Sustainable Solid Waste Systems in Higher Education: A Multi-Framework Analysis at UP Open University

Sustainable Solid Waste Systems in Higher Education: A Multi-Framework Analysis at UP Open University | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Sustainable Solid Waste Systems in Higher Education: A Multi-Framework Analysis at UP Open University Fernando Enad, Al M. Alcantara, Leonora H. Astete, Alessandra Atienza, and 6 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-7184158/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract This study critically examined the solid waste management (SWM) practices at the University of the Philippines Open University (UPOU), a digitally oriented institution located within the ecologically sensitive Los Baños-Makiling Watershed. Despite its minimal physical waste footprint, UPOU's waste system suffers from operational fragmentation, limited stakeholder engagement, and weak institutional prioritization. To address these systemic inefficiencies, the researchers employed a multi-framework approach, integrating systems thinking, social network analysis, circular economy principles, and futures thinking. Findings revealed that SWM is hindered by siloed responsibilities, underutilized infrastructure such as the Materials Recovery Facility, and a prevailing mindset that minimizes the urgency of waste issues. The study culminated in a proposed SWM framework for UPOU focused on four strategic pillars: shifting institutional culture, strengthening stakeholder inclusion, enhancing operational systems, and building futures capacity. The framework demonstrates how even low-waste institutions can lead in sustainability through intentional systems design, collaborative governance, and regenerative thinking. This model offers a scalable strategy for embedding sustainability within higher education institutions globally. Environmental Policy solid waste management higher education institution sustainability systems thinking social network analysis circular economy futures thinking Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 INTRODUCTION Solid waste generation is escalating globally, with the World Bank projecting a rise from 2.24 billion tons in 2020 to 3.88 billion tons by 2050 under a business-as-usual scenario (World Bank, 2022 ). In the Philippines alone, over 61,000 tons of solid waste are generated daily, with only about 28% collected by formal systems and an even smaller fraction processed through proper recovery or treatment (DENR-EMB, 2021). Within this context, higher education institutions (HEIs) are increasingly recognized not only as waste producers but as important sites for sustainability modeling through education, policy leadership, and operational innovation. However, the majority of HEIs, including those with clear environmental mandates, struggle to implement consistent and integrated SWM systems. This challenge is more nuanced in non-traditional academic institutions such as the UP Open University (UPOU), an Open and Distance e-Learning (ODeL) university with a minimal physical campus footprint but significant symbolic and strategic responsibilities. Despite its location within the environmentally sensitive Los Baños-Makiling Watershed Reserve and its positioning as a leader in educational innovation, UPOU faces systemic constraints in organizing its waste governance. Early scoping suggests potential issues related to the lack of a formal SWM policy, fragmented stakeholder participation, and underutilized recovery infrastructures, challenges that are often masked by the low volume of waste generated. This reflects a broader trend where low-waste institutions deprioritize SWM, unintentionally limiting their role in modeling regenerative practices. In response to these emerging concerns, this study seeks to critically assess UPOU’s solid waste management system through a multi-framework lens, combining insights from systems thinking, social network analysis, circular economy, and futures thinking. The study aims to understand how structural, behavioral, and cultural dynamics shape UPOU’s current waste practices, and to explore how these dimensions interact in ways that either reinforce or hinder sustainability efforts. By weaving together these interdisciplinary perspectives, this research proposes a sustainable and future-ready SWM framework specifically tailored for ODeL institutions like UPOU. Beyond improving UPOU’s internal waste governance, the study aspires to contribute a replicable model for HEIs navigating sustainability within digitally mediated, low-footprint contexts. This framework positions waste not merely as a technical concern but as a reflection of institutional values, cultural narratives, and long-term foresight, thus aligning environmental stewardship with the transformative mission of higher education. Research Questions This study assesses UP Open University’s (UPOU) solid waste management (SWM) through a multi-framework lens and proposes a systems-based, future-oriented framework that can guide the university toward more sustainable, regenerative, and adaptive waste governance. Specifically, this seeks to answer the following questions: What cultural challenges does UPOU face in implementing an effective and sustainable solid waste management system? How are stakeholders connected in UPOU’s waste system, and what do these relationships reveal? How do UPOU’s current waste practices reflect or fail to reflect circular economy principles? What insights does Causal Layered Analysis (CLA) provide about the underlying narratives and worldviews shaping UPOU’s SWM? What framework can be proposed based on the findings of the study? LITERATURE REVIEW Behind bins and signage, institutional waste systems are often complex webs of habits, gaps, and invisible decisions. At the UP Open University (UPOU), understanding this mess requires more than tallying trash; it demands a deeper look at how the system works, who’s involved, what values guide it, and where it might go next. This study draws on four interrelated frameworks—systems thinking, social network analysis, circular economy, and futures thinking—to assess UPOU’s solid waste management (SWM) practices. Each framework contributes a distinct analytical lens. Systems thinking offers a way to understand the underlying patterns, structures, and feedback loops that perpetuate waste-related challenges in institutions. Instead of treating symptoms in isolation, it enables a deeper exploration of cause-and-effect relationships and helps identify leverage points for systemic change (Meadows, 2008 ). Complementing this, social network analysis (SNA) maps the roles and relationships of key stakeholders, revealing how decision-making flows across institutional actors and how gaps in communication or authority can hinder policy implementation (Prell et al., 2009 ). In parallel, the circular economy (CE) framework offers a normative shift away from the linear "take-make-dispose" model, proposing instead a regenerative system that prioritizes resource efficiency, reuse, and recovery (Kirchherr et al., 2018). While CE is often associated with industrial contexts, recent efforts have sought to localize its principles within public institutions and university campuses. UPOU, as part of a national university system, has the potential to operationalize CE by embedding sustainable behaviors in daily operations and modeling circular practices through procurement, facilities management, and community engagement. However, institutional inertia, behavioral inconsistency, and infrastructure gaps continue to limit circularity in practice. Integrating CE with systems thinking allows for a richer understanding of how institutional habits, resource flows, and feedback mechanisms interact. To deepen the understanding of UPOU’s waste system beyond surface-level issues, this study applies Causal Layered Analysis (CLA), a key tool in futures thinking developed by Inayatullah ( 2004 ). CLA enables the exploration of multiple layers of meaning within a system: the visible litany of problems, systemic structures, dominant discourses, and underlying myths or metaphors. This layered approach is particularly relevant in the context of UPOU, where waste management may be shaped not just by policy or infrastructure, but by deeply held assumptions about the institution’s environmental impact. By unpacking these layers, CLA offers a pathway for identifying leverage points and reframing narratives that can support more transformative and future-oriented approaches to solid waste governance. The relevance of this multi-framework approach is reinforced by national and global mandates. In the Philippines, Republic Act 9003, or the Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of 2000, sets the policy backbone for waste segregation, recovery facilities, and stakeholder engagement in waste systems. Its implementation is closely tied to institutional compliance and community participation, both of which are directly affected by system dynamics and stakeholder alignment. At the global level, the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 12 urges institutions to ensure sustainable consumption and production, with Target 12.5 specifically focusing on reducing waste generation through prevention, reduction, and reuse. Empirical studies support this integrated approach. Brinton et al. ( 2023 ) used systems mapping to understand Puerto Rico’s SWM, identifying delays, feedback loops, and cultural constraints that mirror UPOU’s institutional context. Iacovidou et al. ( 2020 ) similarly emphasized how systems thinking reveals structural and behavioral patterns that hinder sustainability transitions, particularly in resource recovery settings. On the relational side, Przesdzink et al. ( 2021 ) demonstrated how stakeholder mapping and SNA clarified coordination breakdowns in environmental networks, offering a blueprint for university waste systems to analyze their own stakeholder ecosystems. In the same vein, Pociovălișteanu et al. (2021) analyzed waste governance structures and found that fragmented communication often leads to duplicated roles and policy blind spots. Research on circular economy also confirms the difficulty of embedding its principles in institutions. Kirchherr et al. (2018) noted that circularity demands not only infrastructure but also cultural and behavioral change, areas where universities often lag due to decentralization and legacy practices. The Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2021) provided practical examples of how some universities are beginning to integrate CE through circular procurement, repair cafés, and student engagement initiatives, though most remain far from full implementation. Finally, the application of Causal Layered Analysis (CLA) in waste governance has gained traction as institutions seek to move beyond technical fixes toward deeper cultural transformation. CLA has been recognized for its ability to surface hidden narratives, systemic blind spots, and entrenched worldviews that often limit innovation in environmental strategies (Inayatullah, 2004 ). By interrogating the stories and metaphors that shape institutional behavior, CLA supports a shift from reactive decision-making to reflective, values-driven action. Its integration with tools like social network analysis enriches institutional diagnostics by linking structural dynamics with cultural meaning, laying the groundwork for more adaptive, transformative waste management approaches. In sum, this literature supports the view that improving SWM in HEIs requires more than compliance; it demands systemic insight, stakeholder coordination, normative rethinking, and future-oriented design. The convergence of these frameworks provides both analytical depth and practical direction for building a sustainable SWM system in UPOU and similar educational institutions. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY This study adopted a qualitative-descriptive research design anchored in a multi-framework approach informed by systems thinking, social network analysis, circular economy, and futures thinking. It aimed to generate a nuanced understanding of the solid waste management (SWM) system at the University of the Philippines Open University (UPOU) and to propose a sustainability-oriented framework grounded in both stakeholder experiences and interdisciplinary insights. The descriptive aspect captured actual practices and conditions, while qualitative methods enabled the analysis of systemic patterns, behavioral dynamics, and institutional structures that shaped waste governance. Participants The study engaged key stakeholders who play direct or supportive roles in UPOU’s waste management system. Participants included representatives from the Facilities Management Office, the SWM/DRRM Committee, selected faculty and administrative staff, student leaders, outsourced service providers, and representatives from the Los Baños Local Government Unit (LGU) and the Materials Recovery Facility (MRF). Purposive sampling was employed to ensure that participants possessed relevant knowledge, experience, or responsibility in the planning, implementation, or oversight of SWM activities within or beyond the UPOU campus. Instruments of the Study To ensure a comprehensive data set, the study utilized a triangulation of instruments. First, semi-structured interviews were conducted with key stakeholders to gain insights into current practices, systemic challenges, and envisioned improvements in the waste system. Second, secondary data were collected and reviewed, including university documents such as internal reports, committee presentations, administrative communications, and national policy references like Republic Act 9003 and Sustainable Development Goal 12. Third, a survey questionnaire was disseminated to faculty, staff, students, and alumni to measure waste-related knowledge, behavior, and perceptions. Finally, a stakeholder collaboration session was held to co-analyze systems maps, validate social network diagrams, and develop potential future scenarios, integrating futures thinking with participatory validation. Procedure Data collection followed a structured and sequential approach. Coordination with university offices was first established to gain access to official documents and secure referrals for interview participants. Survey instruments were deployed electronically and remained open for two weeks to accommodate diverse respondent schedules. Interviews were conducted via face-to-face meetings and online platforms, depending on participant availability. Interviews were transcribed and analyzed thematically to surface recurring patterns and critical insights. The stakeholder collaboration session was conducted in the final phase of data collection, serving as a synthesis and validation space for findings across the four frameworks. Ethical Considerations Ethical standards were strictly upheld throughout the research process. Participation in interviews, surveys, and collaboration activities was entirely voluntary. Informed consent was obtained from all participants, who were briefed on the study’s objectives, their rights, and the confidentiality of their responses. Data were anonymized and stored securely to protect respondent privacy. While the study did not require formal clearance from an institutional ethics review board due to its non-invasive and descriptive nature, the research instruments and procedures were reviewed by academic mentors to ensure compliance with ethical norms in qualitative research. RESULTS This section presents the findings on UPOU’s solid waste management (SWM) system based on interviews, surveys, secondary data, and a stakeholder collaboration session. Results are organized according to the study’s analytical lenses: systems thinking, social network analysis, circular economy, and futures thinking. Figure 1 reveals the deeper cultural issues underlying observable SWM challenges at UPOU. It maps out visible events, underlying patterns, systemic structures, and prevailing mental models that sustain the status quo. Figure 2 visualizes the relationships among key stakeholders involved in UPOU’s solid waste management system. It highlights central actors, communication flows, and areas of weak or fragmented coordination, offering insights into institutional dynamics and collaboration patterns. Figure 3 presents a step-by-step visual of how solid waste moves through UPOU’s current system, from generation and segregation to transport and final disposal. It identifies operational gaps and key decision points within the process. Figure 4 explores four levels of understanding UPOU’s waste management issues: the surface-level litany, systemic causes, discourse/worldview, and underlying myths/metaphors. It provides a futures thinking perspective for transformative change. Figure 5 presents a cyclical and systems-based framework grounded in the results, illustrating how UP Open University can transition toward a sustainable solid waste management system. The framework integrates institutional culture shifts, operational improvements, stakeholder inclusivity, circular economy practices, and futures-oriented planning into a continuous feedback loop that promotes resilience, regeneration, and responsible governance. DISCUSSION Systems Thinking Perspective: Deepening Insight through the Iceberg Model Analysis The Iceberg Model, a key tool in systems thinking, was applied to examine the deeper structures, patterns, and assumptions shaping UP Open University’s (UPOU) solid waste management (SWM) practices. At first glance, at the event level, UPOU appears to face familiar, surface-level problems: inconsistent waste segregation, underutilization of its Materials Recovery Facility (MRF), irregular monitoring, and dependence on external waste haulers. These observable events, while important, are only symptoms of deeper, systemic issues. At the pattern level, recurring behaviors and trends become visible. The analysis revealed that even when facilities such as color-coded bins or composting areas are present, usage is inconsistent. Waste disposal practices vary across offices, and even awareness of existing SWM guidelines differs depending on one's role in the institution. This inconsistency reflects not only procedural gaps but also the absence of reinforcement mechanisms: there are few feedback loops to signal when something works or fails, and no institutional rhythm that makes sustainable behavior the norm. Beneath these patterns lie systemic structures: the institutional rules, roles, and power dynamics that shape action. The Campus Development and Management Office (CDMO) carries the burden of daily waste operations, yet it does so in a context where waste management is not explicitly articulated in university-wide policy, nor meaningfully integrated across units. As an Open and Distance e-Learning (ODeL) institution, UPOU has a unique setup: most students are remote and do not physically generate waste on campus. As a result, there is limited stakeholder diversity in day-to-day waste interactions, and SWM is often viewed as an isolated operational task, detached from academic and strategic planning. These structures maintain a siloed approach, with sustainability seen as “extra work” rather than an embedded value. At the deepest level are mental models, the cultural assumptions and beliefs that hold the system in place. Here, the Iceberg Model revealed perhaps the most significant barrier to transformation: the widely held perception that “UPOU doesn’t generate much waste, so it’s not a priority.” This belief minimizes urgency, discourages investment, and limits creative engagement. It mirrors what Brinton et al. ( 2023 ) describe as a “complacency trap” in institutional systems, where small operational footprints are misread as indicators of sustainability rather than missed opportunities for leadership. Moreover, it reinforces a myth that waste management is peripheral to the university’s mission, when in fact it offers a clear lens for modeling the values of efficiency, care, and responsibility, especially critical for an institution that prides itself on innovation and adaptability. In line with Meadows’ ( 2008 ) framework on leverage points, the Iceberg Model underscores that true transformation lies not in addressing isolated events, but in shifting patterns, redesigning systems, and most powerfully, reshaping the underlying mental models. For UPOU, that means reimagining waste not as an operational leftover, but as a visible expression of institutional values. It also means recognizing that even in an ODeL setup, sustainability leadership can be demonstrated through policy coherence, cross-unit collaboration, and intentional design, regardless of scale. Social Network Analysis: Rewiring for Resilience and Accountability The social network analysis (SNA) highlights a system where waste governance at UPOU is shaped by a relatively small group of on-site actors: primarily the Campus Development and Management Office (CDMO), SWM/DRRM Committee, administrative personnel, contractors, and occasional visitors. As an ODeL institution, UPOU's students are mostly remote, meaning that, unlike traditional universities, the bulk of solid waste is generated by physical operations, not academic or residential activity. This context gives the CDMO a central operational role, but it also reveals a gap in strategic and collaborative functions across the broader university system. While vertical linkages (e.g., between CDMO and contractors or local government) appear consistent, horizontal connections with internal offices and sustainability champions remain limited. Collaboration with digital or remote academic units is virtually absent despite their potential role in shaping sustainability narratives or influencing institutional culture. Hauck et al. (2021) observed that centralized environmental governance often results in missed opportunities for engagement and co-creation, particularly when peripheral voices are excluded. Although UPOU’s student body may not physically generate waste, their involvement, as part of the institution’s identity and values, remains essential in designing and communicating circularity initiatives, especially in digital learning spaces. Thus, the SNA reinforces Prell et al.’s ( 2009 ) argument that sustainable systems thrive on mutual accountability and participatory structures. For UPOU, this implies that beyond operational control, the SWM network must evolve to include strategic and cultural actors, such as academic units, virtual learning designers, and online student representatives, to help integrate sustainability more holistically. Activating these relationships can shift the system from maintenance to transformation, with CDMO as a key enabler rather than the sole executor of waste governance. Circular Economy Analysis: Unlocking the Missed Potential of Regenerative Thinking When viewed through the lens of the circular economy (CE), UPOU’s SWM system reflects both promising groundwork and untapped potential. Despite being an ODeL institution, UPOU maintains a physical campus that produces waste primarily through its on-site personnel, administrative operations, and visitors. This unique profile means that the university does not generate the high volume or diversity of waste seen in traditional, student-heavy campuses, but it also presents a strategic opportunity, with fewer waste sources, UPOU is well-positioned to adopt a low-waste, regenerative model. Currently, UPOU implements basic segregation, maintains an MRF, and engages third-party haulers, yet these practices remain embedded in a linear waste system centered on disposal rather than recovery or resource circulation. Composting is practiced in limited areas such as the gardening zone, but is neither scaled nor institutionalized. Recyclables are collected, yet the process depends heavily on contractors and lacks university-wide engagement or clear metrics. Notably, e-waste, which holds particular relevance in a digitally driven institution like UPOU, is often stockpiled without a clear recovery or disposal protocol. This aligns with the findings of Kirchherr et al. (2018), who observed that many institutions adopt CE principles superficially, without reconfiguring the systems, incentives, and mindsets required for transformation. In UPOU’s case, infrastructure exists, but deeper shifts in behavior, policy, and organizational design are lacking. The institution’s procurement systems, for example, do not yet prioritize reusable or low-impact materials; neither is there a formal reuse program for office supplies, packaging, or e-learning devices. Furthermore, CE thinking is not yet integrated into onboarding, sustainability orientations, or campus-based communications. Paradoxically, UPOU’s ODeL nature is also its strength, with fewer waste generators and a predominantly digital infrastructure, the university could feasibly move faster toward a zero-waste, circular campus model. CE principles such as “designing out waste” could inform purchasing, digital equipment lifecycle planning, and event protocols. Moreover, because its academic influence extends beyond campus, UPOU could also embed circularity into its curriculum and course design, helping train a new generation of learners who see CE as the default, not the ideal. In short, while UPOU may not have the scale of waste generation seen in traditional universities, it has the structural simplicity and intellectual reach to lead by example. Realizing this potential will require the integration of CE into policy, procurement, and planning anchored by an institutional mindset that views waste not as an unavoidable byproduct, but as a design flaw that can be corrected through systemic, circular thinking. Futures Thinking: Reframing UPOU’s Waste System through Causal Layered Analysis Causal Layered Analysis (CLA) was used in this study to unpack the complex and layered nature of UPOU’s SWM system. As a tool rooted in futures thinking, CLA enables researchers and stakeholders to go beyond surface-level symptoms and explore the deeper worldviews and narratives that sustain current realities. This approach was particularly relevant for UPOU, an OdeL institution, where solid waste is not driven by student population but by on-site personnel, administrative operations, and occasional visitors. Because of this, traditional waste interventions focused on student engagement or campus-wide behavior change do not directly apply. What is needed instead is a shift in institutional thinking, and CLA provided a pathway for that transformation. The CLA conducted in the stakeholder collaboration session revealed four interconnected layers. At the litany level, participants identified observable issues, such as lack of waste segregation, dependence on contractors, and absence of clear monitoring. These challenges, while real, represent only the most visible symptoms. At the systemic level, structural causes became more apparent, such as limited internal policy enforcement, decentralized implementation, and the lack of formalized waste protocols across departments. These systems reinforced passive or reactive waste behavior, with CDMO shouldering the operational