Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Environmental sustainability plan for the University of southern California
(USC Thesis Other)
Environmental sustainability plan for the University of southern California
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY PLAN FOR
THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFONRIA
by
John Edward Becker
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE SCHOOL OF POLICY, PLANNING,
AND DEVELOPMENT
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT STUDIES
May 2007
Copyright 2007 John Edward Becker
Table of Contents
List of Figures iv
Abstract v
Introduction: Environmental Sustainability 1
Sustainability in the academic setting 2
Methods and Design 5
The Research Setting 5
Data Collection 6
The Interviews 7
The Researcher 8
Chapter 1: Lessons Learned from Leading Institutions 10
The Talloires Declaration 10
Sustainability Program - Charters and Staffing 12
Summary of Sustainability Program - Charters and Staffing 15
Buildings and Infrastructure 16
Summary of Buildings and Infrastructure 20
Outdoor Environments / Land Use 21
Summary of Outdoor Environments / Land Use Best Practices 24
Sustainability Curriculum 25
Summary of Curriculum 26
Student and Staff Housing 27
Summary of Student and Staff Housing 31
Water Management 31
Table 1: Stanford Analysis of Water Conservation Measures 33
Summary of Water Management Best Practices 35
Energy Management 36
Summary of Energy Management Best Practices 40
Transportation 41
Summary of Transportation 46
Solid Waste Management 46
Summary of Solid Waste Management 48
Regulated Waste Streams 49
Emissions Tracking 51
City Programs (Santa Monica, California) 51
Chapter 2: Relevance of Sustainability in USC’s Strategic and Master Plans 55
Sustainability Infrastructure currently in place at USC 56
ii
Environmental Commitment Statement 57
Communications 59
Water Management 61
Energy Management and Conservation 62
Buildings and Infrastructure at USC 64
Outdoor Environments & Land Use at USC 69
Curriculum and Academic Resources 70
Future Fuels and Energy Initiative (FFEI) 74
Transportation / Ridesharing Programs 77
Ride Sharing 78
Carpooling 81
Vanpools 83
Alternative Fuel Vehicles 84
Plans for Light Rail 84
USC Student and Staff Housing 87
Waste Management and Recycling at USC 96
Regulated Waste Management at USC 97
Emissions Summary 97
Chemical Purchasing and Use controls at USC 98
Student and Staff Lead initiatives 98
Chapter 3: General Summary and Recommendations 101
Sustainability Program - Charters and Staffing 102
Buildings and Infrastructure 104
Outdoor Environments / Land Use 105
Sustainability Curriculum 106
Student and Staff Housing 107
Water Management 108
Energy Management 109
Transportation 110
Solid Waste Management 111
Regulated Waste Streams 112
Budget 113
Chapter 4: Three Year Implementation Plan 115
2006 - 2007 115
2007 - 2008 116
2008 – 2009 117
Bibliography 118
Appendices 125
Appendix A: Environmental Commitment Statement 126
iii
Appendix B: USC 2005 Water Usage 127
Appendix C: USC 2005 Sanitary / Industrial Water Usage (UPC) 128
Appendix D: USC 2005 Sanitary / Industrial Water Usage (HSC) 130
Appendix E: USC 2005 Utility Consumption & Sample Feeder Reports 131
Appendix F: Computer Energy Conservation Facts 134
Appendix G: Land Use and Landscaping – Calendar Year - 2005 135
Appendix H: Transportation Services Indicators 136
Appendix I: USC Housing Services Recycling – Fiscal Year 2005-2006 137
Appendix J: Recycled Waste – Calendar Year 2005 138
Appendix K: Regulated (Hazardous) Waste – Fiscal Year 2005 - 2006 139
Appendix L: Annual Emissions Summary – Fiscal Year 2005 - 2006 140
iv
List of Figures
Figure 1: Competing Priorities in Stanford’s Campus Projects 17
Figure 2: USC Sustainability Fact Sheets 59
Figure 3: Campus Sustainability Web Page 60
Figure 4: Meeting the Sustainability Challenge Program 72
Figure 5: Metro Link Faculty / Staff Passes 79
Figure 6: Metro Link Student Passes 80
Figure 7: Vouchers 81
Figure 8: Planned Mid-City/Exposition line to Culver City (MTA, 2006) 85
Figure 9: USC Housing Services Recycling Pamphlet (USC Data) 90
Figure 10: USC Neighborhood Homeownership Program – UPC Boundaries 94
Figure 11: USC Neighborhood Homeownership Program – HSC Boundaries 95
v
Abstract
The purpose of this project was to compare the characteristics of
environmental sustainability programs at leading institutions with those already in
place, while not formalized, at the University of Southern California (USC). The
comparisons led to recommendations for campus sustainability within ten primary
areas of university operations as well as a collection of baseline values that could be
used to chart progress once a formal program is established at the institution.
In order to help understand the potential impact of sustainability initiatives on
the environment, this paper initially distinguishes between environmental
sustainability, and social or economic sustainability. Furthermore, it explores the
links that universities have to the cities with respect to housing, transportation, waste
generation, land use, energy use, and various other operational activities. In
addition, the connection is made regarding academic goals of training future leaders
while serving as working laboratories to test green technologies and policies.
Following the review of best practices, processes and practices were
identified at USC which could be considered sustainable or on which larger
initiatives could be based. Finally, a three year plan is presented as a roadmap for
developing a formal sustainability program at USC which would capitalize on the
academic and administrative programs already in place at the university.
1
Introduction: Environmental Sustainability
The definition of the term sustainability varies greatly depending on the
intended application of the term. However, a reasonable starting point for the
purposes of this project, is the definition published by the World Commission on
Environment and Development (WCED), Brundtland Commission, in 1987:
“sustainability is development that meets the needs of the present without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (Jennings
and Zandbergen 1995, p. 1017). In recent decades, the term has taken additional
meanings such as that related to the effort to prevent degradation of our natural eco-
system. Academic institutions are increasingly taking initiative in the efforts to
incorporate “green” initiatives in their educational and administrative programs.
In order to better focus on USC’s potential impact on the environment, this
paper makes the distinction between environmental sustainability, and social or
economic sustainability. In his book “Man, Mind, and Landscape” published over 40
years ago, sociologist Walter Firey, developed a model to aid planners to
successfully develop resource policies. Easily represented with a three-circled Venn
diagram, he argued that an activity is truly sustainable if it is (1) ecologically
possible, (2) culturally acceptable, and (3) economically gainful. Firey argued that
that some resource processes (recurring events) fall within the range of what is
considered ecologically possible such as plants being able to grow in a region. These
may also be economically gainful as in the sale of these items, and maybe even fall
2
in the range of what is “ethnologically adoptable”, or culturally acceptable (e.g.
nomadic people wouldn’t undertake farming) (Waite 2003).
Robert Goodland from the Environmental Department of The World Bank,
made the distinction that environmentally sustainable development does not allow
for economic growth, but rather implies sustainable levels of production (sources),
and consumption (sinks). Therefore, the priority for economic and social
development should be improvement in human well-being – the reduction of
poverty, illiteracy, hunger, disease, and inequity. While these development goals are
fundamentally important, they are quite different from the goals of environmental
sustainability, which emphasizes the unimpaired maintenance of human life-support
/ natural systems – environmental sink and source capacities (Goodland 1995, p. 5).
Furthermore, Environmental sustainability is a set of constraints on the four major
activities regulating the scale of the human economic subsystem: the use of
renewable and nonrenewable resources on the source side, and pollution and waste
assimilation on the sink side (Goodland 1995, p. 10).
Sustainability in the academic setting
Campuses are linked to cities with respect to transportation, land use,
landscape design, storm water runoff, energy use, and operational activities that are
subject to scrutiny from a green perspective (Kirk 2003, p.11). More importantly,
3
colleges and universities are in a position to educate future generations and serve as
working laboratories to test technologies and policies in a practical way. Initially,
campuses have focused on the cost saving processes such as increasing energy
efficiency and reducing waste. The scope of these efforts continues to expand and
increasingly aim to reduce the institutions’ overall ecological footprint. A gap in the
literature exists in that few specific guidelines are available for the implementation
of sustainability programs, and each institution is forced to invent and apply
strategies from scratch (Trombulak 1998, p. 1158).
Anthony Cortese, former Dean of Environmental Programs at Tufts
University, writes that our ecological footprint (our impact on the earth) is largely
invisible to most of us, and that a key to making an impact in this field is to make the
consequences of our actions “visible”. He argues that ideally, all professionals
would understand our connections to the natural world including where products and
services come from, where wastes go, and the consequences of the actions of other
humans and their ability to minimize their ecological footprint. He believes that
currently professionals coming from our colleges and universities are leading us
down an unhealthy and unsustainable path, and that what is required to change this
trend is a long-term effort to transform education at all levels.
With the exception of a few notable sustainability programs in higher
education, this transformation is just beginning. “Higher education has the unique
4
academic freedom and the critical mass and diversity of skills to develop new ideas,
to comment on society and its challenges, and to engage in bold experimentation in
sustainable living” (Cortese 2003).
5
Methods and Design
The University of Southern California lacks a systematic set of policies and
guidelines addressing environmental sustainability. The University is experiencing a
period of rapid growth in infrastructure and buildings, as well as expanding capacity
for academic programs and research. However, the long term environmental impacts
associated with the operation of the institution, beyond those mandated by regulatory
requirements, are yet to be clearly documented or addressed in university policies,
procedures and general practices. A clearly defined environmental sustainability
program would bridge the gap between university operations and long term impacts
on our ecosystem. This project is focused on establishing a sensible plan for the
implementation of a sustainability initiative serving the USC Community while
helping the institution fulfill its vision of becoming one of the most influential and
productive research universities in the world (USC 2004 Strategic Plan). USC’s
leadership role will be enhanced by serving as a living laboratory for students to
develop and implement sustainable practices.
The Research Setting
The project will focus on operations that impact USC’s two largest campuses,
The University Park Campus (UPC) and the Health Sciences Campus (HSC), as well
as those at numerous branch facilities such as: The Wrigley Institute on Catalina
6
Island, learning centers in Marina Del Rey, off-site medical facilities, and other
smaller operations.
“USC's University Park Campus, located in the heart of Los Angeles'
Downtown Arts and Education Corridor, is home to the USC College of Letters, Arts
and Sciences and many professional schools. The Health Sciences Campus, to the
northeast of downtown Los Angeles, is home to the Keck School of Medicine of USC,
the School of Pharmacy, three major teaching hospitals and programs in
Occupational Science and Occupational Therapy, and Biokinesiology and Physical
Therapy. USC also has programs and centers in Marina Del Rey, Orange County,
Sacramento, Washington, D.C., Catalina Island, and Alhambra and around Southern
California. Children’s Hospital Los Angeles is staffed by USC faculty from the Keck
School of Medicine and is often referred to as USC's third campus” (USC at a
Glance, 2006).
Data Collection
Sustainability programs applicable to academic institutions, also commonly
termed campus green initiatives, were researched in order to document common
practices that should be considered in the development of USC’s own programs. In
turn, interviews with a diverse group of interested parties within the USC community
served to document existing processes and practices already in place at USC that
7
could be considered sustainable. The comparison of USC’s practices with those at
other institutions will ultimately serve to help design an implementation plan for a
larger more formalized initiative at USC.
The data for this largely qualitative study was gathered using two primary
methods. Initially, a literature review included books, journal articles and
sustainability publications regarding initiatives at other institutions. This review was
used mainly to identify the types of initiatives and programs that are applicable to
USC’s operations. Secondly, interviews of select individuals at USC were used to
establish a baseline for practices already in place that could be used to develop a
larger initiative. When baseline values were available to provide a quantitative
glimpse of the overall effectiveness of the programs and practices, they were
included within tables, charts and the text of section IV.
The Interviews
The interviews and discussions took place from December 2005 – April 2006. A
sampling of faculty, staff and students known to have some involvement in
sustainable programs was relied on to establish the baseline survey of sustainable
practices already in place. Within many of the administrative departments, it was
agreed that the exact contact person would not be disclosed in the final project.
Given that most of the data gathered during the interviews remained factual (free of
8
personal opinion), it was found that it was not necessary to disclose the exact contact
person(s) within each department. The departments and members of the university
community represented in the interviews during the established time period were:
• Design & Construction Management Services, Capital Construction,
• Transportation Services – Administration,
• Housing Services,
• Hazardous Materials Management, Environmental Health and Safety,
• Waste Management & Fleet Services, Facilities Management,
• Energy Services O & M Administration,
• Career and Protective Services,
• School of Architecture,
• Geography & Urban Planning,
• Environment 1
st
Student Group,
• LAS Graduate Programs,
• The Center For Sustainable Cities.
The Researcher
Students pursuing the Doctor of Planning and Development Studies degree at
USC are encouraged to pursue projects applicable at work. As Executive Director of
Environmental Health and Safety at USC, I am often approached by students,
faculty, and staff requesting collaboration on minor recycling projects or for help in
9
gathering data regarding the University’s ecological footprint. This has raised my
awareness of the need for a larger sustainability program to compliment the fast
paced development and growth that the University has enjoyed for the past 10 years.
My end goal is to help fulfill USC’s opportunity and responsibility to set a positive
example in the economic, social, and environmental performance of its campuses. It
is my initial impression that at this time the social and economic impacts of USC’s
operations have received far more attention than the larger environmental impacts,
and these could be addressed by a well-structured sustainability initiative.
10
Chapter 1: Lessons Learned from Leading Institutions
Due to their recognized leadership in environmental programs, in 1990 the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency awarded a research group at Tufts University
a grant to undertake an effort named CLEAN (Cooperation, Learning, and
Environmental Awareness Now!). Colleges and universities are microcosms of the
complex systems found in society, so the Tufts research group took the opportunity
to examine a broad range of campus activities including a diverse group of staff,
faculty and students in the research. In her book “Greening the Ivory Tower”, Sarah
Hammond Creighton details the effort at Tufts and concludes “perhaps the biggest
lesson from Tufts CLEAN! Is that actions to reduce or eliminate a university’s
adverse impacts on the air, land, health, and safety require the personal commitment
and direct involvement of university staff who have the responsibility for operating
the institution on a daily basis” (Creighton, p.2). Examples of the implementation of
sustainable activities at leading colleges and universities are listed in the following
sections.
The Talloires Declaration
An international group including twenty-two university presidents, rectors,
and vice chancellors met in Talloires, France in October 1990 to “define and
promote sustainability in higher education”. The result of this meeting was a first of
11
its kind commitment from the institutions present to address the fundamental
problems leading to environmental pollution and degradation. The document
produced at the meeting is known as the “Tallories Declaration”.
Included in the commitment, were the following actions:
1. Increase awareness of environmentally sustainable development;
2. Create an institutional culture of sustainability;
3. Educate for environmentally responsible citizenship;
4. Foster environmental literacy for all;
5. Practice institutional ecology;
6. Involve all stakeholders;
7. Collaborate for interdisciplinary approaches;
8. Enhance capacity of primary and secondary schools;
9. Broaden service and outreach nationally and internationally; and
10. Maintain the movement.
Among the stated benefits for institutions to sign on to the declaration is the
fact that institutions can join a historic document already signed by about 300
university presidents and chancellors. By signing the declaration an institution
would join with an international network of universities committed to a sustainable
future, providing inspiration and motivation for the whole campus community to
pursue environmental and sustainable initiatives. In addition, signing the declaration
12
provides a comprehensive framework for shaping steady progress toward
sustainability, and constitutes a commitment to which the institution can be held
accountable (Association of University Leaders for a Sustainable Future, 2005).
Sustainability Program - Charters and Staffing
In 2005, the Administrative Vice Chancellor at UCLA appointed a 15
member Campus Sustainability Committee, comprised of students, faculty and staff.
The committee was tasked with understanding the principles of sustainability as they
relate to UCLA, and to draft a statement of those principles with the end goal of
establishing a Sustainability Charter for the University (Lelah and Nichols, 2006).
According to the Sustainability Charter, the mission of the Committee is composed
of the following three central goals:
• To engage the campus in an ongoing dialogue about sustainability;
• To integrate sustainability with existing campus programs in
education, research, operations, and community service; and
• To instill a culture of sustainable long-range planning and forward-
thinking design.
All members of UCLA’s Committee are appointed to one year terms, without any
limit on the number of terms they can serve. Initially, the makeup of the Committee
includes representatives from student groups (e.g. Academic Senate and the student
13
Associations), Administrative Groups (e.g. Capital Programs and General services),
and Academic Leadership from the Chancellor’s Office. The program as a whole is
administered by a full-time professional campus sustainability coordinator, but
committee membership consists of a diverse group of students from the Academic
Senate, graduate and Undergraduate Students Associations, the Staff Assembly,
Student Affairs, and several Administrative Departments. Notably, all the meetings
are open to the public and announced publicly. (UCLA Campus Sustainability
Charter).
Similarly, President Young and the Faculty Senate at the University of
Florida (UF) established a Task Force in December 2000 with a mandate to
determine what was needed for UF to become a “global leader in sustainability”. As
a result the University of Florida Committee on Sustainability was established in
2004, and is composed of sixteen members, including faculty, staff, administrators,
and students. Its responsibilities include the task of implementing the
recommendations of the “July 2002 Final Report of the University of Florida
Sustainability Task Force”. The final report was endorsed by the Student and
Faculty Senates in the form of resolutions passed in the months following. In
addition, an Office of Sustainability in the College of Design Construction and
Planning was established to lead the sustainability efforts and to implement uniform
reporting of sustainability indicators. The office is staffed at a minimum by a full-
time Director reporting to the Vice-President of Finance and Administration, a Chief
14
Academic Officer reporting to the Provost, a secretarial staff assistant, and one
Graduate Research Assistant.
For their December 14
th
, 2004 report, the UF Committee on Sustainability
examined the 17 peer institutions as to their respective levels of commitment to
sustainability. The institutions, which included USC, were:
• University of California-Berkeley;
• University of California-Irvine;
• University of California-LA;
• University of California-San Diego;
• University of California-Davis;
• University of California-Santa Barbara;
• University of Southern California;
• University of Washington;
• University of Texas-Austin;
• University of Indiana;
• University of Michigan-Ann Arbor;
• University of Virginia;
• University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill;
• University of Wisconsin-Madison;
• University of Illinois-Champagne-Urbana;
15
• Penn State University; and
• Georgia Institute of Technology.
“Six of the institutions had a funded office of sustainability of which all
included sustainability in their curriculum, research, and operational policies
pertaining to the use of natural resources. Of the remaining institutions, seven had
ongoing efforts to establish an office of sustainability, six had a university-wide
committee on sustainability, six integrated sustainability concerns into their
curricula, four into their research missions, and eight into operational policies”.
Arguably, of all seventeen institutions, USC had among the least formalized in their
campus sustainability programs, but it was noted that a research center titled the
Sustainable Cities Center was present with its activities directed outward, away from
the university (University of Florida Committee on Sustainability, 2004).
Summary of Sustainability Program - Charters and Staffing
The process of forming an ad hoc group to study the fit for sustainability on
campus was shared among the leading institutions. This effort usually led to the
establishment of a formal sustainability office or manager position, along with a draft
of a sustainability charter and possibly a steering committee with diverse
representation from the campus community. In addition, the sustainability
committees were usually chartered or endorsed at the highest levels of the
16
administrations, and as in the case of the University of Florida, they may ultimately
report to both the administrative and academic leaders of the institution. The larger
committee meetings are often open to the public and seek input from the larger
university community.
