Abstract

Document Sample
Abstract Powered By Docstoc
					                                        Abstract

           A CAMPUS ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT


                                     by Marcy J. Bauer


In order to assess the state of Miami’s environmental stewardship this author
coordinated a Campus Environmental Sustainability Assessment of Miami University’s
operations. The assessment featured 13 indicators in three categories: operational,
institutional, and community outreach. The indicators were selected for their relevance to
Miami’s environmental impact and responsibilities, and to larger environmental issues.
The results were organized into the report that follows, including inventories of
sustainability initiatives, peer institution comparisons, highlighted opportunities for
improvement, and recommendations designed to take advantage of those opportunities.
 A CAMPUS ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT
                     FOR MIAMI UNIVERSITY


                      A PRACTICUM REPORT

                       Submitted to the Faculty of

                   Miami University in partial fulfillment

                           of the requirements

                             for the degree of

                    Master of Environmental Science

                   Institute of Environmental Sciences



                                     by

                              Marcy J. Bauer

                             Miami University

                               Oxford, Ohio

                                   2005



Major Professor_____________________________
                        Adolph Greenberg

Committee Member__________________________
                      Ray Gorman

Committee Member__________________________
                      Scott Johnston
Table of Contents

Executive Summary _____________________________________________________ 1
Introduction ___________________________________________________________ 5
Methods ______________________________________________________________ 7
1     Operational Category_______________________________________________ 10
    1.1 Energy ________________________________________________________________ 10
      1.1.1 Consumption _______________________________________________________________ 11
      1.1.2 Sustainability Initiatives ______________________________________________________ 15
      1.1.3 Peer Institutions ____________________________________________________________ 16
      1.1.4 Opportunities for Improvement_________________________________________________ 17
    1.2 Water_________________________________________________________________ 23
      1.2.1 Consumption _______________________________________________________________ 23
      1.2.2 Sustainability Initiatives ______________________________________________________ 25
      1.2.3 Peer Institutions ____________________________________________________________ 26
      1.2.4 Opportunities for Improvement_________________________________________________ 28
    1.3 Materials and Waste ____________________________________________________ 29
      1.3.1 Waste Management and Recycling______________________________________________ 29
      1.3.2 Hazardous Waste____________________________________________________________ 32
      1.3.3 Sustainability Initiatives ______________________________________________________ 32
      1.3.4 Peer Institutions ____________________________________________________________ 34
      1.3.5 Opportunities for Improvement_________________________________________________ 35
    1.4 Purchasing ____________________________________________________________ 36
      1.4.1 Policies and Practice _________________________________________________________ 36
      1.4.2 Sustainability Initiatives ______________________________________________________ 36
      1.4.3 Peer Institutions ____________________________________________________________ 36
      1.4.4 Opportunities for Improvement_________________________________________________ 37
    1.5 Land Use ______________________________________________________________ 37
      1.5.1 Built Environment___________________________________________________________ 38
      1.5.2 Landscaping Practices________________________________________________________ 38
      1.5.3 Sustainability Initiatives ______________________________________________________ 41
      1.5.4 Peer Institutions ____________________________________________________________ 41
      1.5.5 Opportunities for Improvement_________________________________________________ 42
    1.6 Transportation _________________________________________________________ 43
      1.6.1 University Fleet_____________________________________________________________ 43
      1.6.2 Parking and Traffic __________________________________________________________ 44
      1.6.3 Sustainability Initiatives ______________________________________________________ 45
      1.6.4 Peer Institutions ____________________________________________________________ 47
      1.6.5 Opportunities for Improvement_________________________________________________ 48
    1.7 Building Construction and Renovation _____________________________________ 49
      1.7.1 Sustainability Initiatives ______________________________________________________ 49
      1.7.2 Peer Institutions ____________________________________________________________ 51
      1.7.3 Opportunities for Improvement_________________________________________________ 52
    1.8 Dining Halls ___________________________________________________________ 52
      1.8.1 Food, Services and Disposal ___________________________________________________ 53
      1.8.2 Sustainability Initiatives ______________________________________________________ 54
      1.8.3 Peer Institutions ____________________________________________________________ 55



                                               ii
      1.8.4 Opportunities for Improvement_________________________________________________ 56
    2.1 Student Opportunities ___________________________________________________ 57
      2.1.1 Programs and Courses________________________________________________________ 58
      2.1.2 Student Organizations________________________________________________________ 60
      2.1.3 Peer Institutions ____________________________________________________________ 61
      2.1.4 Opportunities for Improvement_________________________________________________ 62
    2.2 Faculty/Staff Opportunities_______________________________________________ 63
      2.2.1 The Center for Sustainable Systems Studies_______________________________________ 63
      2.2.2 Training___________________________________________________________________ 64
      2.2.3 Research __________________________________________________________________ 64
      2.3.4 Peer Institutions ____________________________________________________________ 64
      2.3.5 Opportunities for Improvement_________________________________________________ 67
    2.3 Administration _________________________________________________________ 67
      2.3.1 Sustainability Initiatives ______________________________________________________ 67
      2.3.2 Peer Institutions ____________________________________________________________ 68
      2.3.3 Opportunities for Improvement_________________________________________________ 68
3     Community Outreach Category_______________________________________ 68
    3.1 Local Organization Partnerships __________________________________________ 69
    3.2 Collaborative Events ____________________________________________________ 70
Recommendations _____________________________________________________ 71
    Form ____________________________________________________________________ 72
    Function _________________________________________________________________ 73
    Financing_________________________________________________________________ 80
Closing Remarks ______________________________________________________ 81
Appendix 1 - Organizational Model for Sustainability at Miami_________________ 83
Appendix 2 - Addendum to Miami University Mission Statement ________________ 86
Appendix 3 - The Talloires Declaration ____________________________________ 88
Appendix 4 – Green Purchasing Guide Details ______________________________ 90
Appendix 5 - “Hometowns for Healthy Air” Resolution _______________________ 91
Acknowledgments______________________________________________________ 92
References ___________________________________________________________ 93




                                               iii
 List of Figures
Figure 1. Chilled Water was not tracked campus-wide in 2000 or 2001. Steam consumption was too
     low to visibly register on this chart. Annual Natural Gas consumption is illustrated individually
     in Figure 4.................................................................................................................................... 12
Figure 2. Operational upgrades and conservation efforts reduced 2004 electricity consumption to
     levels near the five-year low. Still, consumption levels combined with high prices in the 2004-
     2005 academic year prompted university officials to submit a public plea for individual and
     departmental conservation (Miami Report, 2005). Nearly all purchased electricity is generated
     from coal-burning power plants.................................................................................................. 13
Figure 3. Coal consumption over the past five years has had a generally upward trend, despite slight
     decreases in 2003 and 2004. This does not include coal consumed to produce purchased
     electricity. .................................................................................................................................... 13
Figure 4. . The chiller plant ceased burning natural gas in 2001 which caused a significant decline in
     use. 2001-2003 was a relatively stable period of consumption, followed by a sharp increase in
     2004, when disrupted coals shipments during the early winter months caused the boilers to rely
     more heavily on natural gas. ....................................................................................................... 14
Figure 5. Natural gas, though on average twice as expensive as coal, emits CO2 and other harmful
     material in quantities exponentially smaller than does Coal consumption. Adding off-site
     electricity into the equation increases Miami’s total CO2 emissions by estimated 76.5%.......... 14
Figure 6. These emissions types barely register for Natural Gas. Including release from coal-
     generated purchased electricity increases NOx emissions by estimated 103%. .......................... 15
Figure 8. A diagram of how green energy certificates work (from 3 Phases Energy Services, a
     renewable energy provider)......................................................................................................... 19
Figure 9. The outdoor temperature was in the low 40’s, high 30’s when these photos were taken. As a
     result of dorm overheating students open their windows or run their air conditioners in early
     and later winter months. SP01 is 85.8º (open window), SP02 is 41º, SP03 is 53.8º (open window),
     SP04 is 49.6º, and SP05 is 36.3º (air conditioner unit). Poorly insulated single-paned windows
     also contribute to heat loss. ......................................................................................................... 22
Figure 10. Yellow indicates power-related sites, purple are laboratory-heavy sites, and green are sites
     with a concentration of dining areas. The Yager Stadium area is home to heavily irrigated
     practice fields and lawns. Flower Hall (residential) has the third highest occupancy, so it would
     be expected to have a higher consumption value than other smaller residence halls................. 24
Figure 11. The Dining and Residence Halls combined make up almost 60% of total campus water
     consumption. The academic buildings that house the majority of campus laboratories also
     comprise a significant proportion of water use, at 8% for just two buildings. Operational sites
     include the power plants, motor pool and maintenance facilities. .............................................. 25
Figure 12. Water collection and filtration cistern at University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill. ....... 27
Figure 13. Both trash and recycling show general downward trends. The ideal state for materials
     management is zero waste, with a recycling rate that registers but is not too high (an indicator
     of insufficient ‘re-use’ and ‘reduce’ in consumption). These figures do not include waste or
     recycling generated at Yager Stadium, Millett Hall or the ice arena which are handled by
     Special Facilities Department and not tracked to the same degree of detail as the rest of the
     campus. ........................................................................................................................................ 31
Figure 14. Waste Diversion Rate describes the percentage of waste that is diverted from the landfill-
     bound stream to an outlet for recycling or reuse. Increasing waste diversion rates is a positive
     sign for sustainable materials management, though ‘zero waste’ should remain the ultimate
     goal in this indicator. ................................................................................................................... 32
Figure 15. Diesel fuel consumption has been relatively steady over the past 5 years, while unleaded
     has slowly but steadily risen since 2001 (Metro usage not included here). ................................. 44
Figure 16. Fuel consumption fluctuations throughout the year are roughly in line with the academic
     schedule, at its peak while school is in session (Metro usage not included here). ....................... 44
Figure 17. Every bus driver keeps a tally of the number of riders getting on at each stop, resulting in
     an annual ridership tally. ............................................................................................................ 45




                                                                          iv
Figure 18. The transportation office also reviews ridership in five year increments. The 3rd 5-year
     period is incomplete since 2004-05 academic year data was only available through February 27,
     2005.............................................................................................................................................. 46
Figure 19. All Flexible-Fuel Vehicles (FFV) are being fueled with unleaded gasoline due to apparent
     lack of ethanol-mix availability and prohibitive cost. ................................................................. 47
Figure 20. Flow chart of Georgia Tech’s successful 10-year institutionalization of sustainability. The
     first initiatives began in the early 1990’s and culminated with the formation of their
     sustainability hub—the ISTD—in 1997. ..................................................................................... 66
Figure 21. University of Michigan’s Energy Conservation Fund Model. ............................................ 80
Figure 22. Miami University’s current organizational structure......................................................... 83
Figure 23. Recommended organization of the CSSS. The Task Force should evolve into a rotating
     Steering Committee with pared down representation from each of the four arms pictured here.
      ..................................................................................................................................................... 84




                                                                             v
List of Tables
Table 1. Though the largest air polluters emit several hundred times more pollutants into the air
     than Miami, the comparison column reveals the relative significance of Miami’s air emissions
     given that its primary function is not industrial. .......................................................................... 6
Table 2. The indicators are grouped into three categories (not shown here): Operational,
     Institutional, and Community Outreach. Each indicator relates a campus sustainability issue
     with broader environmental concerns........................................................................................... 9
Table 3. Sustainable energy efforts being undertaken by other “Top 25” public universities. Many
     include purchasing green energy certificates using funds raised at least in part by voluntary
     student fees. All student-funded initiatives have been voted in with unprecedented support.... 16
Table 4. Estimation of cost to purchase green energy tags. The high-end estimate of 2.5 cents per
     kWh was used to avoid glossing over the economics of purchasing green power certificates. ... 19
Table 5. Materials recycled at Miami have a variety of outlets and end uses...................................... 31
Table 6. Inventory of waste reduction and awareness programs offered at or sponsored by Miami
     University..................................................................................................................................... 33
Table 7. Paper consumption in main library and computer labs (Scott and Nauman, 2005) ............. 33
Table 8. Listing of chemicals applied by Miami’s groundskeepers and building maintenance crews.
     Classes range from I (most toxic) to IV (least toxic) as per US EPA guidelines. ........................ 40
Table 9. Description of select alternative vehicle fuels (Central Ohio Clean Fuels Coalition, 2003)... 49
Table 10. Listing of LEED™ certified and registered construction and renovation projects for
     universities listed in the top 25 of the 2005 U.S. News and World Report “Top Publics”. Miami
     University (**) plans to build the new school of business building in accordance with LEED™
     Silver specifications. University of Illinois’ (*) Facilities and Services Department listed
     environmental stewardship and commitment to improving campus sustainability in their
     guiding principles and goal statement (University of Illinois, 2004)........................................... 52
Table 11. Selected results of WRI “Beyond Grey Pinstripes” report. Shown are the rankings of
     participating public schools that were ranked in the top 25 of the 2005 U.S. News and World
     Report “Top Publics” listing. ...................................................................................................... 58
Table 12. As expected, the bulk of the sustainability-related courses can be found in science
     departments. The Art/Architecture department has significant curriculum focus on several
     low-impact design principles, which is in line with significant growth in the sustainable building
     industry........................................................................................................................................ 60
Table 13. Public school initiatives to build sustainability curricula..................................................... 62
Table 14. Sustainability-related funding as a percentage of total external funding has generally
     decreased over the past four years. ............................................................................................. 64
Table 15. Select inventory of top 25 public schools with mandated offices, positions, and formal
     research programs for environmental sustainability. In addition to the public schools Harvard,
     Princeton and Yale all have university-wide committees for sustainability. Harvard, Yale and
     Duke has sustainability coordinators. ......................................................................................... 65
Table 16. Top 25 public schools with formal environmental emphasis from the administration........ 68
Table 17. Summary of recommended benchmarks as they relate to the measurables in this report.. 72
Table 18. Public and private school green building guidelines, standards and programs. ................. 78
Table 19. Sample entry for purchasing guidebook. ............................................................................. 90




                                                                          vi
Executive Summary
A sustainable organization respects the interdependence of economic, social, and
environmental issues, and meets its current needs without compromising the ability of
future generations to meet their own needs. These principles of sustainability have been
increasingly embraced by corporations, government agencies, and institutions of higher
education as a means to recognize and take responsibility for their respective societal
roles. In doing so they minimize their environmental impact, positively influence their
communities, stay in business, and often reap benefits like improved public relations,
lower operating costs, and increased efficiency. Sustainability takes on an even deeper
meaning for institutions of higher education, whose central mission it is to prepare
students to participate and ideally improve society at large. In shaping the lifestyles and
habits of millions of graduates, many of whom will become leaders in some form or
fashion, the nearly 4,000 colleges and universities in the U.S. play a significant role in
propagating sustainability. Universities taking the lead in environmental sustainability
fully incorporate its principles into their curricula, empower their students to tackle real
problems with interdisciplinary approaches, and commit every facet of their operations to
function with minimal environmental impact. These universities have made formal, high-
level commitments to sustainability, provided or secured the necessary resources to
back up their commitments with an active strategy, and created the organizational
infrastructure necessary to implement their strategy and monitor performance (Western
Michigan University, no date).


The “First in 2009” campaign demonstrates clear focus on improving Miami’s economic
and social sustainability. In many ways Miami also serves as an exemplar for
environmental stewardship in the higher education setting. Miami has been recognized
repeatedly for superior waste management1, and the main campus was made famous by
poet Robert Frost for its natural beauty.2 Miami is noted for affording students the
opportunity to participate in a wide variety of environmental programs, and for its
pioneering role in the integration of sustainability into disciplines outside its traditional
home—natural science and ecology. Despite these tremendous strides, Miami’s


1
  Miami received awards from U.S. EPA’s Waste Wise program in 2003 and 2004 for waste reduction
initiatives, and from the National Recycling Coalition in 2004 for innovations in recycling education.
2
  Robert Frost claimed that Miami’s Oxford campus was the “prettiest campus that ever was”.
environmental efforts lack apparent emphasis and coordination, threatening their
permanence and limiting the extent of their positive influence. If Miami University truly
hopes to be a leader among public schools it must be as steadfast in its pursuit of
environmental sustainability as it is of economic and societal improvement. The first step
towards institutionalizing environmental sustainability is an assessment of current…


One of the most common approaches to incorporating sustainability into campus
operations is the Campus Sustainability Assessment (CSA). The CSA is an indicator-
based inventory of successes and deficiencies that can be used to construct strategies
for achieving sustainability. The CSA presented in this report is the result of a short-term
student project that was designed to provide a qualitative overview of environmental
sustainability on campus, and to initiate a more holistic, coordinated treatment of
sustainability at Miami.3 The assessment was conducted over the course of nine months
with collaboration and input from students, faculty and staff in more than 20 academic
and administrative departments. Similar assessments at other schools take 1-2 years to
complete, are often sanctioned by university administration, and are carried out by an in-
house committee of 15-30 faculty/staff or by a contracted company. A summary of
recommendations is provided below under the headings ‘form, function and financing’.
Realization of the recommendations outlined in this report will enable Miami University to
take its place as “First in 2009” for environmental stewardship.


Form
Declarations and formal mission statements from the senior administration legitimate
sustainability efforts already underway, and help shape the direction and pace of
improvement (University Leaders for a Sustainable Future, 1996). Initiatives like these,
though sometimes dismissed as purely symbolic gestures, are actually well-supported
for their ability to organize previously uncoordinated efforts under the guidance of
organization leadership, and to generate new interest and funding for campus
sustainability projects. They do not in themselves ensure a successful transformation to
sustainability, but they do establish a more accepting environment for progress towards
that goal:


3
 This CSA emphasizes environmental sustainability to avoid redundancy with other university initiatives,
and to fit within the scope of a nine-month project. A more comprehensive CSA should also feature
economic and social indicators.


                                                    2
          Miami University leadership should amend the university mission statement to
          include environmental stewardship.
          Miami University leadership should formally incorporate environmental
          stewardship into each of the “First in 2009” initiative goals. Though environmental
          stewardship could be inferred in several goals4 it is clear from the absence of any
          reference elsewhere in the university mission, values, or guiding principles
          statements that environmental sustainability is not currently a priority.


Function
A sustainability strategy, including standards and policies requiring minimum levels of
action (i.e. benchmarks) helps ensure compliance with the mission statement and
goals.5
          Miami University leadership should adopt an environmental sustainability policy
          that specifies a formal commitment to:
             o   Reduce non-renewable energy and water consumption
             o   Reduce waste
             o   Purchase environmentally neutral materials
             o   Preserve greenspace and reduce watershed impact
             o   Embrace alternative fuels for university fleet
             o   LEED™ certification for new construction/renovation projects
             o   Compost food waste
             o   Sustainability in the curriculum
             o   Sustainability in research and faculty/staff orientation
          All departments at Miami should include ‘take-back’ and ‘disposal assistance’
          clauses in contract language for materials that are difficult to dispose of and
          recycle, and which are frequently re-ordered or changed out (e.g. batteries,
          computers, carpeting, disposable cups for special events, etc.).
          The Institute of Environmental Sciences (IES) should absorb the Center for
          Sustainable Systems Studies. IES already hosts one of the most interdisciplinary
          environmental programs around, with working relationships and cross-listed
          courses in 33 departments. This move would revive a proven but dormant
4
  Goals 3, 4, 6, and 8 address updating the curriculum, enriching campus cultural and intellectual life,
enhancing campus facilities, and improving benchmarking with peer institutions. The strategies behind
accomplishment of each of these goals could easily be adjusted to incorporate environmental stewardship.
5
  The benchmarking section of the National Wildlife Federation’s State of the Campus Environment Report
primarily consisted of policies and goals.


                                                   3
        sustainability program, and position it for greater success in fundraising and
        project impact. Once absorbed and revived, the CSSS should be directed to:
            o   Formulate a campus sustainability strategy based on this and other more
                scientific reports on campus sustainability indicators at Miami.
            o   Supervise feasibility studies and pilot programs in accordance with the
                new university policies (see above). For policy areas that are already
                operating at a level above the study and pilot program stage, the CSSS
                should set benchmarks for feasible improvement (e.g. materials and
                waste management, curriculum).
            o   Construct a searchable database of sustainability-related initiatives at
                Miami. This will help Miami coordinate existing efforts; raise awareness,
                interest and participation in those efforts; and capitalize on their
                tremendous public relations value.


Financing
A critical part of realizing institutional sustainability is arranging funding to cover the often
elevated initial costs related to environmental efforts and research.
        IES should seek funding for a permanent faculty position for the CSSS; the
        Center thrived in the 1990’s when it was operating with a grant-funded Program
        Associate position.
        Miami University administration should adopt a savings re-direction policy for
        sustainability projects.
        Miami University administration should direct the Office of Development to seek
        funding sources that will seed a revolving loan fund for campus sustainability
        projects.




                                               4
       “Universities bear profound responsibilities to increase the
      awareness, knowledge, technologies, and tools to create an
                   environmentally sustainable future.”
                  --University Leaders for a Sustainable Future


Introduction
The truly Sustainable University, though still a figment of the imagination, is one that
integrates the principles of sustainability—environmental, social and economic—into
every facet of its mission and operation. Environmentally speaking, Sustainable U
examines every decision in light of its environmental impact. It does not use finite
resources where there are renewable options. It produces no waste, hazardous or
otherwise. It espouses environmental stewardship principles that are ingrained in every
department, whether academic and administrative, producing students, faculty and staff
that are environmentally informed and active. Its students, as they graduate, are
prepared for a global marketplace that is increasingly accepting of sustainability.


In reality universities, like small cities, are very much interdependent with their physical
and social environments, simultaneously providing terrific resources and inflicting
tremendous impact. Universities possess research capital, leadership, buying/investing
power, and public respect (Orr, 1992; Cortese, 1999). They also tend to leave a
significant footprint on the natural environment, taking up potential greenspace with
impervious surfaces and energy-consumptive buildings, utilizing precious natural
resources, and emitting thousands of tons of greenhouse gases and pollutants each
year. Even residential institutions, those which restrict off-campus living, shape the
dynamic of the communities in which they reside. Faculty and staff often live in town,
and students eat and recreate there. In addition to the immediate impact of universities,
their influence extends much farther in time and space as students take their learned
lessons with them beyond graduation.


Miami University provides an atmosphere that is generally conducive to sustainability-
building initiatives. But there is always room for improvement. There are numerous
reasons for Miami University to improve campus environmental stewardship. The most
basic reason is to take greater responsibility for the real and significant impacts Miami
has on its environment. According to Environmental Defense’s Butler County Scorecard,



                                              5
Miami University’s toxic air emissions are comparable to that of a municipal electric
company (Table 1). Miami’s power plants, vehicle fleet and construction projects all
impact the air, water and soil quality of the surrounding community.


Emission Type               Rank     Comparison
Carbon Monoxide             6        Emits about as much as Hamilton Municipal Electric
                                     Company
Nitrogen Oxides             8        Emits more than 4x as much as Hamilton Municipal
                                     Electric Company
Particulate Matter (2.5     11       Emits about as much as International Mill Service,
microns or smaller)                  Inc.
Particulate Matter (10      14       Emits about as much as Hamilton Municipal Electric
microns)                             Company
Sulfur Dioxide              8        Emits more than 2x as much as Middletown
                                     Paperboard Company
Table 1. Though the largest air polluters emit several hundred times more pollutants into the air
than Miami, the comparison column reveals the relative significance of Miami’s air emissions given
that its primary function is not industrial.
As of 1998 two out of the three watersheds in Butler County (the Lower Great Miami and
the Middle Ohio-Laughery) were severely impaired, polluted with hazardous agricultural
and industrial run-off (Environmental Defense).


Miami should also be paying close attention to the sustainability precedent being set
both in public and private sectors. With several environmental issues reaching critical
mass and numerous high-profile corporations and government agencies making the
sustainability transformation, Miami has tremendous stock in producing students who
are at least as environmentally literate as the companies and organizations they will
someday be affiliated with. In addition to producing prepared students, Miami must
continue to attract strong applicants in order to stay competitive with other leading public
schools that have begun to institutionalize sustainability. Almost half of the U.S. News
and World Report’s “Top 25 Publics” have stated missions, goals, and/or declarations
promising integration of environmental sustainability into their organizations.6


There are also economic reasons for becoming more sustainable. Environmental
sustainability initiatives tend to save money, and often result in considerable public
relations value. Though the initial costs of some efforts may be elevated, mid- to large-


6
 University of Michigan-Ann Arbor, University of Virginia, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill,
College of William and Mary, University of California-Santa Barbara, University of Washington,
Pennsylvania State University, University of Florida, Rutgers University, and University of Georgia all
have adopted some sort of administrative pledge to operate more sustainably.


                                                    6
sized organizations like Miami have the purchasing power to support and even stabilize
local sustainability-related markets, bringing the long-term costs of those products and
services down as they become more mainstream (Worldwatch Institute, 2003).


Finally, by institutionalizing sustainability Miami University stands a greater chance of
maintaining progress, and of maximizing the benefits of the efforts undertaken. Instead
of a series of uncoordinated programs that may come and go with the staff members
that initiate them, Miami’s environmental sustainability could be sanctioned by a series of
official goals and strategies to ensure that it is lasting and efficient.


Methods
More than 250 other schools around the nation have conducted over 1,200 Campus
Sustainability Assessments (CSA) of varying scope and detail.7 While some are a
product of student initiatives as this one is, others are prompted by the university
administration, and completed by paid consultants who collect and analyze the data and
make recommendations. This CSA was designed to elevate certain important facets of
the university organization that have perhaps lacked appropriate emphasis in the past.
Many of the items selected for investigation are qualitative in nature, and the results are
meant to provide an overview of the current state of Miami with regards to environmental
sustainability. Though further study is most certainly required for a complete
assessment, this report should be taken as a first step in gauging Miami’s environmental
sustainability, and establishing a purposeful strategy for improving it. The goal of the
assessment was to help put Miami University on a directed path to sustainability. The
primary objectives of the assessment were to evaluate Miami’s Oxford campus in the
context of 13 sustainability indicators, and provide recommendations for institutionalizing
sustainability at Miami University.


The indicators selected for investigation were chosen after an extensive literature review
of frameworks and CSA’s from other colleges and universities, and weighed against the
Guy and Kibert (1998) criteria: community involvement, linkage, validity, availability and
timeliness, stability and reliability, understandability, responsiveness, policy relevance,



7
 The Western Michigan’s Campus Sustainability Assessment Project has an inventory of more than 1,200
assessments registered in their on-line database. The assessments vary in scope and focus.


                                                 7
representativeness, flexibility, and predictiveness.8 Each indicator relates immediate
campus impact to larger-scale environmental issues, including global warming, natural
resource management, pollution, education, and community involvement (Table 2).


       Indicators                      Measurables                                Related Issue
                       1. annual energy use (by type)                   Non-renewable Resource
                       2. % buildings with efficiency measures          Consumption
                       installed                                        Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Global
                       3. % energy from renewable resources             Warming)
    Energy             4. Inventory of policies encouraging             Ecological and Human Health
    Conservation       energy conservation                              Renewable Energy Market
                       1. gallons of water consumed                     Precious Resource Consumption
    Water              2. % buildings using efficiency toilets or
    Conservation       shower heads
                       1. recycling rate over past 5 years versus       Landfill Capacity
                       refuse rate                                      Natural Resource Consumption
    Materials and      2. quantity of hazardous chemicals               Hazardous Waste Disposal
    Waste              recycled                                         Recycling Market
                       1. % vending contracts with sustainability       Natural Resource Consumption
                       provisions                                       Landfill Capacity
                       2. Inventory of policies encouraging ‘green’     Green Products Market
    Purchasing         procurement
                       1. % impervious surface on campus                Ecological and Human Health
                       2. Acreage under conservation                    Water Quality
                       3. Annual amount of chemicals applied; %         Greenspace
                       of chemicals used on campus that are
                       eco-friendly
    Land Use           4. % landscaping using native plants
                       1. Campus vehicle traffic (parking passes        Ecological and Human Health
                       and spaces)                                      Non-renewable Energy Consumption
                       2. Metro bus service rider-ship                  Alternative Fuel Market
                       3. % of university fleet that uses alternative
                       fuel
    Transportation     4. annual fuel usage for vehicle fleet
                       1. % new buildings LEED™ certified (last 3       Energy Consumption
    Building           years)                                           Ecological and Human Health
    Construction and   2. % new interiors LEED™ certified (last 3       Green Products Market
               9
    Renovation         years)                                           Renewable Energy Market
                       1. % dining hall food organic and/or local       Ecological and Human Health
                       2. Inventory of waste reduction programs         Local Agriculture Market
    Dining Services    3. % waste food being composted                  Landfill Capacity
                       1. % courses with sustainability content         Education
                       (by department)
    Student            2. # of student groups relating to
    Involvement        environment and sustainability
                       1. # hours (annual) sustainability-related       Education
                       training per faculty/staff member
    Faculty/Staff      2. % research funding for sustainability-
    Involvement        related topics



8
  Though some indicators revealed a lack of adequate tracking and monitoring systems for substantive
assessment, they are measurable if the proper system were in place.
9
  As the assessment progressed a third potential measurable arose in this indicator. Future environmental
sustainability assessments could opt to determine the % buildings with passive and/or active energy
conservation measures in accordance with Miami’s Building Construction Standards Manual (1997).


                                                        8
                     1. % colleges and departments with              Education
                     sustainability-related language in
 Administration      mission/goal statement
 Local                                                               Community Involvement and
 Organization        1. Inventory of local partnerships on               Empowerment
 Partnerships        sustainability-related topics
                     1. Inventory of events that promote             Community Involvement and
 Collaborative       Sustainability                                      Empowerment
 Sustainability      2. Inventory of events that address school
 Events              impact on community
Table 2. The indicators are grouped into three categories (not shown here): Operational,
Institutional, and Community Outreach. Each indicator relates a campus sustainability issue with
broader environmental concerns.


Measurables were outlined for each indicator (Table 2), and answered using semi-
structured interviews of staff and on-line research of university websites.10 Below is a
brief sampling of initial interview questions:
     Energy:
         How much of each type of fuel is consumed at Miami in a given year?
         What measures have been taken to conserve energy on campus?
     Water:
         How much water is consumed at Miami in a given year?
         What measures are taken to conserve water use on campus?
         Materials and Waste:
         What materials are recycled by Miami?
         What is Miami’s recycling rate?
     Purchasing:
         Are there any policies or programs that encourage departments to purchase
         environmentally neutral materials?
         Is there an inventory available of environmentally neutral products available for
         purchase by departments?
         Is there any language in vending contracts encouraging them to offer more
         environmentally neutral products?
     Land Use:
         What types of pesticides are used on campus, and how much of each?
10
   A research team of eight undergraduates was recruited from the Honors Program and environmental
student groups to assist with some preliminary information gathering. In most cases students were able to
apply their work on this project to credited coursework. This helped with quality control and reporting
timeliness. The use of undergraduates brought special benefits and challenges. As volunteers they were
motivated and enthusiastic, but they did not have the expertise necessary to contribute more in-depth
scientific analysis.


                                                    9
        Is there a list or inventory of native plants on campus?
        What drives plant selection at Miami?
     Transportation:
        Are there any alternative fuels used in the university fleet?
        Have there ever been feasibility studies of alternative fuel use for the fleet?
        How much of each type of fuel does the fleet use annually?
     Building Construction and Renovation:
        Are there any requirements for building and/or renovation projects to be LEED™
        certified or meet certification specifications?
        Is there any life-cycle analysis done on building projects during the planning
        phase?
     Dining Services:
        Where does Miami’s food come from?
        What goes into the process of food and menu selection?
        Is there any special care taken to select appliances with higher energy and water
        efficiency for dining halls?


The methodology outlined above has distinct advantages and disadvantages. One
advantage is that it provides a template for future more quantitative analysis. It is also
intuitive, focusing on observable indicators that the general public can relate to. Reliance
on qualitative information gathered mainly from interviews highlighted the human
perspective on campus sustainability, but risked producing somewhat anecdotal results.


1       Operational Category
1.1 Energy11
Roughly 85% of U.S. energy production comes from fossil fuels, a reliance that has been
blamed for significant increases in atmospheric CO2 (Union of Concerned Scientists,
2002; 2003). This process of energy production, distribution and use has been held
responsible for global climate change, air pollution, acid rain, radioactive waste, habitat
destruction, and a variety of human health effects. University campuses consume and
often waste large quantities of energy largely generated from fossil fuels, resulting in


11
  Information on Miami’s energy use was primarily provided through interviews with Tony Ferraro, a
member of the Physical Facilities staff, and through two Miami reports: University Utility Systems (2003),
and Utility Enterprise Energy and Budget Report (Fiscal Year 2004-05).


                                                    10
significant greenhouse gas (GHG) and toxics emissions. As large consumers these
institutions can also have significant influence over energy source markets (Simpson,
2003). 32 schools in Pennsylvania, with their cooperative purchase of wind power, in
addition to preventing the release of thousands of tons of GHG’s and toxins have helped
invigorate the local renewable energy market (Pennsylvania State University, 2003).


Ohio generates nearly 100% of its energy from coal and nuclear power; biomass, at
0.4% of the state’s energy market, is the largest source of ‘clean’ energy in Ohio (Green-
e, 2003). Mainly as a result of coal-burning power plants whose age exempts them from
the 1970 Clean Air Act requirements, Ohio ranks 1st in the nation for soot and acid-rain
causing sulfur dioxide, 2nd for CO2 emissions, 3rd for smog-causing nitrogen oxide, and
3rd for toxic mercury emissions (Ohio Environmental Council, 2005). In addition to air
quality impacts, the process of coal extraction results in significant habitat destruction.

1.1.1 Consumption
Miami University is roughly as consumptive as a small town, using enough energy to
power approximately 10,000 homes each year. Most of Miami’s heat and air
conditioning, like many other Midwestern schools, is generated by a steam plant and two
chiller stations predominantly powered by coal.12 The steam plant has four boilers that
produce steam. One boiler burns coal, natural gas, and fuel oil; two boilers burn coal and
natural gas; the fourth burns natural gas and fuel oil. Coal is the dominant energy source
on campus, chosen over natural gas for its considerably lower cost.13 State buildings—
funded through the Ohio Board of Regents instead of the university—are heated using
natural gas. 98% of the university’s electricity is purchased from Cinergy’s coal-fired
plant in Cincinnati, Ohio. The remaining 2% comes from local cooperative Butler Rural
Electric Company, which harnesses power from a coal-fired plant located in Stubenville,
Ohio.14 Miami’s gas powered “peaking engines” and two newly purchased coal-burning
generators provide extra electricity needed to handle summer peak use. Coal
consumption, which has remained fairly constant over the past four years, is expected to

12
   The steam plant, located behind Peabody Hall, was built in 1979. The North Chiller Plant, located next to
Withrow Court, was constructed in 1952 as a natatorium, and was converted to its current function in 2000.
The South Chiller Plant, located across from Harris Dining Hall, was constructed in 1969.
13
   Miami saves about $2.5-$3 million annually by using coal instead of natural gas, despite coal’s higher
equipment maintenance, personnel, and environmental testing costs.
14
   Butler Rural Electric Company is a member of the Geothermal Heat Pump Consortium
(GEOEXCHANGE), and has been actively involved in expanding this market in the local area. There is a
residence in Oxford, Ohio that is heated/cooled using a geothermal pump as a pilot program.


                                                    11
increase upon completion of several large capital improvement projects currently in the
construction and design phases (student apartments, ice arena, and buildings for
Business, Engineering, and Psychology). The main campus currently uses no renewable
energy sources.15 Figures 1-4 illustrate energy consumption at Miami from 2000 through
2004, and Figures 5-6 illustrate emissions resulting from energy consumption during the
same time period.


                        Energy Consumption 2000-2004

             1.2E+12
              1E+12                                                      Natural Gas
              8E+11                                                      Steam
     BTU's




              6E+11                                                      Chilled Water
              4E+11                                                      Coal
              2E+11                                                      Electricity
                  0
                       2000   2001      2002      2003      2004
                                        Year


Figure 1. Chilled Water was not tracked campus-wide in 2000 or 2001. Steam consumption was too
low to visibly register on this chart. Annual Natural Gas consumption is illustrated individually in
Figure 4.




15
  There was a small array of solar collector panels installed at Miami’s Ecology Research Center (ERC) as
part of a graduate student project in 2003. The ERC is located three miles from main campus.


                                                   12
                        Electricity Consumption 2000-2004

            3.1E+11
           3.05E+11
              3E+11
           2.95E+11
   BTU's




            2.9E+11
           2.85E+11
            2.8E+11
           2.75E+11
            2.7E+11
           2.65E+11
                             2000          2001          2002         2003           2004
                                                         Year


Figure 2. Operational upgrades and conservation efforts reduced 2004 electricity consumption to
levels near the five-year low. Still, consumption levels combined with high prices in the 2004-2005
academic year prompted university officials to submit a public plea for individual and departmental
conservation (Miami Report, 2005). Nearly all purchased electricity is generated from coal-burning
power plants.


                        Coal Consumption 2000-2004
                                                           y = 1E+11x + 2E+11
           8E+11
                                                                R2 = 0.6376
           7E+11
           6E+11
           5E+11
   BTU's




           4E+11
           3E+11
           2E+11
           1E+11
               0
                      2000          2001          2002      2003          2004
                                                  Year


Figure 3. Coal consumption over the past five years has had a generally upward trend, despite slight
decreases in 2003 and 2004. This does not include coal consumed to produce purchased electricity.


Coal consumption at Miami equates to just over a pound of coal per university
community member per year, not including the coal required to generate Miami’s
electricity purchases.




                                                   13
                         Natural Gas Consumption 2000-2004

              6.00E+10
              5.00E+10
              4.00E+10
   BTU's




              3.00E+10
              2.00E+10
              1.00E+10
              0.00E+00
                            2000          2001       2002      2003         2004
                                                     Year


Figure 4. . The chiller plant ceased burning natural gas in 2001 which caused a significant decline in
use. 2001-2003 was a relatively stable period of consumption, followed by a sharp increase in 2004,
when disrupted coals shipments during the early winter months caused the boilers to rely more
heavily on natural gas.


                         CO2 Emissions From Select Sources
                                           (2000-2004)

              70000
              60000
              50000
   Tons CO2




                                                                         Electricity
              40000
                                                                         Coal
              30000
              20000                                                      Natural Gas
              10000
                  0
                         2000      2001     2002     2003     2004
                                            Year


Figure 5. Natural gas, though on average twice as expensive as coal, emits CO2 and other harmful
material in quantities exponentially smaller than does Coal consumption. Adding off-site electricity
into the equation increases Miami’s total CO2 emissions by estimated 76.5%.




                                                         14
                             Emissions from Coal and Natural Gas Use
                                             (2004)

           1,400,000                                              1,352,912
                                                   1,277,476

           1,200,000



           1,000,000



            800,000
     lbs




                                                                                    From Natural Gas

            600,000                                                                 From Coal



            400,000

                             225,321
            200,000

                        3,075                 33               234
                  0
                       NOx (Lbs ./Year)    SO2 (Lbs ./Year)    Particulates
                                                               (Lbs ./Year)

                                          Emissions Type



Figure 6. These emissions types barely register for Natural Gas. Including release from coal-
generated purchased electricity increases NOx emissions by estimated 103%.

1.1.2 Sustainability Initiatives
Below is an inventory of Miami’s energy conservation initiatives:
           Nearly all state buildings have been outfitted with T8 fluorescent bulbs, which
           consume about 50% less than incandescent bulbs. 70.6% of residential buildings
           have been upgraded with T12 bulbs, which consume about 15% less.16
           Major renovations receive weatherization treatments (e.g. double-paned windows
           with metal frames). Effects are unknown due to lack of treatment records.
           Computers in campus libraries are turned off when buildings close.
           Energy Star certified washers are installed in all residence halls, each saving
           about 20 gallons of water and using 50% less energy per load.17
           Students are required to rent energy efficient mini-fridges for use in residence
           halls. This saves Miami an estimated $20,000 in energy each year (which
           enables a four-year pay-back period) and reduces emissions by the equivalent
           effects of planting 420 acres of forest (Energy Star, 2005).18


16
   T8’s are the most efficient fluorescent bulbs on the market, reducing energy consumption by around 50%
as compared to conventional bulbs. T8’s operate on different ballasts than T12 bulbs, making it
economically undesirable to upgrade existing T12’s. T8 upgrades are most feasible for renovations or new
construction projects.
17
   Energy Star is a government-backed tool that certifies products in more than 40 categories (and
buildings) based on their energy efficiency. All dryer models consume roughly the same amount of energy,
and are therefore not certified by Energy Star.
18
   These figures based on estimate from Housing, Dining and Guest Services of 4,000 Energy Star compact
refrigerators.


                                                        15
      Variable speed drives were added to existing air handling units in Pearson Hall
      (laboratory building) to reduce energy consumption.
      Sunlight harvesting project is underway to test an energy conservation technique
      in south-facing classrooms; once classroom selection is complete illumination
      sensors will be installed to the existing dimming ballasts so lights will dim when
      sunlight is providing enough natural light.
      Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) study of steam plant boiler is
      underway (completion expected in May 2005). Resulting recommendations will
      help ensure boilers comply with new 2007 emissions requirements.
These projects save approximately $250,000 per year.

1.1.3 Peer Institutions
At least 10 other “Top 25” public universities have significant energy conservation and
renewable purchase programs (Table 3).

School                    Description                                           Status/Results
University of             1) Policy to install 10 megawatts of renewable        1) Renewable energy plan expected
California system         energy equipment and purchase an additional 20%       to provide no economic savings, but
(including Berkeley,      of power needs from renewable energy sources          reduce non-renewable energy
San Diego, Davis,         2) Strategic Energy Plans to reduce energy            consumption by 25%
Irvine, and Santa         consumption over next 10 years                        2) Implementation of 25% reduction
Barbara)                                                                        plan expected to provide net annual
                                                                                energy cost savings of $1.5 million
University of             1) Cogeneration Plant                                 1) Saves $4 million annually
Michigan-Ann Arbor        2) Purchases 7% of power needs from renewable         2) approximately 21 million kWh
                          resources                                             purchased from renewable resources,
                                                                                preventing release of 18,000 tons of
                                                                                CO2 annually
University of North       Student fee and grant funding will support            Raised $300,000 to purchase clean
Carolina-Chapel Hill      renewable energy projects, including on-campus        energy certificates
                          solar water heating and purchase of renewable
                          energy certificates
University of Illinois-   Student fee to buy green power                        Administration matched the effort by
Urbana/Champaign                                                                promising $140,000 annually for
                                                                                green energy projects
Pennsylvania State        1) 5% of campus power is generated via green          1) 30.8 million kWh of electricity
University                power (primarily from energy certificate purchases)   offset with wind power certificates
                          2) Two 2,000-watt photovoltaic systems                from 2001-2003 preventing the
                                                                                release of 26,400 tons of CO2
                                                                                2) PV systems generate 4,900 kWh of
                                                                                power annually
Rutgers University        Policy to reduce greenhouse gases by 3.5% below       N/A
                          1990 levels using a combination of
                          efficiency/conservation efforts and clean energy
                          purchasing
Table 3. Sustainable energy efforts being undertaken by other “Top 25” public universities. Many
include purchasing green energy certificates using funds raised at least in part by voluntary student
fees. All student-funded initiatives have been voted in with unprecedented support.


In addition to the top 25 schools, University of Buffalo recently renegotiated their vending
contracts to include replacement of older vending machines with Energy Star models.




                                                         16
They have replaced 77 of their 126 machines so far, saving about 133,000 kWh and
$9,000 per year (UB Green Office, 2005).


In Ohio, Bowling Green State University has nurtured a partnership with their local utility
to install a set of photovoltaic panels on their ice arena. The utility’s Green Power
Program provided funding for the panels, and BGSU received a reimbursement grant
from the Ohio Department of Development and some initial funding assistance from the
“Green Tags” program (Bowling Green State University, 2005).19

1.1.4 Opportunities for Improvement

POLICY
With fuel prices rising and global climate change being acknowledged by more and more
decision-makers, it is only a matter of time before states are compelled, whether by
legislation or by market forces, to adjust their energy policies. 18 states now require their
utilities to support clean energy in some form (Henry, 2004). Despite several legislative
attempts, Ohio is not one of these states. 18 Ohio communities have passed
“Hometowns for Healthy Air” resolutions (Appendix 5), asking Governor Taft, the Ohio
General Assembly, and Ohio’s Congressional Delegation to pass legislation to end the
grandfathering of coal-fired power plants (Ohio Environmental Council). Though Oxford
and Butler County have not passed such a resolution, Miami University has the
opportunity to take a local leadership role in reducing state-wide energy consumption
and subsequently reducing Ohio’s environmental impact.


ON-SITE RENEWABLES
Though Miami’s use of some natural gas does reduce its greenhouse gas emissions
compared to 100% reliance on coal, natural gas is a finite energy source that presents
its own unique environmental and logistical challenges.20 Alternatives to fossil fuel
energy sources are emerging regionally, including biomass (currently the most cost-
effective alternative), solar, fuel cell, and wind (cost equivalent to natural gas).
Southwestern Ohio is generally considered to be too cloudy and not windy enough to

19
   This program provides assistance with initial cost off-set. Tags are purchased by citizens statewide under
an agreement between American Municipal Power-Ohio and Green Mountain Energy.
20
   Natural gas extraction can be as damaging as crude oil drilling; natural gas is costly to transport, finite,
and still emits greenhouse gases and other air pollutants, though at much lower rates than coal (Cohen,
1990).


                                                      17
justify solar panels or wind turbines (Ferraro; U.S. Department of Energy), but no recent
feasibility studies on these power sources have been completed for Miami University.
There are several areas on campus that may be well-suited for at least supplemental
power generation via wind and/or solar, and there are a variety of funding outlets to
assist with initial costs. Limited use of on-site wind or solar power at Miami, while not
likely to dramatically reduce reliance on fossil fuels, would be a symbolic and visible
gesture for starting the transformation to a more sustainable system.


Geothermal energy is an exciting alternative to using fossil fuels for building heating
(Figure 7). They are relatively inexpensive and, unlike wind and solar power, have
demonstrated success in this part of Ohio. These systems add approximately $6,000 to
residential purchase and installation price, but save about $45 per month in utility costs
as compared to electric or steam generated heat (KCA Geothermal Services, 2004).
Commercial comparisons for purchase and installation are harder to come by, but most
geothermal system providers claim a similar utility cost savings for commercial projects.
Butler County Rural Electric Cooperative, Inc. has placed several ground loop systems
in the area, one in a home within the Oxford Township limits.




   Figure 7. Examples of geothermal ground loop systems available on the market. The
   vertical loop system (left) is versatile, and the extended slinky loop (right) is the most
   common and energy efficient alternative. (KCA Geothermal Services)


GREEN TAGS




                                                   18
A partial transition to renewable energy through purchase of green energy certificates is
an extremely popular gesture among universities interested in reducing their
environmental impact, despite the economic costs (Figure 8).




Figure 8. A diagram of how green energy certificates work (from 3 Phases Energy Services, a
renewable energy provider).


Offsetting 100% of the emissions from Miami’s off-site electricity purchases would cost
approximately $2 million per year (Table 4), figures that are supported by a cost estimate
from tag provider Bonneville Environmental Foundation (2005).21 However, funding


Percent           Annual Cost                 Approximate Cost           Approximate New
Renewable         (2.5 cents per kWh)         Per Student                Fee Structure
Content                                       (2.5 cents per kWh)
5%                $103,438                    $6.20                      $82.20
10%               $206,875                    $12.40                     $88.40
25%               $517,188                    $31.00                     $107.00
50%               $1,034,375                  $62.00                     $138.00
100%              $2,068,750                  $124.00                    $200.00

Table 4. Estimation of cost to purchase green energy tags. The high-end estimate of 2.5 cents per
kWh was used to avoid glossing over the economics of purchasing green power certificates.




21
 Offsetting natural gas consumption puts the price tag at $2.35 million, and adding in on-site coal
consumption would likely double this estimate.


                                                    19
a 5% offset through student fees would equate to each student paying just $6.20 extra
per year. This would raise their annual fees to $82.20, a cost equivalent of 0.25-0.7% of
their annual tuition depending on their standing. For comparison, the university spent
over $5.14 million on its electricity in FY 2004; $308 per student. If Miami were to offset
100% of its electricity consumption with renewable energy purchases, this would equate
to avoiding 1,497,338,754 miles driven each year, or planting 158,876 acres of trees.
There are at least 16 companies dealing in clean and/or renewable energy certificate
exchange for organizations in Ohio, at least one of which is a non profit organization. 22
Purchasing renewable energy from non-profits is tax deductible in most cases.