load but without cross-office ownership. The third layer, worldview/discourse, was perhaps the most illuminating. Here, participants surfaced the dominant belief that "UPOU generates minimal waste, so it’s not a major concern." While factually grounded, given the ODeL context, this narrative inadvertently diminishes institutional responsibility and stifles ambition. Such discourse limits the potential for innovation, relegating waste to a compliance issue rather than a site of transformation. Finally, at the myth/metaphor level, the dominant metaphor emerged: “Waste is a background task.” This frames waste as invisible, secondary, and disconnected from UPOU’s core mission. In contrast, an alternative metaphor proposed during the CLA session was: “Waste is a mirror of values.” This new narrative invites UPOU to see waste as an opportunity to reflect its commitment to sustainability, equity, and foresight. This reframing aligns with Inayatullah’s ( 2004 ) assertion that real change occurs when institutions interrogate the myths and metaphors that shape their actions. The power of CLA lies in its ability to open space for alternative futures, ones that are not only technically better but also culturally and ethically grounded. For UPOU, the CLA process did not just reveal what is broken; it revealed what is possible. The challenge ahead is to move from insights to action, such as rearticulating sustainability goals, embedding them in policy, and making SWM a visible, value-driven part of the university’s evolving story. Proposed UPOU SWM Framework Based on the results of the multi-framework analysis at UPOU, a systems-based framework for transforming institutional SWM that integrates four mutually reinforcing strategies: (1) Shift Mental Models and Institutional Culture, (2) Strengthen Stakeholder Inclusion, (3) Build Futures Capacity, and (4) Strengthen Operational Backbone, is proposed. This framework reflects the findings and insights gathered through systems thinking, social network analysis, circular economy, and futures thinking. Shift Mental Models and Institutional Culture . At the deepest level of systems change, the study uncovered a prevailing belief that “UPOU doesn’t generate much waste, so it’s not a priority.” This mental model, identified through the Iceberg Model and Causal Layered Analysis (CLA), creates complacency and blocks investment in circular and transformative practices. Meadows ( 2008 ) identified “changing the mindset or paradigm out of which the system arises” as the most powerful leverage point for systemic change. Shifting this mindset entails reimagining waste not as an operational afterthought, but as a mirror of institutional values, as surfaced in the CLA. As Brinton et al. ( 2023 ) noted, institutions often fall into a “complacency trap,” especially when their environmental footprint appears minimal. However, even low-waste institutions like UPOU have the symbolic and strategic capacity to lead sustainability transformations. Strengthen Stakeholder Inclusion . Social Network Analysis (SNA) revealed siloed interactions within UPOU's SWM system. The CDMO is heavily burdened operationally, while strategic and cultural actors, like academic units and students, are peripheral. To build a resilient and accountable waste system, Prell et al. ( 2009 ) emphasized the importance of horizontal collaboration and mutual accountability. In UPOU’s context, stakeholder inclusion must go beyond operational actors to involve remote students, course designers, and virtual campus leaders. Their inclusion reinforces a culture of shared responsibility, even in a digitally driven institution. The framework calls for participatory structures, such as cross-unit SWM task forces, collaborative monitoring, and inclusion of SWM in onboarding and faculty development. Build Futures Capacity . Futures thinking, particularly through CLA, highlighted the importance of reframing institutional narratives and building adaptive strategies. Inayatullah ( 2004 ) emphasized that systemic transformation requires not just technical fixes, but narrative shifts and long-term visioning. UPOU’s unique ODeL structure places it in a position to design anticipatory and scenario-based waste governance models that reflect emerging risks and opportunities. Building futures capacity means equipping institutional leaders and stakeholders with tools for foresight, scenario planning, and systemic design. It also involves embedding circular economy concepts into course offerings, administrative planning, and digital spaces. UPOU can pioneer futures-oriented waste policies that remain relevant amid evolving environmental regulations and technologies. Strengthen Operational Backbone . While mindset and collaboration are foundational, infrastructure and systems remain crucial. Circular economy analysis revealed that while UPOU has basic waste segregation, MRFs, and contractor partnerships, these remain underutilized or disconnected from broader policy and behavior. Kirchherr et al. (2018) stressed that CE requires both infrastructure and cultural shifts. Strengthening UPOU’s operational backbone includes institutionalizing composting, formalizing e-waste recovery, investing in digital monitoring systems, and enhancing the MRF’s capability. It also means aligning procurement policies with CE principles (e.g., minimizing single-use items, prioritizing repairable equipment, and tracking waste metrics). This backbone is what operationalizes the cultural and strategic shifts enabled by the other three domains. This proposed framework is a direct outcome of UPOU’s institutional realities, informed by rigorous systems-based inquiry. By looping together mental model shifts, stakeholder inclusion, futures capacity, and operational strengthening, the framework aligns with both the diagnostic insights and normative aspirations identified in the study. It provides a scalable model for higher education institutions aiming to embed sustainability in both thought and action. Through this integrated strategy, UPOU can move from symbolic to substantive sustainability, positioning itself as a leader not only in open and distance e-learning but in regenerative governance as well. CONCLUSION This study sought to critically assess and reimagine the solid waste management (SWM) system of the University of the Philippines Open University (UPOU) using a multi-framework approach that combined systems thinking, social network analysis, circular economy, and futures thinking. More than an evaluation of existing practices, it was an exploration of how a low-waste, digitally oriented institution can still lead in modeling sustainability from within. The research process affirmed that even in an Open and Distance e-Learning (ODEL) setup, where waste generation is relatively minimal and concentrated among on-site personnel and visitors, the challenge of sustainability remains a systems concern. It is shaped by how institutions assign responsibility, structure communication, and imagine their futures. By applying layered analysis and participatory tools, the study was able to surface underlying dynamics and engage stakeholders in envisioning alternative pathways forward. In response, a SWM framework was proposed, integrating shifts in mental models, stakeholder inclusion, futures capacity, and operational strengthening. More than a technical fix, the framework positions UPOU to lead by design, turning its small footprint into a compelling model for sustainability in higher education. References Awuzie B, Ngowi AB, Omotayo T, Obi L, Akotia J (2021) Facilitating Successful Smart Campus Transitions: A Systems Thinking-SWOT Analysis Approach. Applied Sciences , 11 (5), 2044. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11052044 Barth L, Schweiger L, Benedech R, Matthias Ehrat (2023) From data to value in smart waste management: Optimizing solid waste collection with a digital twin-based decision support system. Decis Analytics J 9:100347–100347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dajour.2023.100347 Bentil J, Braimah S, Anthony Frank Obeng (2024) &. Solid Waste Management in Higher Educational Institution: An Investigation Using the SWOT Analysis and the Circular Economy Principle Perspective. Circular Economy and Sustainability/Circular Economy and Sustainability . https://doi.org/10.1007/s43615-024-00349-7 Brenes-Peralta L, Jiménez-Morales MF, Campos-Rodríguez R, De Menna F, Vittuari M (2020) Decision-Making Process in the Circular Economy: A Case Study on University Food Waste-to-Energy Actions in Latin America. Energies 13(9):2291. https://doi.org/10.3390/en13092291 Brinton A, Townsend TG, Diehl DC, Deliz Quiñones K, Lichtenstein MM (2023) Systems Thinking and Solid Waste Management in Puerto Rico: Feedback Loops over Time. Sustainability 15(5):4648. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15054648 Budihardjo MA, Humaira NG, Putri SA, Ramadan BS, Syafrudin S, Yohana E (2021) Sustainable Solid Waste Management Strategies for Higher Education Institutions: Diponegoro University. Indonesia Case Study Sustainability 13(23):13242. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132313242 Department of Environment and Natural Resources – Environmental Management Bureau (DENR-EMB) (2021) National Solid Waste Management Status Report (2016–2020) . Retrieved from https://emb.gov.ph DBM, & COA (2024) Joint Circular No. 2024–01 (DBM-COA) . Www.dbm.gov.ph . https://www.dbm.gov.ph/index.php/homepage-2/2627-joint-circular-no-2024-01-dbm-coa Dianati K, Schäfer L, Milner J, Gómez-Sanabria A, Gitau H, Hale J, Langmaack H, Kiesewetter G, Muindi K, Mberu B, Zimmermann N, Michie S, Wilkinson P, Davies M (2021) A system dynamics-based scenario analysis of residential solid waste management in Kisumu, Kenya. Sci Total Environ 777:146200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.146200 Giurea R, Miino MC, Torretta V, Elena Cristina Rada (2024) &. Approaching sustainability and circularity along waste management systems in universities: an overview and proposal of good practices. Frontiers in Environmental Science , 12 . https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2024.1363024 Henaien A, Hadda Ben Elhadj, Lamia Chaari Fourati (2024) A sustainable smart IoT-based solid waste management system. Future Generation Comput Syst. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.future.2024.03.056 Iacovidou E, Hahladakis JN, Purnell P (2020) A systems thinking approach to understanding the challenges of achieving the circular economy. Environ Sci Pollut Res 28:24785–24806 Inayatullah S (2004) The causal layered analysis (CLA) reader: Theory and case studies of an integrative and transformative methodology. Tamkang University Kirchherr J, Reike D, Hekkert M (2017) Conceptualizing the Circular economy: an Analysis of 114 Definitions. Resour Conserv Recycl 127(1):221–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.09.005 Ma Y, Yang X, Qu S, Kong L (2021) Characteristics and driving factors of the technology cooperation network evolution: a case study of solid waste treatment field in China. Technol Anal Strateg Manag 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2021.1979207 Mancini SD, de Medeiros GA, Paes MX, de Oliveira BOS, Antunes MLP, de Souza RG, Ferraz JL, Bortoleto AP, de Oliveira JAP (2021) Circular Economy and Solid Waste Management: Challenges and Opportunities in Brazil. Circular Econ Sustain. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43615-021-00031-2 Mbuligwe SE (2002) Institutional solid waste management practices in developing countries: a case study of three academic institutions in Tanzania. Resour Conserv Recycl 35(3):131–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0921-3449(01)00113-6 Meadows DH (2008) Thinking in systems: A primer. Chelsea Green Publishing Ojuri OO, Olowoselu AS, Akinrele J, Ayodele FO, Ayodele FO, Jayejeje OO (2024) Sustainable integrated solid waste management for a university campus – The case of Federal University of Technology Akure (FUTA), Nigeria. Waste Manage Bull. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wmb.2024.04.004 Pereira Ribeiro JM, Hoeckesfeld L, Dal Magro CB, Favretto J, Barichello R, Lenzi FC, Secchi L, de Montenegro CR (2021) & Salgueirinho Osório de Andrade Guerra, J. B. Green Campus Initiatives as sustainable development dissemination at higher education institutions: Students’ perceptions. Journal of Cleaner Production , 312 , 127671. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127671 Philippine Congress (1990), October 26 Republic Act No. 6969 | GOVPH . Official Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines. https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/1990/10/26/republic-act-no-6969/ Philippine Congress (2001), January 26 Republic Act No. 9003 . Official Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines. https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/2001/01/26/republic-act-no-9003-s-2001/ Philippine Congress (2018) Republic Act No. 11396 . Lawphil.net. https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra2019/ra_11396_2019.html Prell C, Hubacek K, Reed M (2009) Stakeholder Analysis and Social Network Analysis in Natural Resource Management. Soc Nat Resour 22(6):501–518. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920802199202 Przesdzink F, Herzog LM, Fiebelkorn F (2021) Combining Stakeholder- and Social Network- Analysis to Improve Regional Nature Conservation: A Case Study from Osnabrück, Germany. Environ Manage. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-021-01564-w Qu D, Shevchenko T, Saidani M, Xia Y, Ladyka Y (2021) TRANSITION TOWARDS A CIRCULAR ECONOMY: THE ROLE OF UNIVERSITY ASSETS IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF A NEW MODEL. Detritus 17:3–14. https://doi.org/10.31025/2611-4135/2021.15141 Republic of the Philippines (2000) Republic Act No. 9003: Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of 2000 . https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/2000/01/26/republic-act-no-9003/ Ruohomaa H, Ivanova N (2019) From solid waste management towards the circular economy and digital driven symbiosis. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science , 337 , 012032. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/337/1/012032 Salguero-Puerta L, Leyva-Díaz JC, Cortés-García FJ, Molina-Moreno V (2019) Sustainability Indicators Concerning Waste Management for Implementation of the Circular Economy Model on the University of Lome (Togo) Campus. Int J Environ Res Public Health 16(12):2234. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16122234 Salvia G, Zimmermann N, Willan C, Hale J, Gitau H, Muindi K, Gichana E, Davies M (2021) The wicked problem of waste management: An attention-based analysis of stakeholder behaviours. J Clean Prod 326:129200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.129200 Tasca FA, Goerl RF, Michel GP, Leite NK, Sérgio DZ, Belizário S, Caprario J, Finotti AR (2019) Application of Systems Thinking to the assessment of an institutional development project of river restoration at a campus university in Southern Brazil. Environ Sci Pollut Res 27(13):14299–14317. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-06693-8 TEDx Talks (2019) How the tourism industry can be responsible for its environmental footprint | Sean Nino | TEDxUbud [YouTube Video]. In YouTube . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMlG-c1hXEE The World Bank (2022), February 11 Solid Waste Management . World Bank. https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/urbandevelopment/brief/solid-waste-management Tu L, Ma Y, Han X, Zhu M (2023) Numerical analysis of a modified combined volumetric filtered concentrating PV/T system using MCRT and FVM coupled method. J Clean Prod 410:137296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.137296 UNDP (2018) Foresight Manual . https://www.undp.org/sites/g/files/zskgke326/files/publications/UNDP_ForesightManual_2018.pdf UNEP (2024) Global Waste Management Outlook 2024 for Youth: Beyond an age of waste - Turning rubbish into a resource . UNEP - UN Environment Programme. https://www.unep.org/resources/report/global-waste-management-outlook-2024-youth-beyond-age-waste-turning-rubbish?gad_source=1&gclid=Cj0KCQiA0--6BhCBARIsADYqyL9LMMPb5pktP8Yd78PbUZ2Bf7 SMGlcTQGnlCiVVCJUx7rNR3hiP1hEaAtz9EALw_wcB United Nations (2015) Transforming our world: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development . https://sdgs.un.org/goals UPOU DRRM/SWM (2024) UPOU Institutional Survey Assessment (DSus 301 Group 7, Interviewer) [Personal communication] World Bank (2022) What a waste 2.0: A global snapshot of solid waste management to 2050 . Worldbank.org. https://datatopics.worldbank.org/what-a-waste World Economic Forum (2019) A New Circular Vision for Electronics Time for a Global Reboot In support of the United Nations E-waste Coalition PLATFORM FOR ACCELERATING THE CIRCULAR ECONOMY PLATFORM FOR ACCELERATING THE CIRCULAR ECONOMY PLATFORM FOR ACCELERATING THE CIRCULAR ECONOMY . https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_A_New_Circular_Vision_for_Electronics.pdf Zhang Y, Zhou C, Du J, Wang M, Wu W, Liu G (2022) Material flow analysis and characteristics of multiple-source organic solid wastes from a perspective of ecological network analysis: A case study in Hefei, China. Waste Manage Res J Sustainable Circular Econ 41(5):987–996. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242x221136467 Zorpas AA (2024) The hidden concept and the beauty of multiple R in the framework of waste strategies development reflecting to circular economy principles. Sci Total Environ 175508–175508. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.175508 Additional Declarations The authors declare no competing interests. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-7184158","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":494799749,"identity":"f3933490-2db3-4188-a161-29b0d449bebc","order_by":0,"name":"Fernando Enad","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0009-0000-9837-0293","institution":"University of the Philippines Open University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Fernando","middleName":"","lastName":"Enad","suffix":""},{"id":494799750,"identity":"b8a1e731-97e9-45d6-914a-ccb3ff7d4176","order_by":1,"name":"Al M. Alcantara","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of the Philippines Open University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Al","middleName":"M.","lastName":"Alcantara","suffix":""},{"id":494799751,"identity":"1e78ca7a-2ffd-4194-b450-e05fabf430eb","order_by":2,"name":"Leonora H. Astete","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of the Philippines Open University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Leonora","middleName":"H.","lastName":"Astete","suffix":""},{"id":494799752,"identity":"e4d9e4ca-7c85-49ff-b122-c936931a377f","order_by":3,"name":"Alessandra Atienza","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of the Philippines Open University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Alessandra","middleName":"","lastName":"Atienza","suffix":""},{"id":494799753,"identity":"38b1dd18-a1f6-4698-838b-07e722e8f59e","order_by":4,"name":"Rodney Banas5","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of the Philippines Open University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Rodney","middleName":"","lastName":"Banas5","suffix":""},{"id":494799754,"identity":"fd03fe6d-c485-4f0f-92fe-a3b3baefccf0","order_by":5,"name":"Mairene A. Leynes","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of the Philippines Open University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Mairene","middleName":"A.","lastName":"Leynes","suffix":""},{"id":494799755,"identity":"e5da845c-7b2a-495c-8b2b-edd73a8145e6","order_by":6,"name":"Jonathan D. Maliwat","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of the Philippines Open University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Jonathan","middleName":"D.","lastName":"Maliwat","suffix":""},{"id":494799756,"identity":"1b5e1f77-90ee-4e79-8a2b-062f5c4dd71d","order_by":7,"name":"Jemily M. Puchero","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of the Philippines Open University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Jemily","middleName":"M.","lastName":"Puchero","suffix":""},{"id":494799757,"identity":"dc4dcd06-9c21-4a7c-9bc2-0acf8d2de279","order_by":8,"name":"Allan Angelo L. Quimpo","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of the Philippines Open University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Allan","middleName":"Angelo L.","lastName":"Quimpo","suffix":""},{"id":494799758,"identity":"7d50cdb9-8b55-4106-ba1a-8ee3ce881b17","order_by":9,"name":"Vilma S. Reyes10","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of the Philippines Open University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Vilma","middleName":"S.","lastName":"Reyes10","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-07-22 07:54:30","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":{"humanSubjects":false,"vertebrateSubjects":false,"conflictsOfInterestStatement":false,"humanSubjectEthicalGuidelines":false,"humanSubjectConsent":false,"humanSubjectClinicalTrial":false,"humanSubjectCaseReport":false,"vertebrateSubjectEthicalGuidelines":false},"doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7184158/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7184158/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":88333930,"identity":"7ded120a-6b8c-400a-91f2-5e33cea7ba0c","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-05 11:37:38","extension":"jpeg","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":490305,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eUPOU’s SWM Iceberg Model Analysis\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7184158/v1/46eb903a2dc152064bb9c647.jpeg"},{"id":88333043,"identity":"e05559aa-e722-48bb-8bf3-a00de6daefec","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-05 11:21:38","extension":"jpeg","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":431850,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eUPOU’s SWM Social Network Analysis\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage2.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7184158/v1/89ea0a57f3c9f8927aadccb6.jpeg"},{"id":88333040,"identity":"57b87d3b-e978-4f7d-924a-44bdc0337e9a","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-05 11:21:37","extension":"jpeg","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":148888,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eUPOU’s SWM Flow Diagram\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage3.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7184158/v1/6bbf4af90f208190d758342f.jpeg"},{"id":88333041,"identity":"449ca046-9271-4b87-b7e8-6cb3eed677e5","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-05 11:21:38","extension":"jpeg","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":544594,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eUPOU’s SWM Causal-Layered Analysis\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage4.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7184158/v1/098eae6adc1af3712bc7e5e0.jpeg"},{"id":88333046,"identity":"2248286e-c946-45f5-8814-fc18e7db05e0","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-05 11:21:38","extension":"jpeg","order_by":5,"title":"Figure 5","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":553407,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eUPOU’s Proposed SWM Framework\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage5.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7184158/v1/cd533f4281e35249085fffcb.jpeg"},{"id":88334605,"identity":"2f8701da-68f1-44ff-bd80-6870773bfb89","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-05 11:45:38","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":2809692,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7184158/v1/14352549-3679-478f-8485-099b7c5194bc.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"The authors declare no competing interests.","formattedTitle":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSustainable Solid Waste Systems in Higher Education: A Multi-Framework Analysis at UP Open University\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","fulltext":[{"header":"INTRODUCTION","content":"\u003cp\u003eSolid waste generation is escalating globally, with the World Bank projecting a rise from 2.24\u0026nbsp;billion tons in 2020 to 3.88\u0026nbsp;billion tons by 2050 under a business-as-usual scenario (World Bank, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). In the Philippines alone, over 61,000 tons of solid waste are generated daily, with only about 28% collected by formal systems and an even smaller fraction processed through proper recovery or treatment (DENR-EMB, 2021). Within this context, higher education institutions (HEIs) are increasingly recognized not only as waste producers but as important sites for sustainability modeling through education, policy leadership, and operational innovation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eHowever, the majority of HEIs, including those with clear environmental mandates, struggle to implement consistent and integrated SWM systems. This challenge is more nuanced in non-traditional academic institutions such as the UP Open University (UPOU), an Open and Distance e-Learning (ODeL) university with a minimal physical campus footprint but significant symbolic and strategic responsibilities. Despite its location within the environmentally sensitive Los Baños-Makiling Watershed Reserve and its positioning as a leader in educational innovation, UPOU faces systemic constraints in organizing its waste governance. Early scoping suggests potential issues related to the lack of a formal SWM policy, fragmented stakeholder participation, and underutilized recovery infrastructures, challenges that are often masked by the low volume of waste generated. This reflects a broader trend where low-waste institutions deprioritize SWM, unintentionally limiting their role in modeling regenerative practices.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn response to these emerging concerns, this study seeks to critically assess UPOU’s solid waste management system through a multi-framework lens, combining insights from systems thinking, social network analysis, circular economy, and futures thinking. The study aims to understand how structural, behavioral, and cultural dynamics shape UPOU’s current waste practices, and to explore how these dimensions interact in ways that either reinforce or hinder sustainability efforts.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eBy weaving together these interdisciplinary perspectives, this research proposes a sustainable and future-ready SWM framework specifically tailored for ODeL institutions like UPOU. Beyond improving UPOU’s internal waste governance, the study aspires to contribute a replicable model for HEIs navigating sustainability within digitally mediated, low-footprint contexts. This framework positions waste not merely as a technical concern but as a reflection of institutional values, cultural narratives, and long-term foresight, thus aligning environmental stewardship with the transformative mission of higher education.