As a national and international leader in education and research, the University of Michigan plays a critical role in the development of the intellectual framework and training of the individuals that will guide society's use of natural, technical, and human resources. Through its educational and research missions, the University can effectively address issues of population, resource management, pollution, and social change. In managing its infrastructure, the University can strive to conduct its activities and use natural, built, and human resources in a manner that develops environmental awareness and fosters responsible management. In this spirit, the members of the Greening the Maize and Blue Advisory Committee present this report as a catalyst for the University to enhance its leadership role in environmental stewardship.
The Greening the Maize and Blue Committee, an ad hoc group of staff, faculty and students, produced this report to highlight the importance of environmental stewardship at the University of Michigan. The report includes a brief review of ongoing environmental activities, with greater emphasis on proactive steps the University can take to improve its environmental leadership position.
Campus environmental activities can be divided according to the following four sectors:
To address the need for improved environmental leadership, the committee focused on the following processes:
Recommendations for each of these areas are found throughout the report, and are gathered together as part of the summary.
This report was written by an ad hoc group of University of Michigan (U-M) staff, students, faculty, and alumni who share a commitment to environmental protection. It includes three main parts: a survey of campus environmental protection activities, a discussion of options for improvement (with increasing levels of detail), and a list of specific recommendations.
Any activity on campus, large or small, can affect the natural or physical environment. Hence, every activity on campus provides the opportunity to minimize environmental impacts and promote stewardship. Historian Paul Kennedy, in his 1993 book Preparing for the Twenty-First Century, stresses "the need to respond to demographic and environmental challenges, instead of simply hoping that a solution will turn up on its own." The University, by virtue of its leadership role, has a responsibility to the community, the state, and the world to minimize the deleterious impacts of its activities on the environment and to educate others to do the same.
Already, there are many environmental stewardship activities on campus that deserve acknowledgment. However, several improvements can, and should, be made to make the University a true environmental leader. An increase in communication and leadership as well as a clear definition of environmental objectives and responsibilities are necessary to ensure that the University is doing its best to minimize impacts on the natural environment, teach environmental protection, and promote stewardship to the greater community.
The recommendations of this report address operations, education, and research, all of which can positively affect environmental stewardship. The recommendations are specifically addressed to decision-makers and managers who can help direct and implement change, but require the attention and understanding of all members of the campus community: students, faculty, staff, and alumni.
This section describes selected activities and departments that illustrate the range of environmental programs on campus.
Most of the departments whose "function" involves environmental management are in U-M's Business and Finance branch. Units include:
Manages and oversees the planning, design, construction, and renovation of all buildings and spaces that make up the campus. In the past decade, over $750 million has been spent on major capital projects and $1.2 billion on infrastructure renovations
Provides maintenance and custodial service to 12 million square feet of building space. Services include utilities, groundskeeping, landscaping, waste management, recycling, public transportation, and parking to more than 23 million square feet of buildings and 2,500 acres of land.
Responsible for biohazardous and hazardous waste materials management, radiation safety, pollution prevention, storm water runoff, and air and water quality compliance.
Manages and coordinates contracts and procurement for all materials and services that are consumed on campus, as well as mail and printing services.
Other departments have less-obvious environmental responsibilities, but their activities and functions yield significant environmental impacts:
All of these and other activities affect natural, built, and human resources and all have the opportunity to be conducted in a more environmentally sustainable manner.
Beyond the Ann Arbor campus, the University owns more than 20,000 acres of land throughout the state and nation. There is no central coordination nor comprehensive biological inventory of these properties. Separate University units manage their use, which are primarily for research or recreation. These diverse properties range from the 13,300 acre Biological Station managed by the College of Literature, Science and the Arts to the 129 acre St. Pierre Wetlands Preserve, managed by the School of Natural Resources & Environment.
