Universities generate substantial volumes of paper waste, yet much of this valuable resource remains underutilized despite increasing commitments to circular economy and sustainable campus initiatives. Paper recycling within university campuses has the potential to reduce solid waste generation, lowering paper procurement costs, and supporting sustainability-focused education. This article proposes an integrated framework of feasibility assessment and business model for a campus-scale paper recycling facility tailored to the environmental, climatic, and infrastructural conditions of universities in developing countries. The proposed framework integrates technical, economic, environmental, social, and managerial analyses to evaluate the viability of implementing an on-campus recycling facility. The proposed Standalone Paper Recycling Unit (SPRU) combines wastepaper collection and manual sorting with hydropulping, sheet forming, mechanical pressing, and solar-assisted drying. A case of an Egyptian university is considered by presenting promising data and scale. The proposed unit is expected to achieve fiber recovery, and a specific energy consumption lower than conventional industrial recycling systems. The preliminary results offer a scalable and replicable reference for higher education institutions seeking to adopt decentralized paper recycling systems and advance circular economy principles. Moreover, the economic evaluation demonstrates promising investment potential under the adopted case study assumptions. In addition, the system has strong educational potential by enabling hands-on learning in sustainable engineering practices. The findings offer practical guidance for university administrators and policymakers seeking to transform paper waste into economic, environmental, and social value while supporting institutional sustainability and circular economy objectives.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Heshmat et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: