# ClimateStride: waste baseline and reusable-cup decision brief
Prepared November 1, 2026. Planning estimates, not measured outcomes or supplier quotes.

## Decision
Run a small supervised reusable-cup trial before committing to race-wide ownership. Request an all-in rental/service quote and a commercial washing partner quote. With the illustrative inputs below, ownership increases costs; reduced litter alone does not establish lower lifecycle impact. The digital product should help directors record inputs, compare options and publish measured outcomes.

## 300-person 5K baseline
There is no verified representative cups-per-runner average for a Tampa 5K in the sources reviewed. Use 1 / 2 / 3 cups per runner as low / central / high planning scenarios, not research findings. These imply 300 / 600 / 900 used cups. At an assumed 4 g per disposable cup: 1.2 / 2.4 / 3.6 kg of dry cup material. Weigh 20 actual cups and divide by 20 before replacing this assumption. Uneaten food, bottles, packaging, bibs and litter must be measured separately; this is not total event waste.

Central scenario: 600 uses, 10% reserve, 660 disposable cups purchased at assumed $0.06 = $39.60. Unused reserve is inventory, not waste. Allocated cleanup/hauling cost $30 gives $69.60. Prices and allocation need quotes. Common drinking water and station labor are excluded from both scenarios because assumed equal; add any differences when known.

Reusable ownership: 660 cups at assumed $0.75 = $495 initial inventory. Assume 600 uses per event, no same-event recirculation, 10 events, 5% loss of used cups per event (30 cups), $0.03 washing utilities/detergent per used cup ($18), 3 additional paid-equivalent labor hours at $16 ($48), $20 additional transport/storage per event. Replenish losses between events, not after the final event. Ten-event total = $495 + 9 × $22.50 + 10 × $86 = $1,557.50; average $155.75 per event, or $0.52 per runner. Disposable ten-event total = $696. Reusable premium = $861.50 across ten events. First-event cash outlay = $581 before buying next-event replacements. Volunteer labor still has an economic value; report cash cost and full cost separately.

For N events: reusable total = inventory cost + (N−1) × replacement cost + N × operating cost. Disposable total = N × disposable event cost. Financial break-even requires disposable event cost > operating cost + replacement cost; otherwise no break-even under fixed assumptions. With these inputs, recurring reusable cost is $108.50 vs $69.60 disposable, so no financial break-even. Donations can change cash cost without removing resource use.

Illustrative reusable mass 25 g: 30 lost cups = 0.75 kg leaving the pool per event. This is potential material loss, not confirmed landfill disposal. Initial inventory contains 16.5 kg of material; do not claim the 2.4 kg of displaced paper equals net lifecycle savings. Track actual retirement, recovery and destination.

Sensitivity: at 1%, 5%, 10% loss of 600 used cups, replacements are 6, 30, 60 cups per event ($4.50, $22.50, $45). At 0%, 5%, 10% loss, rough expected uses before loss are unbounded, 20, 10, before wear or retirement; this geometric model assumes independent constant losses and full utilization. It is not a measured cup lifespan. Larger reserves reduce utilization. At $0/$16/$25 hourly labor, 3 hours cost $0/$48/$75. Record both volunteer cash savings and full labor value.

## Other waste streams and apparel
Weigh dry cups, food scraps, bottles, packaging, bibs and residual waste separately; tare containers, record contamination and obtain destinations from the hauler. Diversion rate = verified recycled/composted/reused material divided by total measured outgoing material; do not count material without a confirmed destination. Waste per participant = outgoing kg / actual attendees. For shirt stamping: avoided new shirts = participants who would otherwise receive one, not everyone stamped. Illustrative 300 shirts × $8 assumed cost = $2,400 procurement; 300 stamps × $0.50 assumed consumables = $150, before equipment, labor, optional-shirt income and sponsor effects. This $2,250 procurement difference is not net savings. Ask sponsors about bib, station, digital and signage visibility before removing shirts. No apparel emissions estimate is justified without product-specific data.

