Mandar Bhoyar UXR & Strategy

e-Turn

Only 2 of 37 non-recyclers didn’t know electronics could be recycled. We had been briefed to build an awareness campaign.

The RecycleForce plant floor in Indianapolis: workers in hard hats dismantling electronics at long benches, with pallets of sorted equipment in the foreground

This is where the electronics actually end up.

We went to the RecycleForce plant floor and a public collection event in Indianapolis to check what people told us against what they brought in.

RecycleForce, Indianapolis · September 2022

The question underneath the brief

Only two non-recyclers didn’t know electronics could be recycled. Which meant the brief we were handed — an awareness campaign — would have answered a problem almost nobody had. The question was what was stopping the other thirty-five.

What the 37 non-recyclers actually didn’t know

One mark per survey respondent who doesn’t currently recycle electronics.

  • 2 didn’t know electronics could be recycled at all
  • 35 already knew, and still didn’t
An awareness campaign speaks to the two marks on the left. An awareness campaign is what we had been briefed to build.

The brief was design something that gets more people to recycle electronics, which reads like an awareness problem. It was an access problem and a clarity problem, and those need different fixes entirely.

Why this method

A single method would have given us either scale or depth, not both. I led a 76-respondent survey to size the problem across ages and backgrounds, while the team ran semi-structured interviews split evenly across two generations to see whether the reasons actually differed. Then we went to where the electronics go: a public recycling event and the RecycleForce plant floor in Indianapolis, to check what we were hearing against what people actually brought in.

  • Survey, Qualtrics
  • Semi-structured interviews
  • Site observation
  • Affinity mapping
  • Thematic network analysis
  • Usability testing
Field photo from the RecycleForce recycling plant site visit, Indianapolis
RecycleForce, Indianapolis
Sorted electronics awaiting processing at the recycling site
On the plant floor
Electronics recycling event observation, Marion County Public Safety Training Academy
Public recycling event
Field observation of items brought in for electronics recycling
What people actually brought in

What the survey showed

Why non-recyclers said they don’t recycle electronics

Self-reported barriers among the 37 survey respondents who don’t currently recycle electronics.

Not many recycling centers nearby68%
Not clear what can be recycled60%
Not convenient to recycle52%
Didn’t know electronics could be recycled at all2 people
The bottom row is the one that redirected the project. If almost everyone already knows recycling exists, a campaign that just repeats that message has nowhere to land. Access and clarity were the real target.

Average age, working professionals

Recyclers47.6 yrs
Non-recyclers30.5 yrs

+17 years

A moderate positive correlation between age and e-waste participation, r(74) = .46, p < .01. Younger professionals were the least likely group to already be recycling electronics.

What the interviews explained

  1. Lack of access, not lack of concern

    Recurring across both age groups

    People wanted a location and a set of rules, not a lecture. The recurring ask was strikingly concrete: where, what hours, what’s accepted, and whether it was worth the trip.

    “I wish it was easy to search electronic drop-off locations for recycling on Google Maps.”

    Interview participant

    “I have heard of Amazon’s recycling initiative but we don’t have anything local. Sending stuff to Amazon takes too much effort, ya know?”

    Interview participant

  2. Recycling literacy stalls at general recycling

    Recurring across both age groups

    Several participants said they recycle regularly and had simply never extended the habit to electronics. Nobody had ever told them where that category’s rules diverge from the bin at the curb.

    “My friends and I actively participate in general recycling but we never considered electronic recycling. I wish they would focus on that in school when teaching about general recycling.”

    Interview participant

Synthesis

Affinity mapping across the interview and observation data converged on one plain want: easier access to information about e-waste management, in one place, specific to the item in hand. Thematic network analysis then organized that want, and everything adjacent to it, into four themes that became the brief for design.

Global theme

People do not recycle e‑waste

Accessibility issues

4 basic themes

  • Not enough recycling locations or facilities
  • Recycling facilities are far away
  • Drop-off zones open on selected days rather than every day
  • No door-to-door e-waste collection

Poor recycling literacy

4 basic themes

  • Not sure which electronics should be recycled
  • Don’t know where the recycling locations are
  • Don’t know how electronics are actually recycled
  • Little knowledge of the environmental cost of not recycling

Sub-par public initiatives

5 basic themes

  • No local government incentives to recycle
  • No enforced mandate to recycle electronics
  • No information campaign to build electronic literacy
  • Trade-in programs limit which old devices they accept
  • Poor repairability designed into new electronics

Concerns about the process

3 basic themes

  • No transparency about what happens to a recycled device
  • Unclear how personal data on the device is protected
  • Inconsistent claims about ethical recycling practice

Thematic network analysis, drawn from the coded interview and observation data. Sixteen basic themes resolved into four organizing themes, and all four run to the same global theme.

