University of Michigan
AC-8: Campus as a Living Laboratory

The student group Students for Clean Energy applied for and were awarded funding to purchase and install solar powered charging stations at 2 sites on campus. The students were directly involved in every step of the process from gaining funding to meeting with University Planners Office to working with Facility and Grounds personnel during the installation. The units provide an interactive opportunity for students and the community to use renewable energy first hand.

Building: Twenty-five students in Professor Joe Trumpey’s Green Building class are spending the spring building a new straw-bale house on the UM Campus Farm at the Matthaei Botanical Gardens. The building serves as a living laboratory for students. The structure will by made with as little concrete as possible while using straw bales for insulation, which are very efficient insulators and will be covered in earthen plaster. The building will have its own independent power supply through a 1.5 kW solar system and eight golf cart batteries, it will be off the grid. The project helps students think about their carbon footprint and consider how they can be more environmentally conscious.

Energy: Student project for Sustainability and the Campus, ENVIRON 391, Winter 2016. The Outreach and Education for Energy Management project is designed to promote the University of Michigan’s goals of energy conservation behavior in an effort to achieve the goal of a 25% reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2025. The Energy Management Team is a subgroup of the Plant Operations Team at U­M. This team has experienced challenges with promoting energy conservation behavior in an effort to reduce GHG emissions on campus. The Sustainability Cultural Indicators Program, also known as the SCIP survey, provides the Energy Management team with an understanding of how students, faculty and staff at U­M understand energy conservation behavior. By promoting the university’s sustainability goals and recommendations for energy conservation, the Energy Management team can educate the U­M community about appropriate behavior change. The ultimate goal of this project is to achieve a 10% improvement in energy conservation behavior based on SCIP survey responses in future survey responses. The Energy Management Team uses promotional “giveaway” items in order to promote the U­M goal of GHG reduction and the ultimate goal of conservative energy usage. Prototype items, such as coffee mugs, tumblers, stickers and t­shirts, were tested in focus group sessions on the U­M campus. Students, faculty and staff from various departments on campus were invited to participate in focus group sessions and provide their honest feedback on the prototypes. Questions for the focus groups ranged from details about the slogan design to questions about the functionality of the physical item. Participants were also asked to rate each slogan and physical item’s attractiveness on a scale of 1­10. Follow up questions about potential design changes provided ideas about how to make the giveaways more appealing to the U­M community. Participants were also presented with previous Energy Management campaigns to understand the strengths and weaknesses of past campaigns. The focus group feedback demonstrated the need for concise slogans with positive messages about energy management. Further, the physical choices of prototype items received positive feedback. In order for successful promotion of U­M’s sustainability goals, the Energy Management Team should use messages, including “Flip it off”, “Save a watt, save a world”, “Going out?, Lights out!” and “Glow Blue”. The Energy Management team could also benefit from an improved brand image by incorporating a new logo that features a lightbulb with the Michigan “Block M”. Most giveaways should stick closely to the Michigan “maize & blue” color scheme in order to create a message that unites with the strong school spirit at this university. Using these recommendations, the Energy Management Team can increase awareness of the U­M sustainability goals, promote sustainable behavior on campus and improve the team’s brand image on campus.

Food & Dining: Sustainability and the Campus ENVIRON 391 project, Winter 2017. Summary: This report analyzed student awareness of local foods served in the University of Michigan’s East Quad dining hall and student response to experimental signage highlighting local food choices. The authors provide recommendations on signage placement and alternative advertisement, and next steps for advertisement implementation, staff training, and broader student surveys. Full Executive Summary: foods served in East Quad Dining Hall. As a pilot project, we hope this signage will ultimately be incorporated into every dining hall on campus. Our project began with several meetings with our stakeholders. These meetings included, but were not limited to, our sponsors, M-Dining staff members Alex Bryan and Keith Soster, as well as East Quad Chefs Matthew Zatirka. Through these meetings, we formulated an understanding about how to most effectively create this signage. We also began by researching U-M’s definition of and approach to sustainable and local foods in the dining halls. After gathering a rudimentary knowledge base, our group sought to learn about the student body’s awareness of local foods served in campus dining halls. Though our survey only reached East Quad residents, and therefore provided us with a progressively-biased set of responses, our group garnered over 200 responses. Through the responses, we came to understand that students typically possess a solid basis of sustainable food knowledge, with 54.6% considering themselves “aware” or “very aware” of U-M’s sustainability efforts. In conjunction with the survey, we developed our physical signage, utilizing an 8.5” x 11” template to be placed in the East Quad dining halls on tall, “lollipop” stands. Rather than creating an original template, we used a template provided to us by M-Dining so that the visuals of all M-Dining sustainable food advertising remain consistent and eye-catching. In the creation and implementation of our signage, our group confronted a challenge upon receiving differing instructions from our sponsors and East Quad chef Matthew. While the former envisioned an implementation of small, 2” x 2” signs to label every local food served on a daily basis, Matt considered the signs “ornamental” and therefore not worth the effort of putting up each day. After dialogue amongst our group members, we decided to focus our energies on the larger lollipop signs, as these tell a more complete story than the small icon signage. With our signs implemented in the dining hall, each of our group members took terms observing dining hall patrons interact with the signs. Results varied distinctly, with significantly more students stopping to glance at or read the signs during slower hours of the day such as morning time, and very few students interacting with the signs during busy hours such as lunch. Group members also conducted informal conversation with dining hall patrons to gather more comprehensive feedback regarding the signage. Given more time, our group has a series of follow-up steps and recommendations. These include adopting a more strategic placement for the signs, and utilizing other forms of advertisement, such as table tents and electronic screens. Furthermore, by working with the systems and operations of the electronic menus, we hope to ultimately implement a local icon on all dining hall menus. Finally, with increased dining hall staff training, and through the use of more surveys directed at a more generally representative sample of the student body, we hope to ultimately implement these signs in every campus dining hall.