The University of Michigan has a strong reputation for interdisciplinary scholarship, and many environment-related teaching and research activities on campus have both depth and diversity. These activities fall within the University branches of Academic Affairs and Research. There are over a hundred environmental graduate and undergraduate course offerings ranging literally from "A" (air pollution) to "Z" (zebra mussels). The following is a partial list of units or programs that deal with environmental topics:
Research activities in the environmental area are similarly diverse. Many researchers are leaders in their fields and offer students educational opportunities in classroom, laboratory, and field settings. As in other fields, most research opportunities focus on graduate (particularly doctoral) students, but all students can benefit from the knowledge and activity of the faculty. While much environmental research is specialized and sometimes disciplinary in nature, the University does have a number of multi-disciplinary projects, councils, institutes, and centers that address broader environmental issues (e.g., Global Change Project; Center for Great Lakes and Aquatic Sciences).
Students play an important role in campus environmental stewardship through extracurricular activities and work-study programs. Several student organizations are devoted to aiding U-M's environmental efforts, as well as raising awareness around the campus and neighboring communities. With the exception of the Michigan Student Assembly, these groups are decentralized and little networking occurs among them. A sampling of student groups includes:
The central student government body, MSA, has an Environmental Issues Commission that serves to coordinate student environmental groups and to address the environmental concerns of U-M students.
This group promoted and organized Earth Week 1995 and 1996 activities including guest speakers and an Earth Day Fair. In 1995 the group also organized the "Wolvergreen Games" -- an energy and water conservation competition among residence halls -- in cooperation with the U-M Utilities Department.
This group helped U-M Grounds and Waste Management pilot a program to compost food wastes from residence halls, and promoted backyard composting to students living off-campus.
Many of the environmental programs and activities taking place on campus can be attributed to the perseverance of students. A good example is the recycling program. A student group, Recycle U-M, acted as a catalyst by researching and advocating changes in the campus waste management system. Concurrently, in 1989, U-M Grounds & Waste Management recognized the need to implement an institution-wide recycling program and hired a full-time recycling coordinator. Although Recycle U-M no longer exists, the group's legacy and mission live on in the form of an institutionalized recycling program. The program now hires students to assist in its work, and the students gain learning and leadership experiences in environmental stewardship.
Several current or recent initiatives have cut across operational and academic divisions.
This group was convened in 1989 by the Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer as a result of faculty concerns. The eight faculty members and one student on the committee met with University operations managers and assessed concerns of U-M faculty. In September 1990, the Sub-Committee issued a report highlighting ten areas of concern, giving both short- and long-term operational recommendations. The Subcommittee last met in 1994.
This current initiative involves members of nine different operational units. Its mission is to establish and promote best management practices for road and sidewalk de-icing, while minimizing the environmental impacts of these practices. Numerous factors, such as costs, safety concerns, and physical impacts, such as building deterioration, are also being evaluated.
In this student-initiated activity, nine School of Natural Resources and Environment (SNRE) graduate students completed their 1993 masters project by examining pollution prevention opportunities at the University. Working with faculty and staff, the students conducted an environmental audit of the campus; developed a framework for implementing a chemical tracking system; and assisted in creating the Business School's "Green Team."
Another student-initiated SNRE masters project was completed in 1996. A team of three graduate students examined solid waste management at U-M Athletics Facilities. Their final report provides specific recommendations and actions for the Athletics Department to take to reduce waste and its associated costs. The Department and its major food service contractor are considering many of the recommendations.
In the spring of 1996, a faculty member and students in SNRE's Landscape Architecture program initiated a dialogue with campus planners and administrators and hosted a forum to discuss an ecological approach to the University's landscape. Potential activities were identified, including demonstration projects, improving community input in landscape designs, and increasing the use of native plant species. Although the initiative helped to set the stage for future collaborative projects, limited action has occurred.
An experimental undergraduate course (NRE 306, Fall 1995) was designed to involve students in academically challenging projects that would help U-M staff to prevent pollution and conserve resources. The classroom component of the course introduced the preventive approach to environmental management. The 11 class projects ranged from an environmental educator's booklet for Nichols Arboretum to a junk mail reduction campaign for residence halls. The Greening the Maize and Blue Advisory Committee was convened to provide guidance for the course and has since continued its work by issuing this report. Both the class and the Committee were unique in helping to bridge academic and operational sectors of the University.
In many ways, these activities demonstrate the challenges that typically confront environmental managers -- working with a variety of stakeholders and balancing economic, environmental, and other considerations. All of the above activities occurred despite the absence of leadership or a clear environmental vision for the campus. The activities were usually ad hoc, short-lived, or arose from narrowly defined problems. While individual projects may have been successful, their total impact is limited because they were not part of a larger, broader environmental initiative on campus. To fully capitalize on the synergy of these individual efforts, active and coordinated environmental leadership is needed.
As noted earlier, the University, in its leadership role, bears a responsibility to the larger community to minimize its impacts on the environment; to use natural, built, and human resources in a manner that develops environmental awareness; and to foster an ethic and culture of environmental stewardship. Leadership is not static. U-M already strives for continual improvement through its M-Quality initiative. This initiative focuses on the quality of customer service and the end product. However, total quality cannot occur in an environment characterized by high resource use, energy consumption, or waste. Other initiatives -- pollution prevention, energy efficiency, waste reduction, best management practices -- can be integrated into the University's mission to achieve Total Quality Environmental Management. Environmental leadership is necessary for U-M to effectively utilize its resources to foster a sustainable society through teaching, research, and operational activities.
Presidents and chancellors at many peer institutions, recognizing the importance of environmental issues, have enacted policies, established committees, and hosted programs to make environmental stewardship a top priority. In April 1996, 250 participants from higher education worldwide, including U-M, gathered for the Greening of the Campus conference at Ball State University. Model programs that involved students, staff, and faculty to "green" campus activities were presented. In 1994, over 400 students, faculty, and administrators gathered at the Campus Earth Summit at Yale University and drafted the Campus Blueprint for a Sustainable Future, which was circulated among many North American institutions. The Nathan Cummings Foundation recently released The Class of 2000 Report, which calls for environmental education, practices, and activism on campus.
The scope and vision of environmental programs at peer institutions show potential for greater accomplishments on this campus. Universities such as Colorado, Wisconsin, Tufts, George Washington, and Brown have coordinated and funded programs involving staff, students, and faculty that take innovative and proactive approaches to campus environmental stewardship. As an additional benefit, these programs garner very favorable media attention. For example, George Washington University's comprehensive "Green U" initiative integrates activities that range from installing solar panels on university buildings to infusing an environmental ethic amongst students, faculty, and staff. At Brown University, an environmental coordinator teaches an environmental studies class and also works under the provost to implement environmental protection programs. The "Brown is Green" program allows students to use the campus as a laboratory for researching environmental issues, implementing real-world solutions, and facilitates communication between students and operations staff.
U-M can and should include itself among the top echelon of environmental leaders.
When the University commits itself to an important issue, great things can happen. For example, under the Michigan Mandate graduation rates for students of color have risen dramatically. The University of Michigan has not yet developed a mission statement or expressed a commitment regarding environmental stewardship. If it does so, there is no doubt it will become a preeminent environmental leader. To make the commitment, the University must define its environmental objectives in the form of a mission statement, and develop a strategic plan to achieve its goals.
An environmental mission or policy statement is a commitment to environmental stewardship that sets norms and expectations on the community's behavior. U-M leaders can set the tone by soliciting input and involvement from all stakeholders to design a mission statement that reflects the commitment of the entire University community. One example of such a statement is the Talloires Declaration that defines the role of universities and their leaders in environmental management and sustainable development. To date, over 250 universities have signed the Declaration including Florida, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Virginia, Wisconsin, Tufts, and Brown. It states a commitment to environmental stewardship and encourages actions to implement its goals. The Declaration, quite general in scope, can be used by U-M as a framework for developing its own policy and priorities.
