A study of methods to analyze solid waste using an interdisciplinary approach: The tourist industry of Madeline Island, Wisconsin

In order to develop effective solid waste reduction plans for communities, an understanding of the composition and quantity of the waste in question is required. Waste characterization studies are currently a popular method to analyze the composition and quantity of solid waste (or refuse) in a community. Qualitative research methods to analyze waste, in addition to the quantitative waste characterization study, may provide new and valuable information for communities. Therefore, the objective of this research is to learn what additional useful information could be gleaned from using a combination of the following methodological approaches, rather than solely a waste characterization study: field observations, interviews, and a waste characterization study. Madeline Island, Wisconsin was chosen as the example for study due to its distinct boundaries, limited waste disposal options, and for the community's and tourist industry's willingness to participate in the study.; The three methods were conducted, using an interdisciplinary research approach, during a four season time span. Field observations focused on observing the waste practices at various locations on Madeline Island. After an initial observation process, open-ended qualitative interviews were conducted. Both the field observation and interview methods used techniques from rapid rural appraisal and participatory research to learn about the tourist waste situation on Madeline Island. The waste characterization study, used as the baseline method for gathering tourist waste information, was conducted in the summer, fall, and winter. Samples from various tourist destinations were sorted by hand into twenty-two waste categories. The waste characterization revealed food waste, glass containers, and other organic material as the top three waste categories, respectively.; After the information was gathered, the results of the field observation and interviews were compared to the waste characterization study. Benefits of the field observation and interview methods were represented by the new information gathered from each method. Costs were represented by the labor, expense, and limitations of conducting each method. Both the field observation and interview methods were less costly in terms of labor and expense. The new information was considered useful if it provided information regarding waste volumes, market feasibility of alternatives for waste disposal, or if it addressed community waste needs. Both the field observation and interview methods provided new useful information such as the abundance of construction waste, the interest in and numerous opportunities for composting, and the contamination of recyclables.; Limitations of this research include the extra time and resources needed to conduct three methods of waste analysis and the difficulty of analyzing and comparing qualitative data. Implications of this research include: the possibility of modifying and combining methods and potentially saving community funds, alternative methods for communities to analyze their waste stream, detailed site-specific information, and an integrated approach to study waste.; Although traditionally the quantifiable results of waste characterization studies have been more commonly accepted by researchers, this research suggests that gathering qualitative information is both necessary and beneficial to understand waste management issues. As the approach to waste management plans becomes integrated, the methods with which to study these issues also need to become integrated.