## Evidence and limits
1. UNEP / Life Cycle Initiative (2021), *Single-use beverage cups and their alternatives*. Meta-analysis of ten LCAs. Reuse results depend on material, washing and end-of-life; reported climate break-even spans 10–670 uses. This broad range is not a target for our cup or a per-race estimate. https://www.lifecycleinitiative.org/library/single-use-beverage-cups-and-their-alternatives-lca/ and https://www.lifecycleinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/UNEP_-LCA-Beverage-Cups-Report_Web.pdf
2. Cottafava et al. (2021), *Sustainable Production and Consumption*, 27, 228–241. DOI 10.1016/j.spc.2020.11.002. In the modeled offsite industrial-washing scenario with 20 km transport and energy recovery, reusable plastic cups reached climate/energy break-even below 150 uses; some other categories did not break even against single-use PP. Do not transfer this threshold to Tampa without matching assumptions. https://portalrecerca.uab.cat/en/publications/assessment-of-the-environmental-break-even-point-for-deposit-retu/
3. Western Australian Government, *Life cycle assessment of single-use plastic items and their alternatives in Australia and New Zealand*. Modeled cold reusable SAN cup outperformed alternatives after about 40 uses under its conditions; washing and transport remain consequential. Different material, cup size and regional energy mix limit direct applicability. https://www.wa.gov.au/service/environment/environment-information-services/life-cycle-assessment-of-single-use-plastic-items-and-their-alternatives-australia-and-new-zealand
4. Boston Athletic Association, 2025 ESG report (published 2026): reports 7.7 tons of course cups collected and diverted to compost. An organizer-reported large-event benchmark, not a local 5K average. https://www.baa.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/SEAS_BAA_2025ESGReport_Final.pdf
5. Boulderthon sustainability page: reports an on-course reusable cup program with Hiccup, with a heading describing 90,000 disposable cups eliminated. Useful operational precedent; self-reported, not independent proof of net carbon/water savings. Do not import its carbon factors into our calculator. https://boulderthon.org/sustainability-at-boulderthon/

## Environmental assessment plan
Functional unit: one safe water serving, equal volume and service quality. Include cup manufacturing, shipment, collection, washing electricity/heat/water/detergent, transport, losses and end-of-life. Track liters and kWh per full wash load divided by usable clean cups, extra vehicle km and actual fleet utilization. Request product-specific mass/material and lifecycle factors. Reusable climate impact per serving = allocated manufacturing + washing + transport + allocated end-of-life and replacements. Compare with the equivalent disposable lifecycle total. Do not label direct wash water as net water savings or cup count reduction as CO2 savings. Calculate carbon break-even only after compatible factors are available. Keep climate, water, litter and financial outcomes separate.

## Pilot protocol and next actions
1. Validate surveys with two runners/directors, then recruit varied participants. Ask about past events before pitching the solution.
2. Get two cup/service quotes, a washing quote and a hauling quote; replace every assumed price. Confirm food-contact suitability and cleaning instructions with supplier and washing partner.
3. Trial 50–100 servings in a controlled setting. Use distinct clean/used storage, an agreed cleaning process, wide return bins beyond the station, accessible placement and clear signs. Do not recirculate used cups without washing. Keep adequate hydration available and record queues, spills and participant concerns.
4. Count inventory out, served, returned, damaged, lost and washed. Record extra paid/volunteer hours, utilities and transport. Measure dry waste by stream.
5. Ask disability-community partners to review route, surfaces, toilets, communication, guides and return-bin design; do not promise unconfirmed accommodations. Give SharkMakers these topics and request introductions.
6. Set decision criteria before trial: acceptable return rate and queues, verified washing capacity, affordable all-in cost, sponsor acceptance and enough expected reuse to test environmental performance. Suggested internal trial targets: ≥98% returns and no hydration access issues; these are proposed targets, not standards or proven results.
7. Publish measured pilot results and revise the service offer. Keep registration and paid services in planning until date, access and operations are confirmed.