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eResearch Questions\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis study assesses UP Open University’s (UPOU) solid waste management (SWM) through a multi-framework lens and proposes a systems-based, future-oriented framework that can guide the university toward more sustainable, regenerative, and adaptive waste governance.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSpecifically, this seeks to answer the following questions:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003col\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhat cultural challenges does UPOU face in implementing an effective and sustainable solid waste management system?\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eHow are stakeholders connected in UPOU’s waste system, and what do these relationships reveal?\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eHow do UPOU’s current waste practices reflect or fail to reflect circular economy principles?\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhat insights does Causal Layered Analysis (CLA) provide about the underlying narratives and worldviews shaping UPOU’s SWM?\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhat framework can be proposed based on the findings of the study?\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eLITERATURE REVIEW\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eBehind bins and signage, institutional waste systems are often complex webs of habits, gaps, and invisible decisions. At the UP Open University (UPOU), understanding this mess requires more than tallying trash; it demands a deeper look at how the system works, who’s involved, what values guide it, and where it might go next. This study draws on four interrelated frameworks—systems thinking, social network analysis, circular economy, and futures thinking—to assess UPOU’s solid waste management (SWM) practices. Each framework contributes a distinct analytical lens. Systems thinking offers a way to understand the underlying patterns, structures, and feedback loops that perpetuate waste-related challenges in institutions. Instead of treating symptoms in isolation, it enables a deeper exploration of cause-and-effect relationships and helps identify leverage points for systemic change (Meadows, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e). Complementing this, social network analysis (SNA) maps the roles and relationships of key stakeholders, revealing how decision-making flows across institutional actors and how gaps in communication or authority can hinder policy implementation (Prell et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn parallel, the circular economy (CE) framework offers a normative shift away from the linear \"take-make-dispose\" model, proposing instead a regenerative system that prioritizes resource efficiency, reuse, and recovery (Kirchherr et al., 2018). While CE is often associated with industrial contexts, recent efforts have sought to localize its principles within public institutions and university campuses. UPOU, as part of a national university system, has the potential to operationalize CE by embedding sustainable behaviors in daily operations and modeling circular practices through procurement, facilities management, and community engagement. However, institutional inertia, behavioral inconsistency, and infrastructure gaps continue to limit circularity in practice. Integrating CE with systems thinking allows for a richer understanding of how institutional habits, resource flows, and feedback mechanisms interact.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo deepen the understanding of UPOU’s waste system beyond surface-level issues, this study applies Causal Layered Analysis (CLA), a key tool in futures thinking developed by Inayatullah (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e). CLA enables the exploration of multiple layers of meaning within a system: the visible litany of problems, systemic structures, dominant discourses, and underlying myths or metaphors. This layered approach is particularly relevant in the context of UPOU, where waste management may be shaped not just by policy or infrastructure, but by deeply held assumptions about the institution’s environmental impact. By unpacking these layers, CLA offers a pathway for identifying leverage points and reframing narratives that can support more transformative and future-oriented approaches to solid waste governance.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe relevance of this multi-framework approach is reinforced by national and global mandates. In the Philippines, Republic Act 9003, or the Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of 2000, sets the policy backbone for waste segregation, recovery facilities, and stakeholder engagement in waste systems. Its implementation is closely tied to institutional compliance and community participation, both of which are directly affected by system dynamics and stakeholder alignment. At the global level, the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 12 urges institutions to ensure sustainable consumption and production, with Target 12.5 specifically focusing on reducing waste generation through prevention, reduction, and reuse.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eEmpirical studies support this integrated approach. Brinton et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) used systems mapping to understand Puerto Rico’s SWM, identifying delays, feedback loops, and cultural constraints that mirror UPOU’s institutional context. Iacovidou et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e) similarly emphasized how systems thinking reveals structural and behavioral patterns that hinder sustainability transitions, particularly in resource recovery settings. On the relational side, Przesdzink et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) demonstrated how stakeholder mapping and SNA clarified coordination breakdowns in environmental networks, offering a blueprint for university waste systems to analyze their own stakeholder ecosystems. In the same vein, Pociovălișteanu et al. (2021) analyzed waste governance structures and found that fragmented communication often leads to duplicated roles and policy blind spots.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eResearch on circular economy also confirms the difficulty of embedding its principles in institutions. Kirchherr et al. (2018) noted that circularity demands not only infrastructure but also cultural and behavioral change, areas where universities often lag due to decentralization and legacy practices. The Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2021) provided practical examples of how some universities are beginning to integrate CE through circular procurement, repair cafés, and student engagement initiatives, though most remain far from full implementation. Finally, the application of Causal Layered Analysis (CLA) in waste governance has gained traction as institutions seek to move beyond technical fixes toward deeper cultural transformation. CLA has been recognized for its ability to surface hidden narratives, systemic blind spots, and entrenched worldviews that often limit innovation in environmental strategies (Inayatullah, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e). By interrogating the stories and metaphors that shape institutional behavior, CLA supports a shift from reactive decision-making to reflective, values-driven action. Its integration with tools like social network analysis enriches institutional diagnostics by linking structural dynamics with cultural meaning, laying the groundwork for more adaptive, transformative waste management approaches.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn sum, this literature supports the view that improving SWM in HEIs requires more than compliance; it demands systemic insight, stakeholder coordination, normative rethinking, and future-oriented design. The convergence of these frameworks provides both analytical depth and practical direction for building a sustainable SWM system in UPOU and similar educational institutions.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"RESEARCH METHODOLOGY","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study adopted a qualitative-descriptive research design anchored in a multi-framework approach informed by systems thinking, social network analysis, circular economy, and futures thinking. It aimed to generate a nuanced understanding of the solid waste management (SWM) system at the University of the Philippines Open University (UPOU) and to propose a sustainability-oriented framework grounded in both stakeholder experiences and interdisciplinary insights. The descriptive aspect captured actual practices and conditions, while qualitative methods enabled the analysis of systemic patterns, behavioral dynamics, and institutional structures that shaped waste governance.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eParticipants\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe study engaged key stakeholders who play direct or supportive roles in UPOU’s waste management system. Participants included representatives from the Facilities Management Office, the SWM/DRRM Committee, selected faculty and administrative staff, student leaders, outsourced service providers, and representatives from the Los Baños Local Government Unit (LGU) and the Materials Recovery Facility (MRF). Purposive sampling was employed to ensure that participants possessed relevant knowledge, experience, or responsibility in the planning, implementation, or oversight of SWM activities within or beyond the UPOU campus.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eInstruments of the Study\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo ensure a comprehensive data set, the study utilized a triangulation of instruments. First, semi-structured interviews were conducted with key stakeholders to gain insights into current practices, systemic challenges, and envisioned improvements in the waste system. Second, secondary data were collected and reviewed, including university documents such as internal reports, committee presentations, administrative communications, and national policy references like Republic Act 9003 and Sustainable Development Goal 12. Third, a survey questionnaire was disseminated to faculty, staff, students, and alumni to measure waste-related knowledge, behavior, and perceptions. Finally, a stakeholder collaboration session was held to co-analyze systems maps, validate social network diagrams, and develop potential future scenarios, integrating futures thinking with participatory validation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eProcedure\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eData collection followed a structured and sequential approach. Coordination with university offices was first established to gain access to official documents and secure referrals for interview participants. Survey instruments were deployed electronically and remained open for two weeks to accommodate diverse respondent schedules. Interviews were conducted via face-to-face meetings and online platforms, depending on participant availability. Interviews were transcribed and analyzed thematically to surface recurring patterns and critical insights. The stakeholder collaboration session was conducted in the final phase of data collection, serving as a synthesis and validation space for findings across the four frameworks.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eEthical Considerations\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eEthical standards were strictly upheld throughout the research process. Participation in interviews, surveys, and collaboration activities was entirely voluntary. Informed consent was obtained from all participants, who were briefed on the study’s objectives, their rights, and the confidentiality of their responses. Data were anonymized and stored securely to protect respondent privacy. While the study did not require formal clearance from an institutional ethics review board due to its non-invasive and descriptive nature, the research instruments and procedures were reviewed by academic mentors to ensure compliance with ethical norms in qualitative research.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"RESULTS","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis section presents the findings on UPOU\u0026rsquo;s solid waste management (SWM) system based on interviews, surveys, secondary data, and a stakeholder collaboration session. Results are organized according to the study\u0026rsquo;s analytical lenses: systems thinking, social network analysis, circular economy, and futures thinking.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFigure \u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e reveals the deeper cultural issues underlying observable SWM challenges at UPOU. It maps out visible events, underlying patterns, systemic structures, and prevailing mental models that sustain the status quo.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFigure \u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e visualizes the relationships among key stakeholders involved in UPOU\u0026rsquo;s solid waste management system. It highlights central actors, communication flows, and areas of weak or fragmented coordination, offering insights into institutional dynamics and collaboration patterns.