CONSERVATION
A co-generation plant essentially uses ‘waste’ heat produced during the steam
generation process to create on-site electricity. Though recent examination of Miami’s
power generation facilities determined that co-generation was economically impractical,
other universities23 have reported that their co-generation facilities are the biggest cost
savers among energy efficiency efforts.


On its face weatherization of Miami’s older buildings, including window pane and frame
upgrades has an expected payback period that exceeds the current economic guidelines
for this type of renovation. However, the rising costs of heating/cooling campus buildings
combined with reduced state funding may make weatherization of older buildings more
attractive than previously considered.


There are several opportunities for small upgrades that have the potential to add up to
significant energy and cost savings. Most of Miami’s Exit signs have fluorescent bulbs,
which are more expensive and energy consumptive than light-emitting diodes (LED).
Ensuring that renovations and new building projects incorporate LED exit lights would
save the university money and reduce energy consumption. Likewise, vending machines

22
   New Wind Energy, Aquila, Bonneville Environmental Foundation (non-profit), American Wind, EAD
Environmental, 3 Phases Energy Services, Chesapeake Wind Current, Sterling Planet, Evolution Markets
LLC, Vision Quest, Main Stay Energy, Sky Energy, Pacific Renewables, Green Mountain Energy,
Powerlight, and Climate Save.
23
   University of Michigan’s co-generation plant saves them an estimated $4 million annually in energy
savings (University of Michigan, 2004), and SUNY-Rutgers co-generation energy plant was honored by
the US EPA for its innovation in energy efficiency. University of Maryland also has a successful co-
generation plant that was contracted for construction by an external organization. MEDCO funded the
project through 20-year floating bonds and profits by retaining facility ownership for 40 years.


                                                  20
on campus consume a large amount of energy for lighting and cooling. As contracts with
vending companies come up for renewal Miami has the opportunity to request
installation of Energy Star™ certified machines that reduce electricity consumption.
Schools like University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill and University of Vermont have
installed ‘energy misers’ on their coin-operated vending machines, saving thousands of
dollars and preventing the consumption of hundred of thousands of kWh. Finally,
occupancy sensors for lights and fans can be installed for about $75 each, but reduced
consumption assures a payback period of about 5 years.


Many buildings on campus are overheated in the winter, causing residents to open their
windows or run their window A/C units. This cycle wastes a tremendous amount of
money and energy (Figure 9). Installing $50 thermostatic valves is one potential
approach to solving the problem, though it would bring additional maintenance issues as
the valve systems would likely be handled roughly by the rotating student population.
Ideally this issue should be addressed by Miami’s capable building maintenance and
energy/engineering staff. To address the behavior component of this type of energy
waste Miami could install individual dormitory displays linked to remote sensing energy
management systems. The displays visually demonstrate to residents the results of their
consumption behavior, and enable inter-dormitory competition similar to that of the
annual RecycleMania contest. Nearby Oberlin College has installed a remote sensing
system to display water and energy use in residence halls using grant funds.




                                           21
Figure 9. The outdoor temperature was in the low 40’s, high 30’s when these photos were taken. As a
result of dorm overheating students open their windows or run their air conditioners in early and
later winter months. SP01 is 85.8º (open window), SP02 is 41º, SP03 is 53.8º (open window), SP04 is
49.6º, and SP05 is 36.3º (air conditioner unit). Poorly insulated single-paned windows also contribute
to heat loss.


FUNDING
Currently Miami’s utility budgets are adjusted to reflect changing consumption, which
means as conservation and efficiency efforts stabilize or reduce energy consumption the
utility budget is cut to reflect the change. This practice can provide a disincentive to
improve efficiency and conserve energy, as doing so will result in an effective budget
cut.


As mentioned above, there are several funding assistance programs for renewable
energy projects in Ohio. The Ohio Department of Development offers the Energy Loan
Fund Grant Program and Distributed Energy Resources Grant. Ohio provides a
Renewable Energy Loan with repayment terms that are negotiable for each applicant.




                                                 22
The Department of Energy offers funding assistance for solar panel installation under
their Million Solar Roofs Initiative.


1.2 Water24
Some have argued that, as we work to dissolve our reliance on fossil fuels, clean fresh
water is quietly becoming the next non-renewable resource of utmost concern (The
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, 2003). Universities impact their
local watersheds with both consumption and run-off/discharge. Residential universities,
with their high density housing complexes and community dining facilities, tend to
consume large quantities of water for drinking, hygiene, irrigation, and food preparation
and disposal. Conservation initiatives and careful management of landscaping are key
for preserving quantity and quality of local water sources even in areas with seemingly
abundant supply.


Miami’s water supply comes from the City of Oxford’s Municipal Water Works. Water
gets basic treatment before it is transported to Miami’s steam and chiller plants, but it still
contains significant amounts of calcium and magnesium, small amounts of sodium,
copper and iron, and trace amounts of other metals. These metals and minerals are
removed at the steam and chiller plants through a purification process, which prevents
equipment damage, maintenance worker injury, bacteria growth (chiller plants),25 and
efficiency loss. The Municipal Water Works monitors meters showing water use by each
building. Utility Enterprise, a non-profit organization created in 2003, sells steam and
chilled water to Housing/Dining/Guest Services, Network Operations, the Recreational
Sports Center, the Shriver Center, and the Marcum Conference Center and Inn. The
state pays for steam and chilled water for all administrative buildings on campus. Steam
and chilled water are transported across campus via four miles of underground tunnels
and additional ‘direct buried’ steam and chilled water lines.

1.2.1 Consumption
Most of Miami’s water use goes towards steam and chilled water production for heating
and cooling/dehumidifying buildings. Excluding refrigeration and power plants on

24
   Information about Miami’s water use was provided primarily through interviews with Mark Lawrence
and Paul Wenner, members of the Physical Facilities staff, and through two university reports: Utility
Systems (2003), and Utility Enterprise Energy and Budget Report (2004).
25
   Daily applications of sodium hypochlorite and weekly applications of a microbiocide are used to control
oxidizing and non-oxidizing bacteria.


                                                    23
campus, the buildings with the highest individual water use are sports complexes,
buildings with an abundance of science labs, dining halls, and the main recreational
facility (Figure 10). Much of Miami’s greenspace is naturally irrigated, with the exception
of Cook Field, playing fields in the vicinity of Yager Stadium, McKie Field, the open area
adjacent to the Child Development Center, and new plantings in times of drought.

                                      Top 10 Water Consumers
                                               (2004)
     % of total use




                        10%
                         8%
                         6%
                         4%
                         2%
                         0%



                                                           l
                                                        ll


                                                       al




                                                        ll


                                                        ll
                                                    um
                                                       n




                                                        l




                                                     er
                                                       t
                                                      n




                                                   Ha




                                                   Ha
                                                     al


                                                   Ha
                                                   an
                                                    io




                                                    H
                                                    io




                                                  nt
                                                  H
                                                 at


                                                 at


                                                 di


                                                Pl




                                                 g




                                              Ce
                                                n




                                                n
                                                s
                                              er




                                              er
                                              ta




                                              in
                                er




                                             so




                                             he


                                             so
                                             er




                                            in


                                          ow
                                          rS
                             rig


                                          rig




                                          er
                                          ar




                                         ug


                                          ni
                                          w




                                         D




                                      r iv
                        ef


                                       ef




                                       Fl
                                     ge


                                     Po




                                      en
                                     Pe




                                      H
                                    ti n
                                 .R
                         R




                                  Sh
                                   D
                                  Ya




                                 ar
                      S.


                                N




                                M




                                                        Site


Figure 10. Yellow indicates power-related sites, purple are laboratory-heavy sites, and green are sites
with a concentration of dining areas. The Yager Stadium area is home to heavily irrigated practice
fields and lawns. Flower Hall (residential) has the third highest occupancy, so it would be expected to
have a higher consumption value than other smaller residence halls.


During peak times up to 105,000 gallons of water are used in a single day on athletic
fields, 40,000 of which go towards irrigating just the baseball field (Smith, 2005).26 Most
of the water used to irrigation playing fields is pumped from the nearby creek; only the
baseball field is irrigated using municipal water.


The residence halls, even with the dining halls separated out, make up the category with
the highest percentage of total campus water consumption. With the dining halls added
in, residential services represent more than half of campus water consumption. Though
seemingly less significant, the Academic Buildings with laboratories make up a large
portion of the campus water use, at 8% for just two buildings (Figure 11).




26
  At the behest of the coach, the baseball field was replaced with sand-based Bluegrass, which is extremely
costly to maintain due to its drainage properties. The new women’s softball field will also be sand-based
Bluegrass turf.


                                                         24
            Water Consumption by Category
                                                                     Residence Halls
                                (2004)
                                                                     Sites w ith Dining
                           4%                                        Services
                     6%
                                                                     Operational Sites
                8%                       36%
                                                                     Recreation and Athletics
             11%
                                                                     Academic w ith labs

                                                                     Administrative/Academic
                14%
                                  21%                                Other



Figure 11. The Dining and Residence Halls combined make up almost 60% of total campus water
consumption. The academic buildings that house the majority of campus laboratories also comprise a
significant proportion of water use, at 8% for just two buildings. Operational sites include the power
plants, motor pool and maintenance facilities.


Some steam is lost as a result of pipe leaks,27 direct use at dining halls, and through the
“blow down” process.28 Chilled water is lost through pipe breaks and leaks, service work,
and evaporation. Both steam and chilled water consumption is expected to increase as
several new air-conditioned buildings are completed over the next five years.

1.2.2 Sustainability Initiatives
         Miami’s steam production efficiency is quite high—90-93% of the water used is
         returned.29
         Pearson Hall’s ‘once-through’ cooling system for laboratory equipment was
         upgraded to recycle chilled water rather than flushing it after one use.
         Four of the five main dining halls have been outfitted with pulpers that grind food
         and paper waste and spin the water free to produce a dry waste material.
         Pulpers conserve water by continuously recycling it through the system. By
         reducing the net need for water and then recycling the water that is used, pulpers
         are far less water consumptive than the garbage disposals currently in operation
         in the remaining hall. The pulpers were installed along with regularly scheduled

27
   Some of Miami’s steam pipes are 40-50 years old.
28
   This process is used to help regulate water and chemical mixtures in the boilers, and to force solids from
the lines to prevent blockage.
29
   A University Engineer claimed in his interview that few other university campuses could boast a steam
plant efficiency rate this high.


                                                     25
         renovations; it is expected that the last dining hall will received some sort of
         system upgrade with its next scheduled upgrade.30
         To address residence hall water waste low-flow Orphus plates were installed in
         all shower heads, and most campus faucets have been outfitted with aerators.
         Some of the plates have since been removed after students complained about
         low water pressure, and there is no official account of the buildings that still have
         the plates installed. 100% installation of both items would save an estimated 11
         million gallons of water each year. Following installation of low-flow plates and
         aerators Oxford’s Municipal Water Works noted a significant reduction in campus
         water consumption, though a direct correlation was never studied.31
         Building and Special Services has recently instituted a ‘proportion system’ and
         micro-fiber mops that will reduced the amount of water used to clean buildings by
         an estimated 500,000 gallons and $6,400 per year.
         A Chiller Plant upgrade planned for summer 2005 is expected to reduce water
         requirements.
         ‘Best Practices’ used in grounds maintenance limit artificial irrigation to times of
         drought.
         Runoff from parking lots drains into a reservoir pond, runs through a pump
         house, and is used on the athletic fields.
         Miami’s Building Construction Standards Manual (1997) offers some level of
         protection from construction impact on storm water run-off; it specifies the use of
         tunnel pumping, elevator pits, and other structures that collect storm-water and
         waste water run-off around construction sites.

1.2.3 Peer Institutions
The University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill collects and filters rooftop and dense lawn
run-off into irrigation systems for adjacent playing fields (Figure 12). UNC is also working
on expanding rainwater collection efforts for use in toilets and irrigation, and increasing
efforts to filter the photo-processed silver from sanitary sewer discharge lines.




30
   Discussed in greater detail in the Dining Services section, pulpers do have a drawback. Their resulting
waste, though considerably reduced, is not easily composted due to high protein content. It is currently
being landfilled.
31
   A similar effort at Brown University in 1991-92 reduced their water consumption by approximately 5.6
gallons annually (Brown is Green).


                                                    26
Figure 12. Water collection and filtration cistern at University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill.




In addition to their cistern system, UNC uses collected rain water for toilet flushing, and
they installed 300 waterless urinals to save a projected 12 million gallons of water
annually.


Under their “Brown is Green” program initiated in 1990, Brown University took the
following measures to conserve water:
        Low-flow showerheads and toilets (1991-93), saving approximately 5.6 million
        gallons of water per year
        Process Cooling for laboratory equipment reduced water consumption over the
        old “once-through” cooling systems
        Campus Water Audit in 1993 revealed an estimated 34% possible savings by
        continuing current conservation measures, and projected that 120 million gallons
        of water would be saved annually once all planned measures were completed
        (roughly equates to saving $300,000 annually)


Harvard University installed the SmartStorm Rainwater Recovery System in the winter of
2004. The system collects storm water runoff and uses it to wash the vehicle fleet and
irrigate the lawns, saving 2000 gallons of water monthly and reducing negative impact
on the local reservoir and river (Baskin, 2005).


Duke University has a notable storm water run-off and wetland restoration program.
They have successfully prevented any increase in run-off volume over the past 10 years
despite $250 million in building projects that have increased impervious surface area.


                                                 27
The University of California-Santa Barbara mandated installation of waterless urinals in
all newly constructed buildings, and uses reclaimed water for toilet flushing and irrigation
(totaling a quarter of their campus needs).


The University of California-Berkeley is working to install an on-site water recycling
system to treat gray water for reuse in toilets and playing field irrigation. Their system is
expected to provide 14% of water irrigation needs and save about $7,500 annually. They
also installed faucet aerators provided free of charge from their municipal utility district,
expected to save $15,000 and 3.4 million gallons annually.


90% of campus irrigation at the University of Florida comes from reclaimed water (i.e.
high quality, non-potable).

1.2.4 Opportunities for Improvement
Reducing water consumption at Miami, in addition to saving money on purchased water,
would also provide significant wastewater savings.
   •   Low flow toilets and waterless urinals have also proven successful at reducing
       water consumption and saving money at other college campuses. University of
       California-Berkeley estimated cost savings from outfitting a single high-
       occupancy building with low-flow toilets to be about $16,000 and 3.6 million
       gallons of water each year, with a payback period of roughly four years (well
       within the economic guidelines for upgrade projects at Miami).
   •   A simple toilet maintenance program to check and replaced flush valves could
       save up to $300 per toilet annually (University of California-Berkeley).
   •   Automatic push rod (short duration) faucets could also significantly reduce water
       consumption in Miami’s residence halls, where students may forget to turn the
       faucets off while brushing their teeth.
   •   Using native and drought resistance turf and plantings can drastically reduce the
       amount of water (and mowing and chemical application) needed for regular
       upkeep of Miami’s vast lawns and playing/practice fields.
   •   The automated irrigation systems in place at Miami currently run on timers, but
       could be upgraded with moisture sensors to ensure that watering takes place
       only when absolutely necessary.



                                              28
Though some storm water is harnessed for reuse at Miami, there is much more than can
be done in this arena. Run-off from rooftops and turf grass can be collected and piped
over to water artificially irrigated areas. Miami can also integrate rainwater collection at
new and existing building sites for use in toilets or to wash vehicles as has been
accomplished at universities referenced above.


1.3 Materials and Waste
Per capita materials waste has nearly doubled in the last 40 years (U.S. EPA, 2003).
Meanwhile many of Ohio’s 36 Municipal Solid Waste landfills and 70 Construction and
Demolition Debris landfills will soon fill and close—the Ohio EPA estimated in 2003 that
current landfills within the state had a capacity of less than 5 years remaining. Even with
current regulations and restrictions on landfill siting, management and closure, modern
landfills can present significant environmental impacts including greenspace loss, diesel
truck traffic, collapse or slide, on-site fire, drinking and surface water contamination,
explosive gas migration, and propagation of disease carrying vectors.32 Universities
contribute to the waste stream by consuming striking amounts of office supplies and
other materials needed to support their educational and research missions. The
university’s laboratories, art and architecture studios, and motor pool produce hazardous
waste which must be disposed of with special care, tracking and reporting. Campus
capital improvement projects also introduce large amounts of construction and
demolition debris to the waste stream. Despite the recyclability of many of these
materials, a considerable amount still winds up in landfills.

1.3.1 Waste Management and Recycling
In 1989 Ohio legislature directed state-funded agencies and organizations achieve a
certain minimum waste diversion rate. Miami’s response to the directive was to charge
the Physical Facilities Department (PFD) with creating a program to reduce campus
waste.


Chronology:
1970’s Miami University informally recycles
                              33
1988 Formal recycling begins

32
   Landfill collapse or slide releases buried trash and leachate to the watershed, air and soil. Such a slide
occurred at “Mount Rumpke”, the local landfill, in 1996.
33
   Miami’s recycling program was formed as a result of the nearby municipal landfill closing, and the
passing of a state House bill that mandated state-wide recycling. State buildings were asked to do a desk-
side recycling pilot program, and universities were directed to reduce waste by 25%.


                                                      29
1989     Physical Facilities Department runs pilot desk-side recycling project (results: 15-20%
         recycling rate)
1990     Materials Recovery Facility option is selected for waste management program; funded by
         state grant
1991     25% waste reduction achieved
1992     40% waste reduction achieved
1997     55% waste reduction achieved; graduate assistants hired as Environmental Education
                       34
         Coordinators; their responsibilities include promoting recycling, waste reduction, and
         materials reuse
1998     Recycling Committee formed with involvement from Building and Special Services,
         Residence Life, and Housing/Dining/Guest Services (HDGS)
1999     60% waste reduction achieved
                                                            35
2000     Recycling bins are placed in every dorm room; Housing/Dining/Guest Services adds
         recycling to custodial duties to facilitate recycling in residence halls
2002     Comprehensive Recycling Tracking begins
2003     New, expanded MRF constructed to handle increased materials flow
2004     BSS hired 10 undergraduate part-time student employees to help with program
         expansions; these Environmental Coordinators are each responsible for recycling
         promotion at assigned buildings on campus

Miami works with a variety of recycling companies to rescue materials from the waste
stream:
Material                    Company                  Service                      End-use / Processing
Paper (office and           SBC Recycling            They pay and pick-up         Paper, plastics
mixed), plastics
(Polyethylene
Terephthalate, High
Density Polyethylene),
cardboard
Aluminum                    Alcoa (through           They pay and pick-up         Aluminum
                            Rumpke)
Glass                       Cincinnati-based         Miami delivers; no pay       Recycled; crushed for
                            company                                               landscaping
Vehicle Batteries           Interstate Battery       Free exchange with           Fluids drained, purified
                                                     new battery purchase         and reused whenever
                                                                                  possible; metals melted
                                                                                  and reformed
Computers                   Technology               Miami delivers; no pay       10% refurbished; 27%
                            Recycling Group                                       broken down for parts
                                                                                  reuse; 63% recycled
Fluorescent lights          USA Lamp                 Miami pays                   Some mercury
                                                                                  reclaimed; glass and
                                                                                  metal are recycled (end
                                                                                  product unknown)
Appliances                  Cohen Brothers           They pick-up; no pay         10% refurbished; 90%
                                                                                  stripped for parts


34
   One assistantship position was created in partnership with Residence Life and the other was funded
entirely through Building and Special Services. The graduate students come from the Institute of
Environmental Sciences, and work 18-20 hours per week in exchange for tuition waiver and a stipend.
35
   Buildings managed by Special Facilities (athletics-related buildings), unlike other buildings on campus,
have their own custodial staff and waste management budget. BSS did not provide them with recycling
containers or pick-up service.


                                                    30
                                                                               recycling
Household Batteries        Toxco                  Miami pays (grant-           Metal reclamation;
                                                  funded)                      some chemical
                                                                               reclamation (end
                                                                               product unknown)
Hand-held electronics      Recycle for the        They pay and provide         Some are refurbished;
                           Cure; Enviro           shipping labels              some are broken down
                           Solutions; Toxco                                    for plastics and metals
                                                                               recycling (end products
                                                                               vary)
Printer Cartridges         Variety depending      They pay and provide         Some are re-filled;
                           on cartridge type      shipping labels              some are broken down
                                                                               for plastics recycling
                                                                               (end product varies)
Tires                      DNR Recycling          Miami pays and they          Shredded into rubber
                                                  pick-up                      crumb and used in
                                                                               track bedding,
                                                                               playgrounds, mixed into
                                                                               asphalt (rims melted
                                                                               and recycled)
Table 5. Materials recycled at Miami have a variety of outlets and end uses.


Though the recycling program began in 1988, thorough recycling figures are only
available for 2002-2004 (Figures 13 and 14). In 2004 Miami’s increasing recycling
tonnage was accompanied by a decrease in waste; this inversion indicates that waste
reduction efforts with special focus on recycling has met with a measure of success.

                           Trash versus Recycling
                                 2002-2004

              5
              4
              3                                                            recycling
    Tons
    x 100 0   2                                                            trash
              1
              0
                        2002            2003            2004
                                        Year


Figure 13. Both trash and recycling show general downward trends. The ideal state for materials
management is zero waste, with a recycling rate that registers but is not too high (an indicator of
insufficient ‘re-use’ and ‘reduce’ in consumption). These figures do not include waste or recycling
generated at Yager Stadium, Millett Hall or the ice arena which are handled by Special Facilities
Department and not tracked to the same degree of detail as the rest of the campus.




                                                 31
                                       Waste Diversion Rates
                                            (2002-2004)
     % waste diverted
       to recycling     60.0%

                        40.0%

                        20.0%

                        0.0%
                                2002                  2003               2004
                                                      Year


Figure 14. Waste Diversion Rate describes the percentage of waste that is diverted from the landfill-
bound stream to an outlet for recycling or reuse. Increasing waste diversion rates is a positive sign
for sustainable materials management, though ‘zero waste’ should remain the ultimate goal in this
indicator.

1.3.2 Hazardous Waste
The end point for much of Miami’s hazardous and universal waste is the Environmental
Health and Safety Office (EHSO) and Building and Special Services’ Recycling Office.
According to the EHSO, most of the hazardous waste generated by Miami University is
incinerated,36 solvents are burned as fuel, heavy metals are reclaimed, and
vehicle/industrial batteries and mercury are recycled.37 Miami University is not normally
required to report the disposal of hazardous waste due to its Small Quantities Generator
(SQG) designation, and waste generation tracking is currently a manual process using a
paper file system.38

1.3.3 Sustainability Initiatives
Miami University’s recycling program has targeted a long list of materials, and has
maintained a waste diversion rate that is extremely competitive with peer institutions. In
addition to the materials listed in Table 5, Miami mulches campus yard waste and spent
wood pallets for use on campus. To accomplish this, Miami University’s Recycling Office
coordinates staggered recycling and waste awareness programs throughout the year
(Table 6).


36
   In accordance with Resource Conservation and Recovery Act guidelines.
37
   Miami is contracted with Clean Harbors Company to incinerate hazardous waste that cannot be
reclaimed or recycled.
38
   Miami’s EHSO is currently working with the Information Technology Office to transition to an
automated record-keeping system, and a student intern is working to complete a complete report focusing
on Hazardous Waste Generation, Waste Streams, and Disposal Costs at Miami, due for publication in the
next few months. Miami was required to submit a report following a breakdown in one of its chillers in
2003, during which it disposed of 7.9 tons of hazardous waste.


