Improving Sustainability at the University of Waterloo

Preface

A green report card was recently administered to universities across Canada and the US in order to rate the level of sustainability of campus operations [1].  The University of Waterloo chose to participate in only the dining survey study, in which it shamefully received a D+ rating; a far worse rating than either of its neighbours, the University of Wilfred Laurier or the University of Guelph, and a disappointing rank in its own right.

 The intent of this article is to increase awareness of sustainable practices, and explore the feasibility of implementing sustainable practices at the University of Waterloo.

1.0 Potential Courses of Action

In order to most effectively target methods for increasing sustainability practices at the University of Waterloo, five categories were selected which encompass the breadth of the University’s operations. The categories were derived from the criteria provided by the green report card [1] and group discussions. The potential courses of action are illustrated in Table 1.

Table 1: Potential courses of action

4.2 Criteria

Criterion 1	(Cost) RCA should minimize the monetary cost of physical components of the project, and the salary estimate for additional human resources.
Rationale:	UW wishes to improve the sustainability of the campus, but it must be careful not to plunge the university into debt in the process. The criterion will be measured by comparing the total cost estimate of each alternative and ranking them relative to the most expensive option.
Criterion 2	(Time) RCA should minimize the time it will take to complete the planning and implementation stages of the project.
Rationale:	The university will likely implement a combination of short and long term plans to help improve campus sustainability, but the interest of this project is to explore the short-term potentialities. Therefore, the solution must be ready for implementation by January 4, 2010. Each of the total time estimates for planning and implementation will be compared.
Criterion 3	(Difficulty) RCA should reduce the over complexity of the project as much as possible.
Rationale:	While UW will have to consider complex projects in order to ultimately achieve campus sustainability, the complexity of a project is tied to time requirements, which is pre-determined in this scenario. Since the desired course of action must be short-term, the project will also have to be relatively simple. The criterion will be analyzed by comparing the rank of each proposal for each the planning and implementation stages.
Criterion 4	(Impact) RCA should maximize the environmental impact of the proposal.
Rationale:	The ultimate goal of sustainability is to achieve a closed-loop balance in which materials and processes are continually renewed.  The relative impact of each course of action should be compared so that the actions with the most significant positive environmental benefits can be implemented as quickly as possible. The criterion will be calculated based on ranks relative to the proposal that produces the biggest impact from both short term and long term perspectives.
Criterion 5	(Visibility) RCA should be as visible as possible in terms of affecting the lifestyles of students, the community, and visitors.
Rationale:	Awareness of environmental issues that are facing the campus is a key step to making everyone more informed about making the best environmental choices. Choosing a course of action that requires student and staff interaction will increase their knowledge base and make them more comfortable implementing sustainable strategies in their personal lives. The criterion will be based on a ranking system compared to the most visible RCA.

The weighting of each criterion is discussed in Table 2.

Table 2: Weighting of Criteria

Criterion	Qualitative Weighting	Quantitative Weighting (%)	Weighting Rationale
Cost	Medium-High	25	While it is important to stay within budget, the course of action must provide incentive to continue sustainability trends on campus, and therefore cost was deemed less important than impact. Cost was given the second highest ranking because an unfeasible economic proposal will not be considered by UW and could be discarded regardless of its other merits.
Time	Medium	20	A short-term time constraint was required, therefore time was a key consideration for the proposal.  Because there is some lenience with the amount of time that could be taken to fully implement a project, implementation time was also considered. Time is a less important criterion than cost because implementation time can be varied somewhat easily, while cost is a strict boundary that could nullify the proposal.
Difficulty	Medium	20	The complexity of a project in both planning and implementation stages is strongly correlated to the time required for planning and implementation, thus difficulty and time were given the same weighting.
Impact	High	30	The ultimate intent of the proposal is to increase the sustainability of the university; therefore it is logical that impact has the highest rank.  If the project does not cause a noticeable change in the environmental impact of the university, then the proposal was in vain.
Visibility	Low	5	Visibility was given the lowest weighting because, while it is desirable for students and staff to participate and be involved in the university’s new sustainability efforts, it is not a factor that will prevent or allow UW to implement the proposal.

4.3 Recommended Course of Action (RCA)

The three courses of action with the highest probability of effectiveness are discussed below:

