investigative report

2

Problem Statement

Premature disposal of furniture has become a serious problem facing our landfills. “The

United States EPA stated that furniture accounts for about 4.1% (9.8 million tons) of waste from

homes, and has one of the lowest recovery rates” (Uysal, 2017). Furniture is being disposed of

when it still has value and can be used but it ends up in landfills, causing a negative impact to

our environment.

Variable Problem Definitions

There are multiple ways in which people define the waste from premature disposal of

furniture. It is hard for people to come up with one exact definition because, like all situations,

people view it differently. Some view the premature disposal of furniture as a positive way to

help disaster reliefs, others view it as a negative effect on the environment causing pollution, and

still others see it as both negative by polluting the earth but positive in that it may be used as a

possible way to create energy. The problem is multi-faceted because there are both positives and

negatives that can possibly come out of the premature disposal of furniture.

The IRN, which stands for The Reuse Network, views the premature disposal of furniture

as a positive thing that they can use as an opportunity to help others and the environment. The

IRN works with surplus furniture and donates it to needy communities in places like the

Caribbean, Haiti and Puerto Rico. “The Reuse Network had greater than 175,000 pieces of

furniture for reuse with global nonprofits, resulting in more than 8 million pounds that filled

about 650 tractor trailers” (Szczepanski, 2017). The IRN donates these furniture pieces to places

that have suffered from disasters like wars, hurricanes and floods. This organization likes when

furniture is prematurely disposed of because they can then help others who are in need of

3

furniture but cannot really afford it. “Millions of people lack basic furniture pieces, but have

trouble affording them, stated IRN CEO Mark Lennon” (Szczepanski, 2017). “The IRN shipped

roughly 170,000 pieces of furniture in 2017, and could continue doing so a multiple lifetimes and

still barely make a dent in the global need of furniture” (Szczepanski, 2017).

In contrast, Herman Miller, a furniture designer and manufacturer, has a negative view on

waste from the premature disposal of furniture. He sees it as a contributing factor to overcrowded

landfills, which is causing harm to our environments and making our earth unsustainable.

According to Miller (2017), “furniture waste (f-waste), about an annual 8-million-ton trash

problem, is becoming the new e-waste” (p. 5). Miller defines waste from premature disposal of

furniture as a trash problem and essentially is leading to an unsustainable future.

The Department of Engineering at the University of Alicante in Spain has both a positive

and a negative view on waste from the premature disposal of furniture. These students and

professors are also consumers, and they define it as a way of the furniture’s life ending. They

view the waste as a sustainable problem that is impossible to recycle, but they also view the

premature disposal of furniture as a possible way to recover energy. “Nonetheless, energy

recovery is a potential way to manage this waste, and its use could enhance the management of

environmental resources and waste” (Moreno et al., 2016).

All the above-mentioned people have different definitions and views on whether waste

from premature disposal of furniture is a positive or a negative thing. All views have a good

perspective behind their reasoning, which makes this a difficult situation because it contributes to

the fact that not everyone can agree on one true definition and view of the problem.

Variable Solutions

4

There have been many solutions proposed for the waste created from the premature

disposal of furniture. One solution that has been proposed by Herman Miller is the rePurpose

Program. According to Miller (2017), “this program is one of their company’s best-kept secrets.

Rather than throwing out excessive amounts of unwanted, but usable furniture to landfills, we

work with organizations to find other purposes for the furniture” (p. 5). Their solution to

furniture waste helps nonprofits acquire items that they have a harder time finding and, in return,

it creates a more sustainable solution to furniture waste by giving it a new purpose. If our society

were to implement this solution, we could use the extra furniture produced by big companies and

provide that to organizations in need, creating less furniture-populated landfills. On the other

hand, this solution takes surplus furniture from companies and not from consumers, so we would

still be dealing with the wasted furniture from households.