Grounds: Sustainability and the Campus ENVIRON 391 project, Winter 2016. The purpose of this report is to assess the opinions and preferences of key stakeholders regarding campus grounds aesthetics at the University of Michigan. In order to achieve this goal, we created and disseminated a pilot survey, facilitated focus groups, and analyzed preliminary data in order to make recommendations for future survey use, maintenance ideas for Grounds Services to incorporate, and guiding principles for decision-making. The pilot survey was designed to evaluate the visual preferences of U-M faculty and staff with regard to land management. In addition, an informational component was included to experiment with the role education may play in raising awareness of issues associated with chemical use on campus grounds. The pilot survey was distributed via email to members of the Facility Users Network (FUN), and was also proctored in three focus groups composed of faculty and staff. Over 80 responses were collected from the pilot survey. The purpose of the focus groups was (1) to discuss the mechanics and flow of the survey and (2) to gather the opinions of faculty and staff about current campus land management in addition to preferences regarding future changes to the appearance of Central Campus grounds. We drew conclusions from the preliminary data about how faculty and staff perceive campus grounds. The majority of respondents indicated they maintain some level of preference for campus grounds aesthetics, demonstrating that faculty and staff are engaged and have valuable contributions to make on the topic. Survey results demonstrated their preference for both treated and untreated lawn visuals, which reveals that faculty and staff would like to see a mixture of weed-free and more manicured lawns. Furthermore, the majority of participants indicated concern regarding the environmental consequences of chemical use on Central Campus lawns. After assessing the results of the survey, we evaluated its efficacy and found several ways in which the survey could be improved for future use. Users expressed that aesthetic preference should be distinguished from that which was acceptable to them based on environmental consequences. Therefore, the survey should be adapted to include more measures of tolerance rather than focusing solely on preference. Additionally, the wording, image selection, and survey format might be reworked for optimal user-friendliness in future iterations. Finally, we applied information and data from the survey to educational messaging recommendations and guiding principles for the use by Grounds Services. Results indicated that most participants were aware of the consequences associated with land management chemicals, which demonstrates that general knowledge is not a barrier for reduction. Therefore, the University should be open to employing various landscaping techniques and educational strategies supporting more sustainable grounds maintenance. First, University landscapers could incorporate more interpretive signage around Central Campus to explain the effects of chemical use reduction on naturalized areas. Educational messaging might encourage the acceptance of lawn diversity as a compromise between weed-free lawns and native plantings. Additionally, landscaping techniques that indicate aesthetic intention and enforce observer conscientiousness (known as ‘Cues for Care’) might be employed as a design technique to increase appreciation of a natural aesthetic that improves ecological quality on campus.

