2008 2009 footprint of - university of...
TRANSCRIPT
Table of Contents:
GGR399Y – Summer 2009
2008‐2009
Ecological Footprint of the University of Toronto, Mississauga:
Calculations and Analysis
By: Suzana Svajda and Tooba Shakeel
Title Page # A. Introduction 2
B. Data Collection ‐ Modified Methodology 3
C. Results, Comparison and Recommendations 8
D. Conclusion 14
Bibliography 15
Appendix A – Acknowledgements and Contact Information 16
IX. 1 X.
A. Introduction
What is an Ecological Footprint Analysis?
The Ecological Footprint measures the flows of the earth’s renewable resources used by people. It is defined as "the area of productive land and water ecosystems required to produce the resources that the population consumes and assimilate the wastes that the population produces, wherever on Earth the land and water is located” (Wackernagel & Rees, 1996). Ecological Footprint assessments can be applied at various scales, such as countries, cities, households, individuals, businesses and all sorts of institutions including universities.
Ecological Footprint calculations account for the total amount of land that is needed to sustain a population, including all cropland, forest, build‐up land, and sea required for (a) consumption of food products, timber, construction materials, energy and water; (b) absorption of wastes; and (c) space for infrastructure and transportation. Ecological Footprint calculations can identify activities that have large adverse impacts on the ecosystem. With the help of Ecological Footprint assessments better choices can be made to lessen the negative impacts of populations and activities on the natural world.
The Ecological Footprint of a given population is measured in units of ‘global hectares’ (gha). A global hectare is equal to one hectare or 2.47 acres of biologically productive area, where the productivity is measured by the world’s average annual productivity. The currently available productive area on earth is approximately 13.4 billion global hectares, which covers about 25% of the Earth’s surface. This area includes 10.6 billion global hectares of land and 2.8 billion global hectares of sea and water (http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/glossary/ 2009).
This report describes the ecological footprint calculator for the University of Toronto Mississauga (UTM) (Canada) for 2008‐2009. The footprint calculator is built around several indicators that measure the consumption of the University, including: paper use, food consumption, water and energy use, build‐up land, generated wastes, and commuting habits.
Background ‐ Ecological Footprint calculator:
The UTM Ecological Footprint calculator is based on the first ecological footprint calculator developed in 1996 by Dr. Mathis Wackernagel and Dr. William Reese at the University of British Columbia (Canada). There are two ways to assess ecological footprints: (a) the ‘compound footprinting’ method and (b) the ‘component‐based footprinting’ method. Compound footprinting measures consumption at the national level, where a county's footprint is calculated by subtracting exports and imports from the national domestic production; i.e.: consumption = production ‐ exports + imports. The second approach, component‐based
IX. 2 X.
footprinting, is applied to measure the footprint of individuals and organizations. This approach divides the given population’s activities into different categories of consumption (e.g.: food, transportation, energy), then adds up the values to calculate the total footprint of activities (Chambers et al., 2000).
The UTM Ecological Footprint calculator uses the component‐based approach. It is a more transparent approach that provides comprehensive footprint information. Separating the Ecological Footprint into its individual components demonstrates how each one contributes to the overall demand. Tracking the footprint of the University over several academic years allows for identification of consumption trends and makes it possible to compare the demand patterns from year to year.
Summer 2009 Research:
For summer 2009, the goals were to calculate UTM’s ecological footprint for the 2008‐2009 academic year and compare the results with the 2004‐2005 ecological footprint analysis. The University of Toronto Mississauga ecological footprint calculator, created in summer of 2005 by Chelsea Stweart and Jennifer Loo (supervised by Professor T. Conway), was used as a template for collecting and entering information. The UTM Ecological Footprint Manual describes the calculator and provides detailed methods on how to collect the data for its components. The ecological footprint calculator and the manual can be found at http://geog.utm.utoronto.ca/conway/ecofootprint/calculator.html. The UTM Ecological Footprint calculator also includes analysis from 2004‐2005 and 2005‐2006 years. The manual provides a strong starting ground for collecting data but users may need to modify it from year‐to‐year. The modifications made for 2008‐2009 calculations are discussed in section II of this report.
B. Modified Methodology
The following information describes the methods and includes tips and suggestions. These methods and format are based on the UTM Ecological Footprint Manual and emphasize differences from the original manual; the 2008‐2009 analysis followed the methods outlined in the manual except where noted below.