The rePurpose Program that Miller created is supposed to have a positive outcome on not

just the environment but also on nonprofits in need. By having the rePurprose Program collect

over-produced furniture from big companies, it creates the opportunity to minimize the furniture

being taken to landfills. Furniture is often non-biodegradable so it will sit in landfills for many

years before degrading. By having the surplus furniture going to nonprofits, it helps not just the

landfills but also the nonprofits that collect furniture that is desperately needed. Miller’s solution

has a possibility of resolving issues like air pollution, water pollution, and overcrowded landfills.

It also has a possibility of resolving nonprofits’ limited amount of furniture.

On the other hand, the rePurpose program can pose negative effects. Since the program

only takes surplus furniture from companies, what are we supposed to do with the

overabundance of furniture that is being thrown into landfills from homes? As the United States

EPA stated, homes are responsible for about 9.8 million tons of furniture waste (Uysal, 2017),

5

and that is not including furniture being thrown into landfills from overproduction in the bigger

companies. If this solution is only taking furniture from half of the cause of the problem (surplus

from companies), how is it even making a dent in the amount of waste created from the

premature disposal of furniture?

Another solution that has been recently created is the combustion of furniture composed

of wood to replenish energy sources. Moreno et al. (2016) states that “furniture that is being

disposed of are being used as a potential renewable energy source due to the immense reduction

rates in the emission of acid and greenhouse gases, and also enhances the management of natural

resources” (p. 3). If we were to implement the combustion of wood furniture, we would not be

handling the rest of the furniture that is prematurely disposed of like appliances or non-wood

furniture. There would still likely be a waste problem because there would be massive amounts

of furniture being disposed of into our landfills with no solution. Additionally, excessive

amounts of combustion of wood furniture could have some negative effects to it. “Insufficient

combustions can cause possible environmental and human health concerns. This is a result from

particulate matter, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and carbon monoxide emissions” (Moreno,

2016).

On the other hand, if we did implement the combustion of wood furniture we could gain

energy from it. This would be beneficial because we are using up our natural resources more

quickly than we think. By using the combustion of wood furniture as a secondary source of

energy, we could use less amounts of our natural resources.

A third solution would be to donate the oversupply of furniture from schools, offices, and

other corporations to places that have been affected by natural and man-made disasters.

“Furniture from the IRN plays a crucial role in relief and restoration efforts in affected areas

6

including but not limited to: the southern United States, Central America, and the Caribbean”

(Szczepanski, 2017). If we were to implement this solution all around the world, we could “kill

two birds with one stone.” We could save the landfills from being overcrowded with prematurely

disposed furniture, while helping with relief efforts and giving these pieces of furniture a second

chance. This solution could help with not just one but two problems.

Conversely, this solution has some drawbacks. It only uses furniture from certain places

like schools and offices. If it were to take furniture from all places, including homes and public

buildings, it could become a very sustainable solution.

Many of these solutions have different views on the problem. It is hard to get everyone to

agree on just one solution because each person has their own paradigms, making it difficult to

get everyone to agree on which solution is the most sustainable.

Solutions Have No End Point

We cannot easily see an end to this problem because the solutions above have other

consequences, making it hard to select just one solution. No matter what solution we come up

with, there will always be furniture being disposed of prematurely since homeowners are not

motivated to take them places other than the trashcan by the curb or straight to the landfill. “The

IRN pairs organizations seeking to donate their furniture that is sufficient for reuse with global

charities” (Szczepanski, 2017). But what if organizations are not looking to donate? Will the IRN

reach out to them or will the furnishings go to waste?

The Department of Engineering’s solution for combusting the wood furniture has

unintended consequences like air pollution that can affect not only the environment but also

human health. “PCDD/Fs, or polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans, have been

found to form and distribute during combustion conditions” (Moreno et al., 2016). These

7

PCDD/Fs can emit and cause air pollution that can affect the earth and human health. Using this

as the one solution could create new wicked problems or exacerbate existing ones, which would

defeat the purpose.

These solutions have no end point and can even cause unintended cascading effects that

cause more harm to our environment. These solutions must be continually adapted to be effective

because the world and each situation is constantly changing, making it almost impossible for just

one solution to be used without making changes to it at times.