                                                          32
Program name                         Target ed Materials                  Activity
Recycle, Ohio! Month                 Varies                               Varies (ex: National
                                                                          Sustainability Day, Community
                                                                          Recycling Fair)
Full Contact Recycling               Plastic bottles, aluminum            Collection at tailgate area of
                                     cans, glass bottles (recycling)      football games
Waging War on Waste                  Food and napkins (waste              Waste audits and targeted
                                     reduction)                           awareness campaign
Move-Out                             Furniture, clothing, books,             Partner with Goodwill
                                     office supplies (reuse)                 Industries to place several
                                                                             collection trailers on and off
                                                                             campus
                                                                             Partner with bookstores to
                                                                             place book collection
                                                                             containers during book-buy-
                                                                             back times
Recycle Mania39                      Plastics, glass, aluminum,           10-week intercollegiate
                                     paper (recycling)                    contest to see which school
                                                                          recycles the most (Miami
                                                                          student was co-founder of this
                                                                          contest)
Auction                              Office furniture (reuse)             As new furniture is purchase
                                                                          the old furniture is stored for
                                                                          reuse after a bi-annual auction
Table 6. Inventory of waste reduction and awareness programs offered at or sponsored by Miami
University.


Miami University instituted a Pay-for-Print Program (PPP) in 1998 in order to reduce
printing costs and paper waste. Two counts following the implementation of Miami’s PPP
paper consumption revealed a decrease in paper consumption by around 60% (Table 7).
School Year                        Printed Pages (millions)
1997-98 (before PPP)                         3.2
1998-99                                      1.2
2003-04                                      1.4
2004-05                                      3.0
Table 7. Paper consumption in main library and computer labs (Scott and Nauman, 2005)


The most recent count is elevated probably as a result of more PPP machines being
installed—as of April 2005 there were 47 PPP machines on campus, with more always
being added—it has become more difficult for students to print for free elsewhere.
Another reason for the increase is faculty emphasis on electronic reserves, and more

39
  Recycle Mania was co-founded in 2000 by recycling coordinators at Miami and Ohio Universities.
Participation in Recycle Mania has at least doubled each year since its inception. In 2004 the EPA’s Waste
Wise program staff became aware of Recycle Mania, and has since agreed to provide logistical support,
including a professional website, communications assistance, and media planning assistance. They have
also helped create a waste diversion subset of the original contest, and have expressed interest in spinning
Recycle Mania off into an athletic event contest and a year-long waste diversion rate contest.


                                                     33
availability of electronic journals, newspapers and magazines. Overall, the PPP has
significantly decreased paper consumption at Miami (Scott and Nauman).


Below is an inventory of hazardous waste minimization initiatives undertaken at Miami
University:
         In 1990 Miami University’s Chemistry Department purchased 40 micro-scale kits to
         reduce the amount of hazardous waste generated from laboratory experiments. Though
         the kits have been extremely successful and well-received, there are only enough to
         supply Chemistry majors; all other labs have been scaled down as much as possible
         within the parameters of the conventional lab equipment.
         The Chemistry Department has also undertaken mercury waste reduction initiatives,
         including switching to alcohol thermometers and evaporating mercury waste-products
         before turning them over to the EHSO for recycling.
         All spent fluorescent tubes are collected in accordance with university policy and sent out
         for mercury removal and recycling.
         Waste fluids from the motor pool are sent out for recycling, including motor oil, anti-freeze
         and parts washer solvents.
         Used vehicle battery exchange is worked into the contract between Miami’s Motor Pool
         and Interstate Company; used batteries are picked up when newly purchased batteries
         are dropped off.
         Household batteries and small electronics, though not considered hazardous waste
         individually, are generally considered to be a significant cumulative source of hazardous
                            40
         waste in landfills. Thanks to a grant from the local solid waste district, these materials
         are among the newest items to be collected for recycling at Miami.
         Building and Special Services initiated a computer recycling program in 2004, and is
         working to incorporate computer recycling into university policy.

1.3.4 Peer Institutions
Most universities in the US host some sort of recycling program, though collection,
processing, and education efforts vary significantly from campus to campus. Some have
gone above and beyond to minimize the environmental impact of their materials and
waste practices. Several schools have formal university recycling policies, including
University of Michigan, University of Virginia, University of North Carolina, University of
Illinois, Pennsylvania State University, Rutgers, and Yale University.


In addition to their residence hall recycling program, the University of Michigan hosts
programs to facilitate office supplies exchange and chemical redistribution/reuse. They
also minimize hazardous waste by using corn byproducts instead of salt on campus
roads, eliminating mercury thermometers, using ozonation to disinfect pools, and

40
  Batteries, pesticides, mercury-containing thermostats, and mercury containing lamps are considered
universal waste, and so are not subject to rigorous hazardous waste regulations even though they pose
environmental and health risks after disposal. Universal waste regulations are streamlined to reduce the
burden on handlers, transporters, and destination facilities. The state of Ohio also does not regulate
computers as hazardous waste.


                                                    34
sterilizing medical waste rather than incinerating it. These activities are coordinated
under their P2000 Pollution Prevention Program.


The University of Virginia’s recycling program has won at least 10 awards, including US
EPA Waste Wise Program Champion. The University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill
passed a university resolution to support recycling at special events.

1.3.5 Opportunities for Improvement
   •   Though Miami’s waste diversion rate is impressive compared to other institutions
       of higher education, the university’s emphasis should begin to shift away from
       increasing recycling and towards source reduction and materials reuse. This shift
       creates overlap with other indicators, as it would best be achieved through more
       conscientious purchasing and supply consumption practices.
   •   Miami currently has no coordinated office supply exchange program in place to
       reduce unnecessary purchasing.
   •   Organized recycling of high capacity printer cartridges has recently ceased,
       though negotiations are underway to re-initiate a program.
   •   Miami’s new electronics recycling program has not yet tapped the vast supply of
       used CD’s.
Special challenges and opportunities are created from the organizational structure of
waste management at Miami. Building and Special Services (BSS) is charged with
campus wide waste management and recycling, but separate custodial staff and
administrators are responsible for the residence halls and special facilities (i.e. athletic
event venues). Without a university policy guiding recycling and waste management
there is no real obligation to fully engage in recycling and waste reduction efforts; as a
result there is uneven tracking, execution, and emphasis on recycling across the
departments. A perfect example of this disconnect can be found in Miami’s most recent
special event—commencement—where no recycling bins or collection service were
provided. Overwhelming amounts of recyclable beverage containers unnecessarily
entered the waste stream due to lack of coordination between departments.




                                              35
1.4 Purchasing41
In 1999 U.S. colleges bought $25 billion in goods and services, roughly equivalent to 3%
of the U.S. GDP that year (IEMA, 2003). Universities, as large-scale consumers of office
supplies and other materials, possess great purchasing power and can generate
demand for green products and services throughout the supply chain and user
community. In addition to reducing their consumption impact and supporting the green
products market, college green procurement programs can save money over time by
purchasing products with lower life-cycle costs.

1.4.1 Policies and Practice
The Office of Purchasing, the Office of Maintenance Purchasing, Central Stores, and the
Miami University Bookstore are the primary purchasing agents at Miami University.
Because Miami is a public school all purchasing must be in accordance with Section
3.12 of the Ohio Revised Code and Competitive Bidding Law.42 These regulations
technically restrict Miami from favoring some vendors over others, but do not disallow
favoring environmentally preferable products. On the contrary, other sections of the Ohio
Revised Code dictate the purchase of products containing recycled materials whenever
feasible (Ohio Department of Natural Resources, 2002). Currently Miami’s purchasing
policies and practices translate to contracts with thousands of vendors for different
materials.

1.4.2 Sustainability Initiatives
Miami has adopted informal customs and practices that result in some environmentally
responsible purchasing. Nearly all of the paper products purchased over the last 10
years have recycled content and it is now common practice to purchase recycled content
plastic lumber for incorporation into siding overhangs and indoor arena seating
renovations.

1.4.3 Peer Institutions
     •   The University of Michigan-Ann Arbor’s purchasing department assists offices
         with green purchasing through their “Buy Green” website and on-line catalog.
         These tools feature 2000 recycled-content or remanufactured materials and 190
         earth-friendly computer products, and link office managers with a variety of green

41
   All information about Miami’s purchasing practices and policies was gathered through interviews with
purchasing agents Bill Shawver and Jim Simpson.
42
   Competitive Bidding Law states that vendor contracts can only last one year.


                                                   36
       product suppliers. Michigan also have a paper procurement policy that mandates
       recycled content in all paper purchases.
   •   The University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill purchases only cleaning products
       that have passed both environmental and economic criterion. They also feature
       recycled content and natural flooring, and have a paper procurement policy
       dictating at least 30% recycled content.
   •   Duke University adopted a set of environmentally preferable purchasing
       guidelines in 2004, and their stores adopted a separate green purchasing policy.
       Due at least in part to Duke’s commitment to environmental stewardship, their
       sole supplier—Corporate Express—hired an intern to promote Environmentally
       Preferable Purchasing at Duke. Corporate Express also conducts products
       research and gives those that qualify the “EarthSaver” label.

1.4.4 Opportunities for Improvement
Despite some positive efforts and the availability of ‘green’ alternatives for nearly all
materials purchased for the university and bookstore, green procurement at Miami lacks
organization, monitoring, and support. There are currently no policies or incentives for
purchasing environmentally preferable materials, and there is no directive to suppliers to
provide environmental information about their products other than government-regulated
hazardous materials. The lack of a tracking/monitoring program for green purchasing
hinders evaluation of individual and categorical vending contracts, and makes it
impossible to adequately promote environmentally preferable procurement to office staff.


1.5 Land Use
Land use influences soil, water and air quality. A high concentration of impervious
surfaces replaces GHG-absorbing foliage, increases soil erosion, hastens pollutants to
the waterways, and increases ambient temperature creating a ‘heat island’. Landscaping
often involves chemical application and non-native plant placement, introducing
pollutants and potentially invasive species to the environment. The typical university built
environment is sizeable, with many buildings linked by networks of sidewalks and side-
roads. Campus aesthetic is prized, and many schools go to great lengths to maintain a
carefully manicured landscape of greenery and brick. Once proclaimed to be “the
prettiest campus that ever was” by poet Robert Frost, Miami struggles to maintain a
balance between its renowned natural setting and a nationally competitive development




                                              37
pace. With Oxford recently designated ‘urban’ in accordance with U.S. Census Bureau
guidelines this balance has become even more precarious (Bauer et al, 2004).

1.5.1 Built Environment
Miami University’s Oxford campus has more than 100 buildings located within a 1.7 mi2
area. These structures, combined with the approximately 37 miles of sidewalks and 15
miles of streets and drives that crisscross the campus reveal a built environment that is
actually quite extensive (Physical Facilities, 1997). As of 1997 about 20% of the campus
was impervious surfaces, with several building projects having broken ground since
then.

1.5.2 Landscaping Practices
There are approximately 8,500 trees on campus, representing about 3000 unique
species. Miami maintains an impressive and detailed inventory of all trees on campus,
including location, species/type, status, and history of treatments. Based on a partial
inventory of the records, it is estimated that about ¾ of the trees are native to this
region.43 Shrubs and flowerbeds are rotated frequently so they are not tracked with the
same level of detail as with the tree species, making a comprehensive plant assessment
a near impossibility.


Three departments contribute to chemical application at Miami: Special Facilities,
Maintenance, and Campus Services. Campus Services and Special Facilities follow
Integrated Pest Management (IPM), which specifies use of chemicals only as a last
resort and in a pest-specific manner. Approximately 470 gallons of Round-Up, Confront,
Scythe, and Scotts chemicals are applied to campus areas excluding playing and
practice fields, with other more toxic chemicals used when IPM guidelines determine it to
be necessary (Table 8).


Chemical        General         Impact44                                         Percentile ranking
                purpose                                                          for composite
                                                                                        45
                                                                                 hazards

43
   The most common tree species on campus were White Ash, Sugar Maple, Black Walnut, Black Locust,
and Norway Spruce.
44
   Partnership for Pesticide Bylaws, 2002 (Round-Up, Touchdown, Scotts, and 2,4-D below). Cox, 1998
(Confront). SFGOV, 2005 (Scythe). Environmental Defense, 2002 (Round-Up, Confront, Triple Threat,
Malathion, Scotts, Touchdown, Razor Pro, Dursban, Proxol, and Malathion). PesticideInfo.org (Subdue).
45
   Environmental Defense has reviewed a host of commonly applied chemicals and provided a percentile
ranking system for combined human health and ecological hazards. The ‘score’ refers to the percent of total


                                                    38
                                                                                   th
Round-Up        Herbicide       Active ingredient (glyphosate) known to          25 percentile
                                cause illness (Pesticide Action Network
                                North America, 1997), and is suspected of
                                being toxic to the cardio-vascular system,
                                blood, gastro-intestinal system, liver,
                                neural system, reproduction system, and
                                respiratory system; inert ingredients
                                (xylene and toluene) are neural and fetal
                                toxins according to the US Health and
                                Human Services; linked to spontaneous
                                abortion; highly toxic to fish
                                                                                    th
Confront        herbicide       A chlorpyrifos chemical                          75 percentile
                                (organophosphate); class II toxicity;
                                neurotoxin for developing brain and fetal
                                toxin; inert ingredients are irritants in
                                humans and acute toxins in fish
Scythe          herbicide       Active ingredient (petargonic acid) is a         N/A
                                Class II chemical; contains inert
                                ingredient that is known carcinogen
                                (ethylene oxide)
Scotts          insecticide/    Active ingredient (dicamba) is listed by         50% (ecology); 25-
                herbicide       the US EPA as developmental toxin, is a          50% (human)
                                suspected carcinogen and reproductive
                                toxin, and is known to persist in surface
                                and groundwater
                                                                                   th
Touchdown       herbicide       Active ingredient (glyphosate) known to          75 percentile
                                cause illness (Pesticide Action Network
                                North America, 1997), and is a suspected
                                toxicant to cardio-vascular system, blood,
                                gastro-intestinal system, liver, neural
                                system, reproductive system, and
                                respiratory system; inert ingredients
                                (xylene and toluene) are neural and fetal
                                toxins according to the US Health and
                                Human Services; linked to spontaneous
                                abortion; highly toxic to fish
Reward          herbicide       Active ingredient (diquat) suspected of          50%
                                being toxic to the liver, neural system, and
                                skin
Triple Threat   herbicide       Active ingredients (2,4-D46 and bromacil)            th
                                                                                 100 and 25
                                                                                               th

                                are both suspected carcinogens and               percentiles
                                endocrine toxicants; 2,4-D is also               respectively
                                suspected of being toxic to the developing
                                fetus, the cardio-vascular system, blood,
                                endocrine system, gastro-intestinal
                                system, liver, neural system, reproductive
                                system, respiratory system, and the skin
                                                                                    th
Razor Pro       herbicide       Active ingredient (glycosophate) is known        75 percentile
                                to cause illness, and is a suspected
                                toxicant to cardio-vascular system, blood,


chemicals in their database that were more harmful than the chemical in question. The lower the percentile
the more hazardous the chemical is.
46
   2,4-D is a component of Agent Orange that is persistent in surface and groundwater (Partnership for
Pesticide Bylaws).


                                                    39
                              gastro-intestinal system, liver, neural
                              system, reproductive system, and
                              respiratory system
Momentum       herbicide      Active ingredient (clopyralid) is a           Not reviewed
                              reproductive toxicant that is persistent in
                              soil and a likely water contaminant; its
                              inert ingredients are severe irritants and
                              toxic to fish
Acclaim        herbicide      Active ingredient (fenoxaprop) is             Not reviewed
                              considered moderately toxic by the US
                              EPA
                                                                              th
Dursban        insecticide    A chlorpyrifos chemical                       75 percentile
                              (organophosphate); class II toxicity;
                              neurotoxin for developing brain;
                                                                              th
Proxol         insecticide    A trichlorfon chemical (organophosphate),     50 percentile
                              class II toxicity
M-Pedre        insecticide/   Class II toxicity                             Not reviewed
               fungicide
                                                                              th
Malathion      insecticide    A suspected toxicant to cardio-vascular       75 percentile
                              system, blood, gstro-intestinal system,       (among the top
                              liver, endocrine system, immune system,       10% for ecosystem
                              neural system, reproductive system,           hazard)
                              respiratory system, and the skin
Subdue         fungicide      Active ingredient (metalaxyl) is              Not reviewed
                              considered moderately toxic by the US
                              EPA, and is a potential ground water
                              contaminant
Table 8. Listing of chemicals applied by Miami’s groundskeepers and building maintenance crews.
Classes range from I (most toxic) to IV (least toxic) as per US EPA guidelines.


In addition to the chemicals used under IPM, TrueGreen ChemLawn is contracted to
apply fertilizers and herbicides at least twice per year. The chemicals they use include
Triplet (containing 2,4-D, dicamba, and MCPP) to control broadleaf weeds; fertilizers
containing urea to inject nitrogen into the soil, inorganic phosphates and potassium;
Lesco Pre-M (containing pendimethalin) for crabgrass prevention; Banvel (containing
dibamba) for weed control; and MCPP for weed control. According to fact sheet provided
by ChemLawn these chemicals range in toxicity from ‘practically nontoxic’ to ‘moderately
toxic’, but there are many studies linking them to serious environmental and human
health issues, and Ohio law requires placement of a ‘keep off’ sign on treated premises
for 24 hours (TrueGreen ChemLawn).


Special Facilities is responsible for maintenance of the baseball, soccer, track and
football practice fields. They generally apply considerably more chemicals on these
areas than Campus Services and Maintenance do on the main campus lawns. Pesticide
amounts are not available because application varies significantly with weather


                                                40
conditions, but it is estimated that approximately 3,500 pounds of granular fertilizer are
applied to the fields each year. Due to the grass types used for many of the fields
pesticide-resistance is a problem for Special Facilities. More expensive chemicals must
be rotated into the treatment cycle as a result, some of which cost up to $500/lb ($4,000
for a single treatment). The chemicals used by Special Facilities include 2,4-D, Acclaim,
and Momentum. Though they generally follow the “less is better” approach to chemical
application, the only formal guidance Special Facilities workers have is an application
schedule provided by Lesco, the chemical supplier.

1.5.3 Sustainability Initiatives
Landscape Guidelines (Appendix C of the Building Construction Standards Manual)
include some erosion controls including netting and specialized mulching on slopes.
Miami’s groundskeepers claim to take their chemical application guidance from
Integrated Pest Management (IPM). They are to first determine whether chemicals are
necessary at all, then attempt to eliminate the problem using minimal amounts of pest-
specific chemicals. They are to use broad-spectrum chemicals only when it is deemed
absolutely necessary.


Though there is no official land conservation policy for Miami’s main campus the Board
of Trustees passed resolution R83-26 in 1982 to designate six sites on campus totaling
approximately 50 acres as areas “deserving permanent protection”.47

1.5.4 Peer Institutions
     •   Using Integrate Pest Management (IPM) the University of Michigan-Ann Arbor
         was able to document a 17% reduction in pesticide use on their campus. Their
         chemical application program includes use of portable containment pads to
         reduce overflow and a Drift Management Plan to control air release.
     •   The University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill also uses IPM, has a policy against
         use of exotic plants in landscaping, and has installed rain sensors in irrigation
         systems to reduce water consumption.
     •   Though 30% of the University of Florida’s campus is impervious surface, 18% is
         under some form of conservation.

47
  Miami’s Natural Areas program has protected 1,000 acres around Miami’s main campus. The Bachelor
Preserve, not specifically addressed in this report, is approximately 400 acres of greenspace and ecology
research area.


                                                    41
       •   Duke University’s 2000 Master Plan includes conservation zones, in which they
           agreed to put 1,220 acres of Duke Forest on North Carolina's Registry of Natural
           Heritage. This move will prevent development in those locations. They are also
           working to reconstruct an 8-acre wetland as part of their storm water
           management strategy. The Duke Forest is certified under two leading agencies
           as a Sustainable Forest.

1.5.5 Opportunities for Improvement
The campus plant inventory is currently a paper-based operation that does not include
shrubs or flower beds. This hinders comprehensive assessment, and would make
implementation of a native plant policy even more challenging. If a policy requiring or
favoring native plants in campus landscaping were ever realized, an electronic database
system48 to track general location, species, and treatment of every plant on campus
would facilitate implementation of that policy.


Native plants are better adapted to their environment, requiring less maintenance and
promoting more efficient landscaping practices. The reduced maintenance requirement
also reduces chemical, fuel, water and labor costs. Native plants also provide
educational value, embodying the benefits of environmental stewardship. Though the
tree inventory revealed a large percentage of native plantings, shrub and flowerbed
species are selected primarily for aesthetic appeal rather than maintenance costs.


Placement and composition of Miami’s playing/practice fields are not conducive to
watershed quality protection. Fields located directly adjacent to a local waterway are
regularly treated with fertilizers and pesticides to maintain ‘flawless’ turf, which inevitably
winds up polluting the watershed. Sand-based turf with difficult to maintain grass types
drain so efficiently that fertilizers and pesticides are easily washed away, decreasing
their effectiveness and thus increasing their use. The new women’s softball field
currently under construction is planned to be a sand-based field that will drain into the
stream below. Instead of flawless playing fields with grass types and soil-bed systems
imported from schools in other climate regions, Poa grass (or some other resilient see
type) on a mixed bed of clay, topsoil and peat could be used to significantly reduce
maintenance and environmental costs.

48
     System should be CAD-based to maintain consistency across other Physical Facilities functions.


                                                     42
Miami University, despite development projects over the years, still retains the famous
natural beauty that serves as a lure for faculty and students alike. However, despite
supposed protection several of the six ‘designated open spaces’ came under came
under scrutiny for development in late 2004 as potential locations for the new School of
Business building. Negative public response to one of the sites being considered
resulted in reconsideration, and the building will now be constructed where an old
residence hall currently stands. With the six ‘designated open spaces’ still intact, there is
an opportunity to permanently protect them from future development.49


1.6 Transportation
Federal transportation programs have been named by some as the initial impetus for
urban and suburban sprawl, a problem plaguing many regions today (Sierra Club). While
it might be conceivable to convince people to turn off the lights when they leave a room,
convincing them to park their cars and ride a bus tends to be a much taller order. In
addition to the host of student, faculty and staff personal vehicles, the university fleet is a
sizable contributor to traffic, parking and air quality problems. Diesel fueled vehicles,
while sturdy and long-lasting, are a significant human and environmental health risk—
“diesel emissions are considered the #1 air toxics cancer risk in the United States” (Ohio
Environmental Council). Diesel exhaust contains at least 43 toxic contaminants that wind
up in lungs, watersheds and topsoil (Environmental Defense). Reducing use of diesel
fuel bestows clear benefits to human and environmental health. Miami University is
currently a significant emitter of several diesel by-products (Table 1), significantly
degrading watersheds and soils and affecting wildlife.



1.6.1 University Fleet
Miami University’s motor pool maintains 301 licensed vehicles and 300 off-road vehicles,
run entirely on unleaded and diesel fuels (Figures 15 and 16). The university fleet adds
more than 1500 tons of CO2 emissions annually to the emissions footprint discussed
above (Section 1.1).




49
  The six areas are Bishop Circle Area, Cook Field, Peffer Park, the Formal Gardens Area, the Slant Walk
Area, and the undeveloped portions of Western Campus (with one excepted parcel).


                                                   43
                      University Fleet Fuel Consumption
                                       (2000-2004)


             150000


             100000
   Gallons




                                                                           Diesel
                                                                           Unleaded
              50000


                 0
                      2000      2001      2002       2003     2004
                                          Year



Figure 15. Diesel fuel consumption has been relatively steady over the past 5 years, while unleaded
has slowly but steadily risen since 2001 (Metro usage not included here).



                                 Fleet Fuel Usage
                             (December 2003-January 2005)
          16000
          14000
          12000
          10000                                                            unleaded
   Gallons 8000
           6000                                                            diesel
           4000
           2000
              0
                  N tob r
                        n r




                       em r
                        nu r
                  D em r
                            ch




                            ne
                            ri l
                      br ry




                  Se ug y




                             y
                      M ry



                            ay




                       em t
                    Ja be




                    O be


                    ec be
                    Ja be
                    p t us


                    ov e
                     A l




                           ar
                          Ju
                   Fe ua



                         Ap
                         ua




                         Ju
                         M
                         ar
                       em




                       c
                    ec
                 D




                                         Month


Figure 16. Fuel consumption fluctuations throughout the year are roughly in line with the academic
schedule, at its peak while school is in session (Metro usage not included here).