We, the presidents, rectors, and vice chancellors of universities from all regions of the world are deeply concerned about the unprecedented scale and speed of environmental pollution and degradation, and the depletion of natural resources. . . We believe that urgent actions are needed to address these fundamental problems and reverse the trends. . . University heads must provide the leadership and support to mobilize internal and external resources so that their institutions respond to this urgent challenge. We, therefore, agree to take the following actions: [selected recommendations]
Many University units and departments have already recognized the need to devote resources toward environmental protection efforts. However, U-M's large and decentralized nature permits units to make their own decisions, resulting in the emergence of environmental activities sharing little communication or coordination. A commitment from the central administration along with a specific plan would reduce communication difficulties and missed integration opportunities, and would vitalize each unit's efforts towards environmentally desirable behaviors. A multi-stakeholder group from across the University should develop a strategic plan for achieving environmental stewardship throughout the University. This strategic plan would chart the course by establishing goals, objectives, and strategies for all major units within the University.
Regardless of the methodology used to construct an environmental policy and plan, the critical point is that a formal commitment by the central administration is essential to guide, implement, and accomplish environmental objectives. To be successful, the policy and plan must be developed with input from, and share ownership with, the entire University community.
This section discusses key items that need to be addressed to plan and implement U-M's environmental goals. These include: establishing communication channels across the campus, enhancing environmental literacy, promoting environmental research, and putting environmental stewardship into practice.
Many organizational mechanisms can increase functional integration within and between academic and operational units, the most ambitious of which would be the establishment of an office to coordinate all environmental functions. Activities that would be the responsibility of this office or coordinated among existing units or departments include:
These and other coordinating activities require staff time that could be obtained by, in many cases, reassigning personnel and using student interns in partnership with existing staff; or by establishing new part-time or full-time positions. The benefits of increased coordination and awareness will far exceed the relatively small costs required to implement these organizational adjustments.
Broadly speaking, the educational experience for U-M students should promote interdisciplinary sensitivity and systems-oriented thinking. This integration, an inherent part of scholarship in all disciplines, is particularly crucial in environmental education. Environmental topics provide an excellent vehicle for integrative and systematic thinking while at the same time promoting environmental literacy. Undergraduate programs should offer cross-disciplinary environmental literacy programs that promote synthesis and integration. Professional schools, graduate programs, and continuing education programs could continue to define their educational mission in a unit- or program-based approach, but students should be made aware of and encouraged to participate in environmental education opportunities. New courses should be encouraged to extend beyond disciplinary boundaries and to incorporate innovative teaching approaches. For example, opportunities exist to connect the growing interest in service learning with campus environmental stewardship.
As discussed earlier, environmental education at the U-M is diverse and decentralized. Students could benefit from enhanced mentoring and up-to-date, comprehensive listings of environmentally related course offerings and lecture series among all academic units. Undergraduates, particularly, would benefit from increased knowledge of and access to graduate course offerings that allow in-depth exposure to environmental issues and career options. For these students, access should be permitted and encouraged at the junior level, in part to facilitate the admission and course requirements of graduate schools.
The faculty and the administration at U-M have recognized that environmental research can benefit from pooled resources and facilitation of multi-disciplinary interaction. However, research activities are dominated by "bottom-up" (researcher-initiated) projects, conducted by individual staff, centers, institutes, and other entities. Many of these activities are disciplinary in nature, responding to specific requests from funding agencies, foundations, and industry.
The University administration has responded to this problem with several initiatives, e.g., conducting surveys of environmentally related research and launching the Institute for Environmental Science, Engineering and Technology. However, many multi-disciplinary efforts have been short-lived (e.g., responding to requests for proposals), and a recent survey indicated that almost three-quarters of U-M faculty felt that the academic climate does not adequately encourage or support interdisciplinary work. At present, relatively few regular campus-wide mechanisms exist for coordinating and sharing environmental research, perhaps not surprising given the breadth of the environmental field.