UTM POPULATION:
The total population of UTM in 2008‐2009 was obtained from following offices: (Please find detailed contact information in Appendix A)
• Office of the Dean
• Student Housing and Resident Life
IX. 3 X.
• Human Resources
The offices listed above were contacted via email, where the response time took anywhere from one day to two weeks. Detailed information on the number of students, staff and faculty can also be found at the UofT quick facts website: http://www.utoronto.ca/about‐uoft/quickfacts.htm. Residence statistics are also available on the housing website: http://www.housing.utoronto.ca/aboutus/policies.html.
MATERIALS AND WASTE:
Paper:
Business Services could not provide the number of cases of paper bought through their office. As a result, all major departments, services and offices were contacted separately. For 2008‐2009 data, 18 departments, services and offices were contacted (See Appendix A). Initially, emails were sent out to each department using the staff directory found at https://endor.utm.utoronto.ca/phonebook‐1.0/Search.action. Allow 1‐2 weeks for individuals to respond via email. Next, for contacts who have not replied to your e‐mail request, call their office phones and make in‐person visits. This method can be followed for all data categories.
Not all contacts will have accurate and/or complete records for paper purchases. Some contacts might not have the time and capacity to find paper purchase information. In such cases, request the best bulk estimate for their office whether in number of sheets, reams or boxes (whichever is convenient for your contact) and calculate the number of reams on your own (each ream has 500 sheets). Further, ask your contacts about how many reams are in each box of paper because this can vary from 8‐10 reams per box. Some departments may purchase paper with 2 or more types of recycled content so separate rows can be created within each department in the calculator to accommodate this. Since the data came from many different departments, new rows were created the 2008‐2009 calculator to accommodate the data.
In previous calculations the paper consumption did not account for student paper use on campus. However, in the 2008‐2009 academic year paper data from the Hazel McCallion Academic Learning Centre (Library) and Computing Services were included. We were not able to obtain data from the Copy Centre; however we have received information from the Office of the Registrar about all the midterm and final exams printed at the Copy Center. In addition, the Office of the Registrar also provided us with data on the amount of paper used to print academic calendars, reference guides, acknowledgement letters, and various brochures and handouts which were not accounted for in previous years’ ecological footprints. The paper consumption of every department is noted separately in the calculator and the data is entered in units of reams.
IX. 4 X.
Waste and Recyclables:
For this category, waste and recyclables calculations were done separately using different methods. The Facilities, Management and Planning department could not provide the waste audit data because the last audit was completed several years ago and since then many new building have been built and the student population has significantly increased. A partial waste audit was carried out by the UTM Green Team in November 2008 and Aubrey Iwaniw provided the data collected. However, this audit provides information for waste collected only for two hours from just the SB Meeting Place. Therefore, waste amounts for 2008‐2009 were extrapolated using the numbers from 2004‐2005. The content was broken into four categories: paper, glass, aluminum and plastic. Here is an example calculation:
Example calculation: Waste Paper
= 19,460kg (2004‐2005 paper) 16,041 (2004‐2005 UTM Population) = 1.21kg (04‐05 paper use person) x 24,696(08‐09 UTM Population) = 30,119kg of paper waste for 2008‐2009 For the amount of recyclable material produced, Chelsea Dalton, UTM Environmental/Energy Inventories Coordinator, provided the number of bags produced per week at UTM. The content was divided into four categories: paper, glass, aluminum and plastic. There are 20 bags of paper and glass, about 8 bags of plastic and about 2 bags of aluminum produced every week. There are 48 weeks from September of 2008 until the time this report was written. Thus, the total bag count per category for 2008‐2009 was calculated and multiplied by the respective average weight of each category per bag. Weights are provided in the Ecological Footprint manual of 2006.
BUILT‐UP LAND:
To calculate the amount of built‐up land, the most recent orthophoto was obtained from GIS/Data Librarian, Andrew Nicholson ([email protected]). Next, buildings, roads (+ walkways), and parking lots (+ sports courts) were digitized using ArcGIS. Finally, the total area for each category was calculated and entered into the calculator.