Buildings and Infrastructure
At Stanford University, each Capital Planning and Management building
Project Manager is asked to work with a Sustainability Coordinator who serves as
both a facilitator and a teacher. This coordinator ensures that the project team is
informed about “The Guideline”, a documented resource used to achieve the best
balance for the project and lead to a cultural shift toward complete and routine
incorporation of sustainable design and construction practices. The Guideline
identifies five sustainability categories for evaluating the impacts of a building
project: 1) site design and planning, 2) energy use, 3) water management, 4)
materials, resources, and waste, and 5) indoor environmental quality. Technical
guidelines are available for each of these categories including a description of the
desired level of implementation for different building types (e.g. libraries, laboratory
buildings, offices, etc.). The guidelines are based on the University of Minnesota
Design Guide, the City of New York High Performance Building Guidelines, and the
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED
TM
) Green Building
Council’s Guidelines and Rating System (Stanford, 2002).
17
Although LEED
TM
has become a universal standard for green building,
Stanford opted to develop its own guidelines and the institution has been resistant in
adhering to external standards. In some ways the LEED
TM
standards are geared
toward traditional urban development, and are not directly relevant to the building
conditions at an institution such as Stanford (Chang, Audrey p.184-185). It is useful
for managers to have a stated definition of sustainability and it’s applicability for
campus projects such as those found in Stanford’s Guidelines for Sustainable
Buildings. “At Stanford, sustainability is to be considered at the same level as
traditional competing priorities such as cost, quality, and schedule. Competing
priorities must be equally considered and in balance to support the program within
the building, as suggested by the following illustration:”
Figure 1: Competing Priorities in Stanford’s Campus Projects
(Stanford University, 2002)
Similarly in 2000, then governor of California Gray Davis issued two
executive orders that address the building and siting of state facilities. Although the
state’s colleges and universities are not mandated to adhere to the goals established
18
in the executive orders, they were encouraged to do so. In December of 2001 a state
taskforce established a ten-point plan to address the need for cost-effective
integration of sustainable building practices into the state’s capital outlay process.
One example of cutting edge sustainable design can be found on the UC Santa
Barbara campus. The Donald Bren School of Environmental Science &
Management is housed in Bren Hall which has the distinction of being one of only
two platinum LEED
TM
buildings in the country. Some of the building’s sustainable
features include: Operable windows that interlock with the heating system,
motion/heat/ambient light sensors, efficient boiler and chiller systems and a cool
roof, building orientation that maximizes the use of daylight and natural cooling, a
variable air volume fume hood system in the lab wing, reclaimed water for irrigation,
a waterless urinal system, on-site energy generation from rooftop photovoltaic panels
providing 10% of energy for the building with another 30% purchased from
renewable sources, more than 90% of construction and demolition debris is recycled,
along with significant use of recycled material content in the buildings structural
components. Such a building serves as a model for future construction projects at
the other state university campuses (Sowell, Amanda 120).
The current landmark policy on Green Building Design and Clean Energy
Standards in the University of California system of schools was adopted in 2003.
The document recognizes the role of sustainability in stabilizing campus budgets,
increasing environmental awareness, reducing the environmental consequences of
19
University activities, and providing educational leadership. This document sets a
goal for all new building projects, other than acute care facilities that are evaluated
individually, to outperform the required provisions of the California Energy Code
(Title 24) energy efficient standards by at least 20 percent. Under this plan, all new
buildings, with a few noted exceptions, will be designed and built to a LEED
TM
2.1
“Certified” rating while striving to achieve a standard equivalent to a LEED
TM
“Silver” rating or higher when possible within budgetary constraints. Laboratories
will also be built with the Laboratories for the 21
st
Century (LABS21) environmental
Performance Criteria (EPC), as appropriate. In addition to existing external
certification processes, the University of California, will develop and maintain an
internal evaluation and certification standard based on LEED
TM
and LABS21
measures. Provisions are also in place to encourage similar standards for existing
facility upgrades and maintenance (University of California, 2006).
An early success story under this policy is UCLA’s LaKretz Hall in the Court
of Sciences that houses UCLA’s Institute of the Environment. The three-story,
20,000-square-foot structure is the first “green” building to be constructed on
campus and achieve a LEED
TM
“Silver” rating. Some of the features of the project
include the use of rapidly renewable and low-emitting materials, operable windows
and low energy consumption. The facility's mechanical systems have sensors to
measure and verify carbon dioxide content and overall air quality, providing a better
20
working environment and lowering energy consumption. Photovoltaic panels were
included in the plan to provide a renewable source of energy, and a displacement air
system further reduces electricity usage. The building was constructed on top of an
existing 5-million gallon tank that supplies chilled water to UCLA's air conditioning
systems, allowing the university to save valuable land space and avoid the
environmental impact of developing a new site (UCLA, 2006).
Summary of Buildings and Infrastructure
Universities recognized for their proactive approach to sustainable building in
California, have established structure evaluation tools for comparing their
construction projects with established best practices in the field. Not all institutions
have opted to seek formal certification from outside agencies such as the Leadership
in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED
TM
) certification process established by
the Green Building Council or the Laboratories for the 21
st
Century (LABS21)
Environmental Performance Criteria (EPC). However, documented design criteria
and evaluation processes are helpful for guiding green building designs and efforts.
Even if the guidelines and reviews are established internally, the institutions cited in
this section are able to demonstrate commitment to progress toward green building
principles.
21
What matters in the end is that effort is placed in the planning process to
ensure that environmentally responsible criteria, is considered in the building
designs. Several success stories can be found where the effort put into the planning
process yielded tens of thousands of dollars in reduced operating costs each year
along with reduced emissions and waste. MacMillan Science Hall at Brown
University was planned by a large committee that considered every detail of the
building. In the end the innovative ideas yielded $59,030 in annual cost savings and
929,588 annual energy savings (kWh) when compared to base code requirements for
the building (Pleasant, Andrew).
Outdoor Environments / Land Use
Carnegie Mellon University’s Baseline Assessment conducted in 2004,
considered the following three aspects of the outdoor environment management:
Landscaping Planning and Management, Grounds Maintenance Additives and
Techniques, and Plants and Wildlife. The first category focuses on the tradeoffs
between traditional aesthetics and human use. This planning and management
component also considers the campuses’ building footprint or the amount of green
space that is preserved during construction activities.
Secondly, the Grounds Maintenance Additives and Techniques component of
the assessment considers the portions of the environment that are artificially planted
22
and must be groomed to an aesthetic standard appropriate to maintain the look of a
prestigious university. Specific considerations here include the types and amounts of
fertilizers, herbicides, fungicides, and fertilizers in maintenance activities. Lastly,
the Plants and Wildlife component of the assessment, considers the quantities and
types of trees, plants and shrubs within the campus environment. In order to keep
the campus green and aesthetically pleasing, a mix of annuals are used to decorate
the campus while maintaining a mix of perennials intended for longer term
survivability. Planting of trees and shrubs resistant to climate changes and to any
extent possible, native to the region is also a sustainable consideration (Tipton and
Dzombak, pp. 13-19). At Yale University for example, native plantings are being
considered in place of grass and non-native plantings as part of the renovation and
expansion plans for the science and engineering programs. The area of campus
referred to as “Science Hill” may include the native plantings as a means to
eliminating the need for water, fertilizer, and pesticides, as well as being able to
restore traditional vegetation to the land (Yale, 2005).
Annuals grow when conditions of temperature, light, and moisture are
favorable, often through the spring, and they are often dormant during other times of
year. On the other hand, perennial plants are typically vigorous growers with
intensive root systems that help the plant to grow very quickly when moisture is
available (Perry, Bob, 1992). The selection of plants greatly impacts the frequency
in which the plants must be replaced in the landscape designs of a college campus.
23
The Waterwise Demonstration Garden at Stanford University was designed to
communicate the benefits of drought resistant landscaping to the campus community.
Located near the Faculty/Staff Housing areas, the garden was built with donated
plants and watering systems and allows visitors to regularly see how drought
resistant plants may look in their own gardens and how much water can be saved by
planting native plants that require little more than a drip irrigation system. The
garden contains several trees native to California as well as several drought resistant
plants from other regions (Stanford, The Waterwise Demonstration Garden). The
use of such educational tools can help gain acceptance for changes in the usual
campus aesthetics.
The need to avoid landscape and grounds designs that require extensive use
of resources, such as in the frequent replacement of certain types of plants, along
with consideration of the benefits created by developing sustainable systems of
landscaping and grounds, led the University of Florida to form a committee to deal
with lakes, vegetation and landscaping (LVL). Appointed by the president, the LVL
Committee is responsible for: A) Items that affect the use of University lakes,
including guidelines for use of such lakes in order to preserve their ecological
integrity and research capabilities. B) Management and well being of natural areas
containing non-domesticated plants and animals. C) Policies regarding the removal
of trees and other vegetation. D) Provide input to the University Land Use and
Facility Planning Board regarding planning of major landscape elements such as
24
green space, open space, and significant architectural features to ensure their
compatibility with existing and planned landscaping and master planning. The
committee includes students that are appointed for a one-year term (University of
Florida LVL Committee).
Summary of Outdoor Environments / Land Use Best Practices
One best practice for landscape design is the development of a committee or
group appointed to oversee the management of trees, general vegetation, and provide
input on the sustainability aspects of the master plans. A group that considers both
the overall look of the campus as well as the effective use of resources, provides a
balanced look at new landscape designs and plans.
Another best practice may be the effort put into developing a set of measures
for assessing the progress toward sustainable outdoor environments. A thorough
inventory of trees and vegetation which considers the maintenance issues and
environmental impacts establishes a baseline indicator by which the institution can
measure improvements. It is frequently commented that the campus communities
desire a certain look that doesn’t include native vegetation. However, as can be seen
at Yale, it is likely that demand for sustainable landscaping is changing perceptions
of what the modern campus should look like.
25
Sustainability Curriculum
At Northern Arizona University, faculty took part in a program called the
Ponderosa Project. Faculty members, from various disciplines, integrated issues of
environmental sustainability into 120 courses across the University’s curriculum.
The Ponderosa Project provided interdisciplinary research and teaching approaches
to raise awareness while lobbying the administration for a stronger university-wide
commitment to sustainability (Chase, Geoffrey and Rowland, Paul, p.92-105). The
faculty of NAU then made sustainability a key thrust of the liberal studies
requirement for all majors. This program is very similar to the Tufts Environmental
Literacy program initiated in 1990. Anthony Cortese foresees that planners will have
a role in completing the transformation in taking the educational experience from the
theoretical to a practical level. Colleges and Universities that implement sustainable
activities in their everyday operations but fail to get the faculty and students involved
will fail to achieve the potential of the programs (Cortese, Anthony, p. 20-22).
An even more compelling reason to integrate sustainability into the
curriculum, is that future students will demand coursework in the field. Participants
at the second annual Business Sustainability Initiative conference, organized jointly
by students from Dartmouth's Tuck School of Business and Thayer School of
Engineering on February 27, 2004, came to the conclusion that companies that want
to attract top managers will have to elevate concern for long-term sustainability to a
26
core value that drives strategy. Students of the highest caliber won't be attracted to
schools that don't take issues of sustainability seriously and integrate it in their
programs. The sentiment was echoed by featured speaker Steve Percy, chairman and
CEO of BP America, Inc., from 1996 to 1999, who explained that today’s businesses
have every reason to stay ahead in the area of sustainability in order to show value to
company stakeholders (Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth).
While several colleges and universities offer individual sustainability courses,
in 1996 the University of Michigan created the Erb Institute for Global Sustainable
Enterprise is a 50-50 partnership between the School of Natural Resources and
Environment and the Stephen M. Ross School of Business at the University of
Michigan. The institute promotes an interdisciplinary approach integrating the
natural, social and engineering sciences supportive of the transition to sustainability
– that is, meeting the fundamental needs of a growing human population in an
equitable manner within the means of nature (University of Michigan Erb Institute).
The Erb institute is a good example where a university took a leadership role in
providing degree programs dealing directly with sustainability.
Summary of Curriculum
While a number of Universities offer coursework dealing with sustainability,
only a few examples could be found of multidisciplinary approaches which provide
27
degree programs directly linked to sustainability. It is often discussed that
sustainable thinking will be necessary for the managers and engineers of the future,
so the opportunity exists to further incorporate sustainability into the curriculums of
leading universities. Ultimately however, the institutions have an opportunity to
teach through their actions and truly serve as demonstration sites for the sustainable
practices they teach.
Student and Staff Housing
In 1998, The University of Michigan’s Housing Division (Housing), decided
to move beyond the pollution control mantra that dominated organizational action on
environmental issues. Several years earlier, Housing had become an early adopter of
recycling programs by collecting standard recycling materials as well as special
initiatives during student move-in and move-out days. In addition, a food waste
composting program was initiated along with energy saving programs such as
lighting retrofitting with new efficient lights. However, although the efforts were
extensive, they had been pursued through the framework of pollution prevention.
The nations sixth largest campus housing system found that in order to move forward
and begin managing sustainability, they needed to provide guidance in their mission
and goals statements in the following two ways:
1. Existing mission and goals statements were adapted to conform to the ideals
of sustainability, and
28
2. Housing developed a freestanding “Sustainability mission and goals
statement” for the Division.
Under the guidance of an appointed sustainability committee, the statements
were put into action by moving beyond the broad objectives into specific
operational goals for environmental issue areas of energy and water, procurement
and design, waste, dining, and pest and grounds management. For each of these
areas, the Housing services Staff conducted a five step assessment including: (1)
Quantifying the environmental impact of the physical operations, (2) Assessing
current environmental initiatives, (3) Proposing a long-term sustainability vision,
(4) Recommending changes that move from present operations toward sustainable
operations, and (5) establishing indicators of success or failure (Shriberg, Michael
2000).
The Sustainability Mission Statement currently in place for Housing Services
at the University of Michigan reads: “We, members of the Housing community at the
University of Michigan, recognize that we can affect environmental degradation
and/or restoration. We recognize that future generations have a right to at least the
same advantages enjoyed by current generations. As stewards of the Earth, we
believe we have the responsibility to move toward a sustainable society. By
sustainability we mean living, working, and behaving in ways that restore the
29
integrity and biodiversity of the local, regional, and planetary ecosystems and social
systems upon which life depends. We therefore strive to:
• Encourage sustainable and restorative practices through education
and engagement with our stakeholders, including staff, residents,
suppliers, contractors, and the University community.
• Assess and reduce the long-term environmental impacts of our
decisions.
• Reduce our use of water, energy, and materials by incorporation of
technologies and practices consistent with a sustainable and
restorative organization.
• Reduce pollution and use of toxins with the long-term goal of zero
discharge and use.
• Openly communicate and monitor our progress toward
sustainability.
• Provide staff with the necessary training and resources to meet these
sustainability goals.
While our traditional approach to the use of resources has provided us with
unprecedented levels of material goods, it is destroying the world's environmental
support systems. The non-sustainability of the way we now do business and live is
increasingly apparent. Our generation has been challenged to "Think Globally--Act
Locally" (University of Michigan Housing, 2006).”
30
Higher numbers of students and staff living in and around the University play
a significant role in the number of vehicle trips used to access the campus. Students
living around the campus can take advantage of tram services and non-motorized
methods of travel such as walking or use of bicycles. The University of California
Berkley provides essentially no parking spaces in the residence halls and Cornell
University is considering providing 0.75 spaces per bed for new housing (Toor and
Havlick, p. 161).
Educating the student population on green practices can yield significant cost
savings for universities, and student housing provides a unique setting for education
regarding sustainability. One can imagine that students would have the
understanding that paying room and board entitles them to unlimited electricity, heat,
water, and generation of waste. Some conservation can be achieved with the use of
energy efficient equipment such as laundry facilities and low wattage lights, or by
implementing administrative solutions such as consolidating housing facilities during
off-months. However, to change the student’s attitudes it is necessary to provide
educational resources and to provide frequent feedback to the dormitory residents.
For example, the University of New Hampshire implemented the “flip the switch”
campaign where students received frequent feedback about the electricity usage in
their dormitories. This campaign reduced electricity use measurably and provided a
connection between conservation and the students efforts. In addition, resident
31
advisors can be counted on to act as building stewards and request prompt
maintenance of wasteful conditions such as dripping faucets (Creighton, p. 265-269).
Summary of Student and Staff Housing
Establishing a department specific sustainability charter or mission for the
housing services departments helps to set the framework for a comprehensive
program. As the University of Michigan case shows, it is also a good practice to
appoint a sustainability coordinator or committee for the division, as well as to
establish clear decision making guidelines for assessing current practices in terms of
sustainability. In addition, the toolbox available for implementing sustainable
practices includes: training students and staff, creating green procurement programs,
and establishing relationships with other campus departments such as Facilities
groups charged with waste, landscaping, and energy management. Finally, the
environment can greatly benefit from encouraging students and staff to live near the
campus and limit motor vehicle ownership and use by students.
Water Management
By December of 2001, Stanford University was required to submit a water
conservation plan to the County of Santa Clara in order to demonstrate that the
University could feasibly mitigate the impact from increase in water consumption
associated with the campuses development activity (Stanford University and Maddus
32
Water Management, Oct. 2003). Although not developed under the umbrella of a
“campus sustainability program”, the plan effectively outlines the range of
possibilities for water conservation on a university campus.
The water conservation, reuse and recycling measures were evaluated based
on analysis of water use trends from metered water data. Fourteen conservation
measures were deemed applicable to Stanford University and were considered for
further analysis of cost effectiveness based on: lower water purchase costs, lower
wastewater discharge costs, and deferred capital projects. The following table lists
the conservation measures along with their estimated utility benefit cost ratios and
estimated cost savings.
33
Table 1: Stanford Analysis of Water Conservation Measures
(Stanford University and Maddus Water Management, Oct. 2003)
Evaluation Criteria Water Conservation Measures
Considered in Stanford’s Plan Average
Water
Savings
mgd*
Utility
Benefit-
Cost Ratio
Cost of
Savings per
million
gallons, $
1 Ultra Low Flush Toilet Replacement 0.084 1.09 1,451
2 Showerhead Retrofit 0.007 2.77 581
3 Urinal Replacement 0.023 1.54 1,026
4 High-Efficiency Washer
Replacement**
0.010 19.14 492
5 Public Outreach Programs 0.026 1.02 3,180
6 Cooling Tower and Boiler Blow
down Reuse (e.g. for irrigation)
0.060 1.04 1,000
7 Faculty/Staff Housing Water Audits 0.037 3.46 733
8 Landscape Water Management 0.010 1.38 480
9 Selective Landscape Retrofit *** *** ***
10 New Water Efficient Landscape 0.27 0.27 3,230
11 New Landscape on Lake Water 6.72 6.72 132
12 Evapotraspiration (ET) Controllers
on New Faculty/Staff Housing
0.96 0.96 321
13 Selected Academic Areas on Lake
Water
5.86 5.86 163
14 Football Practice on Lake Water 12.31 12.31 78
* Caution: savings cannot be added without handling measure overlap water savings
averaged over 30 years. Actual savings in 2010 may be higher.
** This measure’s benefit-cost ratio included a rebate of $200 per washing machine.
*** TBD, the annual report will list specific projects completed during the reporting
year and associated estimated water savings.
Stanford’s report elaborates on specific initiatives associated with each of the
above listed conservation measures. It should be noted that the metered water supply
shows that the four largest users of water are: Student Housing & Dining, The
Campus Cogeneration Plant, Faculty and Staff Housing, and Academic Users
(Stanford University and Maddus Water Management, pgs 2-4). Similarly, Carnegie
34
Mellon’s Baseline Assessment acknowledges that knowing more about where and in
what amounts the water is being used will enable the campus to better manage the
water use and flows. Even though not every building is metered, Carnegie Mellon’s
assessment relies on a combination of municipal meters and on-campus meters to
calculate a meter to building ratio to gauge the meter coverage on campus. For those
buildings where the water use can’t be measured, Carnegie’s staff calculated the
average daily use of the occupants to estimate usage. The baseline values were then
normalized by per capita use by residents and campus population, as well as by
campus size. Notably, housing per capita use is higher due to the longer periods of
time spent in the buildings and the intensive uses like showering. In their literature
Carnegie Mellon recognizes that reducing water consumption also reduces the
amount of treatment and chemicals needed to prepare water for consumer use
(Tipton and Dzombak, pp. 57-66).