Researchers and others in the U-M community would benefit from an electronic forum, an announcement list, an environmental publication, a comprehensive distribution list of interested individuals, a campus-wide environmental lecture series, and/or other mechanisms aimed at facilitating communication, involvement, and collaboration. The former President of the University questioned whether the current organization of U-M is suitable to address cross-cutting issues, or is obsolete and a hindrance to such activities. Reorganization, incentives, and other changes may be necessary to promote and develop an environmental research "powerhouse" that maintains and enhances U-M's reputation in the multi-disciplinary research.
With few exceptions, environmental research at U-M does not address campus issues. Little information about environmental matters is exchanged between faculty and staff. In some cases, meaningful research has been directed to environmental concerns on campus, e.g., ecological management of grounds, chemical exposure and dispersion studies, conservation behavior, and energy conservation. However, no standard mechanism exists for involving faculty or for funding environmental studies and research.
The U-M campus can be a laboratory for faculty and students to research and implement pollution prevention and environmental stewardship initiatives. Campus environmental research projects would be stimulated by joint funding and support by the offices of the Vice President for Research and the Vice President for Business and Finance. While such projects may prove cost-effective to the University, directives from the administration are required to pool resources that cross academic, research, or operations boundaries. Such mechanisms have been used at other universities. For example, Ball State University held "Green for Green" competitions to award small grants to faculty to conduct research and carry out innovative ideas to enhance environmental quality on their campus.
Putting environmental stewardship into practice also means the University, in managing its infrastructure and operations, needs to make decisions with environmental sustainability in mind.
Maintaining and enhancing U-M's reputation as an environmental leader will require financial resources. However, appropriate environmental investments can generate substantial cost savings. Pollution prevention and resource conservation often yield a high rate of return by reducing future risks (i.e., environmental liability) and increasing productivity (through improved efficiency, employee satisfaction, safety conditions). This section addresses the importance of using financial incentives to promote environmental stewardship, and examines whether U-M's new fiscal system and environmental management are compatible.
The University has recently adopted Value Centered Management (VCM) as its fiscal accounting and financial management system. VCM will give individual units (i.e., schools and colleges) greater financial responsibility in the management of their affairs. Under the previous system, most units operated within the general fund, which took in all earnings and paid for all expenses. Under VCM, each unit is a "value center," responsible for generating its own revenues and paying for all expenses associated with operating the unit.
Value Centered Management (VCM) is likely to be compatible with many environmental goals at U-M. First, VCM encourages conservation measures because each unit must bear the burden of its own resource usage. The current general fund financial method does not differentiate between units that conserve versus those that waste materials, energy or water. Second, VCM is likely to promote information transfer because each unit will be able to evaluate alternative measures that other units are using to reduce costs.
By design, VCM will encourage certain "conservation" or environmentally beneficial behaviors with significant potential for cost savings or avoidance. These include the following areas:
Under VCM, units will be directly responsible for utility costs such as energy and water. Long-term savings can accrue in the design and construction of energy-efficient buildings and efficient office equipment. Once a building is operational, lower maintenance and energy use can be achieved through energy conservation practices--managing the lighting, the building envelope, climate control, etc.
With VCM, units will be billed for the amount of waste their staff, faculty, and students actually generate. By recycling or reducing waste at its source, units can lower their costs for trash removal and disposal.
A reduction of hazardous waste generation can reduce the high costs associated with disposing of these materials in an environmentally safe way. VCM provides an incentive for units to find alternative research methods that minimize the amount of hazardous materials used, and in turn, the amount of hazardous waste generated.
VCM also might encourage more efficient use of the products and materials that are bought and consumed by individual units, whether these are office supplies, laboratory supplies, tools or equipment. Likewise, investing in reuse or repair rather than replacement yields potential cost savings.
Work environments with good lighting, air quality and environmentally compatible design increase employee productivity and reduce absenteeism. The human resource savings associated with creating comfortable and supportive work environments can greatly exceed the savings of energy conservation and recycling. Unfortunately, these savings are also the most difficult to measure.