Solutions Pose Irreversible Effects

Some of these solutions may cause irreversible changes in the system that can become a

problem later. The combustion of wood furniture may cause pollution in our air that we cannot

alter. This can later cause climate change due to all the chemicals in the air. Climate change is

irreversible and if we contribute to it by burning every piece of wood furniture, we are increasing

the carbon dioxide emissions even more and adding to the unsustainability of our environment.

Another way that the combustion of wood furniture has an irreversible effect is from the smoke

emitted during combustion and its effect on health. “Small fragments are within the smoke that is

developed during the combustion of wood, which can signal a possible health risk due to the

amount of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons present” (Moreno et al., 2016).

It is difficult to verify the effectiveness of the solutions since there are both positive and

negative aspects to each of the solutions. Not knowing whether the positive effects will outweigh

the negative makes it hard to determine if the solution will help or hurt the earth.

Solutions Require Unique Approaches

Not all the solutions proposed for this problem would be effective in all parts of the

world. For example, the combustion of wood furniture cannot be effective in parts of the world

8

that do not have places to properly combust the furniture. If wood furniture is not properly

combusted it can cause harm and make an even bigger problem. “The combustion of wood

furniture can result in emissions that are toxic to us. Some toxins are carbon monoxide and

volatile organic compounds, and both of these result from insufficient combustion” (Moreno et

al., 2017). Countries or locations that do not have the proper buildings, equipment, ventilation or

other things needed could cause more harm and even death.

The Miller Inc. solution cannot be effective in all places if some places that receive the

furniture do not necessarily need it. For example, if a remote village in Africa was shipped

furniture, they would not be accustomed to it, making it hard for them to use it. “Often people in

poor, lower classes in poverty lack the skills to adjust and adapt to industry items” (Bardhan,

2006). This could result in them throwing out the furniture and creating waste all over again,

essentially creating a cycle of waste. But if they shipped furniture to a places considered a First

World Country, more people would love to receive it because it would help them out. It is hard

for us to implement just one solution because different places around the world have different

resources, situations and needs. One solution alone cannot accommodate all of the different

situations.

Urgent

This problem is very urgent and if we fail to act upon it, we will face irreversible

consequences soon. Many things that are put in landfills, including furniture, contain harmful or

even toxic substances. These can get into the soil and our water supply, causing problems for

years. “Leachate is formed when waste in landfills decompose and water filters through it. It is

very toxic and can cause pollution to the earth” (The Problem with Landfill, 2013).

9

If we do not find a solution to the waste of the premature disposal of furniture we can

expect to have overcrowded landfills. Eventually, we will have to create space for new landfills.

This could require removal of natural resources like forests and lakes. It could also mean that

landfills will be closer to houses, which could lead to a multitude of health and sanitation issues.

It is not uncommon for there to be fires at landfills. “The University of Iowa reported that

there are more than 8000 fires in landfills per year in the United States” (Lopez, 2015). The fires

can release hazardous chemicals into the air and ground water. Since some chemicals in landfills

cannot be put out with water, additional chemicals are needed to extinguish the fires. The fires

can also destroy the natural habitats near the landfill, affecting wildlife.

We must move forward with some type of solution even before fully understanding the

results of the solution because each solution has at least some positive aspects of it. It is better to

move forward than to leave the situation alone while studying the positive and negatives to each

solution. If nothing is done in the interim, the situation will get worse than it already is, making it

a much more difficult problem to solve.

Discussion

With each wicked problem, comes the difficulty of deciding who is responsible for the

problem and who should provide leadership in resolving the problem. I think the many people

have a role in the waste from the premature disposal of furniture, including consumers, the

government, landfills, and the industry.

Consumers are the major cause of the disposal of furniture waste, but they do not realize

that what they are doing is bad for our environment because many of them have disposed of

things their whole life. People dispose of waste daily. Our society, especially my generation and

the few before us, has grown up thinking that once they are done with a product or just not

10

interested in it anymore, they can just throw it away and it will magically disappear. This is not

the case. Whenever we dispose of products they end up in landfills, unless we recycle them.