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFigure \u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e presents a step-by-step visual of how solid waste moves through UPOU\u0026rsquo;s current system, from generation and segregation to transport and final disposal. It identifies operational gaps and key decision points within the process.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFigure \u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e explores four levels of understanding UPOU\u0026rsquo;s waste management issues: the surface-level litany, systemic causes, discourse/worldview, and underlying myths/metaphors. It provides a futures thinking perspective for transformative change.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFigure \u003cspan refid=\"Fig5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e presents a cyclical and systems-based framework grounded in the results, illustrating how UP Open University can transition toward a sustainable solid waste management system. The framework integrates institutional culture shifts, operational improvements, stakeholder inclusivity, circular economy practices, and futures-oriented planning into a continuous feedback loop that promotes resilience, regeneration, and responsible governance.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"DISCUSSION","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eSystems Thinking Perspective: Deepening Insight through the Iceberg Model Analysis\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe Iceberg Model, a key tool in systems thinking, was applied to examine the deeper structures, patterns, and assumptions shaping UP Open University\u0026rsquo;s (UPOU) solid waste management (SWM) practices. At first glance, at the event level, UPOU appears to face familiar, surface-level problems: inconsistent waste segregation, underutilization of its Materials Recovery Facility (MRF), irregular monitoring, and dependence on external waste haulers. These observable events, while important, are only symptoms of deeper, systemic issues.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAt the pattern level, recurring behaviors and trends become visible. The analysis revealed that even when facilities such as color-coded bins or composting areas are present, usage is inconsistent. Waste disposal practices vary across offices, and even awareness of existing SWM guidelines differs depending on one's role in the institution. This inconsistency reflects not only procedural gaps but also the absence of reinforcement mechanisms: there are few feedback loops to signal when something works or fails, and no institutional rhythm that makes sustainable behavior the norm.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eBeneath these patterns lie systemic structures: the institutional rules, roles, and power dynamics that shape action. The Campus Development and Management Office (CDMO) carries the burden of daily waste operations, yet it does so in a context where waste management is not explicitly articulated in university-wide policy, nor meaningfully integrated across units. As an Open and Distance e-Learning (ODeL) institution, UPOU has a unique setup: most students are remote and do not physically generate waste on campus. As a result, there is limited stakeholder diversity in day-to-day waste interactions, and SWM is often viewed as an isolated operational task, detached from academic and strategic planning. These structures maintain a siloed approach, with sustainability seen as \u0026ldquo;extra work\u0026rdquo; rather than an embedded value.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAt the deepest level are mental models, the cultural assumptions and beliefs that hold the system in place. Here, the Iceberg Model revealed perhaps the most significant barrier to transformation: the widely held perception that \u0026ldquo;UPOU doesn\u0026rsquo;t generate much waste, so it\u0026rsquo;s not a priority.\u0026rdquo; This belief minimizes urgency, discourages investment, and limits creative engagement. It mirrors what Brinton et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) describe as a \u0026ldquo;complacency trap\u0026rdquo; in institutional systems, where small operational footprints are misread as indicators of sustainability rather than missed opportunities for leadership. Moreover, it reinforces a myth that waste management is peripheral to the university\u0026rsquo;s mission, when in fact it offers a clear lens for modeling the values of efficiency, care, and responsibility, especially critical for an institution that prides itself on innovation and adaptability.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn line with Meadows\u0026rsquo; (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e) framework on leverage points, the Iceberg Model underscores that true transformation lies not in addressing isolated events, but in shifting patterns, redesigning systems, and most powerfully, reshaping the underlying mental models. For UPOU, that means reimagining waste not as an operational leftover, but as a visible expression of institutional values. It also means recognizing that even in an ODeL setup, sustainability leadership can be demonstrated through policy coherence, cross-unit collaboration, and intentional design, regardless of scale.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eSocial Network Analysis: Rewiring for Resilience and Accountability\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe social network analysis (SNA) highlights a system where waste governance at UPOU is shaped by a relatively small group of on-site actors: primarily the Campus Development and Management Office (CDMO), SWM/DRRM Committee, administrative personnel, contractors, and occasional visitors. As an ODeL institution, UPOU's students are mostly remote, meaning that, unlike traditional universities, the bulk of solid waste is generated by physical operations, not academic or residential activity. This context gives the CDMO a central operational role, but it also reveals a gap in strategic and collaborative functions across the broader university system.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhile vertical linkages (e.g., between CDMO and contractors or local government) appear consistent, horizontal connections with internal offices and sustainability champions remain limited. Collaboration with digital or remote academic units is virtually absent despite their potential role in shaping sustainability narratives or influencing institutional culture. Hauck et al. (2021) observed that centralized environmental governance often results in missed opportunities for engagement and co-creation, particularly when peripheral voices are excluded. Although UPOU\u0026rsquo;s student body may not physically generate waste, their involvement, as part of the institution\u0026rsquo;s identity and values, remains essential in designing and communicating circularity initiatives, especially in digital learning spaces.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThus, the SNA reinforces Prell et al.\u0026rsquo;s (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e) argument that sustainable systems thrive on mutual accountability and participatory structures. For UPOU, this implies that beyond operational control, the SWM network must evolve to include strategic and cultural actors, such as academic units, virtual learning designers, and online student representatives, to help integrate sustainability more holistically. Activating these relationships can shift the system from maintenance to transformation, with CDMO as a key enabler rather than the sole executor of waste governance.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eCircular Economy Analysis: Unlocking the Missed Potential of Regenerative Thinking\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhen viewed through the lens of the circular economy (CE), UPOU\u0026rsquo;s SWM system reflects both promising groundwork and untapped potential. Despite being an ODeL institution, UPOU maintains a physical campus that produces waste primarily through its on-site personnel, administrative operations, and visitors. This unique profile means that the university does not generate the high volume or diversity of waste seen in traditional, student-heavy campuses, but it also presents a strategic opportunity, with fewer waste sources, UPOU is well-positioned to adopt a low-waste, regenerative model.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eCurrently, UPOU implements basic segregation, maintains an MRF, and engages third-party haulers, yet these practices remain embedded in a linear waste system centered on disposal rather than recovery or resource circulation. Composting is practiced in limited areas such as the gardening zone, but is neither scaled nor institutionalized. Recyclables are collected, yet the process depends heavily on contractors and lacks university-wide engagement or clear metrics. Notably, e-waste, which holds particular relevance in a digitally driven institution like UPOU, is often stockpiled without a clear recovery or disposal protocol.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis aligns with the findings of Kirchherr et al. (2018), who observed that many institutions adopt CE principles superficially, without reconfiguring the systems, incentives, and mindsets required for transformation. In UPOU\u0026rsquo;s case, infrastructure exists, but deeper shifts in behavior, policy, and organizational design are lacking. The institution\u0026rsquo;s procurement systems, for example, do not yet prioritize reusable or low-impact materials; neither is there a formal reuse program for office supplies, packaging, or e-learning devices. Furthermore, CE thinking is not yet integrated into onboarding, sustainability orientations, or campus-based communications.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eParadoxically, UPOU\u0026rsquo;s ODeL nature is also its strength, with fewer waste generators and a predominantly digital infrastructure, the university could feasibly move faster toward a zero-waste, circular campus model. CE principles such as \u0026ldquo;designing out waste\u0026rdquo; could inform purchasing, digital equipment lifecycle planning, and event protocols. Moreover, because its academic influence extends beyond campus, UPOU could also embed circularity into its curriculum and course design, helping train a new generation of learners who see CE as the default, not the ideal.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn short, while UPOU may not have the scale of waste generation seen in traditional universities, it has the structural simplicity and intellectual reach to lead by example. Realizing this potential will require the integration of CE into policy, procurement, and planning anchored by an institutional mindset that views waste not as an unavoidable byproduct, but as a design flaw that can be corrected through systemic, circular thinking.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eFutures Thinking: Reframing UPOU\u0026rsquo;s Waste System through Causal Layered Analysis\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eCausal Layered Analysis (CLA) was used in this study to unpack the complex and layered nature of UPOU\u0026rsquo;s SWM system. As a tool rooted in futures thinking, CLA enables researchers and stakeholders to go beyond surface-level symptoms and explore the deeper worldviews and narratives that sustain current realities. This approach was particularly relevant for UPOU, an OdeL institution, where solid waste is not driven by student population but by on-site personnel, administrative operations, and occasional visitors. Because of this, traditional waste interventions focused on student engagement or campus-wide behavior change do not directly apply. What is needed instead is a shift in institutional thinking, and CLA provided a pathway for that transformation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe CLA conducted in the stakeholder collaboration session revealed four interconnected layers. At the litany level, participants identified observable issues, such as lack of waste segregation, dependence on contractors, and absence of clear monitoring. These challenges, while real, represent only the most visible symptoms. At the systemic level, structural causes became more apparent, such as limited internal policy enforcement, decentralized implementation, and the lack of formalized waste protocols across departments. These systems reinforced passive or reactive waste behavior, with CDMO shouldering the operational load but without cross-office ownership.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe third layer, worldview/discourse, was perhaps the most illuminating. Here, participants surfaced the dominant belief that \"UPOU generates minimal waste, so it\u0026rsquo;s not a major concern.\" While factually grounded, given the ODeL context, this narrative inadvertently diminishes institutional responsibility and stifles ambition. Such discourse limits the potential for innovation, relegating waste to a compliance issue rather than a site of transformation. Finally, at the myth/metaphor level, the dominant metaphor emerged: \u0026ldquo;Waste is a background task.\u0026rdquo; This frames waste as invisible, secondary, and disconnected from UPOU\u0026rsquo;s core mission. In contrast, an alternative metaphor proposed during the CLA session was: \u0026ldquo;Waste is a mirror of values.\u0026rdquo; This new narrative invites UPOU to see waste as an opportunity to reflect its commitment to sustainability, equity, and foresight.