Drought conditions in various parts of the country during the summer of
2006, have also provided a glimpse at the possibilities in water conservation on
campuses. Such is the case at Missouri State University in the Springfield, MO.
Area. Their plan was implemented in stages as the water levels in a nearby lake
decreased and focussed on reductions in irrigation, community educational efforts,
reduction in the use of washing machines and equipment, and recreational uses of
water such as in pools (Missouri State University, Water Conservation Plan).
Likewise, Duke University is responding to a summer-long drought in North
35
Carolina that requires the university to cut consumption by 30% or more. The Duke
conservation plan is based on existing efforts developed in the 1990’s that included
such steps as installing low-flow flush valves, low-flow shower heads and aerators,
recycling water whenever possible, selecting planting materials that need less
watering and including water conservation plans in new construction and renovation
projects. Current efforts also address landscaping and irrigation uses in addition to
discontinuation of the use of on-campus water fountains and even a ban on serving
water in dining facilities. Like other locations, education of the campus community
is also a key part in reducing water consumption (Blake Dickinson, 2006).
Summary of Water Management Best Practices
By measuring location specific water consumption, universities are able to
gauge the effectiveness of conservation efforts. Leading institutions use on campus
meters and average usage calculations to determine what conservation efforts best
suit their needs. The more cost effective water conservation efforts found at USC’s
peer institutions can be grouped in the following areas:
• Replacement of water fixtures with more efficient units. This
includes installation of low flush toilets, showerhead retrofits, and
replacement of urinals with efficient versions;
• Replacement of consumer machinery such as washing machines with
water efficient equipment;
36
• Educational programs that encourage the campus community to
conserve water;
• Reuse of wastewater for such purposes as irrigation; and
• Efficient landscape designs and watering systems designed to
conserve water.
Energy Management
Many large research institutions have the capability of generating their own
energy, at least in part from on-site power plants. Such is the case at UCLA,
Stanford, and Yale where they hold a great deal of control over their energy-
associated environmental impacts (Yale, 2005). However, for the purposes of this
paper, the focus will be on institutions that rely on the consumption of energy from
outside utilities. Similarly to USC, institutions without on-site power plants must
focus on the opportunities to control the magnitude of their energy-related purchases.
One such institution is the State University of New York at Buffalo (UB),
who has been credited with reduction in energy consumption by more than 30%. In
fact the University has documented annual savings of $9 million a year proving that
energy conservation is not only desirable from the sustainability perspective but also
pays for itself. In May 2000, President William Greiner endorsed UB’s Sustainable
37
Energy Policy with a stated goal of reducing campus energy consumption by an
additional 20% by the year 2010.
UB’s plan focuses on the Facilities Management to drive the energy
initiatives. More specifically, the use of a facilities energy committee chaired by the
associate vice president of University Facilities sends the message to facilities staff
that energy conservation is a top priority. This committee has the freedom to initiate
changes, and has found that UB could save $100,000 for each degree Fahrenheit they
were able to reduce in overheating or overcooling the many buildings in the system.
The successes and network of resources is well documented on their web site
promoting energy conservation. The internal network includes contacts from
University departments and buildings that help manage the energy program. UB’s
Sustainable Energy Policy incorporates many of the initiatives one would expect
from a large organization such as the purchase of energy efficient equipment and
sound energy conservation policies. In addition, the plan considers redirecting
portions of the energy conservation dollar savings to fund additional conservation
methods, emphasizes the reduction of harmful emissions from the local power plant,
supports clean energy research on campus, and provides support for community
based clean energy initiatives (Simpson, Walter, 2003).
Similar initiatives are in place to reduce energy consumption and save money
at institutions in California. Stanford for example has an established Energy Retrofit
38
Program that completed 206 major projects from 1996 – 2005. These projects
included:
• Retrofits of 90% of its fluorescent lighting to more efficient T8 lamps
with electronic ballasts which produce better light with less energy
than the older T12 lamps with magnetic ballasts;
• Conversion of exit signs from incandescent or fluorescent lamps to
Light Emitting Diodes (LEDs) which reduces electrical consumption
by 50 watts or about $48 per year, per sign;
• Installation of window film minimizing the amount of heat entering
the buildings through sunlight, therefore reducing energy costs;
• Upgrades of HVAC systems that yield big energy savings;
• Replacement of drives in motor driven devices with variable speed
drives that increase the motor’s efficiency; and
• Replacement of outdated/inefficient refrigerators in labs, workspaces,
and housing/dining areas.
It is estimated that these 206 projects may yield up to 20,169,231 annual kWh
savings (Stanford University energy Efficiency).
So what indicators make sense for evaluating the sustainable practices related
to energy consumption? An assessment completed at The University of Michigan in
2002, selected indicators that were relevant to a stated move toward the use of
renewable energy sources, with smaller associated emissions that do not require
39
feedstock extraction methods which can harm local ecosystems. The measures
included total consumption of energy and differentiated between purchased energy
from a local utility and self-generated energy from an on-campus co-generation
plant. The energy consumption indicators also tracked the use of energy from
housing, parking, hospital, athletic, auxiliary service, transportation and other such
operations. Furthermore, the source of the fuel is also broken down to renewable
and non-renewable sources, with renewable sources such as bio-fuels, and wind
produced energy being seen as favorable for the environment (Rodriguez, Sandra
2002). Similarly, an assessment of energy management at Carnegie Mellon
University, provided total energy usage by types and sources of energy. The
rationale used for choosing these indicators was that energy was obtained from three
major sources: electricity, steam, and natural gas. This data was normalized by
among other measures, square footage of campus buildings, energy use per capita,
and weather normalized. Again in this assessment, renewable sources were
differentiated from non-renewable sources. The stated goal for the university’s
energy management program is to reduce energy consumption through conservation,
however tracking items like the unit cost of renewable energy can be used to
compare how changes in price may influence the types of energy purchased (Tipton
and Dzombak, 2005).
The “Green Building and Clean Energy Policy” that went into effect in July
of 2004 at the University of California provides a good framework from which to
40
organize a larger initiative at institutions in California. There are seven key points
related to energy for each campus to consider in their construction projects. First of
all, new building projects must outperform the California Energy Code (Title 24) by
20% and will evolve as stricter efficiency standards are set in the future. In addition,
the new building projects must enroll in the “Savings by Design” program which is a
publicly funded program through which building owners can get design consultation
to improve the project’s performance. The new buildings must achieve a minimum
equivalence to LEED certified rating and Labs must use the Labs21 criteria in
addition to LEED. A goal was set to reduce the system-wide growth-adjusted energy
consumption by 10% by 2014 and a strategic plan was developed to provide ten
megawatts of locally renewable power during the same period of time. Finally,
procurement officers were asked to achieve equivalence in UC power purchases with
the California State Renewable Portfolio Standard, which sets a goal of procuring
20% of its electricity needs from renewable sources by 2017 (Tradeline Inc.).
Summary of Energy Management Best Practices
By setting baseline indicators for energy consumption, universities are able to
gauge the effectiveness of conservation efforts. Leading institutions appear to track
three main considerations:
1. Total energy use by type of energy (normalized to the activities or
dimensions of their campus);
41
2. The source of the energy such as from renewable and non-renewable
sources; and
3. The effectiveness of their conservation efforts in both energy and cost
savings.
The scope of the conservation efforts are similar at the institutions, with a
number of universities undertaking significant retrofit programs to include more
efficient lighting, equipment, and appliances. The efforts in this category appear to
be closely linked to new building projects and upgrades that tend to consider energy
efficiency in newer designs. A guide and set of targets similar to those found in the
University of California’s “Green Building and Clean Energy Policy” would provide
a good framework from which to organize a larger initiative for USC.
Transportation
Universities working towards sustainability must confront the issue of
transportation. Not only does the daily movement of people back and forth to
campus in fuel burning vehicles create one of the largest impacts on the
environment, but also plays a role in developing the transportation habits of the
students once they graduate. College campuses have experienced growth in their
populations over the past ten years, which has lead to fundamental changes in the
way that Universities approach transportation. Lack of land for new parking lots,
high costs of building parking structures, pressure from surrounding communities
42
forced to deal with the noise and traffic, and the desire to preserve air quality and
campus green space, are leading many institutions toward a new vision based upon
expanded transit access, better bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and financial
incentives aimed at reducing driving.
Not surprisingly, economic considerations are a primary driver for many of
the changes. In many cases, it has been less expensive to invest in transportation
programs than to build new parking spaces. This is especially true on urban
campuses where the cost of land is high and the need for parking structures is more
pronounced. For example, the construction on structures is not only expensive, but
when built on existing parking lots, the net amount of new spaces must consider the
spaces initially lost to the project. In addition many campuses are forced to enter
into agreements with the surrounding community to limit the number of vehicle trips
when adding new facilities.
In their book “Transportation & Sustainable Campus Communities”, Will
Toor and Spenser Havlick provide the following transportation demand strategies
that have been tried at campuses in North America:
1. Transportation allowances – provided to commuters for modal transportation
of their choice;
2. Car sharing – providing pooled fleet of vehicles for use in limited activities;
43
3. Commuter clubs – providing cash incentives to commuters who use
alternative modes of transportation;
4. Free transit passes – providing staff and students with transit access;
5. Free bicycle accessories – providing helmets, lights, or other accessories that
improve bicycle safety and incentives to commute via bicycles;
6. Guaranteed ride home – ensuring means to get home during an emergency or
illness;
7. Parking cash out – providing cash incentives to vacate a parking space on
campus;
8. Taxation incentives facilitating the distribution of government transportation
incentives;
9. Vanpool empty seat subsidies covering the cost of lost riders so that others
riders aren’t burdened by the administrative costs;
10. Vanpool subsidies providing additional incentives to participate in
vanpooling;
11. Bike checkout programs that provide shared bike’s for campus transportation;
12. Parking fees set for cost recovery or as a disincentive to commuting by car;
13. Clustered parking such as structures to reduce walking distances between
buildings;
14. Incidental use parking for use by commuters who must make infrequent car
trips to campus;
44
15. Parking management strategies used to control availability and prices of
parking in order to provide incentive for alternative commuting trips;
16. Parking maximums set to ensure that parking is not oversupplied thereby
creating imbalances between modal options;
17. Preferential parking providing carpoolers and vanpoolers with preferential
parking near building entrances; and
18. Unbundled parking leases that separate the building leases with parking
leases thereby allowing for other incentive programs without oversupplying
parking (Toor and Havlick, 2004).
The previous list focuses on the types of initiatives that assist commuters.
However, there is also the question about reducing emissions and fuel consumption
by University Vehicles used for everyday business purposes. In addition to the
reduction of trips and vehicles as a whole, institutions such as Yale University have
encouraged the use of hybrid vehicles. Although the initial upfront premium in cost
of the vehicles may discourage many on-campus departments from purchasing the
vehicles, the realized fuel and emissions related savings could be significant when
compared to the traditional gasoline engines. In order to capitalize on the savings
and speed up the acceptance of the hybrid vehicles on Yale’s campus, the
University’s “Green Fund” provided subsidies totaling $40,000 for the purchase of
hybrid vehicles. Through this program, vehicles were purchased by Parking and
Transit Department, as well as being considered by the Yale Police Department that
45
operates a significant fleet of vehicles. After the vehicles remain in use for a while it
will be possible for Yale to gauge the exact savings and effectiveness of these
purchases (Yale, 2005).
Similarly, in 2004 Harvard made a decision to operate the University’s
shuttles and maintenance trucks on biodiesel, an environmentally friendly fuel made
from renewable resources like soybean oil. Emissions studies of 42 formally diesel
powered machines show 20% reductions in both unburned hydrocarbons and sulfur,
and 12% reductions in carbon monoxide and particulate matter without a reduction
in fuel economy. Surprisingly there was no need for costly conversion on the
equipment which was already suited for the alternative fuel (Wardrop, Josh B.).
Since then, various other alternative fuel projects were attempted at Harvard
including the test use of natural compressed gas fueled police cruisers and shuttle
vans. Harvard continues to serve as a test front for the promotion of cost-effective
conservation of the Earth’s resources which is consistent with the goals set by the
University’s transportation services and their Green Campus Initiative (Potier, Beth).
It should be noted that the use of alternative fuels is not limited to institutions
in the Northeast. For example, the University of Michigan counts on the largest
active alternative-fuel vehicle fleet of any organization in the state of Michigan and
all of their buses use bio-diesel fuel along with other vehicles in their fleet that use
ethanol or electric power (Rodriguez, Roman, Sturhahn and Terry).
46
Summary of Transportation
Universities count on significant fleets of vehicles and large populations of
employees and students that must commute to the campuses. This provides an
outstanding opportunity to test commuting alternatives and new technologies on a
large scale. Just about every mode of transportation and ridesharing program can be
found on large University campuses and the benefits easily add up in both cost
effectiveness and benefit to the environment. Universities like Harvard, The
University of Michigan, and Yale are in the forfront in the use of alternative vehicles
and helps build a case for attempting the use of alternative fuels and innovative
programs in USC’s setting.
Solid Waste Management
Two often used measures for solid waste management are quantity of
materials recycled and waste diverted from the landfills. The rate at which recycling
programs divert material from landfills and incinerators varies, but as early as 1988,
Dartmouth concluded it had the potential to recycle 51% of its solid waste. Ten
years later Dartmouth was recycling about 36% of their total waste and had
incorporated the recycling duties into existing janitorial responsibilities. Paper,
aluminum, glass, newspaper, and cardboard recycling are common and can often
generate revenues for the waste programs. Not only are Universities able to collect
47
money for the recycled material but also save from reduced costs for hauling waste
to landfills. For example, in 1994 Dartmouth College was saving about $75,000 in
tipping fees from the disposal of trash including revenue from the sale of recycled
material.
Coordination of recycling efforts varies by institution, but some like Harvard
University place the responsibility on a “rubbish coordinator” who integrates solid
waste and recycling collection and contracting. The advantage of staffing the effort
in this manner is that it provides for a holistic approach to resolve issues related to
waste management, and includes recycling in the range of approaches for solid waste
management (Creighton, pp. 53-62).
In a 2002 sustainability assessment conducted by graduate students at the
University of Michigan’s School of Natural Resources and Management, two
challenges were identified as being caused by the generation and disposal of solid
waste. The first challenge results from the fact that waste generation is often
accompanied by the consumption of new resources that are used to replace those
being disposed of. Secondly, the disposed of waste consumes landfill space creating
both environmental impacts and related financial costs of disposal. The assessment
identifies the need to measure a recycling rate as an expression of the relationship
between quantities of waste recycled and quantities of waste generated. The idea
behind this indicator is that decreasing the amount of solid waste disposed of will
48
reduce the environmental impacts of landfill disposal and reduce the need for new
materials. Lastly, the University of Michigan Report adds the thought that in the
future it may be useful to measure the potential impacts from traveling further
distances to dispose of waste in landfills. These costs would be expressed in ton-
miles.
The University of Michigan recycles a number of materials including: mixed
paper, mixed containers (e.g. glass, aluminum, and steel cans), scrap metal, scrap
wood and pallets, and food waste. Some of the “non-traditional” processes include
the composting of food waste from residence halls which began in 1997, and
recycling of packaging materials such as bubble wrap and polystyrene blocks or
packing peanuts. In addition to encourage reuse of waste, the Ann Arbor Campus
has instituted a program that puts formalin and xylene through stills to reconstitute
these materials from hospital operations. Other programs include mailing overhead
transparencies back to the 3M Company and reselling retired office furniture and
equipment through a property disposition department (Rodriguez, Roman, Sturhahn,
and Terry, 2002).
Summary of Solid Waste Management
Programs for diverting solid waste from landfills are as varied and innovative
as the institutions that implement them. However, what they all have in common is
the goal of diverting waste from landfills while recovering resources for reuse.
49
These programs are able to generate significant savings for the Universities by both
reducing landfill costs as well as generating revenue from salvaging materials that
would otherwise go to waste.
Regulated Waste Streams
Universities generate chemical, radioactive, and biological waste streams
mainly from laboratories and research activities. However, several other waste
streams need to be considered regulated or hazardous in that they require additional
considerations during disposal. These streams include automotive wastes and oils,
asbestos generated during remodeling, obsolete underground storage tanks, PCB
related waste from transformers, paints, refrigerants and ozone depleting materials
used in air-conditioning and refrigeration units, pesticides, and heavy metals found in
electronic waste streams including consumer electronic items.
In her book “Greening the Ivory Tower”, Sarah Hammond Creighton
suggests a series of administrative controls for minimizing use of the hazardous
materials within the administrative departments. Additionally, the use of a
purchasing department as a “gatekeeper” for incoming materials is suggested as a
way of reducing the unnecessary purchasing of excess material and to track the
purchasers of hazardous substances. Often times, alternative materials can be
identified and the purchasing department can work with vendors to play an important
50
educational role for the end users. At MIT for example, the Safety office and the
office of Environmental Medical Services asked the purchasing department to help
educate faculty and staff researchers using hazardous materials about source
reduction and ideas for reducing waste generation. Additionally, institutions should
consider tracking the disposal costs to individual departments and laboratories in
order to provide incentives for reducing the generation of regulated waste streams
(Creighton, 1998). MIT also counts on a web-based tool that guides users in their
efforts to find less hazardous and more environmentally benign chemicals or
processes that are available for purchase. Funded under the EPA’s People
Prosperity, and the Planet (P3) grant program, the “Green Chemical Alternatives
Purchasing Wizard” serves as a model for pollution prevention at large research
institutions (MIT Green Chemicals).
Harvard’s “Campus-wide Sustainability Principles” set the lofty goal of
decreasing production of waste and hazardous materials, both in Harvard’s own
operations and in those of its suppliers (Harvard Campus-wide Sustainability
Principles). Although, we frequently think of hazardous materials at universities
originating from laboratories and research activities, a number of other sources are
addressed in Harvard’s initiative. One example is the Green Cleaning Program,
defined as “cleaning to protect health without harming the environment”. Like
federal government / EPA initiatives by the same name, the aim is to minimize the
use of hazardous cleaning chemicals by modifying cleaning procedures as well as
51
selecting products that consider the health of building occupants, janitors, and the
environment (Harvard Green Cleaning Program).
Emissions Tracking
A more recent trend in campus sustainability involves participation in
programs aimed at tracking and reporting greenhouse gas emissions. Several
campuses in the University of California system are actively involved with the
California Climate Action Registry, which is a voluntary program created by the
California legislature in 2000 to help companies and organizations track, publicly
report and reduce their greenhouse emissions. Among the Universities participating
with the registry are UCSB, UCSD and UC Davis who recognize their role in
preparing the future leaders who will solve greenhouse emissions concerns (CCAR
August 9). As far back as 2001, the UC system has been represented on the Board of
Directors of the California Climate Action Registry when Dr. Kennel, Vice
Chancellor at UCSD was appointed by then governor Gray Davis to serve on the
Board (Office of the governor 9/10/2001).
City Programs (Santa Monica, California)
Like a city, college campuses are linked to the surrounding communities with
respect to transportation, land use, landscape design, storm water runoff, energy use,
and operational activities that are subject to scrutiny from a green perspective (Kirk
52
2003, p.11). These connections make the success of the sustainable city program in
Santa Monica, California an interesting model to consider as USC develops its own
program within a busy urban environment in which the campuses are located.
In 1994 the Santa Monica City Council took steps to address the pressures
created by increased population growth including high demand on natural, human,
and social resources to feed economic growth. Initially proposed in 1992 by the
City’s Task Force on the Environment, the sustainable city program aims to help
Santa Monica maintain its current needs without compromising the ability of future
generations to do the same.