While VCM has much to offer regarding the accomplishment of environmental goals, it also raises serious concerns. These include the potential for under-investment in preventive maintenance, disincentives to the upkeep of common resources, elimination of interdisciplinary environmental education programs, and inability to focus financial mechanisms.
Value Centered Management may promote under-investment in preventive maintenance and other beneficial, long-term efforts. Under the general fund system, the University has an incentive to "pay a little now, save a lot later." With the new VCM system, however, units may defer preventive maintenance with the expectation that the University will eventually pick up the much larger bill for renovating a neglected infrastructure. This short-sighted approach may also discourage the purchase of "green" products that may cost more up front, yet have lower life-cycle costs or environmental consequences.
Similarly, it may be difficult to maintain grounds, buildings, or programs that are used and consumed by many units but owned by none. In these cases, it will be very difficult to divide responsibility for common resources according to unit ownership. Even if an area is divided, some units may not be as concerned about its upkeep as others. Maintenance and repairs of common areas may lapse. Individual units will have little justification to make investments in common resources, such as public transportation systems.
VCM may also alter the academic climate by discouraging interdisciplinary environmental programs. Under VCM, tuition revenues follow the student. Thus, academic units have an incentive to keep the bulk of the course work within their departments. This has the effect of limiting opportunities in crosscutting curricula, which characterize much of environmental education. Despite the administration's commitment to limit VCM's negative effect on interdisciplinary instructional (and research) programs, academic units seem likely to eliminate courses or programs that lead to revenue losses.
Finally, the financial consequences of VCM-based management decisions will have little impact unless the financial cues are distributed to the user (i.e., department or program level, even individuals in some cases). For example, energy conservation incentives that are allocated at the college level are unlikely to alter individual faculty member's behavior.
While VCM may encourage campus environmental stewardship, resource conservation and waste reduction, and the wiser use of natural and built resources, it is not a perfect system. Appropriate oversight must be provided to ensure sufficient preventive maintenance and stewardship of shared facilities or programs, that incentives and disincentives are effectively distributed, and that educational and other non-financial values are incorporated into University decision making.
Financial benefits from environmental initiatives under VCM can be accelerated by the use of financial incentives. For example, the Utilities Department offers units financial bonuses for energy conservation projects that directly reduce energy consumption. Utilities will pay for the installation of new or upgraded building equipment, such as lighting, if a demonstrated savings will occur over time. The Department also gives rebates to units equaling 20% of the yearly cost savings from energy conservation projects. The rebates provide an incentive for units to implement energy conservation programs. Rebates might also be used in other areas, for example, rewarding researchers who use alternatives to toxic chemicals in their laboratories.
Incentives can also be used to improve information transfer. For example, Plant Operations now uses a lottery as an incentive to reduce employee accidents. Reductions in a unit's accident rate result in measurable cost savings, which are then distributed to employees through a lottery. This lottery system increases employee interest in workplace safety by improving communication, training, and sharing monetary savings directly with the employees.
Outside organizations may be additional sources of incentive funds. State and federal agencies, private corporations, and foundations have funds for proactive environmental management and conservation efforts. These funds can supplement certain costs of environmental programs. However, internal U-M support is ultimately necessary to ensure the continuity and sustainability of such programs.
Ultimately, each unit within the University will need to identify the data it will track to evaluate its progress toward environmental stewardship goals. Progress should be widely publicized so that all units can be educated and inspired. This section addresses environmental performance measures and communication roles among the University constituencies.
Environmental performance measures fall into three main categories: financial, input (sources, uses and consumption), and output (products and wastes). These measures serve to chart progress toward environmental stewardship goals and identify problem areas. These measurements are even more meaningful if made over time and with other peer organizations. Indeed, benchmarking environmental performance is an increasingly common practice among U-M's peer institutions.