1.6.2 Parking and Traffic
Parking and traffic are a perceived problem at Miami and throughout the city of Oxford
(Hostetler, 2002; Oxford Police Department, 2001). Miami administrators have
responded to parking and traffic issues with a mix of supply- and demand-side
approaches. The supply-side approach features construction of more parking spaces
and structures. As of December 2004 there were 6,942 parking spaces on campus;



                                                 44
12,293 annual passes were sold for academic year 2003-2004, 24,446 including
temporary and visitor passes. One multi-level parking facility is currently under
construction that will chiefly be used for special event and faculty/staff parking. Two
other parking structures have been proposed for Miami’s Oxford campus. Conventional
parking spaces cost anywhere from $9,000 to $25,000 each (Eagan and Keniry, 1998).
The supply-side approach has proven to be far more expensive than the alternatives,
though convincing people to park their cars and ride a bus is not always easy. Demand-
side approaches include establishment, expansion and promotion of a mass transit
system, and restricting the number of parking permits granted annually.

1.6.3 Sustainability Initiatives
Miami’s 2004-2005 Student Handbook formally discourages students from bringing cars
to school; barring 11 exceptions, freshmen are not permitted to register cars for parking
permits (Miami University, 2004). The Miami Metro is a bus service for students, faculty
and staff that has been in operation since 1990. Miami now contracts out the 19-bus
service, which is funded entirely through student fees and faculty/staff permits. All
students pay $38-76 annually, while faculty and staff have the option of purchasing
semester passes for $33. The service runs seven routes on and around the main Oxford
campus, to and from the Hamilton campus, and to and from the Cincinnati and Dayton
airports. Miami Metro ridership has held fairly steady since its first major surge in 1991,
though new highs were reached in 2001-02, 2002-03 and 2003-04 academic years
(Figures 17 and 18).

                                     Ridership
                              (1990-91 through 2003-04)


              2000000
              1500000
   # riders




              1000000
               500000
                    0
                   19 -9 1

                   19 9 2

                   19 -9 3

                   19 -9 4

                   19 9 5

                   19 -9 6
                   19 -9 7

                   19 9 8

                   19 -9 9

                   20 -0 0

                   20 0 1

                   20 -0 2

                   20 -0 3

                          4
                       -0
                       -




                       -




                       -




                       -
                      0
                     91

                     92

                     93

                     94

                     95

                     96
                     97

                     98

                     99

                     00

                     01

                     02

                     03
                    9
                 19




                                           Academic Year



Figure 17. Every bus driver keeps a tally of the number of riders getting on at each stop, resulting in
an annual ridership tally.


                                                  45
                                         Ridership
                                         (5-yr periods)


                 6800000
                 6700000
                 6600000
      # riders




                 6500000
                 6400000
                 6300000
                 6200000
                           1st 5 years           2nd 5 years               3rd 5 years
                                                   periods



Figure 18. The transportation office also reviews ridership in five year increments. The 3rd 5-year
period is incomplete since 2004-05 academic year data was only available through February 27, 2005.


The Metro buses in the diesel fleet average a fuel efficiency of six gallons per mile and
range from 1-14 years old. Though the fleet consumes around 55,000 gallons of fuel
annually, adding another 636 tons CO2 to the atmosphere each year, ridership analysis
indicates a net prevention of estimated 5000 tons of CO2 annually.


Miami has made two attempts to review and reduce the environmental impact of its fleet
over the past 10 years. Feasibility studies were conducted in 1994 and 1998 to evaluate
the potential for switching to alternative fuels, including bio-diesel and compressed
natural gas. In 1994 four vehicles were retrofitted with natural gas conversion kits and
monitored for six months to assess the feasibility of full fleet transition.


Like other state-funded institutions, Miami requires all new passenger vehicle purchases
to be Flexible-Fuel Vehicles capable of running on ethanol-mix fuel that produces lower
emissions.50 Thanks to this requisite roughly 11% of the licensed fleet is now comprised
of FFV’s (Figure 19).




50
     This policy is a part of Miami’s compliance with the Clean Air Act.


                                                      46
                    Fleet Make-up
                        (2005)


              11%          11%




                                        diesel
                     78%                unleaded
                                        FFV


Figure 19. All Flexible-Fuel Vehicles (FFV) are being fueled with unleaded gasoline due to apparent
lack of ethanol-mix availability and prohibitive cost.



1.6.4 Peer Institutions
    •   The University of Michigan-Ann Arbor has the state’s largest alternative fleet,
        with more than 400 vehicles running on bio-diesel, ethanol and electricity.
        Purchasing ethanol off-site costs them $.30 more per gallon than gasoline, so
        UM-A is building an ethanol plant on site to reduce costs. UM-A also runs a free
        bus service for the university community at large, and a vanpool program for
        faculty and staff.
    •   The University of Carolina-Chapel Hill has free park-and-ride lots and a free bus
        system. They have instituted the Commuter Alternatives Program, which rewards
        people for using the transit alternatives. UNC also evaluates campus impacts on
        area traffic.
    •   The University of Wisconsin-Madison is in the process of switching its diesel fleet
        to B20, a diesel-bio-diesel mix. They expect this transition to reduce their
        particulate matter air emissions by 15%, hydrocarbons by 13%, CO by 8%, and
        CO2 by 16%.
    •   The University of Texas-Austin processes their food grease into usable bio-
        diesel. They have an alternative fuel policy that instructs departments on the
        state and university guidelines for vehicle purchase. The policy text lists out
        acceptable alternative fuels, including the advantages and disadvantages of
        each.




                                                   47
1.6.5 Opportunities for Improvement
Both the 1994 and 1998 alternative fuel studies concluded that the environmental
benefits were not sufficient to merit the economic cost, so unleaded and diesel fuels
remain the fleet staple. Due to the lack of immediate availability and prohibitive cost of
having ethanol shipped in, even the FFV’s still run on gasoline. The primary focus of the
studies was compressed natural gas (CNG), which requires purchase, installation and
upkeep of expensive conversion kits for existing vehicles and a regular supply of CNG.
In addition to the prohibitive economic costs, CNG is not the most environmentally
sustainable alternative. Natural gas is a finite natural resource, disruptive to extract,
imported in significant amounts from other countries, and must undergo considerable
processing before transport and use (NaturalGas.org, 2004). Table 9 outlines the
advantages, disadvantages and local potential for the three most popular alternative
vehicle fuels.


Fuel Type    Description            Advantages                  Disadvantages              Local Potential
Bio-diesel   - Made from            - Higher octane rating      - Costs 1¢ more per        - Supplier in
             soybeans or            and better lubricity        each 1-2% blended          Milford, OH
             “yellow grease”        improves performance        - Mixes with higher oil    (Lykins Oil
             (used cooking oil)     and reduces                 content gel in cold        Company
             - Can be mixed         maintenance                 weather                    working with
             with petroleum         - Reduces hydrocarbon,      - Engine conversion kit    Griffin
             diesel to improve      particulate, toxic and      required for passenger     Industries)
             cold weather           greenhouse gas              vehicles                   - Miami already
             versatility            emissions                   - Can’t be used in         ‘recycling’ food
                                    - Provides re-use outlet    vehicles with rubber       grease from
                                    for dining hall food        hoses                      dining halls
                                    grease                      - Initial training
                                    - No engine conversion      requirement for
                                    kit required for diesel     maintenance staff and
                                    vehicles                    operators
                                    - Significantly reduces
                                    operator health effects
                                    like headaches and
                                    fatigue (Keene State
                                    College; Environmental
                                    Defense)
                                    - Glyercin byproduct can
                                    be sold for other uses
Ethanol      Made from corn,        - Higher octane rating      - Gasoline vehicles        - Forgivable
             agricultural, paper,   - Reduces emissions         require conversion kits    loans available
             and/or liquid bio-     - Made from renewable       - Currently limited fuel   to install fueling
             wastes                 resource                    presence (would have       facilities
                                    - Can be mixed with         to build fueling station   (National
                                    gasoline to decrease        or pay exorbitant fuel     Ethanol Vehicle
                                    cost                        transportation costs)      Coalition)
                                    - Ohio market for ethanol
                                    increasing
                                    - Miami currently has
                                    expanding fleet of
                                    Flexible Fuel Vehicles



                                                   48
                                    capable of running on
                                    ethanol mix

Compressed    - Made from           - Safer than gasoline       - Requires special        - fast fill station
Natural Gas   methane from gas      - Performs well and         refueling stations        in Butler and
              well production or    reduces maintenance         - Vehicles currently in   Hamilton
              biogas source (e.g.   - Less polluting than       fleet require costly      Counties
              landfill)             gasoline and diesel         conversion kits           (Cinergy)
              - Comes in            - Less expensive than       - Maintains reliance on
              Compressed            gasoline or diesel          fossil fuels
              Natural Gas or        - Higher initial purchase
              Liquefied Natural     cost of natural gas
              Gas                   vehicles is offset by
                                    lower fuel and
                                    maintenance costs
Table 9. Description of select alternative vehicle fuels (Central Ohio Clean Fuels Coalition, 2003).


Many universities, some featured above in section 1.6.4, are transitioning their fleets to
ethanol mixes and bio-diesel, even going so far as to build on-site ethanol fueling
stations to reduce fuel transport costs. Bio-diesel is becoming more and more widely
available—a Keene State College representative noted in an email correspondence that
they now have five bio-diesel suppliers to choose from, up from a single supplier in
2003. Closer to home Ohio State University tried out a bio-diesel blend in a third of the
campus buses, and now has plans to use it to fuel their entire diesel fleet. Despite the
challenges of switching to bio-diesel many jurisdictions find the benefits make it worth
the cost, and universities that make the switch are happy with the results (Michigan
State University, 2005; Geddes, 2005; Jensen, 2005).


1.7 Building Construction and Renovation
It has been estimated that buildings account for 36% of total energy consumption, 65%
of electricity consumption, 30% of greenhouse gas emissions, 30% of raw materials use,
30% of waste output, and 12% of potable water consumption in the United States (US
Green Building Council, 2005). With 125 buildings on the 2000-acre main campus and a
steady stream of construction and renovation projects planned for the next five years,
Miami’s built environment is considerable.

1.7.1 Sustainability Initiatives
Miami’s Building Construction Standards Manual (1997) specifies a Life-Cycle Cost
Analysis (LCCA) be completed for any new building project, including capital, operating
and maintenance costs for each project alternative. According to the manual, the




                                                   49
alternative with the lowest LCCA is supposed to be selected barring budgetary
constraints.


The standards manual also advises consideration of several passive and active design
methods at reducing energy consumption. Passive methods include:
       Optimize roof, wall and floor thermal resistance
       Evaluate the amount of fenestration
       Optimize glass “U” valves and reflectivity
       Evaluate the use of natural ventilation and lighting
       Evaluate the ration of interior/perimeter space to minimize annual heating and
       cooling energy consumption
       Optimize window placement and arrangement considering the impact on annual
       lighting, heating, and cooling requirements
       Examine building orientation with respect to the sun, prevailing winds and
       available natural protection
       Optimize building utilization to minimize unnecessary lighting, ventilating, heating
       and cooling, energy consumption
       Evaluate the impact of reducing space available for mechanical systems on the
       efficiency of those systems

Active methods include:
       Evaluate space utilization in selecting design considerations
       Consider separate systems for areas with different utilization schedules
       Evaluate the impact of central systems vs. terminal systems with regard to
       diversity
       Optimize piping and duct sizes with respect to friction loss
       Evaluate variable air and water flow concepts
       Evaluate heat recovery from exhaust, interior spaces, process loads. Investigate
       heat recovery for all applications that run 24 hours and have greater than 10%
       outside air or all applications where outside air percentage exceeds 20%
       Optimize equipment operation schedules with respect to space utilization
       Evaluate system and equipment maintenance and replacement costs
       Evaluate solar energy systems
       Evaluate district heat/cooling storage concepts. Consider the energy cost impact
       of power demand management
       Evaluate power distribution systems for energy losses
       Optimize lighting systems
       Evaluate control systems which reduce unnecessary lighting and other
       equipment usage
       Optimize building ventilation requirements
       Evaluate air cooled condenser versus water cooled

Many of these activities would contribute to LEED™ certification for any given building
project if pursued.




                                            50
There is an additional specification to consider whether projects are suited particularly
well for “non-depletable energy sources” despite expected higher initial costs. The
guidelines specify an eight year payback on passive-architectural alternatives, six years
for active-system alternatives, and five years for active-component alternatives, though
the University/State Architect can approve alternatives with longer payback periods.


Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED™) is a building certification
program created by the US Green Building Council. LEED™ certified buildings have
reduced environmental impact, help support the sustainable product and service market,
and showcase sustainability to the community. The case for LEED™ at Miami University
has in effect already been made. The new Richard T. Farmer School of Business
building project was recently approved for design and construction in accordance with
the LEED™ Silver certification checklist following a presentation compiled by students
with the Architecture Department.

1.7.2 Peer Institutions
Of other top 25 public schools, less than 10% currently have LEED™ certified buildings
presently on their campuses, half have at least one planned project registered for
certification in the near future, and 28% have integrated sustainable building design into
university policy (Table 10). In addition to the top public schools, the University of
Cincinnati has registered nine projects for future certification, and many notable private
schools have gotten into sustainable construction and renovation.51
School                             Certified    Registered    Green
                                                              Building
                                                              Policy?
UC-Berkeley                        0            1             Y
University of Michigan             0            1             Y
University of North Carolina-      0            0             Y
Chapel Hill
University of California-San       0            0             Y
Diego
University of Illinois*            0            1             N/A
UC-Davis                           0            1             Y
UC-Irvine                          0            2             Y
UC-Santa Barbara                   1            0             Y
University of Texas-Austin         0            1             N/A
University of Washington           1            4             N/A
Pennsylvania State University      0            1             N/A


51
 Harvard, Duke, and Carnegie Mellon Universities all have LEED™ certified projects. Harvard, Yale,
MIT, Dartmouth, Northwestern, and Cornell all have registered projects.


                                                    51
University of Florida             1           6              N/A
University of Maryland            0           1              N/A
University of Georgia             0           1              N/A
Miami University**                0           0*             N/A
The Ohio State University         0           1              N/A
TOTAL                             2           21             7
Table 10. Listing of LEED™ certified and registered construction and renovation projects for
universities listed in the top 25 of the 2005 U.S. News and World Report “Top Publics”. Miami
University (**) plans to build the new school of business building in accordance with LEED™ Silver
specifications. University of Illinois’ (*) Facilities and Services Department listed environmental
stewardship and commitment to improving campus sustainability in their guiding principles and goal
statement (University of Illinois, 2004).



1.7.3 Opportunities for Improvement
Miami’s Building Construction Standards Manual, while admirable, has not kept pace
with the developments in sustainability in design, construction, renovation and
demolition. It focuses almost entirely on energy conservation and efficiency, leaving out
materials, water use, site suitability, etc. The manual’s LCCA is a useful environmental
tool in theory, but in practice it is easy to manipulate to fit the desired building design.
Since building design at Miami must conform to strict aesthetic and infrastructural
restrictions, the LCCA is usually conducted to support an already favored building plan
(Wenner). Even if actual LEED™ certification is not fully embraced at Miami the
principles can still be used to guide a manual update. Under a green building policy
things like recycled-content carpeting, low-flow plumbing fixtures, rooftop rain collection
systems, and built-in light sensors could save Miami hundreds of thousands of dollars
and significantly reduce its environmental impact.


1.8 Dining Halls
The current dominant food production system impacts the environment in many ways,
including consumption of excessive amounts of fossil fuels, water and topsoil. 17% of
total U.S. fossil fuel consumption goes towards supporting the current food production
system, and conventional agricultural practices introduce massive amounts of chemicals
into the environment. Stream and lake sedimentation, topsoil erosion, water and air
pollution, and diminished biodiversity have been attributed to the ‘modern’ industrial
agricultural processes (Horrigan et al, 2002). These adverse effects are multiplied as the
distance food travels from farm to plate increases—the average prepared American
meal includes food items imported from no less than five countries (Pirog, 2003).
University dining services must provide for a large clientele with diverse tastes and


                                                52
needs while keeping costs low and quality high. In doing so they consume significant
amounts of water for food preparation and disposal, contribute a significant portion to the
total campus waste, and purchase large amounts of fresh and packaged food.


Purchasing food from local sources instead of national suppliers reduces transport and
packaging requirements, helps sustain the local economy and preserve local farmland,
and more effectively relates the reality of the food production process to the university
community. There are legislative measures that enable state institutions to favor
providers from the local area, as well as those that offer energy efficient products and
services52. Despite these advantages, there does seem to be an inherent institutional
bias towards national food distributors and their conventionally raised goods. National
food distributors can usually provide more food (both quantity and variety) at a cheaper
price, which tends to overshadow the benefits mentioned above.

1.8.1 Food, Services and Disposal
Food is controlled by Miami’s Culinary Support Center (CSC), which selects and orders
food for the dining halls, distributes it, and makes baked goods and some meal
components.53 In addition the CSC there is Carillon Catering, athletic event concessions,
á la carte markets, and vending machines. The Shriver Center and Marcum Conference
Center receive some of their food from sources other than the CSC. Some food is
delivered directly to the dining halls (e.g. milk), and other foods are delivered to the CSC
for preparation (e.g. apples are washed at CSC and then sent out). Deliveries are made
to dining halls six days per week.


Food selection is done using a blind tasting system at the CSC, where the public is
invited to taste test food and submit their opinions. Some food, like cereal, is selected
according to student surveys. Suppliers are selected following a detailed bid process
required of all state-funded institutions. Any purchase costing more than $10,000 must
go to bid54; smaller purchases are made at Miami’s discretion. With this system


52
   Section B of 125.09 of the Ohio Revised Code and the 1983 Buy Ohio Act allow state institutions to
favor energy efficient and local (Ohio-based) suppliers.
53
   The CSC has a bakery, a hot production line (soups and sauces), a produce processing line, and garde
mange (for cold prepared foods sold at the á la carte markets.
54
   This is a state requirement that Miami has voluntarily lowered to $2,000 to allow greater competition.
Putting something to bid amounts to submitting general product specifications (e.g. 1/4” cut potato fries
with seasoning) to approximately 25 broadline distributors and brokers which then take the specifications


                                                    53
approximately 70 suppliers are used at Miami, though 70-80% of the food comes from
only five: Gordon Food Service, US Food Service, Castellini, Sysco, and Ellenbee-
Leggett. The Buy Ohio Act (Amended House Bill 271, 115th General Assembly) requires
Miami to favor local food suppliers when quality is equal and cost is within 5% of the
lowest bid. The Ohio Revised Code also says Miami may “require that each bidder
provide sufficient information about the energy efficiency or energy usage of the bidder's
product or service”.


As addressed in Section 1.2 above, dining halls consume a large amount of water in
their food preparation, clean-up, and disposal processes. They also produce food and
paper waste. Pulpers and garbage disposals are used to process food and paper waste
for disposal.

1.8.2 Sustainability Initiatives
    •   In addition to actively supporting recycling and other waste reduction programs,55
        HDGS has reduced its water and materials waste by installing pulpers in three of
        its five main dining halls. As compared to garbage disposals, pulpers reduce
        waste by up to 70% in each facility, and drastically reduce water consumption by
        repeatedly cycling it back through the system.
    •   The CSC employs some reusable containers for food shipment between the CSC
        and the dining halls.
    •   Excess food is consolidated and donated to a charitable food collection service.
    •   All buffet-style dining facilities use washable utensils and plates. Among á la
        carte areas, Bell Tower uses washable trays and plates and Shriver uses
        washable trays.
    •   All Chinet plates, platters and bowls used to provide catered and to-go meals are
        100% post-consumer recycled content and biodegradable. Napkins are 100%
        recycled content (20% post- and 80% pre-consumer). To-go bags are 65%
        recycled content.




to the food suppliers they work for. Brokers may also offer Miami new products that are not included in the
specifications. The level of detail in the specification varies with food type.
55
   HDGS hosts Waging War on Waste each year, in which a secret waste audit is conducted on dining hall
food and napkin waste, a promotional campaign is run for two months, and then another secret audit is
conducted afterwards to illustrate the effects of conservation.


                                                    54
1.8.3 Peer Institutions
   •   Following a grant-funded composting pilot program that collected 30 tons of food,
       the University of Michigan-Ann Arbor instituted an expanded composting
       program for “prep-waste”. Using the city’s compost facility, UM managed to divert
       more than 190,000 pounds of food waste from the landfill in five years.
   •   The University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill tried local and organic products with
       their current food vendor, but were not satisfied with the overall results of this
       partnership. They have plans to attempt local/organic food purchases again with
       a new vendor.
   •   The University of Wisconsin-Madison was one of the first campuses in the nation
       to initiate a refillable coffee mug program and test its usage. The first “red mug”
       program started in 1984 as a loan-funded student group initiative, but gave way
       to a formal program by the student union in 1989. As with Miami’s program,
       special buttons were added to the cash registers to track sales—early in the
       program’s history about one in every three coffee purchases were red mug
       discounts. In 1990 the student union agreed to apply the discount to all mugs of
       similar size and expand it to include any type of liquid. Their reusable mug
       program saves an estimated 400,000 Styrofoam cups each year, and has been
       copied by all other Big Ten schools since its inception.
   •   The University of Texas-Austin processes their food grease into bio-diesel for
       alternative fuel use, and maintains a student-run garden.
   •   A Yale University project within one of their colleges called Sustainable Food
       Initiative brings in produce from a community garden in New Haven, and 50% of
       their food comes from regional suppliers (compared to 20% for other dining halls
       on campus). The exorbitant cost of this project is paid for through private grant
       donation.
   •   Stanford University purchases 2-5% of their food from regional and organic
       suppliers without significant added cost. In order to bring costly fair trade coffee
       to the dining halls, the Dining Manager agreed to pay the $20,000/yr if customers
       agreed to reduce their dining-related waste by that equivalent; so far the
       agreement has been working well according to the manager (Nadeem Siddiqui).
   •   Yale University composts its food waste.




                                             55
1.8.4 Opportunities for Improvement
Though there does appear to be an institutional bias towards non-local and
conventionally raised food appears to be the norm, public support for organic and local
food is steadily growing. Organic food is a skyrocketing industry, with more and more
people recognizing the health and environmental impacts of conventional farming
(Murphy, 2003). Particularly in areas where farmland is threatened by encroaching
development, locally grown food is also prized for its social value and slightly lower
environmental impact.56 Miami University is lucky enough to be located in a pocket of
local and organic food production that is formally supported by an organized network of
farmers. Between Castellini’s (Cincinnati area) and the abundant local farms to choose
from, Miami is already perfectly positioned to implement formal initiatives such as a
“themed dinner” or “spotlight meal” highlighting local food in select dining halls. These
introductory programs are relatively easy to execute and introduce the benefits of local
food purchasing to the university community. The CSC already employs this concept at
one dining hall on campus with organic foods, so the next logical step would be a
campus-wide expansion. The Miami-Oxford Organic Network would make a valuable
partner in this endeavor, both for menu planning and public relations value.57


Despite recommendations made by an IES Public Service Project in 2002, Miami’s
pulper waste was determined to be too high in food waste to be compostable, and the
endeavor was thought to be too expensive and challenging to coordinate for such a
‘small’ amount of waste.58 However, combining it with yard waste would likely solve the
nutrient imbalance making it a feasible compost substance, and working with local
farmers to arrange delivery to an off-site composting facility would minimize the hassle.
The same opportunity exists for composting Miami’s prep-waste.


Changing attitudes towards waste make reusable container a viable option for reducing
dining service impact. A truly sustainable reusable mug program (e.g. one that offers a
discount for use of any durable mug of a designated size) would not require any

56
   Transportation of even conventionally raised food is a highly consumptive process, requiring large
amounts of fuel and refrigerant.
57
   The Oxford Organic Network (OON) was established in 1999 as a chapter of the Ohio Ecological Food
and Farm Association. It later partnered with faculty and student groups at Miami to become MOON.
MOON holds successful summer farmer’s markets, off-season drop-offs, a lectureship series, and is
working to acquire a storefront in town.
58
   To compost on-site Miami would need to become Class II certified and create a staffed facility.


                                                  56
additional funding outside of program promotion, and would be a simple way to reduce
waste and further indoctrinate campus sustainability. Miami’s reusable mug program
went all but dormant59 following Health Board concerns about contact between the mug
lip and beverage dispensers. This health issue could easily be addressed by limiting the
discount to coffee purchases, where there is no contact between the mug and dispenser
necessary.