In order to gauge progress, specific targets were set for the city to achieve in
four goal areas which were eventually expanded to the following eight goal areas in
the most recent revision of the plan – 1) Resource Conservation, 2) Environmental
and Public Health, 3) Transportation, 4) Economic Development, 5) Open Space and
Land Use, 6) Housing, 7) Community Education and Civic Participation, and 8)
Human Dignity. Specific goals and measurable indicators are used to measure
progress in support of the goal areas. Although not all indicators have a numerical
target, many of the original targets were either met or exceeded causing Santa
Monica to become a recognized role model for sustainability. The latest targets are
set for the year 2010, using 2000 as a baseline for comparison. In many cases where
53
specific numerical targets were not feasible or practical, an upward or downward
trend will help gauge progress.
The plan was founded on nine guiding principles that provide the basis from
which effective sustainable decisions can be made. Recently updated from their
1994 version, the guiding principles are as follows:
1. The concept of sustainability guides city policy;
2. Protection, preservation, and restoration of the natural environment is a high
priority of the city;
3. Environmental quality, economic health and social equity are mutually
dependent;
4. All decisions have implications to the long –term sustainability of Santa Monica;
5. Community awareness, responsibility, participation and education are key
elements of a sustainable community;
6. Santa Monica recognizes its linkage with regional, national, and global
community;
7. Those sustainability issues most important to the community will be addressed
first, and the most cost-effective programs and policies will be selected;
8. The city is committed to procurement decisions which minimize negative
Environmental and Social Impacts;
9. Cross-sector partnerships are necessary to achieve sustainable goals.
54
Progress toward the indicators are presented to the City Council every two years, in
order to provide a basis for decision-making about policies and actions that influence
the City’s ability to meet the established goals (Santa Monica Sustainable City Plan,
2003).
55
Chapter 2: Relevance of Sustainability in USC’s Strategic and Master Plans
Decisions that affect the environment are complex and the environmental
efforts must complement rather than consume the educational mission of the
university and its departments (Creighton, p.9). For this reason, it is important to
explore USC’s current strategic plan that acknowledges that, like all universities, this
institution actively shapes its own future while being shaped by external conditions
over which the university has little control. Among the external forces mentioned
are the increasing demands for greater regulation and accountability, and the fact that
national science policies are shifting toward a greater emphasis on research that
directly addresses practical issues in the national interest (USC Strategic Plan).
Although environmental sustainability is not specifically mentioned, one could
assume e that increased environmental regulation along with a growing need to
protect the nation’s environment, are encompassed in these concerns.
The vision for the future is for USC to become one of the most influential and
productive research universities in the world. Among the approaches that will
underlie the efforts is to conduct a range of research that advances knowledge and at
the same time addresses issues critical to the community, the nation, and the world
(USC Strategic Plan). Interest in environmental sustainability can certainly be
considered among the critical concerns. More specifically, in USC’s effort to
expand its global presence, the research will have to focus on society’s major
56
concerns that are global in scope (e.g. sustainability, disease prevention and
treatment, economic development, security, and environmental quality (USC
Strategic Plan).
Discussions regarding USC’s Master Plan, which serves as a development
plan for the university, do not specifically address environmental sustainability
issues for USC. However, several of the planned projects speak to sustainable
concerns and opportunities. One notable plan revolves around the Metro exposition
line that will start in downtown Los Angeles and run by USC on a path to Culver
City. Future phases of this metro line may include an extension leading to Santa
Monica. With possible stops at Flower and Jefferson and one at the corner of
Exposition and Vermont Avenue, the rail line would be ideally suited for commuters
from the West side of Los Angeles to the University Park Campus, which connects
to the Health Sciences campus by tram service (Archibald, Ashley, 2006).
Sustainability Infrastructure currently in place at USC
During the first quarter of 2006, administrative departments at USC were
approached to determine what practices were already in place at USC that could be
considered “environmentally sustainable”. This process served as a starting point for
identifying practices upon which a larger initiative can be launched, in addition to
57
helping identify existing gaps and opportunities based on what has been learned from
researching existing programs at other academic and research institutions.
Environmental Commitment Statement
In November of 2005, the Department of Environmental Health and Safety
helped draft a Statement for Environmental Commitment that serves as the guidance
document for environmental stewardship in University operations as well as an
attempt to tie-in efforts to control environmental impacts and the control of
regulatory exposure with USC’s Strategic Plan. Two statements were included in the
introductory paragraphs that speak to sustainability. The first statement addresses
the need to act as a responsible citizens and reads as follows: “The University of
Southern California recognizes its duty as a responsible business and community
leader to protect the ecosystem through environmentally sound policies and
programs”. The second statement directly addresses the need to promote sustainable
resources: “The University recognizes that in pursuing educational and research
objectives, opportunities exist to promote use of sustainable resources and
discourage wasteful or damaging practices”.
The statement endorsed by the Senor Vice President and General Counsel is
included as Appendix A in this document. It was forwarded to Department
Coordinators throughout USC for further distribution and posting (Environmental
Commitment, November 2005). However, it is not yet clear what impact the
58
distribution has had a on business practices or if widespread distribution was
achieved.
Although such a statement serves a purpose as an initial attempt to identify
the institution’s will to act in a sustainable manner as well as gaining support for
such an initiative from members of the administration, it will need to be placed in a
larger context in order to serve as a commitment on which a comprehensive initiative
can be built. As stated in the initial sections of this paper, several hundred
institutions have joined a world-wide effort in signing the Tallories Declaration in a
show of commitment to sustainability. Among those who have signed the
declaration is the University of Florida who in the early 1990’s joined 310
universities in “pledging support to reduce environmental degradation and natural
resource depletion”. Since then the commitment shown by the University’s
President has lead to larger grassroots movements by the University Community, the
establishment of an Office of Sustainability, adoption of sustainable design and
construction standards, development of a formal mission and guiding principles, and
formal reporting of sustainable initiatives (University of Florida, 2006). If not the
Tallories Declaration, then another statement of commitment to sustainable practices
could be drafted and endorsed by USC’s Administration, along with commitment to
adequate resources and staffing for the effort.
59
Communications
Beginning in November of 2004, the Department of Environmental Health
and Safety (EH&S) began issuing fact sheets focused on communicating recycling
and reuse initiatives. These “Sustainable Practices” fact sheets help the University
Community organize their own efforts for diverting regulated materials from
landfills.
Figure 2: USC Sustainability Fact Sheets
(USC Sustainability Web Page)
“Sustainable Practices” fact sheets focussing on waste recycling and reuse distributed
throughout USC. From left to right “Printer Cartridge Reuse” (March 2006),
“Electronic Waste” (November 2004), “Battery Recycling” (December 2005)
The fact sheets are distributed to all Home Department Coordinators who are
charged with distributing the fact sheets throughout their respective departments and
schools. At the least, they are asked to post the information on departmental bulletin
60
CAMPUS SUSTAINABILITY
EH&S
PROGRAMS
CAMPUS
SUSTAINABILITY
WASTE DIVERSION
ENVIRONMENTAL
AFFAIRS
RETURN TO EH&S
HOME PAGE
WASTE REDUCTION
Electronic Waste Recycling
Printer Cartridge Reuse
Used Battery Recycling
ENERGY MANAGEMENT
Computer Energy Conservation
FMS Energy Conservation
The University of Southern California
recognizes its duty as a responsible business
and community leader to protect the
ecosystem through environmentally sound
policies and programs.
The University recognizes that in pursuing
educational and research objectives,
opportunities exist to promote use of
sustainable resources and discourage wasteful
or damaging practices.
FACULTY, STAFF & STUDENT
INITIATIVES
USC Green Campus Initiative
Solid Waste Management
COMMUTING
Vanpool
Carpool
Transit Passes
ACADEMIC PROGRAMS
USC Center for Sustainable Cities
School of Architecture Sustainable
Programs
boards and encourage discussion of the topics. It is not clear how many people these
sheets actually reach, but they have been successful in initiating smaller recycling
programs in select departments and schools, including the Marshall School of
Business who now recycle and reuse batteries, and printer cartridges. The electronic
waste management program that was enhanced by regulatory mandates in 2003 has
been more successful with the university expected to collect and recycle just under
100,000 pounds of electronic waste this fiscal year.
Figure 3: Campus Sustainability Web Page
(USC Sustainability Web Page)
Campus Sustainability Web Page April, 2006
http://capsnet.usc.edu/EHS/CampusSustainability.cfm
61
A campus sustainability page was also added to the EH&S web pages in
order to begin communicating the best practices and initiatives found on campus.
Existing “sustainability fact sheets” have been placed on this page along with select
paragraphs from the Environmental Commitment Statement, and links to the USC
Center for Sustainable Cities, School of Architecture Sustainable Programs, and
existing departmental pages that focus on green activities. In addition, on April 11,
2006, EH&S representatives met with Students from USC’s Environment 1
st
student
organization whose future goals include an initial assessment of USC’s ecological
footprint or impact on the environment.
Water Management
The University Park Campus has three main metered water lines serving the
campus. Engineering estimates are relied upon to estimate the water use for
individual buildings based on occupancy and use. Appendix B includes a table of
the annual water usage for both the University Park and Health Sciences Campuses
that can be used for future comparison studies.
Likewise, the University estimates the industrial uses of water on campus
which is helpful for gauging the impact of current and future water conservation
efforts. Appendix C provides estimated usage and waste water information for
62
buildings which have industrial waste permits in the following five categories:
Estimated yearly usage (estimated amount of water purchased for the building),
Estimated daily use (Average for 2005), Sanitary & Miscellaneous (Estimated waste
water outflow not used for industrial purposes, research laboratories, etc.), Industrial
wastewater per day, and Total daily flow (Sanitary and Industrial combined).
For the same purpose, The Health Sciences Campus has individual water
meters serving each building, and the table on Appendix D provides estimates for the
average daily use.
Energy Management and Conservation
USC is a major energy consumer in Southern California with the
University Park Campus and Health Sciences Campus together averaging electric
loads in excess of 20 megawatts, and burn an average of 730 MMBtu (a thousand
thousand BTUs) of natural gas each day. To reduce its energy requirements, control
energy costs, and benefit the environment, USC is committed to aggressively
pursuing energy reduction and efficiency improvement opportunities (USC Energy
Services).
USC currently counts on a long term energy contract with the Los Angeles
Department of Water and Power (LADWP). Energy purchased via this contract
through the year 2010, includes renewable energy currently accounting for about 6%
63
of the total power. The university counts on a full time Director of Energy Services
and staff dedicated to energy management programs. In addition to extensive
lighting retrofits and equipment upgrades throughout the campuses, significant
energy load reductions were achieved with the recent retrofit of chillers, cooling
towers and pumps throughout the university. Of note is the 3 million gallon
centralized thermal energy storage tank that was installed below ground to save
energy used in cooling water for the air conditioning systems on the University Park
Campus. The tank utilizes chillers to cool the water at night and then distribute the
chilled water to over half the campus buildings through extensive underground
pipelines during the daytime. The entire system completed in 2005, took just over 3
years to complete from the initial planning stages in 2001 (USC Data).
The two major sources of energy for the University are Electricity and Gas.
For the purpose of establishing a baseline for future reference, the table in Appendix
E provides the overall usage for the two main campuses (USC Data). It should be
noted that several large research buildings were in the process of being constructed
in 2005, or were not occupied at the time. These include laboratory space in the
Molecular and Computational Biology, Tutor Hall of Engineering, and Zilkha
Neurogenetic Institute buildings.
64
Another interesting feature of the energy management system is a real time
“Feeder Load Management Report” available online. Regularly updated throughout
the day, the public can access data regarding the energy consumption for each
campus. On the University Park Campus, data is available for the two main electric
vaults that distribute electricity: the Jefferson Vault with nine feeder circuits, and the
Biegler Vault with ten feeder circuits. Sample real time feeder reports are included
in Appendix E.
By being able to gauge the energy consumption at USC, one could use
default state-level electrical emissions factors for carbon dioxide (CO), methane
(CH), and nitrous 2 4 oxide (NO) to estimate the environmental impacts of the power
usage (Energy Information Administration). It should be noted that included among
the informational fact sheets that have been distributed to university staff over the
past few years, there have been some that deal directly with energy conservation,
such as the one found on the EH&S Department’s Web Page dealing with Computer
Energy Conservation found in Appendix F.
Buildings and Infrastructure at USC
USC’s President Sample has described the University Park Campus as
certainly one of the five most beautiful campuses in the country, which continues to
adhere to USC’s classical architectural vernacular, “which is more-or-less Italian
65
Romanesque”. In contrast to other urban universities, President Sample stated that
USC is opening up more green space in areas like McCarthy Quad, a recently added
grassy area near the center of campus. He also points to the many fountains, trees,
and gardens that add to the aesthetics of the University (Sample, Steven B., 2006).
With one of the largest construction efforts in the history of the University
currently underway, an opportunity exists to incorporate environmentally friendly
and energy-efficient considerations into the planning processes. However, none of
USC’s current projects will apply for LEED (Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design) certification offered by the U.S. Green Building Council, or
similarly the Labs21 program sponsored by EPA and the U.S. Department of Energy,
which aims to improve laboratory energy and water efficiency, encourage the use of
renewable energy sources, and promote environmental stewardship amongst the
laboratory community (EPA, Labs21). This fact leads to question whether this is a
missed opportunity to join the certification efforts supported by other large
institutions, or if there are compelling reasons why USC should resist oversight from
external agencies and organizations.
Insight was provided into what goes into making such a decision at an
institution like USC. One factor that can’t be ignored is the fact that savings yielded
by LEED status certification are not readily seen in the form of a cash payment, and
must be calculated from the assumed allocation of future maintenance and
66
operational costs. At the current time, little if any data has been gathered within
USC to support the idea that green building designs will help maximize the
operational savings of the operations that they will eventually house. On the flip
side, it is much easier to estimate savings from the project delivery side, including
cost of materials and project timelines.
Similarly to the sustainable principles applied at Stanford described in the earlier
sections of this paper, USC may need to strike a balance between the specific
attributes of each project and the sustainable design standards that make sense in
USC’s urban setting. In LEED certification calculations, credit is awarded for open
space adjacent to the buildings comparable to the development footprint. However,
the tight development areas at USC present space limitations for green space along
with reducing the ability to achieve energy savings possible from the orientation of
new buildings. The tight urban setting affects the connections and relationships
between the buildings and public access ways. Another consideration is that City of
Los Angeles regulatory codes may place restrictions on the use of waterless
plumbing fixtures, or the use of water retention ponds and other green processes for
which credit would be awarded for certification purposes.
Not to be overlooked are some of the institutional obstacles that lay in the
way of sustainable buildings at USC. The campus is currently being built with a
“historic Italian Romanesque” design in mind with lush green landscaping to
67
accentuate the designs. Being self imposed, one can imagine that some flexibility is
allowed in the architecture. However, the intended look and feel of the University
Park Campus excludes the use of available materials and exterior equipment that
may be better suited for modern facilities at other institutions. The Health Sciences
Campus, Wrigley Institute in Catalina and other regional centers may be less
restricted in this regard.
The merit of each of the above mentioned perceived obstacles can be
debated, but the fact that they are present in the design thought process means that
they will eventually need to be addressed in order to institutionalize green building
standards at USC. The relatively short tenure of the average Academic Dean along
with immediate need for space to accommodate the anticipated growth at USC, may
also contribute to the reluctance of some to fully support any initiative that may add
time and initial cost to building projects. However, in an unpublished draft of
strategic approaches for building sustainability discussed with the University
Architect’s Office, the following eight recommendations are summarized for
addressing perceived obstacles and expanding efforts for sustainable construction at
USC:
1. Conduct post-occupancy evaluations of recently completed construction
projects at USC using established LEED and LAB21 guidelines, to identify
best practices already in place along with opportunities to be included in
cost/benefit calculations in future buildings,
68
2. Focus on clear, simple and practical solutions that provide significant
payback over a shorter time period to be considered in future cost/benefit
calculations,
3. Establish a leadership structure for the sustainability program at USC that has
authority and supporting resources.
4. Establish sustainability goals for each project in the earliest stages feasibility
and programming,
5. Remain committed and patient in order to help realize the longer term
benefits. Many benefits will not be apparent for years to come,
6. Consider the role of a cross campus steering committee to help establish the
vision for the larger program,
7. Employ the services of individuals knowledgeable and experienced with
sustainable building projects,
8. Ensure that attention is given to determine and track the costs and benefits of
sustainable projects.
It is apparent from the interviewed staff, faculty and students that there is
genuine interest in expanding the sustainable building initiatives at USC. Although
the term LEED certification is frequently used interchangeably with sustainable
building, the concerns with subjecting USC to outside standards begin to build a
compelling case for developing University Specific guidelines such as was done at
Stanford. For the purpose of being able to generate positive publicity for the work
69
that USC already does in sustainable planning and building, the framework used to
define our efforts needs to be clearly stated and documented. Only then will we be
able to begin tracking our successes and incorporate sustainable ideas into new
project designs.
Outdoor Environments & Land Use at USC
One sustainable practice that is limited in the urban setting is the ability to
collect and compost clippings and green waste on-site. Not only is USC limited on
available space for such an activity, but the confined setting discourages activities
that will generate unpleasant odors for the occupants of the campus facilities. USC
is however able to send green waste to a Materials Recovery Facility in order to
divert some of the waste from landfills. Limited green space also dictates that
playing surfaces must be shared among numerous users, and creates the need for
round the clock playing surfaces.
Attention has been given to ensure adequate watering of campus green areas,
while preventing wasteful over-watering. Over the past three years, a central
irrigation system has been phased in on the University Park Campus, with
approximately 80% of the grassy areas serviced by the “Calsense Central Irrigation
Control System” that helps offset irrigation by sensing wind levels, gauging rainfall,
monitoring water flow in pipes, monitoring daily evapotranspiration (the sum of
70
evaporation and plant transpiration), and sensing soil moisture levels. This system is
supported by recognized practices aimed at maximizing the effectiveness of the
watering. Examples of such sustainable landscaping practices in place at USC
include: watering before 7:00 am to minimize water loss; pulling cores to verify
optimum depth of watering; and mowing practices that minimize the need for
chemical additives and water.
The table in Appendix G lists the total area of the two main campuses and
that occupied by buildings. This however, does not provide enough information to
calculate green space on the campuses but may help provide a measure for growth
and construction when compared to subsequent years. Information like building
footprint and paved areas will be needed in the future to better measure green space.
Also listed in the table, are the amounts and types of materials used in landscaping
and the types of trees and plants on the University Park Campus. Such figures help
establish a baseline for comparison to future assessments (USC Data).
Curriculum and Academic Resources
Probably the most complete example of existing academic programs
addressing sustainable studies at USC is “The Center for Sustainable Cities” which
was established in 1998 by a group of USC faculty from engineering, the natural and
social sciences, urban planning, and environmental health sciences. Professors
71
Joseph Devinny of Civil and Environmental Engineering, and Jennifer Wolch a
professor of Geography at the time, received a grant from the National Science
Foundation's Integrated Graduate Research Education and Training (IGERT)
Program, given that as the nation’s second largest urban area, the Los Angeles region
is an ideal laboratory for research on urban environmental sustainability. The
economical and cultural diversity of this region, along with its geographical
significance, make L.A. an intriguing location for research dealing with
sustainability (USC Center for Sustainable Cities). Appropriately, the IGERT
Program was developed to meet the challenges of scientists and engineers interested
in pursuing careers in research and education, with the interdisciplinary
backgrounds, deep knowledge in chosen disciplines, and technical, professional, and
personal skills to become in their own careers, leaders and creative agents for change
(IGERT, 2006).