RCA #1	Install motion sensors, high efficiency light bulbs, and solar harvesting, with the intent of reducing energy consumption on campus.
Rationale:	UW could contribute to the campus sustainability effort by reducing its electricity consumption, and thereby lowering its carbon footprint and making the campus more sustainable. High efficiency bulbs can be integrated into the campus as the current bulbs require replacing, while solar harvesting will be implemented strategically across the campus, beginning with classrooms. Solar harvesting refers to using lights which can sense the amount of daylight in their directly affected area, and output an appropriate amount of light to meet a preset lighting requirement. Motion sensors will be implemented in non-critical lighting areas such as library cubicles, in order to save energy when desks are not in use.
RCA #2	Position composting bins in strategic locations such as campus eateries, and transporting the compost to an external, local facility for processing.
Rationale:	The university could significantly reduce its waste load that is currently sent to a landfill through a composting program, and thereby significantly boosting campus sustainability. Composting is a process whereby organic materials, such as food scraps and brush scraps, can effectively biodegrade into nutrient rich soil, with or without the assistance of organisms such as worms. Small composting bins will also be implemented on campus which will be maintained by students and staff for university benefits. A composting education program will be integrated into the student orientation program to inform students about the benefits of composting and prevent contamination.
RCA #3	Implement, on a per building basis, a system allowing run-off water to be collected from each building with minimal modifications to the current drainage systems.
Rationale:	The water will be collected in individual cisterns which will either drain into large collective tanks, or provide water immediate access via a faucet. The water will be used to sustain the campus grounds; excess water can also be used to clean the outside of campus buildings. Rainwater harvesting is convenient to implement on both a large scale (a cistern collection system) and a small scale (rain barrels) depending on the requirement. Precautions will be required to ensure that the rainwater harvesting systems are not damaged or vandalized to prevent leakage or spills. Ultimately, the systems would greatly reduce the university’s water consumption.

Finally, the recommended course of action was determined using the computational decision table shown in Table 3.  Note that the lower the total score, the better the final rank.

Table 3: Computational Decision Making Matrix

The physical costs of the composting program are green bins, biodegradable bags, and a transportation vehicle to move the compost. The service costs include hiring a transport driver, janitorial staff, and education/training staff. Note that the reduced load of garbage that will require maintenance and transportation should be subtracted from the list of expenses. As a result, the composting program was ranked first in cost.

The major physical costs of the lighting program are the motion sensors, new high efficiency and solar harvesting bulbs (note that the cost of buying normal bulbs that are already required should be subtracted from this cost). The service costs of the lighting program include new wiring, maintenance, installation, and repair, as well as electricians and lighting designers to plan the design. As a result, the lighting program was ranked second in cost.

The primary physical costs of a large scale rainwater harvesting systems are cisterns, storage tank, and new gutters, while the service related costs include installation and modifications, maintenance, changes to piping, specialists, and civil planners. This RCA received third in cost as a result.

In terms of planning time required, the lighting system would be implementable in some buildings after eight months, but certainly not the entire campus. Simply implementing high efficiency bulbs would be relatively quick, although the budget would provide a constraint (i.e. it is would cost an extraordinary amount of money to suddenly purchase thousands of new light bulbs). Consequently, this RCA was ranked first for the time criterion.

The length of time required to plan the composting program would be primarily dependent on how quickly UW could set up an agreement with a composting facility. The amount of time required to implement educational programs would also be a factor. The composting program could physically be implemented into the cafeterias quite fast. Therefore, the composting program was ranked second in the time criterion.

Intensive planning would be required for each building on campus in order to implement the rainwater harvesting system.  As a result, the proposal could only be implemented on a small scale for the short-term deadline.  Consequently, the rainwater harvesting program received the lowest ranking for the time criterion.

The two most difficult elements of the composting system are planning the education training that would be required to avoid contamination, and determining how and where the compost would ultimately be transported. The composting program was ranked first in difficulty since it is fairly straightforward in both the planning and implementation stages.

The difficulty of installing a lighting system would be quite substantial; each building would need its own lighting plan, and a specialist would need to develop a strategy for integrating the new system into the buildings. Since there are several components to this plan, it is considerably more complicated simply in terms of installation. Once the planning was complete, however, the actual implementation of the high efficiency bulbs and solar harvesting bulbs would be fairly straightforward. As a result, this RCA was ranked second for difficulty.

The rainwater harvesting strategy would require intensive planning of modification to the current buildings. Constructions sites and a new gutter system would also need to be developed. Due to the need for construction, the rainwater harvesting system was ranked third for difficulty.

In the short-term, the lighting program would have a small but consistent positive impact, since it would only be implementable in small doses due to the high cost. In the long term, the energy savings caused by the lighting initiative would have a very large impact on campus sustainability. Therefore, the lighting program was ranked first for impact.

The composting program would realize its full benefits very quickly since waste collection and disposal occurs on a regular, short-term basis. In the long term, more experience with the program would lead to less contamination and more useful resulting compost. Therefore there would be a slight increase in benefit over time. Since the long term benefits are less drastic than the lighting program, this RCA received second for impact.

In the short-term, the rainwater harvesting strategy would not provide significant benefits because the entire system would need to be constructed and installed before any benefit could be realized. The negative effects of construction would probably provide a negative short-term result. In the long term, rain water harvesting would significantly reduce water consumption.  However, in comparison to the other RCAs, the water harvesting program ranked third for impact.

Composting stations would be prominent in all major student-populated locations such as food courts, thus student interaction with the system would be direct and strong, because everyone must use the garbage and recycling bins on campus. Visibility of the system would also be immediate once it was implemented; consequently, composting was ranked first for visibility.

The prominence of the rainwater collection system would be obvious to observers, although they may not understand or appreciate the system’s function. Interaction between students and the system would be low, although some staff interaction would occur through the water harvesting system. Thus, this RCA was ranked second for visibility.