Currently there is no readily available information about the energy efficiency of dining
hall equipment. Future purchases that focus on meeting certain energy efficiency
requirements, e.g. Energy Star, could reduce the environmental impact of Miami’s dining
services and save thousands of dollars annually in energy costs.


The Culinary Support Center currently spends $21.75/case on disposable polystyrene
cutlery. Biodegradable utensils cost around $44/case (including shipping), raising the
total annual cost by around 100% per case. Clearly full transformation to more
environmentally preferable utensils would not be feasible without special funding.
However, use of these utensils would be feasible in a model sustainable dining hall or
during a special zero-waste dining event.


2       Institutional Category
Though campus operations may have more obvious influence over the university’s
environmental impact, the opportunities afforded to students, faculty and staff to learn,
teach, research and train on sustainability principles are perhaps even more important in
the long-term. Making a university sustainable requires looking beyond the ecological
footprint of vehicles fleets and power plants.


2.1 Student Opportunities
The primary mission of public universities is to produce knowledgeable, well-rounded,
prepared students. This is accomplished through providing regularly updated curricula,
diverse program and course offerings, and abundant opportunities for social and cultural
interaction. As renowned educator David Orr suggested in Earth in Mind: On Education,
Environment, and the Human Prospect (1994), there is now at least one ranking system
that identifies schools based on their integration of social and environmental stewardship

59
  One discount register key remains at the Shriver Center food court at the demand of one of their
customers.


                                                    57
into their curricula. 100 schools voluntarily submitted to a review of their business school
programs in 2003, and the results were combined into a report called “Beyond Grey
Pinstripes”. The results were listed in four tiers, named 1) “cutting edge”, 2) “moderate
activity”, 3) “significant activity” and 4) “participating school”.

School                      Ranking                    Details
University of Michigan      1- Cutting edge            Corporate Environmental Management
                                                       Program (CEMP)
UC-Berkeley                 3- Significant activity    Center for Environmental Management
                                                       (CEM)
UC-LA                       2- Moderate activity       N/A
UNC-Chapel Hill             1- Cutting edge            Center for Sustainable Enterprise (CSE)
UT-Austin                   2- Moderate activity       N/A
Miami University            4- Participating School    N/A
Table 11. Selected results of WRI “Beyond Grey Pinstripes” report. Shown are the rankings of
participating public schools that were ranked in the top 25 of the 2005 U.S. News and World Report
“Top Publics” listing.


Environmental issues like global warming, the effects of urbanization, and hazardous
waste (e.g. mercury) are coming to the forefront, and are very much interdisciplinary in
nature. Virtually every discipline has a role to play in studying and ultimately solving the
environmental, social and economic problems we face. This imperative is perhaps most
clear in the field of business administration, as more and more corporate executives
choosing to educate themselves and transform their companies into social and
environmental stewards. By ensuring that all students are in some way introduced to and
involved in sustainability issues, universities prepare them for the most current trends in
both the public and private sectors. Students whose education includes fostering an
understanding of and respect for their community will be better prepared to cope with
some of the world’s most pressing issues.

2.1.1 Programs and Courses
Miami University is home to one of the oldest Masters of Environmental Sciences
programs in the country. The Institute of Environmental Sciences was created in 1969,
and was designed to integrate many disciplines into a systematic approach towards
environmental problem solving. The graduate program now involves approximately 105
faculty members in 33 departments (Institute of Environmental Sciences).




                                                  58
As of the 2004-05 academic year Miami University also offers undergraduates a co-
major in Environmental Studies to complement their major degree program.60 In addition
to completing their major requirements, Environmental Studies co-majors must take a
specified number of credit hours in Biological Science, Physical Science (including
courses from Chemistry, Geology, and Geography), Statistics, Social Science (including
courses from Economics, Anthropology, Geography, Political Science), Environmental
Science (including courses from Botany, Chemistry, Geology, Geography, Physics,
Statistics, and Zoology), and Practicum/Synthesis.


The creation of two sustainability-focused minors was recently funded through a summer
fellowship by Miami’s Center for Enhancement of Learning and Teaching in February
2005. The minors—Local Perspectives on Sustainability, and Global Perspectives on
Sustainability—will be open to students of any major, and will include 18 hours
coursework from a variety of departments. This effort was a result of collaboration
between professors in the Geology and Marketing Departments, and internal funding
under Miami’s Community for Enhancement of Learning and Teaching program. The
proposed coursework will be submitted for approval in the fall of 2005, and the minors
should be officially offered within a year after approval.


Miami offers two courses in environmental studies and sustainability that are designed
for and taken by the general student population. ‘Principles in Environmental Science’ is
taught at least annually, and is cross-listed in Botany, Chemistry, Geology, Geography,
Mathematics, Microbiology, Statistics, and Zoology. ‘Sustainability Perspectives in
Resources and Business’ was initially cross-listed in Botany, Business Analysis,
Economics, Finance, Geology, Geography, Management, Zoology, but is offered
infrequently and has been dropped from the Economics, Finance and Management
bulletins.61

                                                        % of courses with
                                                       Sustainability content
 Top 5 Departments                                          (2004-2006)
 Interdisciplinary Studies (Western College Program)                    35.3%
 Botany                                                                 29.2%
 Architecture                                                           24.5%


60
   The co-major carries no formal degree designation. Students in the Environmental Studies co-major
program receive their degree only in their major field of study.
61
   The Sustainability Perspectives course was offered in 2004, but there are currently no plans to offer the
Sustainability course again.


                                                       59
 Geology                                                           24.4%
 Geography                                                         23.8%

 Departments with Largest Gains between 2002-04
 and 2004-06 Bulletins                                 % Change
 Botany                                                            11.9%
 Architecture and Interior Design                                  11.6%
 Geology                                                            4.4%
 Microbiology                                                       3.8%
 Geography                                                          3.5%

 Departments with Largest Losses between 2002-04
 and 2004-06 Bulletins                                 % Change
 Zoology                                                           -1.8%
 Interdisciplinary Studies (Western College Program)               -2.2%
 Business Analysis                                                 -3.3%
 Chemistry and Biochemistry                                        -3.4%
 Finance                                                           -3.7%

Table 12. As expected, the bulk of the sustainability-related courses can be found in science
departments. The Art/Architecture department has significant curriculum focus on several low-
impact design principles, which is in line with significant growth in the sustainable building industry.


Students in the Honors program have the opportunity each semester to take a relatively
new course called Sustainable Regions. The course was organized as part of the
Sustainable Region’s Project (www.users.muohio.edu/klakt/intro.htm) as a result of
faculty initiative. The course will be mainstreamed within the Geography Department
starting in the spring of 2006, after which any student will have the chance to take it.


Miami University requires undergraduates to take a series of related courses outside
their major department, termed Thematic Sequence. Of the 136 Thematic Sequences
offered at Miami, one has direct focus on sustainability issues, and six others have
significant focus in environmental sustainability issues:
    •    ATH 1 – Earth, Ecology and Human Culture
    •    ATH 4 – World Cultures, Policy and Ecology
    •    BOT 1 – Conservation and the Environment
    •    BOT 3 – Plant Ecology
    •    CHM 1 – Chemistry of Environmental Measurements
    •    ECO 5 – Sustainable Systems
    •    GEO 2 – Earth’s Physical Environment

2.1.2 Student Organizations
Student groups tend to vary from year to year, based entirely on organization strength
and advisor involvement. In the 2004-2005 academic year there were seven registered




                                                       60
student groups (2.8% of the total) with environmental or sustainability related focus.62
This figure rivals the business groups, which make up 3.3% of the total. In addition to
student groups, Miami hosts a living-learning residence hall with several floors dedicated
to environmental awareness. The 35 students who volunteer for this program take on a
responsibility to incorporate environmental issues and projects into their daily lives and
curricula.


Public service is a deeply ingrained value at Miami University. Roughly 80% of Miami
students participate in community service activities each year, and many of the student
groups specify community service as one of their primary organizational goals
(http://www.miami.muohio.edu/admission/campuslife/).

2.1.3 Peer Institutions
Half of the top 25 public schools have engaged in significant curriculum building in the
broad field of sustainability (Table 13).

School                   Initiative
University of               MBA emphasis in Corporate Environmental Management
California-Berkeley         Center for Environmental Management was listed as “significant
                            activity” by World Research Institute’s 2003 report (see Table 11)
                            Freshman seminar on sustainability
University of               Corporate Environmental Management Program (CEMP), a joint effort
Michigan-Ann Arbor          between natural resources and business, developed new MBA course
                            BELL project partner (see section 2.2.1 below)
                            CEMP listed as “cutting edge” by World Research Institute’s 2003
                            report (see Table 11)
University of Virginia      BELL project partner
                            Environmental Management and Sustainable Business Initiative
                            created several courses on sustainable business practices for MBA
                            students
                            Fully integrated sustainability into architecture curriculum
University of               Listed as “moderate activity” by World Research Institute’s 2003 report
California-Los              (see Table 11)




62
  Many student groups consider community service, a valuable principle of comprehensive sustainability,
an integral part of their organizational mission. There are also groups with self-imposed service
requirements, as is the case for several sports teams on campus.


                                                  61
Angeles
University of North          Center for Sustainable Enterprise (CSE) launched in 1998 to focus
                                                                        63
Carolina-Chapel Hill         business school on the ‘triple bottom line’
                             Core MBA curriculum includes coursework on sustainability
                                                                                  nd
                             Concentration in Sustainable Enterprise offered for 2 year students
                             CSE listed as “cutting edge” by World Research Institute’s 2003 report
                             (see Table 11)
                             Course offered in campus sustainability
University of                Office of sustainability works with several departments on their
Wisconsin-Madison            curriculum and offers some graduate student funding
University of Illinois-      Masters degree in sustainability
Urbana Champaign
University of                Offers interdisciplinary minor in sustainability
California-Irvine
University of                Education for Sustainable Living Program is a collaborative
California-Santa             interdisciplinary program in which students form action research teams
Barbara                      with guest lecturers, faculty, administration and community members
University of Texas-         Joined Management Institute for Environment and Business, the
Austin                       parent organization of BELL (see section 2.2.1 below)
                             Education Committee under Campus Environment Center
                             Bridging Disciplines Program in the Environment
University of                Four courses related to sustainability
Washington
University of Florida        Offers honors course in sustainability
Table 13. Public school initiatives to build sustainability curricula.

2.1.4 Opportunities for Improvement
There is striking lack of environmental sustainability in the most recent course offerings
of several departments where potential relevance exists:
         Comparative Religion (potential: religion and the environment)
         Communication (potential: environmental journalism)
         Psychology (potential: environmental impact on mental health)
         Management (potential: business and the environment)
         Marketing (potential: green marketing)
         Family Studies and Social Work (potential: environmental justice)
         Engineering Technology (potential: sustainable materials design)
         Manufacturing and Mechanical Engineering (potential: sustainable materials
         design)
Though there are several courses and thematic sequences available to undergraduates,
there is no transcendent course or curriculum guidance to ensure a basic level of
environmental education for all Miami graduates.


63
  The ‘triple bottom line’ is a sustainable business approach that includes social, environmental and
economic costs and benefits of business practices.


                                                    62
2.2 Faculty/Staff Opportunities
Faculty, and staff to varying degrees, is also often the subject of the public university’s
primary mission statement. The faculty is integral to curriculum development and
updating, and plays some part in all campus research regardless of origin. The staff
direct campus and department operations, and in doing so come face to face with some
of the most pressing environmental impacts and sustainability issues to face a university
campus. These two niches of the university community often fill supervisory roles, and
must themselves be properly introduced to and training in campus sustainability if they
are to guide its implementation.

2.2.1 The Center for Sustainable Systems Studies
In 1990 two Miami professors realized the initiation of their much discussed Miami
University Sustainability Project (MUSP). The project’s goal was to provide “a focal point
for collaboration among faculty in the business and science departments who had
interests in understanding the principles of sustainable resource use, corporate public
policy, benign production technology, corporate public policy, and their implications for
business and science education” (Elliot et al, 2003). The project received considerable
external funding and evolved into the Center for Sustainable Systems Studies (CSSS) in
1997.64 MUSP and CSSS’ combined impact include a textbook, a capstone course in
sustainability, a series of workshops and seminars, interactions with representatives
from the private sector and Non-Government Organizations, and regular participation in
the Business Environment Leadership and Learning (BELL) conference circuit.65 The
CSSS focus shifted from curriculum to research, and the center remained active until
2003. The CSSS, now without funding support and with two primary professors retired
and relocated, is all but dormant. Numerous attempts at funding renewal were made
without success, and an industry partnership was pursued to keep the center active,
again without success. The capstone course is now taught only infrequently.

64
   Significant funding allowed for the creation of a temporary Program Associate position to staff the center
and organize projects, conferences, and other events. The university administration (Provost) supported the
transition from project to center, but no significant awards were bestowed by the university to support the
center’s mission despite numerous attempts by core professors.
65
   Miami was one of 25 universities to participate in BELL, an arm of the Management Institute for
Environment and Business (MEB). The MEB was founded by members of the World Resources Institute
(WRI) in 1990 to establish a positive relationship between business and environmentalism through
education. In 1991 the WRI recruited five premier business schools to join the experimental partnership,
which later expanded and evolved into BELL. Today BELL is a program that annually brings together
hundreds of business school faculty, WRI staff members, and representatives from private sector,
government and NGO’s.


                                                     63
2.2.2 Training
There is currently no sustainability-related training for new faculty members. Some new
staff members received an orientation to the university’s recycling and waste reduction
programs, but this is generally limited to Building and Special Services workers with jobs
related to those programs.

2.2.3 Research
The University President asserted in 2003 that “[Miami’s] federal research funding,
despite significant growth in the past decade, is probably only one-third of what it could
be” (Garland, 2003). Possibly as a result of this attention, external funding increased by
nearly $6 million between 2002-03 and 2003-04 academic years. Meanwhile the
proportion of external funding acquired for environmental sustainability-related projects
has generally decreased over the past four years (Table 14).

 Academic     Total #
 Year         Research      # Sustainability   %                Total external   Sustainability   % funding for
              Awards        Projects           Sustainability   funding          funding          Sustainability
  2000-2001
                      311                 22             7.1%     $15,043,582       $1,127,896             7.5%
  2001-2002
                      322                 21             6.5%     $15,147,722       $1,049,040             6.9%
  2002-2003
                      262                 20             7,6%     $11,641,454         $649,484             5.6%
  2003-2004
                      339                 24             7.1%     $17,487,273       $1,118,244             6.4%

Table 14. Sustainability-related funding as a percentage of total external funding has generally
decreased over the past four years.

2.3.4 Peer Institutions
Table 15 highlights some common methods of institutionalizing campus sustainability
being undertaken at other top 25 public schools. Their activities have often come as a
result of recommendations made by a sustainability task force or assessment.

School name                  Funded sustainability          University-wide            Formal pursuit
                             office or position             committee                  of sustainability
                                                                                       research
University of California-    Seeking Unit                   Yes (Chancellor’s          Y
Berkeley                     Sustainability Education       Advisory
                             Coordinator                    Committee on
                                                            Sustainability)
University of Michigan-      Requested appointment          N/A                        N/A
Ann Arbor                    of sustainability
                             coordinator
University of North          Office funded through          N/A                        Y
Carolina-Chapel Hill         Facilities
University of Wisconsin-     Office funded through          N/A                        Y
Madison                      research grants,
                             corporate gifts, and



                                                    64
                            private funds
University of Illinois-     Two paid coordinators     N/A                    Y
Urbana Champaign            (seeking third
                            coordinator)
University of California-   N/A                       Yes (Sustainability    N/A
Davis                                                 Administrative
                                                      Advisory
                                                      Committee,
                                                      charged with
                                                      forming an office of
                                                      sustainability)
University of California-   N/A                       N/A                    Y
Irvine
University of California-   Paid coordinator          Yes                    Y
Santa Barbara
University of Texas-        Paid coordinator          Requested funding      N/A
Austin                      (funded through lapsed    for committee
                            salaries); Requested
                            funding for office
University of Washington    N/A                       Yes (Environmental     Y
                                                      Stewardship
                                                      advisory
                                                      Committee)
Pennsylvania State          Office funded through     N/A                    Y
University                  departments and Heinz
                            endowment
Table 15. Select inventory of top 25 public schools with mandated offices, positions, and formal
research programs for environmental sustainability. In addition to the public schools Harvard,
Princeton and Yale all have university-wide committees for sustainability. Harvard, Yale and Duke
has sustainability coordinators.


Attempts to elevate campus sustainability emphasis by University of Texas-Austin
students gained the attention of the Executive Officers, who agreed a staff position
responsible for inventorying and publishing UT’s sustainability initiatives was a
necessary baseline step. In September 2004 UT hired a Sustainability Coordinator with
the support of a forward-looking Provost and Vice President of ECS; the position was
funded through lapsed salaries (Table 15). The coordinator is responsible for heading up
student projects, facilitating the formation of a sustainability committee, benchmarking
peer institutions, and reporting back to the university administration. The committee
meetings began in the fall of 2004, and involved faculty from the Center for Sustainable
Development, the Institute of Environmental Sciences, Engineering, Geography, English,
Biology, and Business. Staff members from Housing/Food, Utilities, and the Physical
Plant were also in attendance, as were representatives from two main student
environmental organizations.




                                                65
Georgia Tech has a highly evolved office of campus sustainability in its Institute of
Sustainable Technology and Development (ISTD) (Figure 20).
 Center for Sustainable Technology (CST)
 Impetus: Engineering faculty initiative

 Funding: Corporate philanthropy, government agency, internal

 Mission: Initially curriculum studies, then general sustainability research and activity

 Impact:
 - Built interest and awareness of campus sustainability
 - Caught interest of administrators
 - Helped incorporate sustainability into engineering curricula

 Sustainability Retreat

 Impetus: CST faculty initiative

 Mission: Discuss sustainability at Georgia Tech

 Impact:
 - 50 faculty and administrators attended
 - Series of sustainability lectures followed
 - Assembled Sustainability Task Force


 Sustainability Task Force (STF)
 Impetus: Consensus recommendation from Sustainability Retreat

 Mission: Develop strategy for integrating sustainability into education, research and campus operations (18-month
 mandate)


 CST becomes the Institute for Sustainable Technology and Development (ISTD)
 Impetus: Recommendation from STF

 Mission: Develop infrastructure and new faculty positions to make campus sustainability transformation possible;
 support campus management staff in their sustainability efforts

 Impact:
 - Campus Master Plan adopts concept of sustainability as central theme
 -One LEED certified buildings with several more under construction
 - 2-3 of the general education requirements have sustainability content
 - Green Purchasing Program with demonstrated increase in both buying behavior and green product availability
 - Enthusiastic support from offices of the President, budgets/planning, capital planning and space management, capital
 projects, academics (provost), and finance (VP of finance and administration)



Figure 20. Flow chart of Georgia Tech’s successful 10-year institutionalization of sustainability. The
first initiatives began in the early 1990’s and culminated with the formation of their sustainability
hub—the ISTD—in 1997.


Some of the most important factors driving Georgia Tech’s successful sustainability
integration are support from top administrators, and commitment and ability of
professionals at other levels within the organization (Carmichael, 2005).



                                                              66
2.3.5 Opportunities for Improvement
     •   The Center for Sustainable Systems Studies (CSSS) provides sound structure
         for institutionalizing campus sustainability. If it is revitalized and fully supported
         the CSSS could serve as the coordination and research hub for sustainability
         initiatives at Miami.
     •   New faculty and staff orientations provide a tremendous opportunity to ingrain
         new members of the university community with the simple principles of campus
         sustainability (e.g. recycling, energy and water conservation, etc.). Though
         current orientation schedules are extremely full, sustainability is interdisciplinary
         and can be integrated into existing topics without adding significantly to the
         training load.
     •   Departments hold regular retreats to discuss curricula and plan for the academic
         year. These retreats provide an opportunity to address the interdisciplinary
         nature of sustainability, reinforce its importance to faculty, and pass on the
         concepts to the students through suggested paper/project topic lists.
     •   Funding Committees have proven successful at targeting external fund
         acquisitions for specific goals. No such entity exists at Miami to raise funds for
         campus sustainability projects.


2.3 Administration
The university, much like a corporation in the private sector, has a leadership structure
that guides the future direction of the organization. Though they ultimately serve and
respond to the university community, the administration’s goals, mission statements and
strategies also drive the direction and pace of institutional change on campus.

2.3.1 Sustainability Initiatives
The following departments address environmental responsibility or sustainability in their
mission statements or general departmental descriptions:66
         Technical and Scientific Communication
         Geography
         Geology
         Paper Science and Engineering
66
   Individual graduate school programs were not assessed for sustainability in this report. Several colleges
and departments specified ‘cultural’, ‘global’, ‘ethics’ and ‘justice’ areas of interest in their mission
statements; though not a focus of this report, these areas would qualify as indicators in a comprehensive
sustainability assessment.


                                                     67
        Zoology
None of the available college mission statements included environmental sustainability
language.

2.3.2 Peer Institutions
School                           Description
University of Michigan-Ann       Presidential message about environmental
Arbor                            sustainability
University of Illinois-Urbana    BLUE (Building a Lasting University Environment)
Champaign
University of Texas-Austin       Latest report from their ‘Commission of 125’ included a
                                 reference to facilitating an “environmentally viable
                                 campus”
University of Washington         Presidential message about environmental
                                 stewardship
Pennsylvania State University    University mission statement includes environmental
                                 stewardship
University of Florida            Funding mission for sustainability
University of Maryland           Environmental safety mentioned in university mission
                                 statement; environmental stewardship committee
                                 recommended formal adoption of environmental
                                 mission statement
Table 16. Top 25 public schools with formal environmental emphasis from the administration.


In addition to the top 25 publics, Western Michigan University recently rewrote its
mission statement and included the following self-guidance: “advance responsible
environmental stewardship”.

2.3.3 Opportunities for Improvement
Miami University has almost no formal administrative support for environmental
sustainability. This is not to say that sustainability does not happen at Miami or that the
administration is unsupportive of it, but it does not appear to be emphasized or promoted
from university leadership. Without such emphasis, sustainability efforts are not
protected from key personnel loss or budget redistributions.


3       Community Outreach Category
Sustainable communities are not built by a single entity. Many organizations must
partner together to reduce environmental impacts in indicator-areas discussed above.
Extending the concept of stewardship and responsibility to the surrounding community is
imperative to attain a fair and balanced relationship with Miami’s immediate
environment. As a significant source of research and service capacity, Miami is actively



                                               68
engaged in cultivating environmental awareness and sustainability in organizations
within Oxford and the Cincinnati Tri-state area.


3.1 Local Organization Partnerships
        Miami University was one of 20 signatories to the Cincinnati branch of the Clean
        Cities Coalition (CCC), a Department of Energy sponsored program that
        promotes, among other things, alternative fuels and vehicles. The Tri-state’s
        program has been active since 1997, but has been housed under the Hamilton
        County Department of Environmental Services since 2003. 67
        Miami has several notable partnerships with surrounding schools and
        organizations to support recycling initiatives. The Recycling Office has a strong,
        long-standing relationship with the Butler County Solid Waste District. They
        regularly receive a portion of their annual grant funds for various recycling
        initiatives; work collaboratively to operate a mobile county recycling trailer; and
        accept recyclables from state facilities whose recycling programs would
        otherwise have been eliminated. In 2004 Miami and Butler County partnered with
        Oxford’s Kramer Elementary School to initiate a student-run paper recycling
        program.
        Once called the Oxford Organic Network, OON is now MOON—the Miami-Oxford
        Organic Network—bringing together the university and surrounding community to
        spread awareness and support for local and certified organic products. Students
        and faculty help bring the extensive local knowledge of MOON farmers to
        Miami’s campus, hosting potlucks, presentations, conducting collaborative
        research projects on area farms, and working to help MOON reach its goal of
        opening an Oxford store-front.
        Miami’s Institute of Environmental Sciences regularly works with area
        organizations to annually conduct Public Service Projects (PSP’s), an integral
        part of the Environmental Sciences graduate curriculum. Anywhere from 3-5
        PSP’s are completed each year by small student groups, with local organizations
        as the ‘client’ and the student group functioning as a consulting firm hired to help
        solve a select environmental problem. The 2004-2005 PSP projects have
        partnered IES with two adjacent counties and a conservation trust, working on


67
  The 1997 alternative fuel study referenced above was part of the Tri-state CCC program. The focus of
the Tri-state CCC appears to have settled almost entirely on clean fuels in recent years.