In many ways, The Center successfully establishes collaborative research that
transcends traditional disciplinary boundaries and facilitates diversity in student
participation, and includes: summer programs, lecture and seminar series,
multifaceted research agenda, and training and policy outreach activities designed to
engage world concerns beyond USC. Most recently, in November 2005, The Center
held it’s inaugural Executive Education program providing participants with an
introduction to sustainability concepts as well as practical tools for improving
business and government operations.
72
Figure 4: Meeting the Sustainability Challenge Program
(USC Center for Sustainable Cities)
The three-day program entitled “Meeting The Sustainability Challenge”
attracted leaders from the municipal, business and non-profit sectors and included
curriculum components such as: Sustainability as a Business Development and
Management Strategy, Sustainability in Architecture, Design and Construction,
Sustainability in Urban Land Use, Conservation, and Watershed Practices (Vuong,
William, Press Release 2005).
73
Several Schools within USC offer courses dealing with sustainability.
Notably, these courses are found in the curriculum in the School of Architecture,
School of Policy Planning and Development, and the College of Letters Arts and
Science’s Geography and Environmental Studies Programs. Some examples of
courses offered include:
• Undergraduate and Graduate Programs in Materials, Systems and
Sustainability within the School of Architecture. The stated mission of
the program is “to fundamentally improve the quality of the built
environment towards long-term-sustainability through research and
design methodology from large scale urban systems design to high-
performance building structures, sustainable materials and methods of
advanced building systems integration. A further focus of the program is
to extend constructability, environmental performance, life cycle, systems
durability and recyclability of targeted building materials and to reduce
environmental impacts related to materials, manufacturing transport,
assembly, operation and maintenance” (School of Architecture, 2006);
• The Department of Geography offers both Undergraduate Courses
dealing with sustainability. Most notably courses like “Geography 601
Sustainable Cities” – dealing with Exploration of environmental problems
linked to urbanization, drawing on historical analysis, social theory,
74
scientific research, and city planning/design practice. Alternative policy
options for urban sustainability (USC Geography, 2006); and
• Undergraduate students in Policy Planning and Development can take
courses dealing specifically with sustainable communities such as: Urban
Transportation Planning and Policy (PPD 360); Designing Livable
Communities (PPD 425), and Sustainability Planning (PPD 461).
The availability and popularity of these courses indicates that sustainable
issues are more prevalent in the minds of the students, and support the fact that USC
will need to move in the direction of becoming a living laboratory for the study of
sustainability in order to provide students with leading edge examples to compliment
the academic coursework. Faculty members interviewed over the past few months
unanimously expressed concern that teaching students about the importance of
sustainability lacks the proper context when done at an institution lacking a cutting
edge sustainability initiative.
Future Fuels and Energy Initiative (FFEI)
To address critical societal needs, USC has developed a group of initiatives
that build collaboration among students and faculty from all of USC’s schools within
major research projects. Among the initiatives, The Future Fuels and Energy
Initiative (FFEI) aimed at reducing global reliance on fossil fuels. The initiative is an
75
attempt to establish a cross-disciplinary research program that both advances the
science of alternative fuels and energy conversions and addresses the economic,
social, environment and policy issues associated with transitioning to a new
energy/fuel paradigm.
The vision for the FFEI is to transform future fuel and energy choices to create
economically viable and environmentally sound communities worldwide. The
initiative will encourage the development of new paradigms of fuel conversions,
carbon neutral energy storage and generation techniques, alternative energy, and
global warming mitigation.
Co-chaired by Genevieve Giuliano, Professor School of Policy, Planning and
Development, and Surya Prakash, George A. and Judith A. Olah Nobel Laureate
Chair in Hydrocarbon Chemistry, the FFEI mission at USC is to become the premier
center for cross-disciplinary research that creates both short and long-range fuel and
energy solutions. Guided by a cross-functional steering committee that represents
Loker Hydrocarbon Research Institute; Wrigley Institute for Environmental Studies;
Policy, Planning and Development; Economics; Political Science; as well as
Aerospace/Mechanical, Chemical, Petroleum, Civil and Environmental Engineering,
and Material Science. Research will address both conventional and new fuels, will
include all phases of the fuel production/consumption process, and will address the
76
economic, environmental, and policy aspects of transition. The research themes
include:
• Improving efficient recovery and utilization of conventional fuels;
• Developing transitional fuels;
• Developing and evaluating fuel and energy policies;
• Developing next generation fuels; and
• Developing transition pathways.
USC has particular research strengths in natural gas to methanol conversion,
fuel cells, photo and electrochemical conversions, combustion, source-based fuel
processing, enhanced oil and gas recovery, and CO2 capture and conversion to
methanol (CO2 recycling). To this end, the FFEI Steering Committee held a USC-
wide research retreat in February 2006, as part of its work to develop a research
program and strategies for implementation.
A one-time small grant program was established to support innovative, cross-
disciplinary research within the theme of “future distributed fuel and energy
systems”. Research projects should develop and evaluate concepts by which energy
is efficiently captured and produced at the local level, with the goals of:
Dramatically reducing the costs of production and distribution; reducing the
vulnerability of energy supplies to disruption; and reducing the environmental
consequences of energy production and consumption. Up to eight awards will be
77
granted to USC Faculty under this one-time call for proposals, with individual
awards of up to $25,000. Recipients are expected to leverage these awards toward
seeking larger awards from external sources, and to contribute to the efforts of the
initiative to seek research center-level funding (Future Fuels and Energy Initiative).
Transportation / Ridesharing Programs
USC counts on the services of a full time Rideshare Coordinator for the
transportation programs available to all members of the University community. In
part to remain in compliance with the South Coast Air Quality District’s Rule 2002,
USC submits an annual summary of the organizations ridesharing plan for university
employees. Using the District’s calculations, in 2006 USC achieved an average
vehicle ridership (AVR) of 1.69 through the implantation of Rule 2002. The AVR
exceeded the target of 1.50 established by the SCAQMD for the area in which USC
operations are located. Seventeen strategies were identified in order to achieve this
AVR among which were included: A vanpool program, transit subsidies,
telecommuting, various incentives and prize drawings, parking charge subsidies,
availability of compressed work weeks, a carpool program, a bicycle program, along
with various support strategies like providing transit information and ridesharing
assistance (USC Annual rideshare Program Summary, 2006).
78
The table in Appendix H offers a glimpse into the overall participation in
some of the programs offered at USC. Note: Some of the figures are exact values
reported for the 2005 – 2006 fiscal year, while others such as “parking permits sold”,
are estimates based on parking capacity at USC and allotment practices for those
spaces. Each specific program is discussed in more detail in the following sections.
Ride Sharing
There are five primary ride sharing options available to the USC community.
Students, Staff and Faculty are encouraged to ride the MTA Bus Lines, DASH Bus
Lines, Metrolink Trains, or participate in carpools, or vanpools. Eligible full time
employees of USC who participate in the programs receive a subsidy of $30 as a
benefit for not purchasing a parking pass. The subsidies provided to employees are
applied to the purchase of monthly passes for use on Metro (light rail or bus),
LADOT, and Metrolink services or even $30 vouchers for use on other systems.
More specifically, $30 transit vouchers are available to employees who rely on bus
and transit systems not listed above, or use the vouchers to purchase passes not sold
through the Transportation Office. The additional vouchers are fairly popular with
approximately 250 issued over twelve months.
The following chart tracks faculty and staff ridership for Metro Link trains
over the past four fiscal years.
79
Figure 5: Metro Link Faculty / Staff Passes
Metro Link Fac/Staff
100
125
150
175
200
225
250
275
July
August
September
October
November
December
January
February
March
April
May
June
Month
FY05/06 Metro
FY04/05 Metro
FY03/04 Metro
FY02/03 Metro
Although overall participation may appear to be low when considering the
larger population at USC, each year has shown steady gains in passes sold. The
chart may indicate that there is growing need and interest in the metrolink system. It
should be noted that tram service is available from Union Station to the University
Park Campus, Health Sciences Campus, and by connection with another free tram, to
the Health Sciences offices located in the City of Alhambra. Riders relying on the
train systems that do not arrive in Union Station, rely on the municipal DASH bus
systems servicing the Figueroa Corridor.
Student participation in the Metro Link system has also increased steadily over
the past four years, with sales of passes clustered in the month’s when classes are in
session. During the 2005 / 2006 fiscal year, sales spiked over previous years.
80
However, it remains to be seen if the current trend continues (USC Data).
Figure 6: Metro Link Student Passes (USC Data)
Metro Link Student
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
July
August
September
October
November
December
January
February
March
April
May
June
Month
FY05/06 Metro
FY04/05 Metro
FY03/04 Metro
FY02/03 Metro
Finally, it should be noted the same increase has been noted in grants of
vouchers that can be used on other municipal transportation systems. This indicates
that the total ridership is increasing as opposed to a transfer of riders between bus or
train systems.
81
Figure 7: Vouchers (USC Data)
Voucher
100
125
150
175
200
225
250
275
300
325
July
August
September
October
November
December
January
February
March
April
May
June
Month
FY05/06 Vouchers
FY04/05 Vouchers
FY03/04 Vouchers
Carpooling
The basic carpool consists of two to four co-workers or students from the
same community driving together, rather than commuting individually in their own
vehicles. The benefits stated by the Transportation office include: the ability to
rotate drivers, the use of carpool lanes on the freeways, the ability to participate even
if not all members own a car by contributing toward gas and other expenses instead
of providing a vehicle. Many of the carpools operate on a few selected days of the
week, and provide the flexibility of operating only when it is feasible for the
individual riders.
82
From the University’s point of view, carpooling can be considered a
sustainable activity in that it reduces pollution from fossil fuels generated from the
commutes of faculty, staff and students, along with the need to build parking spaces
on land that could be used for greener purposes. The participants also benefit from
prolonging the life of their vehicles due to reduced vehicle maintenance, and
possibly even on the cost of insurance due to reduced use of personal vehicles. The
Transportation Office also promotes the fact carpooling helps prolong the life of
each participants current vehicle by reducing overall mileage on the vehicles.
In order to facilitate participation in the carpool program, employees are
encouraged to participate in L.A. County’s “ridematch” program to find potential
carpool partners. The online database match’s potential rideshare partners from the 5
County regions of Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Orange, Ventura and Riverside
(Commute Smart Info., 2005). In addition, USC’s Rideshare Office conducts an
annual rideshare survey used to generate a customized “rideguide” printed for
employees requesting one. A formal policy for the carpool program is available
online to all employees considering the program. Most notably, to qualify for all the
incentives such as parking privileges, the participants must relinquish their individual
parking passes, therefore reducing the total number of spaces required (USC Carpool
Policies, 2006).
The current cost of carpool permits is $247.50/semester, or $55.00/month,
which includes the 10% LA city tax. Each member of the carpool that is not the
83
primary permit holder is allotted three guest passes per month for use on days when
carpooling is not possible. Carpool expenses can reduce taxable pay by having the
fees withdrawn directly from your pay prior to taxes being assessed (USC Carpool
Page, 2006).
Vanpools
The vanpool program is probably the most visible rideshare alternative
provided by Transportation Services due to the visibility provided by the fleet of
vans. Vanpools are designed to provide reasonable commuting alternatives by
providing affordable shared transportation for USC employees and students. For a
fee averaging about $6/day, Staff, Faculty and Students ride to and from work from
any of the 20 cities from as far away as Palmdale. Vanpools provide less flexibility
for the participants due to the dependence on greater numbers of people. However,
in the event that a reasonable rideshare option is not already available (e.g. train, bus
or carpool), vanpools may be organized to meet the commuting need.
Payment is conveniently deducted from payroll checks or added to student
accounts, and to compensate for occasions where an individual must drive to work,
and as in the carpool program, Transportation Services offers three complimentary
daily parking passes a month for vanpool riders. The van schedules are pre-
determined by the participants, and no arrangements are made for individuals who
either miss their vanpools or work late (Vanpool Information Page, 2006).
84
It was noted that vanpools are among the least cost effective rideshare
alternatives and that the cost to operate this program likely exceeds the benefits. In
fact less than 200 individuals currently benefit from this program. However, the red
vans used in the program are easily recognizable and get much of the attention. Still,
those interviewed remarked that this is probably the least efficient rideshare option
by those charged with administering the program.
Alternative Fuel Vehicles
While USC lags behind in the use of alternative fuel vehicles, they are
present on the campus. However, some individual successes include the use of
traditional electric “golf” carts for on-campus driving and the recently purchased
electric powered three wheel vehicles used to patrol the campus by the Department
of Public Safety. Although the vehicles were not primarily purchased as a green
alternative to gasoline powered patrol cars, the three wheel chariot style vehicles
along with patrol bicycles reduce the need for patrol cars at USC (Moore, Lauren).
Plans for Light Rail
The Metropolitan Transit Authority has plans for a rail line extending from
downtown’s Seventh Street Metro Center to Culver City, and eventually all the way
to the beach. Efforts are underway by the University to have the train installed
85
underground as it passes USC in order to maintain cohesive, seamless links between
the green spaces at USC and Exposition Park (Sample, Steven B., 2006). The
following map from the Metropolitan Transit Authority, illustrates the planned Mid-
City/Exposition line to Culver City running primarily at-grade, with the exception of
two overpasses at La Cienega and La Brea boulevards (MTA, 2006).
Figure 8: Planned Mid-City/Exposition line to Culver City (MTA, 2006)
As recently as October of 2005, Rick Thorpe, who heads the agency's
construction and was interim chief executive of the Expo project, said the MTA was
86
seeking $50 million from Los Angeles, USC and other outside sources. However,
the project which parallels the congested 10 Freeway is not without opposition.
Even though the rail line would link some high- and medium-density pockets (the
Convention Center-Staples Center area, USC, Exposition Park, the Crenshaw
district, Leimert Park and downtown Culver City), Genevieve Giuliano, director of
the Metrans Transportation Center, a joint research center of USC and Cal State
Long Beach, has expressed doubts about ridership on this line and was recently
quoted on the topic as saying "The Wilshire Corridor is probably the only corridor in
Los Angeles that one could justify mass transit on," ….. "It's the only corridor to me
that has the potential for generating ridership that justifies an investment in high-
capacity transit." (Groves, Martha, 2005) .
It has been estimated that to extend a tunnel along Exposition Boulevard
between USC and Exposition Park, would cost an additional $125 million, a
significant increase from the total budget of $640 million for the entire line. In
December, Samantha Bricker, chief operations officer for the Exposition Metro Line
construction Authority, was quoted as saying “If USC wanted to fund the extra costs,
it would be considered.” (Archibald, Ashley).
87
USC Student and Staff Housing
In his most recent annual address to the faculty in February 2006, USC
President Steven B. Sample described a metamorphosis where USC is rapidly
evolving from a commuter university to a residential university. The historical
backdrop that he provided was one where most undergraduate students commuted to
campus, not necessarily from their parents’ home, but more often from apartments in
other communities. The metamorphosis he described was one where USC is now
experiencing “an almost insatiable demand on the part of our undergraduate students
for on-campus housing”. This transition to a residential campus supports USC’s
efforts to provide a small-college experience inside a large, urban research
university. To this end, the gradual demand for 8,000 additional on-campus or close-
to-campus beds will have to be met with either university funded projects or by
private capital as is taking place on two large projects in the works adjacent to the
University Park Campus. Examples of private projects adjacent to USC are: the
Conquest Student Housing structure that will house 450 students in the fall of 2006;
and the University Gateway project that may eventually house 1,600 students on the
north side of campus (Sample, Steven B., 2006). Los Angeles developer Urban
Partners announced plans in July of 2005, for the eight-story, $135-million student
apartment and retail project to be called University Gateway across the street from
the University Park Campus. The construction on the 421-unit complex at the
northwest corner of Figueroa Street and Jefferson Boulevard scheduled to begin in
2006 and be completed by fall 2008 will provide 70,000 square feet on the ground
88
floor for a student bookstore and fitness center, along with other retail tenants to
include a restaurant. The building may house as many as 1,656 students in two-
bedroom, two-bath units (Vincent, Roger, 2005). Finally, a four-story residence hall
dubbed Parkside Phase II, is scheduled to be completed by June 2007 near the
southwest corner of the University Park Campus. That facility is expected to house
440 students specifically aimed at students interested in the arts and humanities
(Ashton, Charles, August 31, 2006).
Currently Housing Services provides over 6,500 students with housing in
residence halls during the school year. An additional 3,368 students live in
university owned apartments and just under 300 live in university owned and
operated Greek Housing on the North side of the campus. There currently isn’t an
accurate count of the total number of students, faculty and staff living in non-
university owned properties around USC, but it can be assumed that it is a growing
population with numerous large scale housing developments being built or planned
within one square mile of the University Park Campus (USC Data).
Until recently, due to a shortage in the availability of university housing, only
freshmen were guaranteed university housing. However, upon completion of
approximately 445 new spaces at on-campus residence halls, incoming freshmen will
be guaranteed housing for their sophomore year (Legittino, John, 2006). As noted
89
previously, having students and staff living in and around the University plays a role
in the number of vehicle trips used to access the campus.
Among the most notable sustainable activities being undertaken by Housing
is the recycling of aluminum, plastic & glass at the residence halls. The program
partially run by students ensures that bins are placed in the housing units and that the
materials are collected by licensed recyclers. Although paper is not currently being
recycled, plans to expand the program to include consumer paper are being
considered for the coming year. Baseline values for recycled materials during the
2005-2006 fiscal year are included on Appendix I.
Incoming students receive the following informational pamphlet provided on
the following page, along with a brief training on the subject as part of their
orientation to university housing (USC Data).
90
Figure 9: USC Housing Services Recycling Pamphlet (USC Data)
91
Figure 9: cont. (USC Data)
University Housing has also addressed issues of energy conservation and
water management over the past few years. Although a formal conservation program
is not in place and exact saving have not been calculated, Housing staff was
successful in:
• Retrofitting lighting throughout the buildings to include more
efficient bulbs and fixtures,
• Working with Facilities Management to install a more efficient boiler
system to provide steam to the university owned buildings,
92
• Replacing appliances and washers as needed with GE “Energy Star”
appliances known for their efficiency,
• Installing low flow shower heads in the residences (although some
students are known to change the heads to suit their needs), and
• Retrofitting some of the toilets with low water flow models and
“Sloan power flush systems” that use less water.
In the University owned apartments, students pay their utility bills and
therefore have a greater appreciation for the correlation between consumption and
cost; however, that is not the case in the residence halls. Currently, there isn’t a plan
to post energy bills or data that may help students gauge the success of their
conservation efforts. Thermostats throughout the shared areas are controlled by
Housing maintenance staff, but those inside the individual rooms are controlled by
the students. This makes controlling the cost of heating a challenge for USC.
There are several transportation advantages to having an increasing number
of students living in and around the UPC campus. All University owned housing
units are serviced by trams and vehicle escort services during the evenings. This
eliminates the need for students and faculty living in the vicinity to own vehicles for
the purpose of commuting to campus. In fact, students are discouraged from
bringing vehicles to campus during orientation, and it is estimated that only about
10% bring cars. Bicycle parking is available throughout USC housing, and a clear
93
path has been established from the 28
th
street to campus along University Way that
provides a safe path off of city streets for a large percentage of students. Several
attempts have been made to estimate the number of bicycles that arrive on campus
each day, but a reliable number is not currently available. New bicycle racks have
been added for the past 3 years indicating that the number of bikes on campus is on
the rise and that this form of transportation is gaining in popularity.
As a part of President Steven Sample's five-point neighborhood initiative,
beginning with home purchases in the neighborhoods surrounding USC on or after
July 1, 2006, USC faculty and Staff can apply for the USC Neighborhood
Homeownership Program. The program is administered by the Treasurer's Office
and provides eligible employees with monthly payments totaling $50,000 or 20% of
the home's purchase price (whichever is less) over a seven year period. The stipend
will be evenly allocated. To receive this benefit, an eligible employee must purchase
and occupy a single-family residence within the defined communities on or after July
1, 2006. The first payment will be made after approval of the Neighborhood
Homeownership Program application, receipt of the final escrow settlement
statement, and verification that the employee has moved into the acquired home.