Unfortunately, furniture is not able to be recycled easily, so people just send it to the dump

where it will sit there for many years before degrading. One of the reasons why consumers throw

out perfectly good furniture is because they do not like they look of it anymore. Our generation is

known for going through trends week by week and our aesthetic preferences are continually

changing, making it hard to buy something that is meant to last for years.

On the other hand, can we really help that our preferences change so often? Buying new

products and replacing items with ones we like more is what we know. We are constantly

bombarded by advertisements on TV, the radio, online and on billboards that entice us to buy the

newest and “best” thing. New products hit the market every day and are in competition with

other products that are also trying to be the newest and most advanced product available. We as

consumers view the premature disposal of waste as normal because we throw everything else

out, so why not furniture as well? It takes up unnecessary space and if we do not like the look of

it anymore, what good is it doing us to keep it in our homes when we can just replace it with a

newer one?

A resolution that I think consumers could view as a possible solution to waste from the

premature disposal of furniture is a place to take their furniture locally that would accept

furniture and reuse it or donate it. In my area, there is no place that will accept every type of

furniture so people often just take it to the dump because it is the easiest thing to do. I think

every city would need to have their own drop off center because if it is not conveniently located,

people are not going to be willing to drive long distances when it is easier and faster to just take

it to the local dump. The drop-off centers could donate furniture to those who need it, kind of

11

like Goodwill but for furniture. The furniture could go to another home to live another life and

not end up sitting in landfills for years on end.

With this resolution, I think citizens will think that city officials should be responsible for

leading the resolution. The city is usually responsible for things like parks and recreation,

recycling centers and water, so I am sure that consumers would consider this just an extension of

the City’s duties. The drop-off centers would be run by the city as a free service to the

community, or at least at a very low cost. It would be the city’s responsibility to encourage

citizens to take their furniture to the drop-off center instead.

On the other hand, this resolution could pose some setbacks. If people do not have large

enough vehicles to haul their furniture to the drop-off centers, they will most likely just throw

them to the curb as trash. Another drawback this solution has is that the drop-off centers could

possibly charge people too much to drop off their furniture. This could keep people, especially

those with lower incomes, from using the centers. If it is cheaper to take the furniture to the

dump instead of the center, why would they spend more money?

I feel that the government would blame the industry for the waste of the premature

disposal of furniture. I imagine the government thinks that businesses intentionally produce

furniture that will only last a short amount of time, allowing companies to profit from consumers

replacing the products that did not last long. How often have we heard the phrase “They do not

make things like they used to?” Why would the government feel any differently? Businesses also

create surplus amounts of furniture because they over anticipate how many people are going to

purchase them. This creates excessive amounts of waste because if products do not sell quickly,

it is likely the surplus will not sell since fashion or trends change so quickly and people do not

like the aesthetic that was so popular just a brief time before.

12

A possible resolution from the government’s perspective could be penalties on businesses

who have more than a set amount of premature disposal of furniture. The government would be

responsible for this resolution since they would be the ones who set the limit. One penalty could

be paying a steep fee for going over the limit. Another could be the loss of tax incentives or tax

breaks for companies who exceed the limit. This would cause businesses to produce less

products because they would not want to go above the limit and be forced to incur a penalty.

This resolution would not only benefit the environment but also the government by creating

profit, which is why the government would think this resolution would be a good idea.

On the other hand, this possible resolution could have some negative drawbacks. Some

companies may not care about the amount of fees or penalties they receive and will just pay them

so that they can create as much furniture as they want and then dispose of it prematurely if

needed. Companies do not want to quit producing as much product as possible because of the

possible profit, so they are willing to pay a hefty price to continue over-producing products.

Another problem this resolution faces is that even with a limit of how much companies can

dispose of, they are still being allowed to dispose of a certain amount of furniture prematurely.

By doing this, it is not completely resolving the issue of waste from the premature disposal of

furniture. If we are allowing companies to continue to dispose of furniture prematurely but have

a limit, we are still allowing furniture to clutter our landfills.