                                                   69
       recycling, storm water assessment, and an area environmental assessment. The
       Art/Architecture Department also has established partnerships with local
       organizations in which students are regularly ‘contracted’ to design models and
       construct environmentally sensitive structures. These projects are often
       completed in collaboration with students and faculty from other departments,
       such as Paper Science and Engineering, Marketing, Botany, Zoology,
       Management Information Systems, etc.


3.2 Collaborative Events
Sustainability is contagious, but only if the importance and benefits are shared with
others. Events that address the need for sustainability and spotlight successful
applications help raise awareness and build and strengthen partnerships. There are
several notable environment-focused events hosted by Miami’s Institute of
Environmental Sciences and various students groups.
   •   The Community Recycling Fair debuted in October 2004 as a celebration of
       recycling and waste reduction efforts at Miami and in Oxford. This event featured
       collaboration between IES, Paper Science and Engineering, Miami’s Recycling
       Office, Oxford’s Environmental Office, Butler County’s Recycling and Litter
       Prevention, Rumpke (waste hauler and recycling company), and the Kramer
       Elementary School.
   •   Environmental Connections began in the fall of 2004 as an attempt at cultivating
       environmental awareness in the university and surrounding community. Initiated
       by IES, this effort initially featured a student-staffed information table at Oxford’s
       Uptown Park, aimed at engaging citizens about local environmental issues and
       initiatives. A newsletter also communicates local environmental issues and
       projects to members of the university community.
   •   Various student groups and departments work together to produce an annual
       day-long Earth Fest to celebrate Earth Day. Organizations from the school and
       community are invited to feature their interests, goals, and projects at an outdoor
       venue held each year for the entire community to enjoy. Earth Fest 2004 hosted
       21 different environment-geared organizations on the lawn of Oxford’s Uptown
       Park.




                                             70
   •   A collaborative Energy Fair is being planned for September 2005 by Miami’s
       Physical Facilities Department, featuring a broad collaboration between
       university, community and industry.


Recommendations
Miami University has established a strong foundation for lasting environmental
stewardship, but as demonstrated above there are clear opportunities for improvement.
The recommendations that follow address the highlighted opportunities, and will enable
Miami to make a more formal transition to sustainability.

Indicators           Measurables                                  Recommended 1st year Benchmarks
                                                                  1. Complete strategy to achieve 2000
                                                                  annual energy consumption levels by
                                                                  2009
                                                                  2. Track all efficiency upgrades in
                                                                  sustainability database; written policy
                                                                  for efficiency upgrades on all
                     1. annual energy use (by type); per capita   renovation projects
                                2
                     and per ft                                   3. Complete feasibility studies on wind,
                     2. % buildings with efficiency measures      solar and geothermal energy projects
                     installed                                    (for both on-campus installation and
                     3. % energy from renewable resources         certificate purchasing)
Energy               4. Inventory of policies encouraging         4. Publish written policy on energy
Conservation         energy conservation                          conservation
                                                                  1. Complete strategy to achieve 2000
                     1. gallons of water consumed per capita      water consumption levels by 2009
                     2. % buildings using efficiency toilets or   2. Launch tracking system for all
Water Conservation   shower heads                                 efficiency upgrades
                     1. recycling rate over past 5 years versus   1. Achieve 60% waste diversion rate
                     refuse rate                                  2. Launch tracking system for
Materials and        2. quantity of hazardous chemicals           hazardous materials recycling
Waste                recycled
                                                                  1. Publish written policy and guidebook
                     1. % vending contracts with sustainability   for green purchasing
                     provisions                                   2. Launch tracking system for all
                     2. Inventory of policies encouraging         departmental and bookstore green
Purchasing           ‘green’ procurement                          purchases
                                                                  1. Publish written policy statement
                                                                  prohibiting further net greenspace loss
                                                                  2. Establish permanent protection for
                     1. % impervious surface on campus            six designated areas
                     2. Acreage under conservation                3. Launch automated chemical
                     3. Annual amount of chemicals applied; %     application and planting database
                     of chemicals used on campus that are         4. Publish written policy requiring only
                     eco-friendly                                 native plants be included in
Land Use             4. % landscaping using native plants         landscaping plans
                                                                  1-2. Launch incentive program for
                     1. Campus vehicle traffic (parking passes    frequent Metro riders
                     and spaces)                                  3. Complete new feasibility studies on
                     2. Metro bus service rider-ship              bio-diesel and ethanol-mix fuel for
                     3. % of university fleet that uses           university and Metro fleets
                     alternative fuel                             4. Launch departmental incentive
Transportation       4. annual fuel usage for vehicle fleet       program for reduced fuel consumption
Building,            1. % new buildings LEED certified (last 3    1-2. Publish written policy requiring



                                                  71
 construction and     years)                                       LEED™ or similar guidelines be
 renovation           2. % new interiors LEED certified (last 3    applied to all new building and
                      years)                                       renovation projects
                                                                   1. Launch ‘spotlight meal’ program
                                                                   featuring local/organic ingredients
                                                                   2. Launch searchable database
                                                                   housed near the ‘top’ of the
                                                                   university’s home page to continually
                                                                   track and update programs
                                                                   3. Secure funding and complete
                                                                   necessary research to initiate in-vessel
                      1. % dining hall food organic and/or local   composting (alternatively coordinate a
                      2. Inventory of waste reduction programs     cooperative composting program with
 Dining Services      3. % waste food being composted              the city of Oxford and area farmers)
                                                                   1. Publish policy that all
                                                                   undergraduates must take a
                                                                   sustainability-related course (provide
                                                                   listing of qualifying courses)
                      1. % courses with sustainability content     2. Plan for full integration of student
                      (by department)                              groups with environmental
 Student              2. # of student groups relating to           sustainability focus into the new CSSS
 involvement          environment and sustainability               organizational structure
                                                                   1. Fully integrate recycling, energy and
                                                                   water conservation, green purchasing,
                      1. # hours (annual) sustainability-related   and materials waste into new
                      training per faculty/staff member            faculty/staff orientation
 Faculty/Staff        2. % research funding for sustainability-    2. Mandate a Sustainability Funding
 involvement          related topics                               Committee
                      1. % colleges and departments with           1. Publish university mission or
                      sustainability-related language in           strategy addressing campus
 Administration       mission/goal statement                       environmental stewardship
                                                                   1. Launch searchable database
                                                                   housed near the ‘top’ of the
 Local Organization   1. Inventory of local partnerships on        university’s home page to continually
 Partnerships         sustainability-related topics                track and update partnerships
                      1. Inventory of events that promote          1-2. Launch searchable database
 Collaborative        Sustainability                               housed near the ‘top’ of the
 sustainability       2. Inventory of events that address school   university’s home page to continually
 events               impact on community                          track and update events
Table 17. Summary of recommended benchmarks as they relate to the measurables in this report.

Form
The National Wildlife Foundation’s State of the Campus Report features a list of
benchmarks for institutionalizing campus sustainability, and many other top schools
have begun to work these into their own organizations (see Section 2.3.2). The first such
benchmark is a “written declaration of environmental responsibility” (p. 101). The written
declaration serves to legitimize the organizational pursuit of environmental stewardship
and to establish a path to attain it.

R-1: Miami University leadership should amend its mission statement to address
environmental stewardship (see Appendix 2). The mission statement will serve as the
base of a strategy to achieve organizational sustainability.



                                                    72
Alternate R-1: Miami University leadership should amend the “First in 2009” initiative
goals to specifically include environmental stewardship. Though environmental
stewardship could be inferred in several goals68 it is clear from the absence of any
reference elsewhere in the university mission, values, or guiding principles statements
that environmental sustainability is not currently the intended priority.


R-2: President Garland should sign the Talloires Declaration (Appendix 3). Miami
University is already engaging in several of the tenets addressed in the declaration text,
making follow through with the commitment quite feasible. Signing the declaration would
demonstrate formal commitment to environmental sustainability, supply momentum to
further progress, and provide invaluable public relations value.



Function
Mission statements and declarations are not enough to ensure action ensues. Tangible
changes are necessary to integrate the principles of environmental sustainability into
Miami’s approach to education, research and campus operations.


R-3: Miami should revive the Center for Sustainable Systems Studies.
        Action A) The President and Board of Trustee should convene an
interdisciplinary committee or task force with a short-term mandate to build consensus
on goals, objectives, benchmarks, and organizational structure of the revived center. A
recommended organizational structure is provided in Appendix 1.
        Action B) The Institute of Environmental Sciences (IES) should absorb the
Center for Sustainable Systems Studies.69 IES already hosts one of the country’s most
interdisciplinary environmental programs, with working relationships and cross-listed
courses in 33 departments. This move would revive a proven but dormant sustainability
program, and position it for greater success in fundraising and project impact. The CSSS
should be directed to:

68
   Goals 3, 4, 6, and 8 address updating the curriculum, enriching campus cultural and intellectual life,
enhancing campus facilities, and improving benchmarking with peer institutions.
69
   Placing the CSSS under the umbrella of IES does bring potential disadvantages. Without autonomy the
CSSS would be reliant on IES for financial and faculty support and risk alienating other departments. An
interdisciplinary steering committee (see Appendix 1) to drive the center’s decision-making is one way to
address this issue without losing the advocacy and stability that IES would provide as the umbrella
organization.


                                                    73
           o   Construct a centralized, easily navigable information management system
               to house campus sustainability initiatives, courses, research projects,
               reports, etc. Once published Miami’s home page should feature a web
               link to it for maximum use and public relations value.
           o   Supervise feasibility studies and pilot programs in accordance with the
               recommended university policies (see below). For policy areas that are
               already operating at a level above the study and pilot program stage, the
               CSSS should set benchmarks for feasible improvement (e.g. materials
               and waste management, curriculum).
           o   Other suggested projects include a Comprehensive Energy and
               Emissions Report; and a survey project to assess student, faculty and
               staff commuting behavior and potential for mass transit expansion.
       Action C) IES should seek funding for a permanent university staff or faculty
position for CSSS.


R-4: Miami University leadership should adopt a series of environmental sustainability
policies in accordance with item five of the Talloires Declaration (Appendix 3), such that
they specify a formal commitment to reducing Miami’s ecological footprint and enhancing
environmental awareness of all students, faculty and staff. These policies, in addition to
providing the support for new projects, will legitimize existing efforts.


Policy 1: Miami University will minimize energy and water consumption, reducing non-
renewable energy and water consumption to a benchmark designated by the task force
by 2009.
       Action 1a) The CSSS in collaboration with Planning/Construction should assess
the feasibility of renewable energy apparatus on building projects currently in the design
phase (including lighted parking lots). Particular focus should be paid to geothermal
power, as southwest Ohio is not generally suited for wind or solar power.
       Action 1b) Off-set current non-renewable energy use with green energy
certificates purchase (see Financing Section below).
       Action 1c) The CSSS in collaboration with Planning/Construction should assess
the feasibility of rooftop rain collection apparatus on building projects currently in the
design phase (including parking lots).




                                              74
        Action 1d) Renewed feasibility studies should be conducted on bio-diesel for the
diesel fleet and on an ethanol fueling station for the Flexible-Fuel Vehicles. The Metro
fleet could be used as a pilot project, and later expanded to the rest of the fleet.


        Action 1e) Use only native plants in all new landscaping, and should slowly
replace existing lawns with no-mow grasses.70
        Alternate Action) Work with an Energy Service Company (ESCO) to create a
comprehensive energy efficiency/conservation strategy. The University of Buffalo has
done this with great success both in reduced environmental impact and cost savings.


Policy 2: Miami University will minimize campus-wide waste, increasing campus-wide
waste diversion to 65% by 2009. This policy should specify university-wide recycling
procedures and goals. It will help put Building and Special Services (BSS) and Special
Facilities on the same page for waste management, and ease monitoring and tracking of
waste reduction efforts.
        Action 2a) The President should direct a campus-wide recycling policy that
requires comprehensive waste and recycling tracking for every department handling
waste. This policy in effect would also mandate regular communication and collaboration
between BSS, Special Facilities, Residence Life, Housing/Dining/Guest Services,
Environmental Health and Safety, Planning/Construction, etc.
        Action 2b) An orientation should be organized to indoctrinate all involved parties
to the necessary reporting requirements under the new recycling policy. The BSS
Recycling Office should remain the repository for report consolidation.
        Action 2c) Once a campus wide baseline waste diversion rate is determined,
goals should be set to increase it.


Policy 3: Miami University will purchase environmentally neutral materials whenever
possible.
        Action 3a) Miami’s Purchasing Offices and Bookstore Manager should oversee a
complete inventory of all ‘green’71 items purchased at Miami, and create a green


70
  No-mow grasses grow to a maximum height of about 6”.
71
  The most stringent description of a ‘green’ product is one that is produced with minimal environmental
impact, including durable/reusable, biodegradable, made from recycled content, recyclable, require
minimal packaging, manufactured locally to minimize shipping, and manufactured without the use of or
creation of toxic materials.


                                                   75
purchasing guidebook for all office administrators, maintenance staff and students.
Green purchasing guidebooks take the guesswork out of ordering, making it easier for
people to do their part to minimize university consumption and waste (see Appendix 4).
        Action 3b) All departments at Miami should include ‘take-back’ and ‘disposal
assistance’ clauses in contract language for materials that are difficult to dispose of and
recycle, and which are frequently re-ordered or changed out (e.g. batteries, computers,
carpeting, disposable cups for special events, etc.).
        Action 3c) Miami should follow Rutgers’ lead and attach an awareness clause to
purchasing orders. This clause will inform vendors of a new institutional preference for
products with minimal life-cycle impact on the environment (including materials
extraction, processing, packaging, distribution, and disposal), and request that they
disclose their own environmental performance when answering a request. In addition to
reducing Miami’s environmental impact and helping to expand the green products
market, this policy would provide positive public relations value. The EPA Waste Wise
Program, of which Miami is a partner and repeated award recipient, has recently
extended their awards list to include a Packaging Reduction category.


Policy 4: Miami University will preserve and protect existing greenspace.
This policy should address conservation and landscaping.
        Action 4a) Create a “managed greenspace preservation” subset of the Miami
Natural Areas program, and register the six designated areas under the oversight of the
Bachelor Research and Other Natural Areas Committees.72
        Action 4b) Taking guidance from Ohio State Extension and other valuable
resources, Miami should establish a campus standard for pesticide and fertilizer
application, irrigation, and low-maintenance plant use. Native plants should become the
standard for decorative plantings, and lawns should be replaced over time with short-
growing (i.e. ‘no-mow’) grass types. Turf for playing fields should have a mixed bed of
clay, soil and peat, and the grass type should be appropriate to the region and
consistent with the emphasis on low maintenance.




72
  Miami University President Paul Pearson worked with the Board of Trustees and a handful of donors to
“[preserve and protect] the area for approved uses in education, research, recreation and observation”
(Miami University Natural Areas)”.


                                                  76
Policy 5: Miami University will construct all new buildings and renovate existing ones to
LEED™ certification standards (or similar protocol). The added up-front costs for
LEED™ projects range from 2-10% higher than conventionally constructed buildings
(Kats et al., 2003); but the initial costs for building comprise only about 10% of the total
costs over the life of the building leaving. The remaining 90% is operating costs, which
are considerably lower for LEED™ buildings (National Research Council, 2002).73
         Action 5a) If Miami implements a certification policy now, with our current building
construction and renovation plan by 2009 we will have seven building built to LEED™
standards on campus—tied with the University of Florida for the most LEED™ buildings
among top 25 public universities. Miami could also elect to adapt the LEED™
certification checklist to suit Miami’s operations, as some other schools have done
(Table 10). This would preserve the environmental benefits of sustainable building
projects and save the cost of registering a building, but could diminish the projects’
public relations value. Aside from the savings resulting from increased efficiency and the
reduced environmental impact, this policy in action can benefit Miami’s image. The EPA
Waste Wise Program, referenced above, has recently extended their awards list to
include a Green Buildings category.
         Action 5b) Miami’s Physical Facilities Department should also update the
Building Construction Standards Manual to address a broader array of sustainability
features. Specifically, the standards should at least include assessment of:
           o Determination to build
           o Environmental considerations in site selection
           o Use of renewable energy alternatives
           o Efficient materials use
           o Environmentally-neutral materials and systems
           o Water conservation and quality control
           o Indoor environment (e.g. carpet that emits no volatile compounds)
           o Recycling during and after project
           o Environmentally neutral building operations maintenance
Several other institutions of higher education have exemplary building guidelines,
standards, and programs that can be used as a model for this update (Table 18):
Public            Initiative              Website
Schools:
University of     Development             http://www.fpc.unc.edu/DevelopmentPlan/DevPlanPDF/02-
North             Plan                    Noise_Light_Environmental.pdf



73
   Calculating the benefits of adopting LEED™ certification standards for new buildings can be done using
the following metrics (Kats et al): $5 per ft2 extra for initial costs x total ft2 of planned projects; $48.87 ft2
less in operating costs over 20 years x total ft2 of planned projects.


                                                       77
Carolina-       Design and            http://www.fpc.unc.edu/DesignGuidelines.asp
Chapel Hill     Construction
                Guidelines
University of   Sustainable           http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/%7Euplan/sustainable.html#sustp
Oregon          Development           lan
                Plan
                Facilities
                Managers Guide
State           to Green Building     http://wings.buffalo.edu/ubgreen/content/programs/greendesig
University of   Design                n/guide_greendesign.html
New York-       Green Building        http://wings.buffalo.edu/ubgreen/content/programs/greendesig
Buffalo         Program               n/main.html

Private         Initiative            Website
Schools:
                High
                Performance
                Building Services     http://www.greencampus.harvard.edu/hpbs/
                Harvard Real
                Estate Services
                Sustainable
Harvard         Buildings
University      Program               http://www.greencampus.harvard.edu/sbp/
                Guidelines for
Stanford        Sustainable
University      Buildings             http://cpm.stanford.edu/pdp.html
Table 18. Public and private school green building guidelines, standards and programs.


The state of Florida also published a database of process guidelines for High-
Performance Buildings that anyone can use for their projects
(http://sustainable.state.fl.us/fdi/edesign/resource/index.html). An update of Miami’s
construction guidelines will help implement a policy for LEED.
        Action 5c) The sustainability of existing buildings can and should be addressed
by conducting a post-occupancy performance evaluation. There are a couple of options
for this sort of evaluation. The Post Occupancy Evaluation (POE) is traditionally used to
assess user satisfaction with their buildings within 1-5 years following construction. It
usually consists of a series of survey questions and a physical inspection of building
systems. With some adaptation, the POE can be used to evaluate building efficiency and
define maintenance, replacement, purchasing or supply policies
(http://www.postoccupancyevaluation.com/).74 As an alternative to the POE, the U.S.
Green Building Council now offers a LEED™ certification checklist for existing buildings.


74
  The Universities of California-Berkeley and Florida have performed these on and around their own
campuses. Several other universities (including Cornell and Carnegie Mellon) have featured the POE in
architecture and design courses.


                                                   78
Policy 6: Miami University’s dining halls will serve as educational vehicles for
sustainable agriculture.
       Action 6a) HDGS should host a research project on in-vessel composting.
       Action 6b) HDGS should expand the current spotlight meal program to feature a
local/organic meal each semester in all major dining halls. Alternatively, incorporate local
foods into the á la carte menus as a pilot project.
       Action 6c) HDGS should revitalize the reusable coffee mug program such that
use of any durable beverage container of a designated size at dining areas receives a
discount.
       Action 6d) As more local foods are purchased HDGS should adopt a labeling
system to inform dining hall patrons where their food comes from. This will help raise
awareness of the whole food cycle, instill a greater sense of community and build
demand for more local products.


Policy 7: Miami University’s curricula will integrate the principles of sustainability.
       Action 7a) The ‘Sustainable Perspectives in Resources and Business’ course
should be revitalized and taught annually.
       Action 7b) A course related to environmental sustainability should be included in
all thematic sequences so that all undergraduates are exposed to environmental
sustainability before they leave Miami University.
       Action 7c) All departments will formally review their curricula for potential
integration of environmental sustainability into existing courses.


Policy 8: Miami University will foster sustainability research and faculty/staff training.
       Action 8a) New faculty/staff orientation will incorporate environmental
responsibility topics, including energy and water conservation and responsible
purchasing and materials use.
       Action 8b) The Provost should require Deans and Department Chairs to address
inclusion of environmental sustainability to their faculty at pre-semester retreats.
Minimum accomplishment of this requirement is a verbal reminder to incorporate
sustainability into suggested topics lists for midterm and final projects/papers.




                                              79
Financing
In addition to the financial support system provided by government, private sector and
non-profit grants, there are experimental incentive programs being utilized by other
universities to fiscally support sustainability. Harvard recently instituted a revolving loan
program that provides initial cost funding to departments for sustainability projects. The
interest-free loan is repaid by applying the savings from things like lower operating costs
and reduced disposal fees. Dartmouth College also has implemented similar loan
concepts, issuing a 3-year loan to Residence Life Operations to fund a lighting retrofit.
Dartmouth was so pleased with the results of the retrofit they agreed to redirect resulting
efficiency savings after the loan repayment back into additional conservation projects
(Eagan and Keniry). These are two private school examples that do not directly translate
to the funding challenges of the public university, but there are important parallels that
deserve attention. The University of Michigan-Ann Arbor operates a self-replenishing
Energy Conservation Fund that, since its inception has funded $8 million worth in
projects that have produced $8.12 million in documented cost savings (Figure 20).




Figure 21. University of Michigan’s Energy Conservation Fund Model.


As a rule these projects have been confined to energy conservation and have had a 5-
year payback, but this system could be adapted to support more general environmental
sustainability projects with longer payback periods.


R-5: Redirect savings equivalents from efficiency efforts back into sustainability projects.
This entails putting savings from disposal fees, and energy and resource efficiency
measures back into a special fund to help defray initial costs for other campus projects.
A successful small-scale model for this already exists at Miami in the recycling program,
which could be scaled up to serve the entire university community.




                                              80
R-6: President Garland should convene a Sustainability Funding Committee to acquire
endowment seed money for CSSS staff and a revolving loan fund. This will enable the
center to promote and coordinate sustainability research campus wide. In addition to
corporate and private donation acquisitions, there are federal, state and municipal funds
available to support certain project types. The initial costs of renewable energy projects
can often be funded through rebates or equipment cost waivers in collaboration with
local utilities and state/federal renewable energy programs.


R-7: Perhaps less dramatic but no less important are internal awards programs to
recognize sustainability efforts at all levels. Faculty, staff and students whose projects
are making strides towards in sustainability at Miami should be formally recognized for
their achievements and positive impact. Miami could accomplish this by publicly
recognizing an environmental hero each semester or academic year, and by awarding a
‘scholarship’ in the amount of the savings from their efficiency/conservation efforts to
their department. The actual scholarship could be extra green energy certificates
purchased in their name, or assistance with green office supplies.


R-8: Environmental-minded student groups should introduce a motion to Miami’s
Associated Student Government to raise student fees by $6.20 to off-set 5% of Miami’s
non-renewable electricity purchases. According to a 2000 Gallup survey, the majority of
“nonactivist” students are convinced that the environment is deteriorating, and they are
more willing to pay higher taxes to protect the environment (Loges and Kidder, 2000). As
demonstrated above, a positive track record of student willingness to pay for green
energy has already been set by other schools across the nation; this approach is
extremely feasible at Miami.


Closing Remarks
Miami University has the potential to stand as a model of sustainability among public
institutions of higher education. With so many environmental efforts already undertaken,
it would be easy to rest on accomplishments and consider Miami’s current take on
environmental stewardship to be sufficient. But if Miami truly hopes to achieve the ranks
of “first in 2009” it must consider environmental sustainability as part of that path. The
recommendations outlined above are necessary steps to solidify a transformation that is
already quietly underway. Following the recommendations will not only help establish



                                             81
Miami as a leader among public schools, it will help Miami realize the maximum benefits
of environmental sustainability.