Payments will continue monthly, subject to confirmation that the recipient: remains
an eligible USC employee; continues to own and occupy the home; and remains in
good standing with the first mortgage
94
The USC Neighborhood Homeownership Program is available to all "benefits
eligible" faculty with an appointment of at least 50 percent time or more, and staff
who hold "benefits eligible" positions of at least 50 percent or more (USC
Neighborhood Homeownership Program) .
Figure 10: USC Neighborhood Homeownership Program – UPC Boundaries
(USC Neighborhood Homeownership Program)
95
All home purchases in the University Park Campus Community, defined as
the area bordered by Western Avenue to the west, the Santa Monica Freeway to
the north, the Harbor Freeway to the east, and Vernon Avenue to the south, are
eligible for this subsidy.
Figure 11: USC Neighborhood Homeownership Program – HSC Boundaries
(USC Neighborhood Homeownership Program)
96
All home purchases in the Health Sciences Campus Community, defined as
the area bordered by the Golden State Freeway to the west, Broadway to the north,
Indiana Street to the east, and Cesar Chavez Avenue (Brooklyn Avenue) to the
south, are eligible for this subsidy.
Waste Management and Recycling at USC
With approximately 718.86 tons of non-hazardous trash collected from
University Park Campus operations each month, a significant opportunity exists to
divert waste from landfills and recycle as many materials as possible. Facilities
Management Services was able to recycle 27% of waste from landfills by pre-sorting
materials on site prior to disposal as well as sending the waste to sorting facilities
that are able to separate recyclable material from our waste stream. An additional
11% of USC’s waste was sent to facilities specializing in the production of energy
from solid waste in 2005. This practice can help lessen our reliance on fossil fuels
and prolong remaining landfill capacity for future use. An average of 136.49 tons of
material is sorted and then sent directly to recycling facilities.
The assistance of material recovery facilities (MRFs) is also needed for the
processing of solid waste in order to recover recyclable materials. During the 2005
calendar year, an average of 110.90 tons of recycled material was recovered monthly
at facilities outside of the university and therefore diverted from landfills.
97
The tables in Appendix J provide a breakdown of the average monthly
quantities of recyclable material recovered from USC’s solid waste, both on campus
(Source Sorted) and at outside facilities (MRF Sorted).
Regulated Waste Management at USC
Much like the non-hazardous waste streams, opportunities exist for USC to
engage the university community during the selection, purchase and conservation in
the processes involving hazardous materials. Appendix K provides the quantities of
hazardous materials disposed of during the fiscal year 2005 – 2006. To date, most
of the reduction efforts have been the result of waste management practices by the
Department of Environmental Health and Safety, but opportunity exists to get the
researchers and purchasers more actively involved in waste reduction efforts.
Emissions Summary
Although the primary reason for tracking the University’s emissions is
compliance with regulatory requirements, the figures are helpful for establishing a
baseline with which to compare future years. The table in Appendix L provides
baseline emission values in tons, for the permitted and non-permitted stationary
sources found on the University Park and Health Sciences Campuses.
98
The values are part of University Supplied Data gathered for reporting to the
SCAQMD’s as part of the Annual Emissions Report for USC owned operations.
Such baseline figures could serve to be useful for gauging the effectiveness of future
initiatives aimed at controlling carbon emissions at USC
Chemical Purchasing and Use controls at USC
No formal process is in place to help University staff purchase less damaging
chemicals or materials with exception of use controls in place to meet regulatory
requirements in the areas of radiation protection and biological safety. Likewise,
each department may be considering less harmful or damaging alternatives to the
materials used in their operations, but these processes are not formalized throughout
the university.
Student and Staff Lead initiatives
The USC Green Campus Initiative is composed of interested USC faculty,
staff and students seeking to develop the University of Southern California’s
environmentally progressive practices. The mission of the group is to cultivate an
environmentally conscious community who understand the environmental
implications of their actions and use this knowledge to inform their decisions at USC
(The USC Green Campus Initiative, 2006).
99
The group initially conceived by undergraduate students, is mainly composed
of undergraduate students and has been successful in initiating various educational
campaigns. One example of the visual educational techiniques used to modify
behavior, was their campaign during the first week of October of 2005, when the
students collected all of the bottles they could find from 10:00 a.m. to 2 p.m. in and
around Commons dining facilities in the center of the University Park Campus. The
project culminated in the display of 1,712 plastic bottles strung together along
Trousdale Parkway on the center of campus (Tucker, Bunny, 2005).
The student group has worked with staff and faculty over the past three years
to plan events during earth week. This year the weeklong activities included the
following:
EARTH WEEK 2006 (APRIL 17-21)
Monday 4/17, 12-2pm @ VKC 210
Professor Panel of Stephen Koletty, Joseph Devinny, and Lawford Anderson relate
environmentalism to their respective disciplines. Free Subway.
Monday 4/17, 7-9pm @ Leavey Library Auditorium
Green Movie Night - Screening of environmental student documentaries “Stop
Driving” and “Fueling Change” and the film “Last Journey for the Leatherback?”
Snacks provided.
100
Tuesday 4/18, 10-2pm @ Tommy Trojan
Hybrid Car Show and Native Plants Sale (Sponsored by ECO and CalPIRG) and
information regarding a Campus Climate Challenge!
Wednesday 4/19, 8am – 4pm @ Lot 1
Electronic Waste Collection of Recycle unwanted consumer electronic items from
home.
Wednesday 4/19, 10am – 2pm @ Trousdale Pkwy
Earth Week Carnival celebrating Earth Week with 40+ local and student
organizations.
~hybrid cars, solar baked cookies, community art, massages, t-shirts and more~
Wednesday 4/19, 6:30 – 8:30pm @ Harris 101
Environment First and the School of Architecture panel discussion regarding the
Green Practices Initiative. Offering details on efforts taking place on campus and
how students can participate
Friday 4/21, 2 – 6pm @ East McCarthy Quad
Freecycle – An event where students could bring stuff that they didn’t want and take
things that did, for FREE.
101
Chapter 3: General Summary and Recommendations
The leading institutions in the field of environmental sustainability discussed
throughout this project appear to do a good job of addressing sustainability using a
systematic approach. For example, Stanford University, Harvard and The University
of Florida all address the need to understand the relationship between economic,
social and environmental sustainability. While these same institutions along with
Michigan University and Cornell also address the need to connect the academic
interests in sustainability with actual practice of these same principles by the school.
The importance of becoming a living laboratory for students to learn and practice
sustainability is important because it lends credibility to the academic pursuits of the
institutions.
While one can identify sustainable initiatives that individual business units at
USC have attempted in each of the ten categories highlighted in this project, these
initiatives fail to leverage the unique social and economic surroundings of the
university as well as the interdisciplinary academic pursuits of the school.
Sustainability related initiatives launched by the Provost over the past year, are not
clearly supported by the business practices of the university, and therefore fall short
of their potential impact on the education of the students.
Grass root efforts are increasingly evident at USC, with the formation of
student groups dedicated to the environment as well as faculty and staff projects
102
related to green business practices. It does however appear that leading institutions
count on a top down approach for engaging the campus community in sustainable
business practices. Many of the institutions listed in this paper count on a mandate
from top administration or from an ad-hoc committee or charter that lend a shared
vision for sustainability. In the coming months, it will be important to engage the
administration with the idea that green initiatives can be financially rewarding as
well as critical for the success of USC’s social and academic pursuits. Leadership in
environmentally sustainable practices will be increasingly important for USC to
maintain a reputation for academic leadership among the top universities in the
Nation.
The institutions highlighted throughout this report have already taken the
leadership role in sustainability and actively promote their programs as a means for
enhancing their reputation. Accordingly, a review of existing best practices in the
university setting, along with a survey of existing sustainable practices at USC, led to
the following recommendations divided into the following 10 categories:
Sustainability Program - Charters and Staffing
An official “Sustainability Charter” has served as a building block for
steering committees as well as the larger sustainability program at other institutions.
Similarly to the central goals outlined in UCLA’s Sustainability Charter, it is
essential to engage the larger campus community to foster a shared vision and effort.
103
In turn this will help integrate the processes in existing operations and instill a
proactive culture. Ultimately, leadership and oversight needs to be established for
the sustainability efforts, which is often accomplished by forming a dedicated
committee or funding full-time positions dedicated to sustainability.
Recommendations
• Complete a general survey of sustainable practices at USC along with a list of
stakeholders at the institution.
• Form a team of stakeholders consisting of faculty, staff, students, and
community representatives to help draft the sustainability charter for USC.
This process should include establishing the central goals for the overall
initiative.
• Submit the charter to the Office of the President in order to formally charter a
Sustainability Steering Committee, and appoint the members and
chairperson. The Charter could also specify the frequency of meetings,
reporting responsibilities, and planned outcomes in the early stages of
implementation.
• Consider the benefits of establishing a full time position dedicated to
managing the sustainability programs at USC. This position could initially
be part of an Administrative Department such as EH&S, but would ultimately
need to be able to interact with both the Academic and Administrative
104
functions. This may require some reporting structure linked to the Provost of
the university.
Buildings and Infrastructure
Sustainable planning for the built environment is frequently considered a key
component of green programs at leading colleges and institutions. This holds true
for USC’s peer institutions in California where the UC system, Stanford University,
and to a lesser extent the California State system of schools are making an effort to
certify their newer projects through established criteria found in LEED and LABS 21
standards, or establishing institution specific guidelines. The end goal of these
programs is to ensure green building practices are considered in the planning
process.
Recommendations
• University architectural staff, building planners, and project coordinators
should be trained regarding green building practices. This will help promote
green building practices at the earliest planning stages of each project and
possibly even in the master planning for the University.
• Given the constraints of USC’s urban setting, green building guidelines
should be written by which all future projects can be evaluated. Much like
Stanford’s technical guidelines, each project manager should be prompted to
105
consider site design, energy use, water management, resource conservation,
and overall environmental quality in planned projects.
• A set of measures should be established to track the effectiveness and
potential cost savings of green projects at USC over the life of the buildings.
Outdoor Environments / Land Use
In order to transition from traditional aesthetics of USC’s outdoor
environment to focus on practices involving the preservation of resources, the
campus community will have to be educated about the benefits afforded by a
different look for the institution.
Recommendations
• Form a sub-team to focus on the aesthetic and practical aspects of the outdoor
environment. The committee would help draft guidelines for the replacement
or removal of existing vegetation.
• Augment the existing systems used to track trees, chemical use in
landscaping, and the planted environment to include specific data about the
exact use of outdoor space on campus. Although USC currently has a good
idea of how much exterior space is available, the exact breakdown of paved
versus planted space will help track progress toward preserving the green
spaces supporting the limited wildlife found on the urban campuses.
106
• Work on educating the USC community to gain acceptance for a different
look to the campuses which incorporate the types of plants that help preserve
our community resources (e.g. water, chemicals, etc.).
Sustainability Curriculum
In addition to individual courses on sustainability, USC offers opportunities
to participate in cross functional academic programs dealing with sustainability
issues. The Future Fuels Initiative and The USC Center for Sustainable Cities, are
examples of such cross-functional initiatives and grant programs. USC is in a good
position to serve as a living laboratory for students to gain hands on knowledge
about sustainability in an urban setting. An organized initiative aimed at blending
academic and administrative initiatives will go a long way towards advancing
sustainability at USC.
Recommendations
• Engage staff, faculty and students in the sustainability programs and
encourage interaction aimed at exploiting possible synergies in efforts aimed
at greening the campuses.
• Work to ultimately form a steering committee that reports to the provost of
academic affairs, but is inclusive of all the administrative functions on
campus.
107
Student and Staff Housing
Active sustainability programs within Housing Departments at other
institutions effectively make the connection between the students and the larger
campus initiatives. As the number of students and staff living around campus
continues to grow, the opportunity to educate the community on the principles of
sustainable living becomes increasingly significant.
Recommendations
• Like the efforts described at the University of Michigan, it may be helpful for
housing staff to receive introductory training regarding sustainable practices.
Such an effort could be supported by forming a department specific
“sustainability mission and goals statement”, and ultimately adapt the
existing policies and procedures to adhere to the newly introduced
sustainability principles.
• Better tracking of residential building specific energy consumption, water
use, and waste generation could serve to involve the students in conservation
efforts and to foster friendly competition in adhering to sustainable
principles. The tracking indicators would be used to measure progress
toward the stated goals established for this purpose.
• Dedicated staff could be assigned to lead efforts within the housing
Department. USC’s Housing Department does a good job of involving the
students in recycling efforts and could use this effort as a springboard for
108
connecting with the students in energy management, waste reduction, and to
seek participation in larger community efforts.
Water Management
Many of the good water conservation plans in place at other Universities
began because of a regulatory mandate or because of drought conditions that exist in
the region in which the institutions are located. However, the fact remains that a
separate clear plan dedicated to water conservation, effectively helps guide
conservation efforts at the institution.
Recommendations
• The opportunity exists to improve the water measures at USC. Building or
area specific monitoring of water use could help manage water use in specific
departments or schools. Such an investment will also help to establish
building specific indicators to track the effectiveness of the conservation
efforts.
• An updated water conservation plan would serve as a roadmap to guide the
conservation efforts at USC. The plan should include input from a broad
group of schools, departments and representatives from the campus
community. For example, the students and staff living in USC facilities have
as big of an impact in the conservation efforts as do the landscaping, dining,
planning and administrative departments on campus.
109
Energy Management
Perhaps more than in any other category discussed in this paper, money saved
from energy management efforts are easily identifiable and such cost savings serve
as the driving force for continuous improvements. USC has recently completed
significant lighting retrofits, purchasing of energy efficient equipment and
appliances, along with other energy saving projects described in a 3 year plan
developed by the Facilities Management Services Division. However, a new plan is
being developed for the coming years, and the opportunity exists to specifically
address sustainable practices.
Recommendations
• The facilities staff has received training dealing with campus sustainability,
but in the coming years, it will be necessary to transfer that knowledge and
seek assistance from the larger campus community. The new conservation
plans would benefit from diverse input, and buy-in from throughout the
campus community.
• Better tracking of building specific consumption could serve to motivate
building occupants and facilities groups from within the academic units to
participate in conservation efforts. Administrators within the schools initiate
many of the large building retrofits and influence new designs. These
110
administrators should be well informed of the savings that can be yielded
from sustainable designs in their facilities and operations.
Transportation
USC counts on a very active ridesharing program established in part to
comply with the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s Rule 2202. Using
the District’s calculations, USC achieved an average vehicle ridership (AVR) of 1.69
through the implementation of Rule 2002 for the year 2006. This AVR exceeds the
target of 1.50 for the area in which USC is located. Just about every available tool or
best practice established by the District, was implemented by USC in one way or
another. In addition, USC has embraced many of the best practices such as
employing a full-time rideshare coordinator to manage the commuting programs.
The “low hanging fruit” is not available in this area, and USC will need to move to
more creative means for reducing vehicle trips.
Recommendations
• Like many of the UC Campuses, USC could consider vehicle emissions in
the larger picture along with emissions from stationary sources on campus.
By considering all emissions generated by USC facilities and operations, the
university will be able to ensure that reductions in one area, compensate for
those in another. For example, it may be justifiable to purchase alternative
111
fuel vehicles, if one considers that an off-set is necessary to compensate for
the rapid rate of development at the USC.
• The measures used for the rideshare program focus on employee’s of the
University. The next step for USC may be to consider the trips taken by the
students as well. Even though this is not required by regulatory mandates,
the student population exceeds the number of university employees, and
therefore USC could take great strides by engaging the student population in
the rideshare calculations. Without available commuting information for
students, it is imaginable that due to the fact that greater numbers of students
are being housed in the neighborhood, a favorable reduction in total motor
vehicle trips is being achieved for which USC could take credit.
Solid Waste Management
Active recycling programs are in place at USC, both through the efforts of
the formal Facilities Management Services (FMS) organization, and by those of
several departments on campus. The opportunities exist in the formation of a
structure that combines all of these efforts while helping implement waste reduction
and reuse programs.
Recommendations
• Recycling efforts in the Housing Department, Environmental Health and
Safety, and FMS needs to coordinated in order to gain from the synergies of
112
greater cooperation. An effort is made to track all of the recycling numbers,
but if the program was managed or overseen by a cross-functional committee,
we could ensure that all efforts are understood and managed efficiently. Such
a committee would include representatives from the major schools,
administrative functions, and students/staff leaders.
• Waste reduction efforts must begin with involvement from the purchasing
department and by educating purchasing agents throughout the university.
Waste reduction is not yet a major concern in most of USC’s purchases, but
the committee formed to address waste reduction issues, could also assist in
formalizing the process for evaluating purchases considering environmental
factors. An example of this may be the student groups that have persuaded
USC to provide ecologically friendly coffees on campus. Prior to this
initiative, there was probably little concern given to the fact that a “greener”
alternative was available.
Regulated Waste Streams
Much like the recommendations for the non-hazardous waste streams, the
main opportunities for USC may be to engage the university community during the
selection and purchase of hazardous materials, as well as helping USC to embrace
the need to participate in waste reduction efforts. Once the hazardous or otherwise
regulated materials find their way to the campus, the primary focus becomes
113
managing them safely and effectively, but the opportunities to reduce waste are
limited.
Recommendations
• A cross-functional committee should be formed to consider the opportunities
that exist for reducing the use of regulated materials such as chemicals,
radioactive materials, medical/biological materials, and universal waste
streams (e.g. electronic waste that must be diverted from landfills).
Substitution to less hazardous materials must be encouraged by the
purchasing department processes, and each school and department must be
educated to recognize opportunities for substituting to materials that will
lessen the impacts to the environment.
• Recycling and other waste management processes must be communicated to
the university and to the extent possible, be made convenient and user-
friendly.
Budget
Requests went unanswered when attempting to obtain budget information for
sustainability initiatives at several leading institutions and budgeting information was
not found in literature on the subject. However, a rough budget can be drafted by
estimating the staffing needs and the educational activities planned.
114
Recommendations
• During the initial year the program will be staffed as part of the EH&S
function and may require little more than a student assistant to perform the
administrative functions. The cost of one student worker and office supplies
for the initial steering committee should not exceed $5,000.
• In the second year, the University may consider one full time staff member in
addition to two students for administrative support. The staff member would
also be expected to benchmark other institutions and represent USC at
conferences on the subject. A budget of $100,000 would adequately cover
these expenses. It should be that some if not all of this cost can be regained
from savings in energy efficiency, recycling, waste reduction, and other
organized green initiatives.
• Although difficult to quantify, future staff will require office space and
equipment. It is assumed that the staff will be co-located with a host
department that will absorb most of that cost with the exception of the
physical office space that will need to be accounted for.
115
Chapter 4: Three Year Implementation Plan
Based on the recommendations from the previous section, the following
broad objectives seem reasonable for the coming 3-years.
2006 - 2007
In order to provide the necessary structure for the program, it will be
necessary to form an ad-hoc committee with diverse representation from the USC
community to outline the central goals for a sustainability program at the university,
and to develop an initial charter for sustainability at USC. This committee will be
charged with identifying the existing strengths and needs for a sustainability
initiative at USC and providing the President and his staff with a structure for
sustainability going forward.
In order to accomplish this, the office of Environmental Health and Safety,
can take a lead role in drafting a proposed charge for this initial committee and
providing the President’s office with the committee objectives and proposed
membership for the committee. In turn, the President’s office may be able to
officially charge the committee. A memo outlining the need for a sustainability
charter and committee will be sent to the Associate Vice President of Career and
Protective Services and up through administrative channels for consideration by the
President’s cabinet/staff.