How that diagram was arrived at

Two passes on the wall before anything resolved. Select either board to read it at full size.

  1. Pass one · affinity mapping

    Every quote from the interviews and the two site visits went up and got grouped by what it was actually complaining about. Six clusters held.

  2. Pass two · thematic network

    The clusters were then tested against each other until they resolved into four organizing themes with one global theme underneath. That structure is what the diagram above redraws.

The affinity board it came off Six clusters · participant verbatims as they were grouped on the wall

Awareness of electronic recycling

  • “I am big on sustainable everything.”
  • “I am an advocate for sustainability and climate change. I want to make an impact.”
  • Lack of awareness about e-recyclingCoded observation

Accessibility to a recycling center

  • “Would have to google locations for recycling — an app or website that displays them would be useful.”
  • “There should be more recycling and collection facilities.”
  • “The distance to recycling centres makes it really inconvenient. I have to go on long drives.”

Lack of information: what, where, how

  • “I’d recycle more if I had more information.”
  • “I do not know much about recycling electronics and the harm caused by them.”
  • “People should be well informed about these facilities and how to recycle stuff.”
  • “The major challenge in recycling is lack of resources.”

Laziness towards electronic recycling

  • “I haven’t disposed of any old electronics, I’ve just accumulated them over the years.”
  • “I have not recycled anything as I feel it’s a lot of effort for me to go out of my way to the recycling centres.”
  • “I give things away or donate them.”

Government policy towards electronic recycling

  • “Government should do a better job at providing information regarding recycling electronics.”
  • “Lack of government push or policy is a major reason why people do not recycle.”

Concern towards not recycling

  • “I don’t recycle my old electronics because I am afraid that my data will get stolen from old PCs and phones.”
  • “A lot of companies market as they recycle but it’s a publicity stint and they are just scamming the people.”
  • “Recycling has become really expensive and I can not trust them if they are ethical or not.”

Two generations, two starting points

We turned the survey and interview findings into two personas built around the generational contrast the research kept surfacing, to keep design decisions anchored in a specific person rather than an average.

Elizabeth, the younger persona: a graduate in cap and gown Elizabeth, 23 Student · Indianapolis

“I want to be a voice for change in this world.”

Studies
M.S. Computer Science
Aspires to
Robotics engineering
Already does
Recycles packaging; volunteers at a facility twice a month
Archetype
Convinced advocate
What still blocks her
  • Has to drive long distances, because facilities are few and far apart
  • Believes the general public lacks awareness, and that businesses do not follow ethical disposal
Jacob, the older persona: a man in a checked shirt outdoors Jacob, 42 Working professional · suburban Indianapolis

“Within a year, my entire home will be smart.”

Works as
Senior product manager
Household
Married, two children
Already does
Recycles plastic bags occasionally; walks four days a week
Archetype
Willing but unserved
What still blocks him
  • Lives where recycling centers are not accessible to him
  • Does not know which products can be recycled, how, or where it happens
  • Believes the push has to come from government rather than from him

Two personas built from the survey and interview data around the generational contrast the research kept surfacing. The pairing is the point: one already believes and still cannot act, the other would act and does not know how.

What we designed

Three features, each answering one theme directly rather than a general awareness push. We ran three ideation sessions to get here: open discussion mapped to the four themes, a ranking exercise with an outside classmate to pressure-test which ideas actually felt usable, and a Crazy 8s round to narrow to a shippable set.

  1. An information sectionWhere to recycle by item type, in one place, answering the 60% who weren’t clear what counted.
  2. A community platformThread-based discussion for reuse ideas and local knowledge, extending awareness past what the app can say alone.
  3. A reward systemGift cards and milestone recognition, modeled on Amazon and Best Buy trade-in programs, to reinforce the “feel good” motivator interviews kept naming.

Storyboards

How the three features were meant to show up in a real moment of use. Select any panel to read it at full size.

Finding a facilityInformation section
Facility detailInformation section
Reuse suggestionsCommunity platform
Spreading awarenessCommunity platform
Redeeming pointsReward system
MilestonesReward system

What testing changed

Two rounds of think-aloud testing with six participants, plus a cognitive walkthrough, moved the design past what looked reasonable on paper.

  • GPS icon read as unclear
  • City search, not zip code
  • Hover vs. click on map
  • Info page felt overwhelming
  • More item filters
  • Wider search radius

What this demonstrates

A four-person team project, and my portion of it end to end: a 76-respondent survey I designed and analyzed, synthesis work across affinity mapping and thematic networks, and translating both into feature rationale a design team could act on. The instinct not to trust the obvious brief, an awareness campaign, and to check it against the data first, is the same one I bring to research at Honda today.