                                          82
Appendix 1 - Organizational Model for Sustainability at
Miami

Miami’s current organizational structure, like many public universities, presents many
challenges to institutionalizing sustainability (Figure 22). First, natural departmental
divisions make integrating sustainability efforts a challenge, particularly when the funding
variable is factored in. As touched on in the Introduction, Sustainable University is one
that considers the environmental impact of all decisions, and so must have input from all
departments if it is to be successful.


                                                              Board of Trustees

                          Secretary to the
                              Board
                                                                      President


                                  Affirmative Action and                           Secretary of the University
                                  Human Resource Dev.

                                       Art Museum                                  Intercollegiate Athletics




     Provost and VP                          Sr. VP for Finance and               VP for Student Affairs           VP for University
  for Academic Affairs                        Business Affairs and                                                     Relations
                                                   Treasurer



                                           Personnel and Safety                    Enrollment Services           Advancement Services
          Deans                              Branch Campus                         Residence Life and             Alumni and Parent
   Executive Directors                       Business Office                             Judicial                     Programs
  Academic Personnel                       Financial Affairs and                    Student Services               Donor Relations
         Registrar                              Comptroller                       Student Leadership &                University
   Career Planning &                         Business Service                      Prog. Development               Communications
        Placement                           Physical Facilities                     Student Activities             Western College
  Adv. Scholarship and                       Internal Auditor                                                     Alumni Association
         Teaching                             Administrative                                                      Divisional Support
   Miami Computing                              Computing
         Services                         Institutional Relations
 International Programs                   Housing, Dining, and
  Continuing Education                        Guest Services
  Budgeting, Planning                      Budgeting, Planning
      and Analysis                             and Analysis
    Honors Program
     Instrumentation
       Laboratory
    Liberal Education




Figure 22. Miami University’s current organizational structure.


Currently the Center for Sustainable Systems Studies resides in its dormant state under
Academic Affairs, with residual oversight from faculty in the Farmer School of Business.



                                                                         83
Ideally, the CSSS should involve a representative from every department at Miami
(Figure 23).


                                        University President

                                      CSSS Task Force Moderator


     Administration            Operations                Education/Research      Community



Figure 23. Recommended organization of the CSSS. The Task Force should evolve into a rotating
Steering Committee with pared down representation from each of the four arms pictured here.


In order to coordinate and expand sustainability efforts at Miami there needs to be a buy-
in by each organizational arm at Miami. Academic Affairs must bring commitment from
the Deans, Finance/Business Affairs must contribute commitment from the campus
operations actors, etc.


Task Force Participants*:
Administration
       Provost/VP for Academic Affairs
       Sr. VP for Finance and Business Affairs
       VP for Student Affairs
       VP for University Relations
Operations
       Physical Facilities Director
       Housing, Dining, Guest Services Director
       Residence Life Director
       Parking and Transportation Director
Education/Research
       Graduate School Provost
       College of Arts and Science Dean
       School of Business Dean
       School of Education and Allied Professionals Dean
       School of Engineering and Applied Science Dean
       School of Fine Arts Dean
       School of Interdisciplinary Studies Dean
       Office of Advancement, Research and Scholarship representative
       Student Government Association representative
Community
       Oxford’s Environmental Council representative

*Full participation from the deans, VP’s and directors may not be feasible. As an
alternative, representative professors from the departments, a representative from the


                                                84
“First in 2009” Coordinating Council, and representatives from offices within the ‘campus
operations’ departments can be substituted. This substitution will make the task force
larger and more complex to manage, but will also bring a broader, perhaps even more
practical perspective to the table.




                                           85
Appendix 2 - Addendum to Miami University Mission
Statement
The proposed addendum is shown below embedded in the current university mission,
taken from the 2004-2006 General Bulletin:

The mission of Miami University is to preserve, add to, evaluate, and transmit the accumulated
knowledge of the centuries; to develop critical thinking, extend the frontiers of knowledge, and
serve society; and to provide an environment conducive to effective and inspired teaching and
learning, promote professional development of faculty, and encourage scholarly research and
creativity of faculty and students.


Miami's primary concern is its students. This concern is reflected in a broad array of efforts to
develop the potential of each student. The university endeavors to individualize the educational
experience. It provides personal and professional guidance, and it offers opportunities for its
students to achieve understanding and appreciation not only of their own culture but of the
cultures of others as well. Selected undergraduate, graduate, and professional programs of
quality should be offered with the expectation of students achieving high levels of competence
and understanding and developing personal value systems. Since the legislation creating Miami
University stated that a leading mission of the university was to promote "good education, virtue,
religion, and morality," the university has been striving to emphasize the supreme importance of
dealing with problems related to values.


[Miami also recognizes its roles and responsibilities in environmental sustainability. It
strives to produce graduates who are knowledgeable of environmental issues, and to
support faculty and staff involvement in that pursuit. Miami is also committed to providing
its community with an operational example of sustainability, by examining all activities
and decisions in light of their environmental impact.]**


Miami is committed to serve the community, state, and nation. It offers access to higher
education, including continuing education, for those who can benefit from it, at a reasonable cost,
without regard for race, creed, sex, or age. It educates men and women for responsible, informed
citizenship, as well as for meaningful employment. It provides both disciplinary and
interdisciplinary approaches to the pursuit of knowledge and to the solving of problems. It
sponsors a wide range of cultural and educational activities that have significance beyond the
campus and the local community.




                                                 86
The addendum is design to establish a precedent for administrative support of
environmental sustainability at Miami. Without this addendum sustainability initiatives will
likely continue to happen on their own as they are now. However, the addendum will set
a leadership tone that is more receptive to environmental sustainability, and more in line
with the trends in both the higher education and the corporate settings.




                                            87
Appendix 3 - The Talloires Declaration75
We, the presidents, rectors, and vice chancellors of universities from all regions
of the world are deeply concerned about the unprecedented scale and speed of
environmental pollution and degradation, and the depletion of natural resources.

Local, regional, and global air and water pollution; accumulation and distribution of toxic
wastes; destruction and depletion of forests, soil, and water; depletion of the ozone layer
and emission of "green house" gases threaten the survival of humans and thousands of
other living species, the integrity of the earth and its biodiversity, the security of nations,
and the heritage of future generations. These environmental changes are caused by
inequitable and unsustainable production and consumption patterns that aggravate
poverty in many regions of the world.

We believe that urgent actions are needed to address these fundamental problems and
reverse the trends. Stabilization of human population, adoption of environmentally sound
industrial and agricultural technologies, reforestation, and ecological restoration are
crucial elements in creating an equitable and sustainable future for all humankind in
harmony with nature.

Universities have a major role in the education, research, policy formation, and
information exchange necessary to make these goals possible. Thus, university leaders
must initiate and support mobilization of internal and external resources so that their
institutions respond to this urgent challenge.

We, therefore, agree to take the following actions:

1. Increase Awareness of Environmentally Sustainable Development
Use every opportunity to raise public, government, industry, foundation, and university
awareness by openly addressing the urgent need to move toward an environmentally
sustainable future.

2. Create an Institutional Culture of Sustainability
Encourage all universities to engage in education, research, policy formation, and
information exchange on population, environment, and development to move toward
global sustainability.

3. Educate for Environmentally Responsible Citizenship
Establish programs to produce expertise in environmental management, sustainable
economic development, population, and related fields to ensure that all university
graduates are environmentally literate and have the awareness and understanding to be
ecologically responsible citizens.

4. Foster Environmental Literacy For All
Create programs to develop the capability of university faculty to teach environmental
literacy to all undergraduate, graduate, and professional students.

75
 Original signatories span 15 countries, and include Tufts University, University of Pittsburgh, and
University of Wisconsin-Madison. Later signatories include Bowling Green State University,


                                                    88
5. Practice Institutional Ecology
Set an example of environmental responsibility by establishing institutional ecology
policies and practices of resource conservation, recycling, waste reduction, and
environmentally sound operations.

6. Involve All Stakeholders
Encourage involvement of government, foundations, and industry in supporting
interdisciplinary research, education, policy formation, and information exchange in
environmentally sustainable development. Expand work with community and
nongovernmental organizations to assist in finding solutions to environmental problems.

7. Collaborate for Interdisciplinary Approaches
Convene university faculty and administrators with environmental practitioners to
develop interdisciplinary approaches to curricula, research initiatives, operations, and
outreach activities that support an environmentally sustainable future.

8. Enhance Capacity of Primary and Secondary Schools
Establish partnerships with primary and secondary schools to help develop the capacity
for interdisciplinary teaching about population, environment, and sustainable
development.

9. Broaden Service and Outreach Nationally and Internationally
Work with national and international organizations to promote a worldwide university
effort toward a sustainable future.

10. Maintain the Movement
Establish a Secretariat and a steering committee to continue this momentum, and to
inform and support each other's efforts in carrying out this declaration.




                                            89
Appendix 4 – Green Purchasing Guide Details

For vendors: Miami University is a steward of its environment. Wherever possible our
decisions are guided by their life-cycle costs, and we encourage our suppliers to adopt a
similar policy of responsible corporate citizenship. Just as we prefer environmentally
neutral products, our suppliers should proactively assess their inventories for their
ecological impact and strive to provide an ever-expanding selection of such products.
Miami University will 1) always consider environmentally superior products when making
procurement decisions, and 2) factor a certain percentage of cost towards
environmentally superior products whenever feasible.


For office staff: Miami University is a steward of its environment. Purchasing agents, as
important emissaries of Miami, should assess their current purchasing behavior for its
environmental impacts:
        1. Take stock of what products are regularly purchased
        2. Assess necessity of the purchasing and consumption practice
                a. Are the products necessary for office functioning
                b. Are the products being consumed at a responsible rate
        3. Use guidebook and other available information depots to locate
           environmentally preferable versions of those products
        4. If the environmentally preferable version is more expensive, consider the
           value of reduced environmental impact when selecting product for purchase

To maximize shelf life of the formal guidebook it should focus on products rather than
specific contracts (Table 19).

Component                        ‘Green’ Attributes            Availability
Office paper                     30% recycled content;         University Store
                                 recyclable
Pens, black ink                  10% recycled content, soy     XYZ store
                                 ink; recyclable
Table 19. Sample entry for purchasing guidebook.




                                               90
Appendix 5 - “Hometowns for Healthy Air” Resolution
WHEREAS pollution from power plants cuts short an estimated 1,900 lives in Ohio every
year, aggravates asthma, and is especially harmful to vulnerable groups such as
children, the elderly, and people with existing lung and heart disease; and
WHEREAS, coal-fired power plants in Ohio are significant sources of air pollution in
Ohio, emitting smog- and acid rain-forming nitrogen oxides, soot- and acid rain-forming
sulfur dioxide, carbon dioxide that contributes to climate change, and toxic metals such
as mercury; and
WHEREAS power plant emissions of the global warming gas carbon dioxide pose
threats to human health and our ecosystems, yet are currently free of state or federal
regulations; and
WHEREAS, Ohio coal fired power plants were planned or built before 1977 and are
currently exempt from meeting the pollution standards of the Clean Air Act that new
plants must meet; and
WHEREAS the U.S. EPA has found that in the two decades since the Clean Air Act was
passed 'Americans received approximately $20 of value in reduced risks of death, illness
and other adverse effects for every dollar spent to control air pollution'; and
WHEREAS, pollution from coal fired power plants could be reduced by installing modern
pollution controls or burning cleaner fuels such as natural gas; and
WHEREAS, there is a threat to the health and safety of Elyria residents and to residents
in other areas due to emissions from coal fired plants.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city of __________ urges Governor
Taft, the Ohio General Assembly, and Ohio’s Congressional Delegation to ensure that
pollution from coal-fired power plants be dramatically reduced by passing legislation that
would effectively end the “grandfathering” of these plants from the modern emissions
standards of the Clean Air Act and place limits on emissions of the global warming gas
carbon dioxide; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this Resolution be forwarded to Governor
Taft and other State and Federal Officials; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution shall be in full force and affect from
and after its adoption and approval.




                                           91
Acknowledgments
Faculty Committee:
Dr. Ray Gorman, Business
Dr. Adolph Greenberg, Anthropology (major professor)
Scott Johnston, Architecture

Student Research Team:
Amy Barton, Environmental Studies
Scott Fister, Geography
Ashley Kuntz, Botany
Erika Merrell, Geography
John Obrycki, Environmental Studies and History
Sara Phillips, Environmental Studies
Anne Smart, Environmental Studies and Public Administration
Molly Thomas, Environmental and International Studies

Faculty/Staff Contributors:
Jen Baker, Culinary Support Center
Jon Brubacher, Culinary Support Center
Bob Carey, Horticulture
Art Faura, Campus Services
Tony Ferraro, Energy Management and Engineering
Steve Gaski, Building and Special Services
Perry Gordon, Parking Services
Lisa Harris, Hamilton Tours, Inc. (contractor)
Richard Keppler, Parking Services
Mark Lawrence, Physical Facilities
John Maingi, Geography
Pete Miller, Housing, Dining, Guest Services
Greg Owens, Motor Pool
Sharmila Pradhan, Environmental Health and Safety Office
Bill Shawver, Purchasing
Jim Simpson, Shriver Center Bookstore
Greg Smith, Special Facilities
Paul Wenner, University Engineer
Amanda Winnery, Chemistry




                                         92
References
3 Phases Energy Services “Green Certificates”, http://www.3phases.com/index.php, accessed March 2005.

Baskin, Kathy (2005) “It’s raining, it’s Storing, the Old…”, Allston-Brighton Tab, April 8, 2005.

Bauer, Marcy, Doug Dirksing, Rhiannon Hoeweler, and Omonigho Ujevbiruvbe (2004) “Urbanization and
Greenspace in Greater Cincinnati”, Institute of Environmental Sciences Public Service Project for the Ohio-
Kentucky-Indiana Regional Council of Governments, May 2004.

Bonneville Environmental Foundation (2005) “Carbon Calculator”, http://www.b-e-f.org/index.shtm, accessed
April 2005.

Bowling Green State University (2005) “Campus Environmental Sustainability: Annual Update 2004-2005”,
http://www.bgsu.edu/departments/envh/greencampus-2004-2005.htm, accessed February 2005.

Brown University (no date) “Brown is Green”
http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Brown_Is_Green/big/BrnIsGrn.html#Water, accessed February 2005.

Carmichael, Caroline. Georgia Institute of Technology’s Institute of Sustainable Technology and
Development. Interview in April 2005.

Central Ohio Clean Fuels Coalition, 2003 Annual Report,
http://www.cocfc.org/PDFs/ANNUAL%20REPORT%20FINAL.pdf.

Cohen, Bernard (1990) “The Nuclear Energy Option”, Chapter 3, Plenam Press: 1990.

Cox, Caroline (1998) Clopyralid Herbicide Fact Sheet, Journal of Pesticide Reform, v. 18, n. 4, Winter 1998.

Eagan, David and Julian Keniry (1998) “Green Investment, Green Return: How Practical Conservation
Projects Save Millions on America’s Campuses”, A Report from the National Wildlife Federation Campus
Ecology Program, March 1998.

Elliot, Steven, Homer Erekson, Raymond Gorman, H. Hume, Timothy Krehbiel, and Orie Loucks (2003)
“Integrating Business and Environmental Education”, Chaper 6 of Teaching Sustainability, Chris Galea ed.,
21 February 2003.

Energy Star “Savings Calculator: Compact Refrigerators”,
http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=refrig.pr_refrigerators, accessed April 2005.

Environmental Defense (2004) “Scorecard: The Pollution Information Site”,
http://www.scorecard.org/community/, accessed March 2005.

Ferraro, Tony (2004), Miami University Energy Management Engineer, Physical Facilities, interviewed in
October 2004.

Garland, James C. (2003) “State of the University Address”, August 2003, from Academic Grants and
Contracts Annual Report 2003-2004, page 5.

Geddes, Jason (2004), Environmental Affairs Manager, University of Nevada, email correspondence.

GEOEXCHANGE, Geothermal Heat Pump Consortium, Inc., http://www.geoexchange.org/index.htm,
accessed February 2005.

Green-e Renewable Electricity Certification Program (2003) “Ohio Choices”, http://www.green-
e.org/your_e_choices/oh.html, accessed March 2005.

Henry, Tom (2004) “New Sources of Power: Proposals seek to tap Ohio’s renewable energy market” Toledo
Blade, November 14, 2004.




                                                       93
Horrigan, Leo, Robert S. Lawrence, and Polly Walker (2002) "How Sustainable Agriculture Can Address the
Environmental and Human Health Harms of Industrial Agriculture." Environmental Health Perspectives Vol
110, 5 May 2002.

Hostetler, Bob (2002) “Streets Not Safe?”, Oxford Press, December 19, 2002.

IEMA (Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment) (2003) “International News: ‘Green’
Purchasing Saves Money and the Planet” (based on Worldwatch Study), August 7, 2003.

Institute of Environmental Sciences (no date), Miami University, “About IES”,
http://oracle.cas.muohio.edu/ies/about.html, accessed February 2005.

Jensen, Mary (2004), Council for a Sustainable Future, Keene State College, email correspondence.

Kats, G. et al. (2003) “The Costs and Financial Benefits of Green Buildings”, October 2003,
http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/greenbuilding/Design/CostBenefit/Report.pdf, accessed March 2005.

KCA Geothermal Services, Inc. (2004) “The Ground Loop”, November 17, 2004, www.ohio-geothermal.com,
accessed March 2005.

Loges, W. and R. Kidder (2000) “Reaching Out: Broadening College-Student Constituencies for
Environmental Protection” Institute for Global Ethics. Retrieved February 2005 from,
http://www.globalethics.org/edu/reachout.html.

The Miami Report (2005) “Energy Conservation Urged, Savings Ideas Offered”, January 27, 2005.

Miami University (2004) “Student Motor Vehicle and Bicycle Regulations.” Miami University Student
Handbook, 2004-2005, Chapter 7.

Miami University Physical Facilities Department (2003) “Miami University Utility Systems”, Oxford, Ohio:
Miami University, 2003.

Miami University Physical Facilities Department (2004) “Utility Enterprise Energy and Budget Report: Fiscal
Year 2004-05” Oxford, Ohio: Miami University, 2004.

Michigan State University, email correspondence from Pete Pasterz, Office of Recycling and Waste
Management, 2005.

Murphy, Cait, “Special Report: The Green Business Revolution (The Next Best Thing)”, Fortune Magazine
(on-line), June 4, 2003.

National Research Council (2002) “Business Case for Green Design”, FacilitiesNet,
http://facilitiesnet.com/bom/Nov02/Nov02environment.shtml, accessed March 2005.

National Wildlife Federation (2001) “State of the Campus Environment: a National Report Card on
Environmental Performance and Sustainability in Higher Education”, a National Wildlife Federation Report
written by Mary McIntosh, Kathleen Cacciola, Stephen Clermont, and Julian Keniry, survey conducted by
Princeton Survey Research Associates, 2001.

NaturalGas.org (2004), www.naturalgas.org, accessed May 2005.

Ohio Department of Natural Resources (2002) “Ohio Laws and Regulations”, July 23, 2002,
http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/recycling/stateregs/all.htm, accessed February 2005.

Orr, David (1992) “The Problem of Education.” In David J. Eagan and David W. Orr (eds.) The Campus and
Environmental Responsibility. New Directions for Higher Education, No. 77. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Orr, David (1994) Earth in Mind: On Education, Environment, and the Human Prospect. Island Press,
Washington, D.C.

Oxford Police Department (2001) “2001 Citizen Survey: Executive Summary of Key Findings”,
http://www.cityofoxford.org/Files/Survey%20Key%20Findings.pdf, accessed April 2005.



                                                     94
Pennsylvania State University (2003) “Wind Energy Purchase Makes Environmentalism a Breeze at Penn
State”, Penn State Institutes of the Environment, News and Events, March 19, 2003.

PesticideInfo.org, PAN Pesticides Database-Chemicals, Metalaxyl, www.pesticideinfo.org, accessed Ma
2005.

Pesticide Action Network North America (1997) “It’s Official: Monsanto’s Roundup NOT environmentally
friendly”, January 1997, http://www.holisticmed.com/ge/roundup.html, accessed March 2005.

Physical Facilities (1997), Building Construction Standards Manual,
http://www.pfd.muohio.edu/intranet/manuals/bcs/index.jsp, accessed February 2005.

Ohio Environmental Council (2005) “Ohio Air Quality”, http://www.theoec.org/cage_ohair.html, accessed
March 2005.

Ohio EPA (2003) Solid Waste Legislative Discussion Presentation, 16 July 16 2003.
http://www.theoec.org/pdfs/hottopics/hottopics_landfills_fsheets_oepapresents.pdf, accessed February
2005.

Partnership for Pesticide Bylaws (2002) “Pesticides Used in Our Communities – Human Health and
Environmental Impacts”, 2002.

Pirog, Rich (2003) “Checking the Food Odometer: Comparing Food Miles for Local Versus Conventional
Produce Sales in Iowa Institutions.” Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture. July 2003.

Scott, Brenda and Emily Nauman (2005) “Assessment of Miami University’s Pay-for-Print Program”, for
submission to the Ohio Recycle Listserv, May 3, 2005.

SFGOV (2001) “City Panel to Take Action Against Hidden Toxins”, SF Environment, August, 16, 2001.

Sierra Club (no date) “Highways Cause Sprawl”, www.sierraclub.org/sprawl/tranportation/cincy.asp,
accessed April 2005.

Simpson, Walter (2003) “Energy Sustainability and the Green Campus”, UB Green Programs (Energy
Conservation), March-May 2003, http://wings.buffalo.edu/ubgreen/documents/resources/V31N3-
Art18Simpson.pdf, accessed May 2005.

Smith, Greg (2005), Building and Grounds Manager for Special Facilities, Interview in May 2005.
                                                                                     st
The Subcommittee on Water and Environment (2003) “Water: Is it the “Oil” of the 21 Century?”, U.S. House
of Representatives Hearing, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, May 22, 2003.

TruGreen ChemLawn, Pesticide and Fertilizer Fact Sheets, available at
ace.orst.edu/info/extoxnet/pips/ghindex.html, or call regional office at 937-748-2585.

UB Green Office (2005) “University of Buffalo Installs ENERGY STAR Vending Machines”,
http://wings.buffalo.edu/ubgreen, accessed April 2005.


Union of Concerned Scientists (2002) “The Hidden Cost of Fossil Fuels” http://www.ucsusa.org/, accessed
March 2005.

Union of Concerned Scientists (2003) “Clean Energy: Backgrounder: the source of energy”
http://www.ucsusa.org/, accessed March 2005.

U.S. Department of Energy, Wind Powering America, Ohio Wind Resource Map,
http://www.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/windpoweringamerica/where_is_wind_ohio.asp, accessed May
2005.

U.S. EPA (2003) Municipal Solid Waste Basic Facts. http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-
hw/muncpl/facts.htm, accessed November 2004.



                                                      95
U.S. Green Building Council (2005) “Why Build Green?”
http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CMSPageID=38&, accessed February 2005.

University of California-Berkeley, Chancellor’s Advisory Committee on Sustainability, UC Berkeley Campus
Sustainability Assessment, Water, no date,
http://sustainability.berkeley.edu/assessment/pdf/CACS_UCB_Assessment_3_Water.pdf, accessed May
2005.

University of Illinois-Urbana Champaign (2004), Facilities and Services, Guiding Principles 2004-2006,
www.fs.uiuc.edu, accessed April 2005.

University Leaders for a Sustainable Future (1996) “Operations: Institutionalizing a Conservation Culture at
RMIT”, Publications: the Declaration Article, Vol. 1, No. 3, September-December 1996.

University of Michigan (2004), Utilities and Plant Engineering, Energy Management, August 2004,
http://www.energymanagement.umich.edu/utilities/energy_management/conservation_guide.html, accessed
May 2005.

Wenner, Paul. Miami University Engineer. Interview in April 2005.

Western Michigan University (no date) “The Campus Sustainability Assessment Project”,
http://csap.envs.wmich.edu/pages/intro_imperative.html, accessed August 2004.

World Resource Institute (2003) “Beyond Grey Pinstripes”,
http://www.beyondgreypinstripes.org/results/findings/top100.cfm, accessed February 2005.

Worldwatch Institute (2003) “Purchasing Power – Can Savvy Institutional Buying Save Our Planet?”,
transcript from Live On-Line Discussions, Lisa Mastny, July 25, 2003.




                                                     96

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Stats:
views:136
posted:7/5/2011
language:English
pages:103