116
2007 - 2008
During the second year, a permanent steering committee could be formed to
guide the overall efforts and to deliver a consistent message that would be presented
to students, faculty, staff, and the broader USC community. In addition, a
permanent position could be established to manage the processes as has been done at
many of the leading peer institutions. This could also be the time that sub-teams
would be established to consider area specific implementation plans including
consideration of:
• Landscaping issues including the aesthetic and practical aspects of the
outdoor environment;
• The practical aspects of sustainability in university housing, as well as
establishing a USC housing specific sustainability mission and accompanying
goals;
• Transportation considerations inclusive of the student population;
• Waste issues and measures for all USC operations; and
• Regulated waste reduction practices and processes including green
purchasing practices.
Considerable effort will need to be placed on educating the university
community regarding the newly established sustainability vision for the University.
117
Administrative departments will need to train their staffs on the application of
sustainable practices in their respective disciplines.
2008 – 2009
The third year will focus on establishing measures which in some cases may
include engineered devices for tracking progress. For example: it may be considered
necessary to install water and energy meters in individual buildings or sectors of the
campuses. In addition, guidelines for sustainable construction, green purchasing,
and for tracking sustainable projects will have to be developed and introduced
throughout the university community.
This year could also serve as a time for an initial sharing of projects and
measures throughout the university. This could take the form of both a cross
functional conference on the topic, as well as an initial report on sustainability
published throughout the university.
118
Bibliography
Archibald, Ashley, “Rail line to break ground this summer”, Daily Trojan
Newspaper, March 23, 2006, P.1., Available www.dailytrojan.com.
Archibald, Ashley, “Rail line to break ground this summer”; Daily Trojan, vol.
CXLVIII, No. 42, March 23, 2006. pg. 1.
Ashton, Charles, “More USC Housing Underway” Daily Trojan, August, 31 2006,
Vol. CLIX, No. 9.
Association of University Leaders For a Sustainable Fututre (ULSF), Programs
{Talloires Declaration}, 2005, http://www.ulsf.org/programs_talloires.html, Last
Accessed October 5, 2005.
California Climate Action Registry Press Release, “Students Spur Action on Climate
Change at UC Davis”, August 9, 2006, Accessible at:
http://www.climateregistry.org/docs/PRESS/UC_Davis_2_080906.pdf .
Chang, Audrey B., The Development of Stanford University’s Guidelines for
Sustainable Buildings: A Student Perspective, Sustainability on Campus Stories and
Strategies for Change, Edited by Peggy F. Bartlett and Geoffrey W. Chase, MIT
Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 2004.
Chase, Geoffrey W., and Rowland, Paul, The Poderosa Project: Infusing
Sustainability in the Curriculum, Sustainability on Campus Stories and Strategies for
Change, Edited by Peggy F. Bartlett and Geoffrey W. Chase, MIT Press, Cambridge,
Massachusetts, 2004, p. 91–105.
Commute Smart Info., ridematching service Web Page, http://www.ridematch.info/,
Last Accessed February 19, 2006.
Cortese, Anthony D., The Critical Role of Higher Education in Creating a
Sustainable Future, Planning for Higher Education, Vol. 31, No. 3 (March/May
2003), 15-22.
Creighton, Sarah Hammond. Greening the Ivory Tower, Improving the
Environmental Track Record of Universities, Colleges, and Other Institutions”, The
MIT Press,
Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1998.
119
Dickinson, Blake, University Takes Steps to Assist Water Conservation, Duke
responds to summer-long drought, Friday, Duke University News and
Communications, August 6, 2006, Available at:
http://dukenews.duke.edu/2005/11/water.html
Energy Information Administration, General Guidelines and Supporting Documents
Establishing the Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Program, Appendix A,
Conversion Factors for Standard Unit: Available at:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/guidelns.html
Environmental Commitment Statement, EH&S Fact Sheet,
http://capsnet.usc.edu/ehs/SafetyFactSheets/documents/EHSFactSheet0511-
EnvironmentalStmt.pdf , November 2005.
Future Fuels and Energy Initiative web Page Available at:
http://www.usc.edu/research/initiatives/future_fuels/index.html , Last Accessed:
June 16, 2006.
Goodland, Robert, The Concept of Environmental Sustainability, Annual review of
Ecology and Systematics, Vol. 26 (1995), 1-24.
Groves, Martha, “MTA's Plan for Westside Transit Line Detours South”; [HOME
EDITION] Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles, Calif.: Oct 8, 2005. pg. A.1.
Harvard Campus-wide Sustainability Principles, Found at:
http://www.greencampus.harvard.edu/about/principles.php
Harvard Green Cleaning Program, Found at:
http://www.greencampus.harvard.edu/greenclean/
HSC Feeder Load Management Report, Available Online at:
http://myfmsgw.usc.edu/flm/start.htm
Jennings, P. Devereaux and Zandbergen, Paul A., Ecologically Sustainable
Organizations: An Institutional Approach, The Academy of Management Review,
Vol. 20, No. 4 (Oct., 1995), 1015-1052.
Kirk, Camille M., Introduction: Sustainability: Taking the Long View, Planning for
Higher Education, Vol. 31, No. 3 (March/May 2003), 9-12.
120
Legittino, John, “’SC pledges housing for sophomores” Daily Trojan, April, 24
2006. Available at:
http://www.dailytrojan.com/media/storage/paper679/news/2006/04/24/News/sc.Pled
ges.Housing.For.Sophomores-
1866409.shtml?norewrite200605301443&sourcedomain=www.dailytrojan.com
Lelah, Tova and Nichols, Mary D., Letter to Chancellor Caresale, April 19, 2006,
Accessible at: http://www.sustain.ucla.edu/pdf/Sustainability%20Charter.pdf
Missouri State University, Water Conservation Plan, Last Accessed August 6, 2006
at: http://www.missouristate.edu/facilities/7588.htm .
MIT Green Chemicals Purchasing System “Green Chemical Alternatives Purchasing
Wizard” Last Accessed August 18, 2006 at:
http://web.mit.edu/environment/academic/purchasing.html
Moore, Lauren, “DPS tests electric mobiles on campus”, Daily Trojan, September
15, 2006, Vol. CLIX, No. 18.
MTA Web Page, Metro Rail Mid-City/Exposition Light Rail Transit Project,
Available At: http://www.mta.net/projects_plans/exposition/default.htm
National Science Foundation, Integrative Graduate Education and Research
Trainnship Program (IGERT),
http://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=12759&org=NSF , Accessed
April 9, 2006.
Office of the Governor Press Release, “Governor Davis Names Members To The
California Climate Action Registry Board of Directors” September 10, 2001.
Accessible at: http://198.104.131.213/docs/PRESS/govboardrelease.pdf
Perry, Bob C., “Landscape Plants for Western Regions, An illustrated guide to plants
for water conservation”, Land Design Publishing, Claremont, California, 1992, p. 28.
Pleasant, Andrew “Environmentally Responsible Design of W. Duncan MacMillan
Hall”, Accessed January, 18, 2006 at:
http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Brown_Is_Green/reports/ncf_macm.htm
Potier, Beth, “HUPD takes a natural test-drive: Natural compressed gas assessed in
police cruiser and shuttle van experiments” Harvard University Gazette, January 30,
2003.
121
Rodriguez, Sandra I., Roman, Matthew S., Sturhahn, Samantha C., and Terry,
Elizabeth H., “Sustainability Assessment and Reporting for The University of
Michigan’s Ann Arbor Campus”, The University of Michigan, School of Natural
Resources and Environment, April 2002 Accessible at:
http://css.snre.umich.edu/css_doc/CSS02-04.pdf
Sample, Steven B., “Annual Address to the Faculty by Steven B. Sample President
University of Southern California”, February 2006. Available at:
http://www.usc.edu/president/speeches/2006/faculty_address.html
School of Architecture, Master of Building Science Materials Systems and
Sustainability, http://www.usc.edu/dept/architecture/mbs/sustainability/index.html ,
Last Accessed April 23, 2006.
Shriberg, Michael, Sustainability management in campus housing, A case study at
the University of Michigan, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher
education, Volume 1, Number 2, 2000, pp.137-154.
Simpson, Walter, Energy Sustainability and the Green Campus, Planning for Higher
Education, Vol. 31, No. 3 (March/May 2003), 150-158.
Sowell, Arnold, Eichel, Amanda, Alevantis, Leon, and Lovegreen, Maureen,
Building Better Buildings, Sustainable Building Activities in California Higher
Education Systems, Planning for Higher Education, Vol. 31, No. 3 (March/May
2003), pp. 120-130.
Stanford University (March, 2002). The Guidelines for Sustainable Buildings,
Available: http://cpm.stanford.edu/pdp.html
Stanford University and Maddus Water Management, “Stanford University Water
Conservation, Reuse and Recycling Master Plan - Final”. October 2003, Last
Accessed July 10, 2006 at:
http://facilities.stanford.edu/conservation/FINALStanfordConservation_Recommend
ed_Plan10_16_033.pdf
Stanford University Energy Efficiency, Stanford University Energy and Water
Conservation, Energy Efficiency Web Page, Last Accessed June 9, 2006 at:
http://facilities.stanford.edu/conservation/energy.htm
Stanford University, “Guidelines for Sustainable Buildings (The Guideline),
http://cpm.Stanford.edu , March 2002.
Stanford, “The Waterwise Demonstration garden – A New Campus resource”, Last
Accessed June, 9 2006 at: http://grounds.stanford.edu/points/waterwise.htm
122
The USC Green Campus Initiative, Mission Statement, http://www-
scf.usc.edu/~verhaegh/cggisite/index.html , Last Accessed April 24, 2006.
Tipton, Karina J., Dzombak, David A., Environmental Indicators for Carnegie
Mellon University: Baseline Assessment 2004, Prepared for the Green Practices
Committee Carnegie Mellon University, February 16, 2005, pp. 13 -66.
Toor, Will, and Havlick Spencer, “Transportation & Sustainable Campus
Communities, Issues, Examples, Solutions”, Island Press, Washington, DC, 2004.
Tradeline Inc., “University of California Adopts System-Wide Green Building and
Clean Energy Policy” March 2, 2005, Available at:
http://www.tradelineinc.com/reports/
Trojan Transportation, Carpool Program Web Page,
http://transnet.usc.edu/Rideshare/carpool.aspx , February 16, 2006.
Trojan Transportation, Vanpool Program Web Page,
http://transnet.usc.edu/Rideshare/vanpool.aspx , Last Accessed March 6, 2006.
Trombulak, Stephen C., The Green University, Conservation Biology, Vol. 12, No. 5
(Oct., 1998), 1158-1159.
Tuck Scholl of Business at Dartmouth, Sustainability Conference: The Larger
Meaning of Business, Available at:
http://www.tuck.dartmouth.edu/news/features/sustainability.html
Tucker, Bunny, “Environment First is Diverse” Daily Trojan, October, 21 2005.
Available at:
http://www.dailytrojan.com/media/storage/paper679/news/2005/10/21/Opinions/Env
ironment.First.Is.Diverse.Active-
1029078.shtml?norewrite200604241632&sourcedomain=www.dailytrojan.com
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Greening EPA Labs21 Web Page,
http://www.epa.gov/oaintrnt/labs21/index.htm , Last Accessed April 7, 2006.
UCLA Campus Sustainability Charter, Accessible at:
http://www.sustain.ucla.edu/pdf/Sustainability%20Charter.pdf
UCLA, “La Kretz Hall”, About Sustainability News, SUSTAIN.UCLA.EDU,
06/15/2005, Available at: http://www.sustain.ucla.edu/news/la_kretz_hall.php
123
University of California, “University of California Policy Guidelines for The green
Building design, Clean energy Standards, and Sustainable transport Practices”,
January 17, 2006, Available at:
http://www.sustain.ucla.edu/pdf/ucregentgreenbldg.pdf
University of Florida Committee on Sustainability, “A Report to the President and
Faculty Senate by the Committee on Sustainability” December 14, 2004, Accessible
at: http://www.sustainable.ufl.edu/reports/SustainabilityFullReport12-14-04.pdf
University of Florida Lakes, Vegetation and Landscaping Committee (LVL),
Accessible at: http://www.facilities.ufl.edu/lvl/
University of Florida, Office of Sustainability,
http://www.sustainable.ufl.edu/history.html , Last Accessed March 30, 2006.
University of Michigan Housing Services, Sustainability Efforts, Last Accessed
August 16, 2006 at: http://www.housing.umich.edu/services/environ/index.html
University of Michigan, Frederick A. and Barbara M. Erb Institute, Accessible at:
http://www.erb.umich.edu/Default.htm
USC 2004 Strategic Plan,
http://www.usc.edu/about/core_documents/2004_strategic_plan.html , Accessed
September 25, 2006.
USC Annual Ridesharing Program Summary 2006, Document in Compliance with
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 2002. Available
from the Trojan Transportation Office.
USC at a Glance, Location: Los Angeles, California,
http://www.usc.edu/about/ataglance/ , Accessed Mach 10, 2006.
USC Carpool Policies, http://transnet.usc.edu/Rideshare/pdf/carpool_policies.pdf,
Last Accessed, April 23, 2006.
USC Center for Sustainable Cities, About Us,
http://www.usc.edu/dept/geography/ESPE/aboutus.html , Accessed March 21, 2006.
USC DATA, University Provided Data, 2006.
USC Energy Services Web Page, found at:
http://www.usc.edu/fms/dept_energy.html
124
USC Geography, Graduate Offerings,
http://www.usc.edu/dept/geography/courses/graduate.html , Last Accessed April 23,
2006.
USC Neighborhood Homeownership Program,
http://www.usc.edu/admin/nhp/description.html
USC Strategic Plan, “USC’s Plan for Increasing Academic Excellence: Building
Strategic Capabilities for the University of the 21st Century”, 2003.Vincent, Roger,
“Urban Partners Plans USC Complex; The $135-million apartment and retail project
is slated to be completed by fall 2008”; [HOME EDITION] Los Angeles Times. Los
Angeles, Calif.: Jul 26, 2005. pg. C.2.
USC Sustainability Web Page,
http://capsnet.usc.edu/EHS/CampusSustainability.cfm, Accessed February 10, 2006.
Vuong, William, USC Center for Sustainable Cities, Press Release: Meeting the
Sustainability Challenge,
http://www.usc.edu/dept/geography/ESPE/pressrelease_ee_nov_2005.html ,
Accessed February 20, 2006.
Waite, Phillip S., Applying a Model of Sustainability on Campus, Planning for
Higher Education, Vol. 31, No. 3 (March/May 2003), 82-87.
Wardrop, Josh B., “Bye bye diesel, hello soybeans” Cambridge Chronicle, Local
News, Thursday, August 26, 2004.
Yale Advisory Committee on Environmental Management, “Yale University
Environment Report 1997-1998 through 2003-2004”, April 22, 2005, Accessible at:
http://www.yale.edu/recycling/envreport.pdf
125
Appendices
Appendix A: Environmental Commitment Statement 126
Appendix B: USC 2005 Water Usage 127
Appendix C: USC 2005 Sanitary / Industrial Water Usage UPC 128
Appendix D: USC 2005 Sanitary / Industrial Water Usage HSC 130
Appendix E: USC 2005 Utility Consumption & Sample Feeder Reports 131
Appendix F: Computer Energy Conservation Facts 134
Appendix G: Land Use and Landscaping – Calendar Year - 2005 135
Appendix H: Transportation Services Indicators 136
Appendix I: USC Housing Services Recycling – Fiscal Year 2005-2006 137
Appendix J: Recycled Waste – Calendar Year 2005 138
Appendix K: Regulated (Hazardous) Waste – Fiscal Year 2005 – 2006 139
Appendix L: Annual Emissions Summary – Fiscal Year 2005 – 2006 140
126
Appendix A: Environmental Commitment Statement
USC Environmental Commitment Statement
(Environmental Commitment, November 2005)
127
Appendix B: USC 2005 Water Usage
Engineering estimates are relied upon to estimate the water use for individual
buildings based on occupancy and use. The following table includes annual water
usage for both the University Park and Health Sciences Campuses during 2005.
USC 2005 Water Usage
(USC DATA)
University Park Campus (Area bound by Figueroa, Exposition,
Vermont, and Jefferson Blvds.)
Annual
Metered Use
Water Usage (hundred cubic feet (HCF). One HCF equals 748
gallons)
227,577 HCF
Health Sciences Campus Annual
Metered Use
Water Usage (hundred cubic feet (HCF). One HCF equals 748
gallons)
89,632 HCF
128
Appendix C: USC 2005 Sanitary / Industrial Water Usage (UPC)
USC 2005 Sanitary and Industrial Water Usage University Park Campus
(USC DATA)
University Park
Campus Buildings
Indust
rial
Uses
Est.
yearly
usage
(CCF)
Est.
daily
use
(gpd)
Sanitary
& Misc.
(gpd)
Industrial
(gpd)
Total
flow
(gpd)
Administration B/CW 3,000 6,300 6,100 200 6,300
Taper Hall B/CW 1,400 2,900 2,800 100 2,900
G. Wilson Student
Union
Office
s
2,000 4,200 4,000 200 4,200
South Science
Building
CW/L 5,000 10,30
0
9,100 1,200 10,300
Law Center B/CW 1,500 3,000 6,400 1,400 8,000
Gerontology B/L 3,800 8,000 6,400 1,400 8,000
Ahmanson Center for
Biology
L 8,600 18,00
0
14,000 4,000 18,000
Harris Hall B/CW 1,700 3,600 3,400 200 3,600
Petroleum/Chemical
Eng.
L 3,000 6,200 5,300 900 6,200
Vivian Hall of
Engineering
L 2,800 5,000 4,000 1,000 5,000
Vivian
Hall/Photonics
B/CW/
L
5,000 10,40
0
8,800 1,600 10,400
Student Health
Center
L 4,000 8,200 7,200 1,000 8,200
Norris Dental Center B/L 7,200 15,00
0
12,200 2,800 15,000
Norris Dental Center L 4,300 9,000 6,600 2,400 9,000
University
Computing Center
CW 1,000 2,000 1,900 100 2,000
Seaver Science
Center
L 12,000 25,00
0
21,000 4,000 25,000
Hedco Neurosciences L 11,000 22,60
0
19,800 2,800 22,600
Loker Hydrocarbon
Institute
L 4,500 9,400 7,000 2,400 9,400
Commons Dining Dining 6,000 12,40
0
9,000 3,400 12,400
Physical Education L/CW 4,000 8,600 7,800 800 8,600
129
Building
Lyons
Center/McDonalds
Pools
B/CW 4,500 9,400 9,000 400 9,400
EVK Dining Dining 2,400 5,000 3,600 1,400 5,000
Café 84 Dining 1,000 2,100 1,300 800 2,100
University Village Dining 2,400 5,000 3,800 1,200 5,000
North Science
Building
L 5,000 10,30
0
9,100 1,200 10,300
International
Residential College
Dining 2,400 5,000 3,600 1,400 5,000
Galen Athletic Center Dining 2,000 4,200 3,000 1,200 4,200
Exposition Center
Building
L 800 1,700 1,600 100 1,700
Seeley G. Mudd
Building
L/CW/
B
4,500 9,200 8,000 1,200 9,200
Biegler Hall of
Engineering
L 2,200 4,600 4,000 600 4,600
Organic
Chemistry/Stabler
Hall
L 2,000 4,200 3,400 800 4,200
Allan Hancock
Foundation
L/CW/
B
3,000 6,300 5,700 600 6,300
Town and
Gown/Faculty Center
Dinnin
g
2,400 5,000 3,400 1,600 5,000
Denney Research
Building
L 2,700 5,600 5,200 400 5,600
Ronald Tutor Hall of
Engineering
L 3,000 6,000 5,300 700 6,000
Molecular Biology
Building
L 4,000 8,500 7,700 800 8,500
Building Use Legend: L = Labs, B = Boilers, and CW = Cooling Water
Conversion used: 1 CF = 7.481 gallons
130
Appendix D: USC 2005 Sanitary / Industrial Water Usage (HSC)
USC 2005 Sanitary and Industrial Water Usage Health Sciences Campus
(USC DATA)
Health Sciences
Campus
Buildings
Industrial
Uses
Est.
yearly
usage
(CCF)
Est.
daily
use
(gpd)
Sanita
ry &
Misc.