Financial measures indicate the cost of a particular activity or the savings from conservation measures. They may be any monetary category that is a relevant measure of environmental performance. Financial measures can include money spent on photocopier paper, laboratory chemicals, and utilities; avoided landfill costs from recycling, and energy conservation; or the amount of funds earmarked for environmental research or studies.
Input measures track sources, use, and consumption of a resource or product. These measures can be based on quality or quantity. For instance, a unit could decide to increase its purchase of non-chlorine bleached paper while reducing its use of paper overall, thereby reducing both chlorine and tree pulp inputs. Other examples of measurable inputs include: the amount and types of locally grown or organic foods purchased, kilowatts of electricity and gallons of water consumed, or the number of disposable cups used at a football game, etc. While it may be possible to attach a dollar figure to these inputs, attaching the true environmental cost is difficult.
Output measures track the end products, output or waste associated with a target resource, product or activity. Again, these measures can be based on quality or quantity. For example, units could measure the amount of paper collected for recycling or waste sent to a landfill. Other measurable outputs include air emissions from point sources, hazardous waste collected for disposal, staff attitudes about campus environmental quality, the number of students graduating with course work in environmental disciplines, or the quantity of native plants growing on campus.
In general, input and output measures are best used to indicate appropriate solutions or pathways for progress during implementation periods. These measures are weaker at communicating the financial impact. Financial measures are best used to identify problem or positive areas over the long-term, and are less useful at identifying options to move towards environmental objectives.
Several other issues require consideration when establishing performance measures. First, tracking a product requires determining when it is an input or an output, e.g., the amount of paper purchased versus the amount of paper recycled. In addition, the usage or purpose of the product or activity needs to be evaluated, in addition to measuring the inputs and outputs. For example, is printing a message on recycled paper appropriate when a paperless option is available?
Another issue concerns the trade-off between financial and non-financial measures. Consider, for example, a performance measurement program based only on the weight of waste generated. This may lead to the reduction of voluminous non-hazardous waste streams, while small amounts of extremely toxic wastes would be overlooked. Such a program would also fail to adequately incorporate financial and resource conservation (input) considerations.
The development and integration of measurement systems may pose a significant challenge at this large institution. There is already a wealth of information available about campus material flows and financial affairs, as well as information about education and research activities. However, this information is typically available only through separate information management systems. Integration of this information will lead to enormous benefits and improved decision making.
The University has already begun creating a Facilities Management Information System (FMIS). The system was initiated by Plant Extension but is a collaborative effort by many departments to provide facilities information in a format that provides the most benefit to the University as a whole. According to the FMIS team, maintaining existing facilities and planning the renovation and construction of new ones are necessarily intertwined. Yet, the data that are vital to decision making is scattered throughout numerous proprietary departmental systems, making it impossible to share information in a timely and effective manner. The long-term vision of FMIS is to provide a single user-friendly interface where individuals will be able to acquire any information about U-M facilities, including general building information, drawings, schedules, utility and maintenance cost information, and equipment information.
Communication and education are keys to successfully implementing an environmental stewardship program. All campus constituencies -- administrators, students, staff, faculty, researchers, and alumni -- must be informed and understand they have a stake in the program. Likewise, all campus constituencies must be willing to participate in and share information about environmental programs.
Effective avenues for communication vary by constituency:
Can attend and sponsor fora on the environmental leadership goals and objectives, publicize model programs within different units, establish a campus electronic conference and message board to discuss environmental stewardship issues, direct financial resources to environmental activities, encourage campus and off-campus publications to create awareness of these activities, and help mentor student activities.
Can act as catalysts and engines for campus stewardship efforts, sponsor meetings, help with public awareness and publicity, help with new student orientations, make class announcements, and participate in active research or service projects.
Can promote the use of existing information and data on environmental activities, utilize newsletters, hold brown bag discussions both among themselves and with other constituencies, have meetings with different constituencies, bring staff activities into the classroom, provide periodic reports to campus publications, and mentor student activities.
Can incorporate environmental stewardship lessons into teaching and research whenever possible in all disciplines. They can also mentor student service learning projects and other environmental activities.