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis reframing aligns with Inayatullah\u0026rsquo;s (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e) assertion that real change occurs when institutions interrogate the myths and metaphors that shape their actions. The power of CLA lies in its ability to open space for alternative futures, ones that are not only technically better but also culturally and ethically grounded. For UPOU, the CLA process did not just reveal what is broken; it revealed what is possible. The challenge ahead is to move from insights to action, such as rearticulating sustainability goals, embedding them in policy, and making SWM a visible, value-driven part of the university\u0026rsquo;s evolving story.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eProposed UPOU SWM Framework\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eBased on the results of the multi-framework analysis at UPOU, a systems-based framework for transforming institutional SWM that integrates four mutually reinforcing strategies: (1) Shift Mental Models and Institutional Culture, (2) Strengthen Stakeholder Inclusion, (3) Build Futures Capacity, and (4) Strengthen Operational Backbone, is proposed. This framework reflects the findings and insights gathered through systems thinking, social network analysis, circular economy, and futures thinking.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eShift Mental Models and Institutional Culture\u003c/b\u003e. At the deepest level of systems change, the study uncovered a prevailing belief that \u0026ldquo;UPOU doesn\u0026rsquo;t generate much waste, so it\u0026rsquo;s not a priority.\u0026rdquo; This mental model, identified through the Iceberg Model and Causal Layered Analysis (CLA), creates complacency and blocks investment in circular and transformative practices. Meadows (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e) identified \u0026ldquo;changing the mindset or paradigm out of which the system arises\u0026rdquo; as the most powerful leverage point for systemic change.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eShifting this mindset entails reimagining waste not as an operational afterthought, but as a mirror of institutional values, as surfaced in the CLA. As Brinton et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) noted, institutions often fall into a \u0026ldquo;complacency trap,\u0026rdquo; especially when their environmental footprint appears minimal. However, even low-waste institutions like UPOU have the symbolic and strategic capacity to lead sustainability transformations.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eStrengthen Stakeholder Inclusion\u003c/b\u003e. Social Network Analysis (SNA) revealed siloed interactions within UPOU's SWM system. The CDMO is heavily burdened operationally, while strategic and cultural actors, like academic units and students, are peripheral. To build a resilient and accountable waste system, Prell et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e) emphasized the importance of horizontal collaboration and mutual accountability.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn UPOU\u0026rsquo;s context, stakeholder inclusion must go beyond operational actors to involve remote students, course designers, and virtual campus leaders. Their inclusion reinforces a culture of shared responsibility, even in a digitally driven institution. The framework calls for participatory structures, such as cross-unit SWM task forces, collaborative monitoring, and inclusion of SWM in onboarding and faculty development.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eBuild Futures Capacity\u003c/b\u003e. Futures thinking, particularly through CLA, highlighted the importance of reframing institutional narratives and building adaptive strategies. Inayatullah (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e) emphasized that systemic transformation requires not just technical fixes, but narrative shifts and long-term visioning. UPOU\u0026rsquo;s unique ODeL structure places it in a position to design anticipatory and scenario-based waste governance models that reflect emerging risks and opportunities.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eBuilding futures capacity means equipping institutional leaders and stakeholders with tools for foresight, scenario planning, and systemic design. It also involves embedding circular economy concepts into course offerings, administrative planning, and digital spaces. UPOU can pioneer futures-oriented waste policies that remain relevant amid evolving environmental regulations and technologies.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eStrengthen Operational Backbone\u003c/b\u003e. While mindset and collaboration are foundational, infrastructure and systems remain crucial. Circular economy analysis revealed that while UPOU has basic waste segregation, MRFs, and contractor partnerships, these remain underutilized or disconnected from broader policy and behavior. Kirchherr et al. (2018) stressed that CE requires both infrastructure and cultural shifts.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eStrengthening UPOU\u0026rsquo;s operational backbone includes institutionalizing composting, formalizing e-waste recovery, investing in digital monitoring systems, and enhancing the MRF\u0026rsquo;s capability. It also means aligning procurement policies with CE principles (e.g., minimizing single-use items, prioritizing repairable equipment, and tracking waste metrics). This backbone is what operationalizes the cultural and strategic shifts enabled by the other three domains.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis proposed framework is a direct outcome of UPOU\u0026rsquo;s institutional realities, informed by rigorous systems-based inquiry. By looping together mental model shifts, stakeholder inclusion, futures capacity, and operational strengthening, the framework aligns with both the diagnostic insights and normative aspirations identified in the study. It provides a scalable model for higher education institutions aiming to embed sustainability in both thought and action.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThrough this integrated strategy, UPOU can move from symbolic to substantive sustainability, positioning itself as a leader not only in open and distance e-learning but in regenerative governance as well.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"CONCLUSION","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study sought to critically assess and reimagine the solid waste management (SWM) system of the University of the Philippines Open University (UPOU) using a multi-framework approach that combined systems thinking, social network analysis, circular economy, and futures thinking. More than an evaluation of existing practices, it was an exploration of how a low-waste, digitally oriented institution can still lead in modeling sustainability from within.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe research process affirmed that even in an Open and Distance e-Learning (ODEL) setup, where waste generation is relatively minimal and concentrated among on-site personnel and visitors, the challenge of sustainability remains a systems concern. It is shaped by how institutions assign responsibility, structure communication, and imagine their futures. By applying layered analysis and participatory tools, the study was able to surface underlying dynamics and engage stakeholders in envisioning alternative pathways forward. In response, a SWM framework was proposed, integrating shifts in mental models, stakeholder inclusion, futures capacity, and operational strengthening. More than a technical fix, the framework positions UPOU to lead by design, turning its small footprint into a compelling model for sustainability in higher education.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAwuzie B, Ngowi AB, Omotayo T, Obi L, Akotia J (2021) Facilitating Successful Smart Campus Transitions: A Systems Thinking-SWOT Analysis Approach. \u003cem\u003eApplied Sciences\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e11\u003c/em\u003e(5), 2044. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/app11052044\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/app11052044\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBarth L, Schweiger L, Benedech R, Matthias Ehrat (2023) From data to value in smart waste management: Optimizing solid waste collection with a digital twin-based decision support system. Decis Analytics J 9:100347\u0026ndash;100347. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.dajour.2023.100347\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.dajour.2023.100347\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBentil J, Braimah S, Anthony Frank Obeng (2024) \u0026amp;. Solid Waste Management in Higher Educational Institution: An Investigation Using the SWOT Analysis and the Circular Economy Principle Perspective. \u003cem\u003eCircular Economy and Sustainability/Circular Economy and Sustainability\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s43615-024-00349-7\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s43615-024-00349-7\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBrenes-Peralta L, Jim\u0026eacute;nez-Morales MF, Campos-Rodr\u0026iacute;guez R, De Menna F, Vittuari M (2020) Decision-Making Process in the Circular Economy: A Case Study on University Food Waste-to-Energy Actions in Latin America. Energies 13(9):2291. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/en13092291\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/en13092291\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBrinton A, Townsend TG, Diehl DC, Deliz Qui\u0026ntilde;ones K, Lichtenstein MM (2023) Systems Thinking and Solid Waste Management in Puerto Rico: Feedback Loops over Time. Sustainability 15(5):4648. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/su15054648\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/su15054648\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBudihardjo MA, Humaira NG, Putri SA, Ramadan BS, Syafrudin S, Yohana E (2021) Sustainable Solid Waste Management Strategies for Higher Education Institutions: Diponegoro University. Indonesia Case Study Sustainability 13(23):13242. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/su132313242\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/su132313242\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDepartment of Environment and Natural Resources \u0026ndash; Environmental Management Bureau (DENR-EMB) (2021) \u003cem\u003eNational Solid Waste Management Status Report (2016\u0026ndash;2020)\u003c/em\u003e. Retrieved from \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://emb.gov.ph\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://emb.gov.ph\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDBM, \u0026amp; COA (2024) \u003cem\u003eJoint Circular No. 2024\u0026ndash;01 (DBM-COA)\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003eWww.dbm.gov.ph\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"http://Www.dbm.gov.ph\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e. https://www.dbm.gov.ph/index.php/homepage-2/2627-joint-circular-no-2024-01-dbm-coa\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDianati K, Sch\u0026auml;fer L, Milner J, G\u0026oacute;mez-Sanabria A, Gitau H, Hale J, Langmaack H, Kiesewetter G, Muindi K, Mberu B, Zimmermann N, Michie S, Wilkinson P, Davies M (2021) A system dynamics-based scenario analysis of residential solid waste management in Kisumu, Kenya. Sci Total Environ 777:146200. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.146200\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.146200\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGiurea R, Miino MC, Torretta V, Elena Cristina Rada (2024) \u0026amp;. Approaching sustainability and circularity along waste management systems in universities: an overview and proposal of good practices. \u003cem\u003eFrontiers in Environmental Science\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e12\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2024.1363024\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3389/fenvs.2024.1363024\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHenaien A, Hadda Ben Elhadj, Lamia Chaari Fourati (2024) A sustainable smart IoT-based solid waste management system. Future Generation Comput Syst. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.future.2024.03.056\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.future.2024.03.056\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eIacovidou E, Hahladakis JN, Purnell P (2020) A systems thinking approach to understanding the challenges of achieving the circular economy. Environ Sci Pollut Res 28:24785\u0026ndash;24806\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eInayatullah S (2004) The causal layered analysis (CLA) reader: Theory and case studies of an integrative and transformative methodology. Tamkang University\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKirchherr J, Reike D, Hekkert M (2017) Conceptualizing the Circular economy: an Analysis of 114 Definitions. Resour Conserv Recycl 127(1):221\u0026ndash;232. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.09.005\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.09.005\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMa Y, Yang X, Qu S, Kong L (2021) Characteristics and driving factors of the technology cooperation network evolution: a case study of solid waste treatment field in China. Technol Anal Strateg Manag 1\u0026ndash;15. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2021.1979207\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/09537325.2021.1979207\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMancini SD, de Medeiros GA, Paes MX, de Oliveira BOS, Antunes MLP, de Souza RG, Ferraz JL, Bortoleto AP, de Oliveira JAP (2021) Circular Economy and Solid Waste Management: Challenges and Opportunities in Brazil. Circular Econ Sustain. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s43615-021-00031-2\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s43615-021-00031-2\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMbuligwe SE (2002) Institutional solid waste management practices in developing countries: a case study of three academic institutions in Tanzania. Resour Conserv Recycl 35(3):131\u0026ndash;146. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/s0921-3449(01)00113-6\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/s0921-3449(01)00113-6\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMeadows DH (2008) Thinking in systems: A primer. Chelsea Green Publishing\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOjuri OO, Olowoselu AS, Akinrele J, Ayodele FO, Ayodele FO, Jayejeje OO (2024) Sustainable integrated solid waste management for a university campus\u0026thinsp;\u0026ndash;\u0026thinsp;The case of Federal University of Technology Akure (FUTA), Nigeria. Waste Manage Bull. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.wmb.2024.04.004\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.wmb.2024.04.004\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePereira Ribeiro JM, Hoeckesfeld L, Dal Magro CB, Favretto J, Barichello R, Lenzi FC, Secchi L, de Montenegro CR (2021) \u0026amp; Salgueirinho Os\u0026oacute;rio de Andrade Guerra, J. B. Green Campus Initiatives as sustainable development dissemination at higher education institutions: Students\u0026rsquo; perceptions. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Cleaner Production\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e312\u003c/em\u003e, 127671. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127671\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127671\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePhilippine Congress (1990), October 26 \u003cem\u003eRepublic Act No. 6969 | GOVPH\u003c/em\u003e. Official Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/1990/10/26/republic-act-no-6969/\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/1990/10/26/republic-act-no-6969/\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePhilippine Congress (2001), January 26 \u003cem\u003eRepublic Act No. 9003\u003c/em\u003e. Official Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/2001/01/26/republic-act-no-9003-s-2001/\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/2001/01/26/republic-act-no-9003-s-2001/\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePhilippine Congress (2018) \u003cem\u003eRepublic Act No. 11396\u003c/em\u003e. Lawphil.net. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra2019/ra_11396_2019.html\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra2019/ra_11396_2019.html\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePrell C, Hubacek K, Reed M (2009) Stakeholder Analysis and Social Network Analysis in Natural Resource Management. Soc Nat Resour 22(6):501\u0026ndash;518. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/08941920802199202\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/08941920802199202\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePrzesdzink F, Herzog LM, Fiebelkorn F (2021) Combining Stakeholder- and Social Network- Analysis to Improve Regional Nature Conservation: A Case Study from Osnabr\u0026uuml;ck, Germany. Environ Manage. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-021-01564-w\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s00267-021-01564-w\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eQu D, Shevchenko T, Saidani M, Xia Y, Ladyka Y (2021) TRANSITION TOWARDS A CIRCULAR ECONOMY: THE ROLE OF UNIVERSITY ASSETS IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF A NEW MODEL. Detritus 17:3\u0026ndash;14. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.31025/2611-4135/2021.15141\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.31025/2611-4135/2021.15141\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRepublic of the Philippines (2000) \u003cem\u003eRepublic Act No. 9003: Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of 2000\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/2000/01/26/republic-act-no-9003/\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/2000/01/26/republic-act-no-9003/\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRuohomaa H, Ivanova N (2019) From solid waste management towards the circular economy and digital driven symbiosis. \u003cem\u003eIOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e337\u003c/em\u003e, 012032. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/337/1/012032\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1088/1755-1315/337/1/012032\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSalguero-Puerta L, Leyva-D\u0026iacute;az JC, Cort\u0026eacute;s-Garc\u0026iacute;a FJ, Molina-Moreno V (2019) Sustainability Indicators Concerning Waste Management for Implementation of the Circular Economy Model on the University of Lome (Togo) Campus. Int J Environ Res Public Health 16(12):2234. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16122234\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/ijerph16122234\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSalvia G, Zimmermann N, Willan C, Hale J, Gitau H, Muindi K, Gichana E, Davies M (2021) The wicked problem of waste management: An attention-based analysis of stakeholder behaviours. J Clean Prod 326:129200. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.129200\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.129200\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTasca FA, Goerl RF, Michel GP, Leite NK, S\u0026eacute;rgio DZ, Beliz\u0026aacute;rio S, Caprario J, Finotti AR (2019) Application of Systems Thinking to the assessment of an institutional development project of river restoration at a campus university in Southern Brazil. Environ Sci Pollut Res 27(13):14299\u0026ndash;14317. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-06693-8\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s11356-019-06693-8\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTEDx Talks (2019) How the tourism industry can be responsible for its environmental footprint | Sean Nino | TEDxUbud [YouTube Video]. In \u003cem\u003eYouTube\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMlG-c1hXEE\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMlG-c1hXEE\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThe World Bank (2022), February 11 \u003cem\u003eSolid Waste Management\u003c/em\u003e. World Bank. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/urbandevelopment/brief/solid-waste-management\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/urbandevelopment/brief/solid-waste-management\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTu L, Ma Y, Han X, Zhu M (2023) Numerical analysis of a modified combined volumetric filtered concentrating PV/T system using MCRT and FVM coupled method. J Clean Prod 410:137296. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.137296\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.137296\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eUNDP (2018) \u003cem\u003eForesight Manual\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.undp.org/sites/g/files/zskgke326/files/publications/UNDP_ForesightManual_2018.pdf\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.undp.org/sites/g/files/zskgke326/files/publications/UNDP_ForesightManual_2018.pdf\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eUNEP (2024) \u003cem\u003eGlobal Waste Management Outlook 2024 for Youth: Beyond an age of waste - Turning rubbish into a resource\u003c/em\u003e. UNEP - UN Environment Programme. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.unep.org/resources/report/global-waste-management-outlook-2024-youth-beyond-age-waste-turning-rubbish?gad_source=1\u0026amp;gclid=Cj0KCQiA0--6BhCBARIsADYqyL9LMMPb5pktP8Yd78PbUZ2Bf7\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.unep.org/resources/report/global-waste-management-outlook-2024-youth-beyond-age-waste-turning-rubbish?gad_source=1\u0026amp;gclid=Cj0KCQiA0--6BhCBARIsADYqyL9LMMPb5pktP8Yd78PbUZ2Bf7\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003eSMGlcTQGnlCiVVCJUx7rNR3hiP1hEaAtz9EALw_wcB\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eUnited Nations (2015) \u003cem\u003eTransforming our world: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://sdgs.un.org/goals\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://sdgs.un.org/goals\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eUPOU DRRM/SWM (2024) \u003cem\u003eUPOU Institutional Survey Assessment\u003c/em\u003e (DSus 301 Group 7, Interviewer) [Personal communication]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWorld Bank (2022) \u003cem\u003eWhat a waste 2.0: A global snapshot of solid waste management to 2050\u003c/em\u003e. Worldbank.org. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://datatopics.worldbank.org/what-a-waste\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://datatopics.worldbank.org/what-a-waste\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWorld Economic Forum (2019) \u003cem\u003eA New Circular Vision for Electronics Time for a Global Reboot In support of the United Nations E-waste Coalition PLATFORM FOR ACCELERATING THE CIRCULAR ECONOMY PLATFORM FOR ACCELERATING THE CIRCULAR ECONOMY PLATFORM FOR ACCELERATING THE CIRCULAR ECONOMY\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_A_New_Circular_Vision_for_Electronics.pdf\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_A_New_Circular_Vision_for_Electronics.pdf\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZhang Y, Zhou C, Du J, Wang M, Wu W, Liu G (2022) Material flow analysis and characteristics of multiple-source organic solid wastes from a perspective of ecological network analysis: A case study in Hefei, China. Waste Manage Res J Sustainable Circular Econ 41(5):987\u0026ndash;996. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/0734242x221136467\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/0734242x221136467\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZorpas AA (2024) The hidden concept and the beauty of multiple R in the framework of waste strategies development reflecting to circular economy principles. Sci Total Environ 175508\u0026ndash;175508. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.175508\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.175508\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":true,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"University of the Philippines Open University","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"solid waste management, higher education institution, sustainability, systems thinking, social network analysis, circular economy, futures thinking","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7184158/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7184158/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eThis study critically examined the solid waste management (SWM) practices at the University of the Philippines Open University (UPOU), a digitally oriented institution located within the ecologically sensitive Los Ba\u0026ntilde;os-Makiling Watershed. Despite its minimal physical waste footprint, UPOU's waste system suffers from operational fragmentation, limited stakeholder engagement, and weak institutional prioritization. To address these systemic inefficiencies, the researchers employed a multi-framework approach, integrating systems thinking, social network analysis, circular economy principles, and futures thinking. Findings revealed that SWM is hindered by siloed responsibilities, underutilized infrastructure such as the Materials Recovery Facility, and a prevailing mindset that minimizes the urgency of waste issues. The study culminated in a proposed SWM framework for UPOU focused on four strategic pillars: shifting institutional culture, strengthening stakeholder inclusion, enhancing operational systems, and building futures capacity. The framework demonstrates how even low-waste institutions can lead in sustainability through intentional systems design, collaborative governance, and regenerative thinking. This model offers a scalable strategy for embedding sustainability within higher education institutions globally.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Sustainable Solid Waste Systems in Higher Education: A Multi-Framework Analysis at UP Open University","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-08-05 11:21:33","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7184158/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"1dbff848-07e3-4eb9-aa2b-3b057b5d475f","owner":[],"postedDate":"August 5th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[{"id":52549676,"name":"Environmental Policy"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-08-05T11:21:33+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-08-05 11:21:33","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-7184158","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-7184158","identity":"rs-7184158","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}