Landfills view the waste of premature furniture disposal as the fault of consumers. People

throw out furniture all the time to be sent to landfills. Landfills are already over-crowded by the

hundreds of thousand items we throw out daily, so to add furniture to the mix is just lowering the

capacity for how much our landfills can take. When I spoke to some others about this, the

possibility of landfills being at capacity didn’t even seem like an issue to them. They just

13

assumed that those in charge of the landfill would simply start a new one. One of them even said,

“Are they not just burying it? How can it get full if they bury things in the ground?” This sort of

mentality is what is causing such problems to our environment. And those in charge of the

landfills see the evidence every day.

A possible resolution from the landfills’ perspective is to drastically increase the fees for

throwing away furniture. With this resolution, the landfills themselves would provide leadership

in resolving it. They could impose a ridiculously expensive fee for dumping furniture. This could

possibly limit the amount of people who dispose of premature furniture because they are unable

or unwilling to pay the fee.

Contrary to this resolution, if people do not want to pay the fee for disposing of the

premature furniture, they might end up just dumping the furniture on the side of the road, which

is even worse than sending it to a landfill. If the landfills create a very expensive fee to

prematurely dispose of furniture but people are not willing to pay it, what will they do? Probably

just dump it somewhere else like the side of the road or in front of their house. If so, is this

resolution really helping the earth?

The furniture industry itself has its own viewpoint that is likely encouraging the

premature disposal of furniture and not looking for a resolution. Since companies are all about

profit, they want consumers to buy their products regularly. They do not care if a consumer is no

longer pleased with the aesthetic of a piece of furniture because they are more likely to throw it

out and purchase a new piece. And if it wears out or breaks down quickly, so much the better.

Why would they want to change anything that makes them money?

Each of these perspectives have solutions that could positively impact our environment

and resolve the waste from the premature disposal of furniture, but they also have negative

14

aspects to them. Since people have so many different paradigms, or views on this topic, it makes

it difficult to determine who is to blame for the waste, what a good resolution for the problem is

and who is responsible for providing leadership for the resolution.

15

References

Bardhan, P. (2006, March 26). Does globalization help or hurt the world's poor?:

Overview/Globalization and Poverty. Retrieved from

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/does-globalization-help-o-2006-04/.

Ingham, S. E. (2011). Furniture longevity: How Mass-Produced heirloom furniture supports

sustainable consumption (Master's thesis, Arizona State University).

Lopez, T. (2015, March 5). UI researchers study public health impact of Iowa City landfill fire -

University of Iowa College of Public Health. Retrieved from https://www.public-

health.uiowa.edu/news-items/ui-researchers-study-public-health-impact-of-iowa-city-

landfill-fire/.

Moreno, A. I., Font, R., & Conesa, J. A. (2016). Characterization of gaseous emissions and ashes

from the combustion of furniture waste. Waste Management,58, 299-308.

doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2016.09.046.

Moreno, A. I., Font, R., & Conesa, J. A. (2017). Combustion of furniture wood waste and solid

wood: Kinetic study and evolution of pollutants. Fuel,192, 169-177.

doi:10.1016/j.fuel.2016.12.022.

Parikka-Alhola, K. (2008). Promoting environmentally sound furniture by green public

procurement. Ecological Economics, 68(1-2), 472-485.

Szczepanski, M. (2017). How companies are addressing the issue of F- Waste. Waste360, 5.

The problem with landfill. Toxins, leachate and greenhouse gases. (2013, June 16). Retrieved

from https://environmentvictoria.org.au/resource/problem-landfill/.

16

Uysal, M. (2017). Furniture design and product development principles ... Retrieved from

http://www.bing.com/cr?IG=7C6A2CDC88DD4422A9624E4A2F3463D8&CID=0F5D9

DD9C39864DF01E09630C237652F&rd=1&h=pUWJTjARTf9E0qv1IiCjGPez2x_HhWz

a81Ab78053ng&v=1&r=http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1733&co

ntext=open_access_theses&p=DevEx.LB.1,5067.1

Waste360, S. (2018). IRN Helped divert 8M pounds of furniture from landfill in 2017.

Waste360, 1-4.

Yousef, F., & Jarno, T. (2016). Efficient logistics for circular furniture flows.