Can include waste management as a line item in grant proposals, designate a person to oversee all environmental impacts within the laboratory, communicate to assistants the responsibilities associated with the life cycle of laboratory chemicals, and, to the extent possible, express preferences for non- or less-toxic alternatives.
Can promote environmental stewardship beyond the campus through alumni chapters and networks, contribute relevant assistance based on their professional experiences, help mentor student activities, and communicate their support through letters, articles, and financial contributions.
These and other activities together will make environmental programs known throughout the campus community, and will raise awareness and encourage behavior that supports the environmental stewardship plan. By using consistent performance measures, all campus constituents will be using the same language in understanding their respective roles in accomplishing the U-M's environmental goals and objectives.
This report demonstrated U-M's past and present environmental leadership activities, and stated the need for renewed effort to enhance its position among its peer institutions. Through increasing levels of detail--from a call for a mission statement to suggested methods of communication--this report has provided an array of options to guide the University decision makers. Altogether, the recommendations from this report are as follows:
U-M will enhance its reputation as an environmental leader by adopting these recommendations. However, true leadership requires more than a "connect the dots" approach. Other successful initiatives, such as the Michigan Mandate, owe their success to nurturing a positive culture in addition to simply meeting the minimum requirements of the program. Likewise, a sustainable campus environment -- and a prosperous human environment -- will arise only through similar institutional dedication.
Kristen Agnew, Midwest Regional Organizer, Campus Ecology, National Wildlife Federation
Stuart Batterman, Associate Professor of Environmental Health, School of Public Health
Andrew Duncan, Doctoral Candidate, School of Natural Resources & Environment (SNRE)
Yoshiko Hill, Utilities Engineer, Utilities Department, Plant Operations
Vicki Jarvis, Building Manager, School of Natural Resources & Environment
Jon Kazmierski, Sophomore, School of Natural Resources & Environment
Lorraine Lamey, Alumna, LS & A, SNRE, and Law School
Nancy Osborn, Publications Manager, National Pollution Prevention Center, SNRE
Erica Spiegel, Recycling Coordinator, Grounds & Waste Management, Plant Operations
The Committee wishes to thank all the individuals who have volunteered their time to help produce this report. In addition to committee member, reviewers and contributors include:
James Christenson, Director, Plant Operations
Elizabeth Elling, Development Officer, Nichols Arboretum, SNRE
Douglas Fasing, Manager, Grounds & Waste Management Services, Plant Operations
Robert Grese, Associate Professor of Landscape Architecture, SNRE
William Lanen, Associate Professor of Accounting, School of Business
We also thank Garry Brewer, former SNRE dean, who made funds available for the publication of this report.
Greening the Maize and Blue Home Page
[Contains the HTML version of the "Environmental Leadership at the University of Michigan" report; e.g., the document you are now looking at.]
Sustainable Development On Campus: Tools for Campus Decision Makers
Brown University: Brown is Green Home Page
George Washington University: Green U Initiative Home Page
Second Nature: Advancing Human and Environmental Well-Being Through Learning
University of Virginia: Eco Web
Green University Strategic Plan, George Washington University, GW Institute for the Environment, Washington, D.C., 1995.
Blueprint for a Green Campus: The Campus Earth Summit Initiatives for Higher Education, Heinz Family Foundation, January 1995.
Ecodemia: Campus Environmental Stewardship at the Turn of the 21st Century, Julian Keniry, National Wildlife Federation, Washington, D.C., 1995.
Earth in Mind: On Education, Environment, and the Human Prospect, David Orr, Island Press, Washington, D.C., 1994.
Lean and Clean Management: How to Boost Profits and Productivity by Reducing Pollution, Joseph J. Romm, Kodansha International, New York, 1994.
The Class of 2000 Report: Environmental Education, Practices and Activism on Campus, Benjamin H. Strauss, The Nathan Cummings Foundation, New York, 1996.