Purchasing: Student project for Sustainability and the Campus ENVIRON 391, Winter 2016. Sustainable Food Purchasing. The University of Michigan (U-M) has implemented a goal of purchasing 20 percent of foods served in campus dining halls from sustainable sources by 2025. The standards for which a food is considered “sustainable” can be found within the University of Michigan Sustainable Food Purchasing Guidelines; “sustainable” foods are defined as such if they are local (being grown and/or processed within the state of Michigan or within 250 miles of the Ann Arbor campus) or if they possess a third-party certification for sustainability. Our team has been tasked with assessing and recommending improvements to the current sustainable food landscape at UM both quantitatively and qualitatively. We have analyzed purchasing data provided by Dining Services personnel to further understand which foods are most often purchased from sustainable sources, which dining halls’ purchasing methods are habitually sustainable, and how much money is spent on sustainable purchases. Additionally, we have discussed sustainability in residential dining halls with current U-M Dining chefs from across campus, allowing us to create a decision map of sustainable food purchases within U-M. From these analyses, we have determined inadequacies in sustainable purchasing and barriers that U-M Dining personnel face when procuring sustainable food. The total spend on sustainable food during January 2016 reached around 6.27 percent (see Appendix 4), significantly falling short of U-M’s goal of 20 percent. Qualitatively, the greatest constraint to sustainable food purchasing is a financial barrier. However, there are also bookkeeping inconsistencies with U-M’s food purchasing guidelines and a minimal use of third party certifications. Qualitatively, obstacles within the food purchasing system include strict food safety requirements on farmers’ abilities to provide food, communication gaps between U-M’s Office of Sustainability and U-M Dining, procurement inefficiencies in the payment process, seasonal and quantitative constraints to food grown, food storage limitations, behavioral resistance amongst chefs, limitations to U-M’s computerized food ordering system, and contractual constraints with larger distributors. To increase the percentage of sustainably-sourced foods, we recommend further clarification on U-M’s Sustainable Food Purchasing Guidelines, annual sustainable food training sessions to educate chefs and distributors, food purchasing feedback for chefs, incentivization of sustainable purchases, redevelopment of the computerized food purchasing system, greater efficiency in Procurement Services’ payment process, prioritization of sustainability during contract negotiation periods, subsidies for GAP/GHP certification, uniformity in supplier bookkeeping for sustainable purchasing guidelines, identification of local farmers by U-M Dining administrators, and the development of a longterm sustainable food purchasing strategy for U-M Dining. We are confident that these recommendations, along with current strategies currently employed by U-M, will increase the percentage of sustainably-sourced food in U-M dining halls in hopes of reaching the 20 percent goal by 2025.

Transportation: Student project for Sustainability and the Campus ENVIRON 391, Winter 2016. on ethanol and biodiesel in an effort to reach U-M’s 2025 goal of decreasing the carbon intensity of passenger trips on all U-M transportation by 30% from FY2006 levels. Thus far, this effort has been supplemented through the purchasing of hybrid and electric vehicles and a bike share program. Within the current environmental movement, there is a general misconception that biofuels are without a doubt environmentally beneficial, causing mass support for commercialization of biofuel to replace traditional fuels and consequently reduce carbon emissions. In particular, carbon neutrality - the idea that carbon emissions from biofuels at the tailpipe are completely offset by the carbon pulled from the atmosphere by biomasses (i.e. soy, corn, etc.) grown to produce the fuel. The objective of this report is to investigate this belief, and apply to the needs of the University of Michigan. This report will reveal that this belief is largely unfounded and studies have shown high variation in the success, and often failure, of biofuels in reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. In actuality the environmental benefit (or detriment) of a biofuel depends on many production variables including crop type, processing fuel, land-use change, resource allocation, etc. Our key findings indicate that biofuels are not the panacea that many believe them to be. For one, their production and consumption involve the generation of many negative externalities, including habitat destruction, biodiversity loss, possible increases in food prices, heavy water requirements, over-fertilization and runoff concerns, and more. Additionally, ethanol and biodiesel do not provide as much energy per gallon as conventional fuels, leading to fuel efficiency discrepancies. The aggressive policy landscape adopted by the U.S. government regarding biofuels operates under an erroneous assumption of biofuels having neutral net greenhouse gas emissions without taking into consideration the indirect effects of biofuels. Finally, the future looks bright for alternative and proven sustainable means of transportation on college campuses that do not share the murky concerns of biofuels. Through research and analysis of biofuels in general and within the context of the University, we recommend that PTS pursue alternative methods to biofuels to reach their 2025 goal due to the high likelihood of supporting unsustainable biofuels. The University should first shift its biofuel investment to proven sustainable alternatives, such as hybrids, and optimizing the fuel efficiency of the vehicles in its fleet. Greater scientific research around comprehensive emissions from alternative fuels and sustainable production is needed before biofuels should be considered a guaranteed cleaner alternative to fossil fuels. Secondly, the University should support a carbon-offset program, such as terrestrial carbon sequestration, to naturally remove carbon from the atmosphere, rather than purchasing volatile intangibles such as carbon credits.