The visible prominence of the lighting program would be discreet; students would observe it but may not realize what they are observing. In terms of interaction, students and most staff would have limited or nonexistent contact with the system, excluding motion sensor lights on desks.  Therefore, students may not learn a lot from the lighting system or even be aware of its existence. Therefore, the lighting system received third for visibility.

Consequently, the most desirable course of action, as rated by the given criteria, is the composting program.

2.0 Cost/Benefit Analysis

In order to gauge the feasibility of the given proposal, a cost/benefit analysis is performed to weigh the major cost estimates of the project against the benefits that the proposal will ultimately achieve [2].

2.1 Scope of Analysis

The composting program will be considered in this analysis.  The monetary and time-related costs of the proposal will be determined, as well as the cost of failing to initiate actions at UW to promote sustainability.

2.2 Cost Analysis

In order to implement a composting program on campus, additional required costs must be considered in addition to the physical costs of the collection process. A tentative cost analysis of the proposal is shown in Table 4, based on a one year analysis.

Table 4: Cost Analysis

Financial costs incurred by both physical and service related goods total to approximately $321,550 annually. The largest cost is 10 extra staff working 40 hour weeks for 31 weeks (amounting to $248,000).  Other costs that are difficult to measure monetarily but may results from the composting program are related to both the global and local environments. 

In the global environment, emissions caused by transportation of the compost become a cost, however utilizing a nearby compost facility in Guelph helps to mitigate this cost. 

In the local environment, the compost may have an odour and attract insects, as well as provide some level of contamination and bacteria growth to the immediately surrounding area. These costs are in the form of discomfort to the users.

2.3 Estimated Benefits of Proposal

While many of the benefits of the composting program cannot be fully realized through monetary analysis, an attempt at quantifying the monetary benefits of the proposal is shown in Table 5.

Table 5: Benefit Analysis

Some of the benefits of the composting program occur in the form of “negative costs” in reaction to the proposal not being implemented. Assuming that 20 potential students per year turn down acceptance to UW based on their lack of sustainability on campus, the loss to the university is approximately $200,000, assuming each of those students would be full time students for two terms in an academic year. The university should also consider that it may lose funding and grant opportunities if it severely lacks environmental responsibility initiatives (i.e. LEED development grants). Finally, since less waste will need to be diverted to landfills, the staff and transportation fees required for garbage disposal will decrease if a composting plan is introduced. New students that will be attracted to UW because of its sustainability programs become another benefit to this proposal.

From a global environment perspective, less waste is entering a landfill, which is beneficial to the proposal’s ultimate goal of sustainability. Composting also supplements new soil for bacteria creation, and provides a habitat for worms and bacteria. This ultimately helps support the life cycle, which would most directly benefit local agricultures practises.

In the local environment, the composting program achieves greater awareness of sustainability, which increases the awareness of environmental responsibility on the campus. The overall social responsibility of the university is increased, which would presumably have wide-spread benefits for the university’s reputation and enrolment rates. Also, as environmental laws slowly become more stringent, UW will benefit through pro-active conservation of the environment at its own pace, rather than waiting to be forced into remediation regulation with a difficult time line.

2.4 Cost/Benefit Analysis

The costs of the proposal can be represented fairly using monetary analysis, as shown in Table 4. The costs which cannot be easily considered, such as odour and potential contamination, are fairly minor issues in proportion to the significance of the other costs and benefits that have been identified.

In contrast, the benefits of a proposal where the primary intent is to create a positive environmental impact is intrinsically under-estimated by a monetary analysis. Key benefits of the proposal, including an increased level of sustainability on campus and the generation of a more responsible public image for the university, cannot be properly quantified through monetary analysis. Based purely on the ‘negative cost’ incurred by the no-action alternative to the composting program, the costs only outweigh the benefits by a small margin relative to the loose tolerances used in the cost analysis.

When the qualitative aspects of the benefits are considered, e.g. the environmental impact of the composting program, the benefits clearly outweigh the costs. Based on the criteria that were used to select the RCA, the most important aspect of the proposal was deemed its impact on improving sustainability. By diverting organic wastes from the landfill, contributing to the local ecosystem health through new soil and bacteria, and helping to support the natural life cycle, the benefits of the composting program successfully meet the requirements of the proposal. Furthermore, implementing the composting program will create a better reputation of social and environmental responsibility for UW, which will help to offset the costs of implementing the program by attracting new students and researchers to the University. By implementing the RCA, the University will also ensure that it does not lose any potential students, researchers, or environmental technology grants because of a poor reputation of sustainability. Ultimately, the benefits of implementing the composting strategy are significant enough in terms of sustainability impact and positive visibility to deem the small start-up and maintenance costs as acceptable and necessary investments in UW’s future.

References

[1] Sustainable Endowments Institute. “University of Waterloo – Green Report Card 2009.” The College Sustainability Report Card. Retrieved June 18, 2009, from http://www.greenreportcard.org/report‐card‐2009/schools/university‐of‐waterloo

[2] Sewell, M. & Marczak, M. “Using Cost Analysis in Evaluation”. The University of Arizona, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. Retrieved June 21, 2009, from http://ag.arizona.edu/fcs/cyfernet/cyfar/Costben2.htm