospitality Industry, Prevent and save: Best Practice
Guidelines in Waste Management. http://www.preventandsave.ie/documents/
Best%20Practice/Waste%20Management%20for%20Hotels.pdf
Wilson, D.C., Velis, C., Cheeseman, C., 2006. Role of informal sector recycling in waste
management in developing countries. Habit. Int. 30, 797808.
Zhu, D., Asnani, P.U., Zurbrugg, C., Anapolsky, S., Mani, S., 2008. Improving municipal solid waste management in India. In: A Source Book for Policy Makers
and Practitioners. World Bank, Washington, DC https://openknowledge.
worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/6916/425660PUB0Wast12732601
OFFICIAL0USE1.txt

Potrebbero piacerti anche