Waste: Sustainability and the Campus ENVIRON 391 project, Winter 2017. This report compiles an inventory of sign styles and placement to direct fans at University of Michigan sporting events to recycle-compost bins and communicate appropriate use. The report also provides a set of implementation recommendations based on best-practices from other zero-waste sporting initiatives and community surveys. Full Executive Summary: by Fall 2017. Zero waste means designing products and processes to systematically eliminate the volume and toxicity of waste. According to MGoBlue.com, “a zero waste Michigan Stadium supports U-M's deep commitment to sustainability in education, research and operations known as Planet Blue. It directly impacts the university's 2025 sustainability goals, specifically the goals to reduce waste sent to landfills by 40 percent and to strengthen the culture of sustainability on campus” (“Sustainability”). Zero waste in the context of the Big House means that 100% of concession items sold to patrons are compostable or recyclable starting in the 2017 football season. The items, signage and promotional material associated with the change will be consistent with the university’s pre-existing sustainability efforts. The only trash bins will be located behind concession stands, bathrooms, press rooms and outside stadium entrances. Scope There is a large project scope for this initiative which includes: external contamination (prohibited items fans bring into the stadium), waste outside stadium, relabelling dumpsters, as well as creating signage to explain how to dispose of concession items. The scope of the Environment 391 student team project was to take inventory of where signs would be located, customize the university’s standard waste signage to the stadium specific waste stream, and create an educational PDF for post-game cleanup volunteers. Methods We developed a comprehensive inventory of the different sign styles and where they will be located. This is represented by Table 1 and indicated accordingly on paper maps for the facilities team to use while installing signs, which correspond with recycle-compost paired bins. We communicated with peer institutions that have successfully carried out zero waste athletics initiatives and learned from them how to make the zero waste Big House launch as smooth as possible. Findings and Recommendations Overall, we found that there were five types of areas that have specific signage needs. The variations of signage are due to factors such as wall space, open space areas, high traffic areas, limited space areas, concessions, as well as clubhouse and suite aesthetics. We recommend that a combination of wall signs, freestanding, tabletop, sleeves, and placards should accommodate the various areas. Our correspondence with Ohio State University regarding best used practices afforded us with valuable information to help the chances of a successful zero waste launch. The informal surveys we conducted showed us that people were concerned with visual aids like videos to inform them about the initiative, as well as the use of coaches and players in educational materials.

Through the Planet Blue Student Initiative Fund the student group BlueLab applied for and received funds to install a rainwater catchment system for use at the student run Campus Farm. The system is designed to promote sustainable agriculture and campus collaboration.

A group of students under the advisement of U-M Faculty and staff have been actively researching GHG emission reduction opportunities for campus. The group presented their research at a one day U-M sponsored conference on Carbon Neutrality attended by U-M policy advisers. (https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1DgOsOYwxL2zVAi9uQPEiwjH2vZoSsJU_) The group also released a paper that was presented to U-M staff and decision makers (http://energy.umich.edu/sites/default/files/ppas_for_u-m_final_report_0.pdf)

Waste: Sustainability and the Campus ENVIRON 391 project, Winter 2017. This report provides an analysis of DEI best practices among universities and provides recommendations for how best to implement combined DEI and sustainability initiatives with the support of student leaders. Full Executive Summary: This report is a summary of a semester of findings, limitations, and recommendations for the overlap between Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion and Sustainability at the University of Michigan. The project is divided into two phases: Phase I - Narrowing Scope, Identifying existing overlap and potential projects, and Phase 2 - Working with CSG. Phase I After meeting with sponsors Keith Soster and Emily Canosa and discussing a broad vision for a new initiative combining these two existing initiatives, we developed a research plan. Our research began with an analysis of best practices at the University of Michigan and other universities. Following a presentation of possible avenues for our project to our sponsors based on our findings, we decided to start with Central Student Government (CSG) and student organizations, where our sponsors have connections and we can most easily raise awareness among students. Phase II Once we decided that our project was going to orient around CSG, we conducted an interview with CSG’s incoming president to gauge student leaders’ interest in the proposed DEI/Sustainability initiative. After receiving positive feedback from the 2017-2018 CSG President, we followed up with a focus group of CSG students, where we asked a group of students questions about each initiative in a roundtable setting to gather data. This was followed by a post-focus-group survey. During Phase II, some limitations of this project became clear, including time constraints, a lack of diversity between the five members of our group, and the high turnover rate of students involved with CSG and student organizations. Despite these limitations, we were able to identify and articulate where there is room for a DEI/Sustainability initiative on campus and garner support for such an effort from student leaders. We concluded that there is strong potential for a combined initiative. We recommend that the overlap initiative start in the 2017-2018 school year with CSG. In the coming years, we recommend that our sponsors eventually extend the initiative to other student organizations and other areas of campus included in our initial set of recommendations.