(gpd)
Industrial
(gpd)
Total
flow
(gpd)
Norris Cancer
Center
B/L/Hospital/
Dining
16,000 33,600 32,000 2,400 33,60
0
Topping Tower
(Norris
Cancer addition)
B/L/Dining/
Clinics
11,000 23,000 22,200 1,800 23,00
0
Clinical Sciences
Center
B/CW/L 6,000 12,500 8,250 2,150 12,50
0
Stauffer
Pharmaceutical
CW/L 9,000 19,000 16,750 2,250 19,00
0
Raulston Medical
Research
CW/L 2,800 6,000 4,700 1,300 6,000
Hoffman Medical
Research
B/CW/L 12,000 25,000 20,350 4,650 25,00
0
Edmondson
Research Bldg.
L 2,600 5,400 5,000 400 5,400
Seaver Residence
Hall
B/CW/Dining 5,500 11,500 9,650 1,850 11,50
0
Mudd Medical
Research
CW/L 8,500 17,800 13,900 3,900 17,80
0
Center for Health
Professions
B/CW/L 5,400 11,200 10,800 400 11,20
0
Livingston
Research Bldg.
L 2,000 4,200 4,000 200 4,200
Zilkha
Neurogenetics
Bldg.
B/L 3,200 6,800 5,800 1,000 6,800
Harlyn Norris
Research Tower
(under
construction)
Health Care
Consultation II
Emergency
water runoff
from sprinklers
3,200 6,800 6,700 100 6,800
Building Use Legend: L = Labs, B = Boilers, and CW = Cooling Water
Conversion used: 1 CF = 7.481 gallons
131
Appendix E: USC 2005 Utility Consumption & Sample Feeder Reports
This table provides the utility consumption for UPC and HSC in 2005.
USC 2005 Utility Consumption
(USC Data)
University Park Campus (Area bound by Figueroa,
Exposition, Vermont, and Jefferson Blvds.)
Annual Usage (2005)
Electric Power Consumed 122,680,000 KWH
Gas Consumed 2,486,745 THERMS
Health Sciences Campus Annual Usage (2005)
Electric Power Consumed 39,456,000 KWH
Gas Consumed 1,149,215 THERMS
Real time “Feeder Load Management Reports” are available online for the
transformers on the Health Sciences Campus, University Park Campus, and the
University Computing Center. Sample reports for each are included below.
University of Southern California - HSC Feeder Load Management Report
Last updated : 6/14/2006 12:40:34 PM (USC Energy Services Web Page)
Description Watts Peak Watts Time of Peak Watts A AMPS B AMPS C AMPS
CHP Vault, Feeders
Feeder Circuit "A" 947,400 1,014,100 06/05/2006 13:08:15 53 51 51
Feeder Circuit "B" 1,041,400 1,422,200 06/02/2006 13:50:15 52 52 52
Feeder Circuit "C" 516,300 594,600 06/05/2006 14:32:12 24 23 24
Feeder Circuit "D" 81,620 96,700 06/13/2006 13:30:15 3 4 4
Feeder Circuit "E" 785,800 854,500 05/10/2006 11:22:13 43 44 40
Feeder Circuit "F" 629,300 705,400 06/07/2006 12:05:15 30 31 31
Feeder Circuit "G" 855,900 959,300 06/05/2006 12:11:12 45 46 45
CHP Vault Total 4,857,720 5,646,800 251 251 248
SVR Vault, Feeders
Feeder Circuit #2 340,700 545,100 05/30/2006 13:16:00 45 45 45
Feeder Circuit #4 315,150 749,900 05/30/2006 13:16:00 42 44 41
Feeder Circuit #5 506,400 572,057 06/13/2006 11:30:00 76 71 76
SVR Vault Total 1,162,250 1,867,057 163 159 162
SC Combined Vault
Total
6,019,970 7,513,857 414 410 410
132
University of Southern California - UPC Feeder Load Management Report
Last updated : 6/14/2006 12:32:34 PM USC Energy Services Web Page)
Device Description Watts Peak Watts Time of Peak Demand A Amps B Amps C Amps
Jefferson Vault, Service #1 Feeders, IS 2193
Feeder Circuit "K" 532,900 1,992,500 06/02/2006 09:39:44 74 69 74
Feeder Circuit "L" 1,682,400 1,912,200 06/01/2006 13:46:53 230 225 223
Feeder Circuit "M" 892,800 909,300 06/14/2006 12:25:09 126 138 127
Feeder Circuit "S" 838,200 884,700 06/07/2006 15:32:00 119 124 128
Feeder Circuit "T" 467,300 504,800 06/14/2006 12:25:12 67 68 69
Jefferson #1 Total 4,413,600 6,203,500 615 624 619
Jefferson Vault, Service #2 Feeders, IS 2193
Feeder Circuit "N" 1,129,400 1,242,300 06/05/2006 14:23:07 154 161 166
Feeder Circuit "P" 1,412,500 1,499,600 06/01/2006 13:54:51 179 201 198
Feeder Circuit "Q" 1,489,400 1,530,200 06/05/2006 15:28:55 200 201 202
Feeder Circuit "R" 1,202,900 1,254,000 06/06/2006 14:42:55 163 161 162
Jefferson #2 Total 5,234,200 5,526,100 696 724 728
Biegler Vault, Service #1 Feeders, IS 9
Feeder Circuit "A" 1,014,500 1,101,600 06/01/2006 14:21:46 135 137 133
Feeder Circuit "B" 1,242,900 1,322,600 06/05/2006 12:11:11 165 167 169
Feeder Circuit "C" 501,900 565,300 06/02/2006 12:18:38 80 83 82
Feeder Circuit "G" 369,200 402,700 06/05/2006 14:07:08 55 60 59
Feeder Circuit "I" 808,100 1,018,400 06/07/2006 16:46:44 117 124 120
Biegler #1 Total 3,936,600 4,410,600 553 571 563
Biegler Vault, Service #2 Feeders, IS 9
Feeder Circuit "D" 1,197,600 1,737,900 06/04/2006 18:07:02 160 163 167
Feeder Circuit "E" 631,000 818,000 06/02/2006 13:17:37 87 91 84
Feeder Circuit "F" 439,000 468,200 06/06/2006 15:19:58 58 52 58
Feeder Circuit "H" 992,200 1,267,300 06/08/2006 11:02:25 135 136 134
Feeder Circuit "J" 350,000 483,000 06/06/2006 10:05:01 49 48 45
Biegler #2 Total 3,609,800 4,774,400 489 489 488
PC Combined Vault
Total
17,194,200 19,124,700 2,352 2,409
133
University of Southern California - UCC Feeder Load Management Report
Last updated : 6/14/2006 2:18:38 PM (USC Energy Services Web Page)
Transformer T-1
Device Description Watts Peak Watts Time of Peak Demand A Amps B Amps C Amps
UCC 480V MS Main L
(J)
698,400 752,000 06/07/2006 12:15:00 909 939 924
CC 480V ATS-2 L (J) 371,300 384,027 06/07/2006 14:15:00 473 496 481
UCC 480V NEM (S-
D325)
323,360 360,000 06/07/2006 12:15:00 450 448 454
Total on T-1 698,400 752,000 909 939 924
Transformer T-2
Device Description Watts Peak Watts Time of Peak Demand A Amps B Amps C Amps
CC 480V ATS-1 L (J) 348,800 384,020 06/03/2006 16:00:00 456 442 458
CC 480V MSP-1 Main
L (J)
355,344 396,568 06/03/2006 14:15:00 - - -
Total on T-2 355,344 396,568
Transformer T-3
Device Description Watts Peak Watts Time of Peak Demand A Amps B Amps C Amps
CC 208V ATS-3 L (J) 43,920 52,005 06/06/2006 16:15:00 154 76 162
UCC 208V ML Main L
(J)
43,612 52,269 05/31/2006 11:30:00 - - -
CC 208V IHP Main L
(J)
88,108 94,630 06/03/2006 13:15:00 - - -
Total on T-3 131,720 146,899 - - -
Device Description Watts Peak Watts Time of Peak Demand A Amps B Amps C Amps
Total UCC Load: 1,053,906 1,295,598 N/A - - -
otal UCC Generator
Load:
720,548 768,090 N/A 1,082 1,014 1,101
134
Appendix F: Computer Energy Conservation Facts
Energy conservation information has been distributed throughout USC (USC
Sustainability Web Page).
135
Appendix G: Land Use and Landscaping – Calendar Year 2005
Baseline landscaping data can be used to gauge future land use initiatives.
Outdoor Environments & Land Use at USC
(USC Data)
Land Use Indicators Calendar Year
2005
Units
Total Land University Park Campus 152 Acres
- Gross Building Space (Exterior building walls) 7.56 Million ft
2
- Net Building Space (Interior building walls -
“usable space”)
4.11 Million ft
2
Total Land Health Sciences Campus 56 Acres
- Gross Building Space (Exterior building walls and
in)
1.94 Million ft
2
- Net Building Space (Interior building walls and in
“usable space”)
.095 Million ft
2
Grounds Maintenance Chemicals (University Park
Campus)
CY - 2005 Units
Amount of Pesticides Used 4 Gallons
Types of Pesticides Used SpeedZone Southern Broadleaf
Amount of Herbicides Used 48 (Estimate) Pounds
Types of Herbicides Used Roundup QuikPro Dry
Herbicide with Diquat and
Glyphosate
Amount of Fertilizers 1600 (Estimate) Pounds
Types of Fertilizers (Assorted brands – the numbers
refer to the percentage of nitrogen, phosphorus and
potassium in the product)
21-0-0
15-15-15
21-7-14
Amount of Fungicides None N/A
% of Paint Used on Playing Fields (Water Based) 100 Percent
Trees and Plants (University Park Campus) CY - 2005 Units
Number of Trees 4,636 Number
Number of New Trees Planted (Not including trees
planted as part of new construction projects)
7 Number/Yr
Number of Trees Removed 16 Number/Yr
Number of Annuals Planted (USC’s 125
th
Anniversary played a role in increased planting)
Estimate
160,000
Number/Yr
Number of Perennials Planted (USC’s 125
th
Anniversary played a role in increased planting)
Estimate 7,500 Number/Yr
Grass Seeds Used per Year 6,000 Pounds/Yr
Areas Classified as Wildlife Habitats None N/A
136
Appendix H: Transportation Services Indicators
Most values were reported for the 2005 – 2006 fiscal year, while others such
as “parking permits sold”, are estimates based on parking capacity at USC and
allotment practices for those spaces. These indicators may serve as baseline values
for future studies.
USC Ridesharing Program / Transportation Services Indicators
(USC Data)
Indicator FY 2005-2006
(Ave. Monthly Totals)
Is there a Transportation
Office at USC?
Yes
Is there a person(s) dedicated
to rideshare programs?
Yes
Number of Parking Permits
Issued
11,000 Permits Awarded (Estimate)
Metro Link –Faculty/Staff 220 Passes Sold
Metro Link - Student 109 Passes Sold
LACMTA Passes 1114 Passes Sold
LADOT 22 Coupon Books Sold
Vouchers 249 Vouchers Awarded
Active Vanpools 22 Active Vans
Vanpool Riders 189 Riders
Carpool Permits Sold 511 / Yr. Active Permits
137
Appendix I: USC Housing Services Recycling – Fiscal Year 2005-2006
USC Housing Services Recycling
(USC Data)
Material FY 2005-2006
(Estimated Average
Monthly Totals)
Units
Glass Recycled 1100 Pounds
Aluminum Recycled 50 Pounds
Polyethylene Terephthalate (PETE) Recycled
(Common in: soda bottles, cooking oil bottles,
peanut butter jars, etc.
500 Pounds
High Density Polyethylene (HDP2) Recycled
(Common in: detergent bottles, milk jugs, etc.)
70 Pounds
138
Appendix J: Recycled Waste – Calendar Year 2005
The following tables provide the average monthly quantities of material
recovered from solid waste, both on site (Source Sorted) and off-site (MRF Sorted).
USC Facilities Management Services (MRF Sorted) Recycling (USC Data)
Material Recovery Facility Sorted Materials
(Recovered at an external sorting facility)
(University Park Campus)
Calendar Year 2005
(Ave. Monthly
Totals)
Units
Aluminum Cans 1.11 Tons
Aseptic Packaging (Bubble Wrap, etc.) .038 Tons
Asphalt & Concrete 7.15 Tons
Cardboard 20.10 Tons
Clear HDPE 0.50 Tons
Colored HDPE 0.43 Tons
Ferrous Metals 8.06 Tons
Mixed Glass 1.08 Tons
Mixed Paper 15.87 Tons
Newspaper 9.50 Tons
Office Sorted paper 9.63 Tons
PET Plastic .082 Tons
PVC Plastic .034 Tons
Tin Cans 1.175 Tons
Wood & Green Waste .083 Tons
Average Monthly Total (MRF Sorted) 110.90 Tons
USC Facilities Management Services (Source Sorted) Recycling (USC Data)
Source Sorted Materials (Material sorted
prior to collection by recycling firm)
(University Park Campus)
Calendar Year 2005
(Ave. Monthly Totals)
Units
Aluminum Cans 1.04 Tons
Cardboard 16.81 Tons
Glass/Plastic 1.68 Tons
Green Waste 25.83 Tons
Mixed Paper 76.51 Tons
Newspaper 7.46 Tons
Scrap Metal 7.16 Tons
White Paper 0 Tons
Average Monthly Total (Source Sorted Material) 136.49 Tons
139
Appendix K: Regulated (Hazardous) Waste – Fiscal Year 2005 - 2006
Hazardous materials collected on the University Park and Health Sciences
Campuses during the Fiscal Year 2005 - 2006 (USC Data).
UPC - Hazardous and Universal Waste Streams - Fiscal Year 2005
Indicator FY 2004-2005 Units
Biomedical waste disposed 83,609 Pounds
Pharmaceutical waste disposed 1,080 Pounds
Specimens stored in formalin 1,150 Pounds
Electronic waste collected for recycling 83,400 Pounds
PCB containing light ballasts collected for recycling 700 Pounds
Fluorescent lamps collected for recycling 1,600 Pounds
Batteries collected for recycling 6,200 Pounds
Chemical waste disposed 53,110 Pounds
Paint waste disposed 5,350 Pounds
Radioactive waste disposed of by a disposal company 0 Pounds
Radioactive waste decayed on campus 1,107 Pounds
Photochemical waste disposed 18,100 Pounds
Solvent waste disposed 9,600 Pounds
Oil collected for recycling 1,100 Pounds
Oil collected not suitable for recycling 3,000 Pounds
Oil filters collected for disposal 150 Pounds
Coolant collected for recycling 1,000 Pounds
Cleaning solution collected for disposal 10,400 Pounds
Empty gas cylinders collected for recycling 2,110 Pounds
Laboratory debris collected for disposal 5,720 Pounds
Silica gel collected for disposal 680 Pounds
HSC - Hazardous and Universal Waste Streams - Fiscal Year 2005
Indicator FY 2004-2005 Units
Quantity of biomedical waste disposed of annually 101,519.8 Pounds
Quantity of chemical waste disposed of annually 13,600 Pounds
Quantity of chemical waste disposed of annually 37,872 Pounds
Quantity of paint waste disposed of annually 2,400 Pounds
Radioactive contaminated waste decayed on campus 26,120 Pounds
Quantity of photochemical waste disposed of annually 720 Pounds
Quantity of solvent waste disposed of annually 22,400 Pounds
140
Appendix L: Annual Emissions Summary – Fiscal Year 2005 - 2006
The following table provides baseline emission values in tons, for the
permitted and non-permitted stationary sources found on the University Park and
Health Sciences Campuses. The numbers are part of University Supplied Data
gathered for reporting to the SCAQMD’s as part of the Annual Emissions Report for
USC owned operations.
Annual Emissions Summary – Fiscal Year 2005
(USC Data)
Permitted Equipment UPC (Tons) HSC (Tons)
Organic Gases 0.56 .035
Methane - -
Specific Organics 0.0 -
Nitrogen Oxides 9.42 5.72
Sulfur Oxides 0.06 0.04
Carbon Monoxide 8.20 4.52
Particulate Matter 0.71 0.43
Non-Permitted Equipment UPC (Tons) HSC (Tons)
Organic Gases 0.96 0.81
Methane - -
Specific Organics 1.26 0.17
Nitrogen Oxides 3.23 1.15
Sulfur Oxides 0.02 0.01
Carbon Monoxide 3.17 1.19
Particulate Matter 0.24 0.08
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
The purpose of this project was to compare the characteristics of environmental sustainability programs at leading institutions with those already in place, while not formalized, at the University of Southern California (USC). The comparisons led to recommendations for campus sustainability within ten primary areas of university operations as well as a collection of baseline values that could be used to chart progress once a formal program is established at the institution.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Structure, agency, and the Kuznets Curve: observations and implications for sustainability planning in U.S. cities
PDF
Nonprofit organizations and the environmental policy outcomes: a systematic inquiry into the role of different types of nonprofits to influence the processes and outcomes of the environmental policy
PDF
Water-resources development in a decentralizing Indonesia: a challenge for policy design
PDF
Bank community development coporation investments in community economic development
PDF
Beyond the limits to planning for equity: the emergence of community benefits agreements as empowerment models in participatory processes
PDF
Fostering a newly defined entrepreneurship in impoverished communities: a key component of the solution for eradicating poverty in America
PDF
Do sustainability plans affect urban sustainability outcomes in Santa Monica, San Francisco, and San Jose?
PDF
Legislative term limits in California and the faces of change
PDF
Institutional analysis of stakeholder collaboration in freight movement at the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach
PDF
Processes, effects, and the implementation of market-based environmental policy: southern California's experiences with emissions trading
PDF
Patent donations: making use of the gift of technology
PDF
Gang injunctions and community participation
PDF
Bottle to bottle: a guide to achieving closed loop recycling for California's PET beverage containers
PDF
Testing the entrepreneurial city hypothesis: a study of the Los Angeles region
PDF
The role of CALGreen codes and sustainable rating systems in practicing sustainability
PDF
Essays in the study of institutions and development
PDF
Adaptive reuse as economic development in downtown Los Angeles: a resource guide for start-up developers, community based organizations, and stakeholder groups
PDF
The social construction of brownfields
PDF
Linking participation, program design and outcomes; voluntary air quality programs at the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach
PDF
A learning model of policy implementation: implementing technology in response to policy requirements
Asset Metadata
Creator
Becker, John Edward
(author)
Core Title
Environmental sustainability plan for the University of southern California
School
School of Policy, Planning, and Development
Degree
Doctor of Planning and Development Studies
Degree Program
Policy, Planning, and Development
Publication Date
02/14/2007
Defense Date
01/11/2007
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
OAI-PMH Harvest,sustainability,USC
Language
English
Advisor
Petak, William (
committee chair
), Meshkati, Najmedin (
committee member
), Richardson, Harry W. (
committee member
), White, Joseph E., jr. (
committee member
)
Creator Email
ebecker@caps.usc.edu
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m254
Unique identifier
UC1165823
Identifier
etd-Becker-20070214 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-164191 (legacy record id),usctheses-m254 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-Becker-20070214.pdf
Dmrecord
164191
Document Type
Project
Rights
Becker, John Edward
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Repository Name
Libraries, University of Southern California
Repository Location
Los Angeles, California
Repository Email
cisadmin@lib.usc.edu
Tags
sustainability