IX. 5 X.
FOOD:
Chartwells Food Services:
Chartwells Food Services is responsible for supplying food to Oscar Peterson Hall, Spiegel Hall, Pizza Pizza, CCT kiosk, Booster Juice and Tim Horton’s. The General Manager of Chartwells, Vicky Jeziersky provided us with detailed statistics on the amount of food supplied to the above food providers. These food statistics then were categorized as fish, meat, vegetables, bread and grain products, milk and dairy products, fruits, juice, soft drinks, coffee, tea, and bottled water. Note, that the footprint of juice, soft drinks, bottled water, coffee and tea were not included in previous years’ ecological footprint. We incorporated these new items into the calculator under the food subheading and assigned them appropriate conversion factors based on the article Sustainable Food Consumption at a Sub‐national Level: An Ecological Footprint, Nutritional and Economic Analysis (2007) by Andrea Collins & Ruth Fairchild. The units of the food items are listed in the calculator beside each item.
The Blind Duck Pub:
The Blind Duck Pub was approached to obtain information on alcohol and food purchases. Please contact the Pub Manager, Shane Madhani: [email protected] or 905.828.5463. The Pub does not keep a detailed record of its purchases like Chartwells, therefore the Manager went through the purchases with one of the ROP students and provided the data in‐person. The main food and drink items sold at the pub are: liquor, beer, soft drinks, bread, meat (including fish), fries, water and juice. There were no significant purchases of vegetables and fruits. Remember to ask for total quantities for each item as well as individual weight/amount, for example 2100 pieces of fish, 3oz each. The amount of fries sold could not be obtained because an external Pub contact could not be reached.
Other food vendors on campus:
Information about the amount of food consumed at Mr. Sub and Starbucks was unavailable to us. However, data provided by Chartwells indicates that some Starbucks purchases were made by Chartwells. We have also tried to gather information about the amount of drinks and snacks provided by the vending machines; however the General Manager of Compass‐Canada, David Roick (david.roick@compass‐canada.com) who is responsible for this information could not be reached.
ENERGY:
For information on energy generated on‐campus and off‐campus, Chelsea Dalton, UTM Environmental/Energy Inventories Coordinator provided the latest numbers. Allow for 2‐4
IX. 6 X.
weeks for her to collect this data from her sources and offer to assist with data collection. For 2009, electricity produced by the Solar Array was not provided by Chelsea because it is not metered. Contact Anil Vyas ([email protected]) at the Technology Resource Centre (referred to by Aubrey Iwaniw) for the most recent 12 months of UTM photovoltaics (Solar Array) readings. Anil Vyas could not be reached at this time.
WATER:
For information on water use on‐campus, Chelsea Dalton of UTM Environmental/Energy Inventories Coordinator provided the information.
TRANSPORTATION:
Shuttle Bus:
The UTM Parking Office was contacted and the Transportation Assistant, Megan Alekson provided information on the number of shuttle bus trips made during 2008‐2009. This information can also be calculated using shuttle bus schedules found at http://www.utm.utoronto.ca/1651.0.html. Be sure to account for reduced services during holidays.
Commuting:
The UTM Parking Office was contacted to obtain the number of parking passes sold for 2008‐2009. The Parking Office Assistant, Alina Constantin, provided a detailed excel file summarizing the number of different parking passes bought: single occupant student & staff, residence, carpool and monthly passes.
Mississauga Transit:
The Mississauga Transit was contacted to obtain the number of passengers using transit from the UTM bus terminal. Mirela‐Liana Aparaschivei (Mirela‐[email protected]) was contacted, upon referral from Aubrey Iwaniw (UTM Environmental Affairs Office), to obtain this information. Mississauga Transit, as part of its Ridership Count Program 2009, monitored ridership activity from February 20th to April 17th 2009. This concluded that there are 4106 people using the transit at UTM bus stops in one day, 51% of which depart and 49% arrive at UTM.
Grounds Vehicles:
The department of Facilities, Management and Planning was contacted for information on gasoline and diesel consumption by Grounds’ vehicles, and Chelsea Dalton
IX. 7 X.
([email protected]), UTM Environmental/Energy Inventories Coordinator, provided the information.
C. Results, Comparison and Recommendations
The total ecological footprint of UTM in 2004‐2005 was 7827.3 global hectares which increased to 10589.3 global hectares in 2008‐2009. This represents as overall increase of 35%. The ecological footprint breakdown of 2008‐2009 is shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1: 2008‐2009 ecological footprint breakdown of UTM
As a result, from 2004‐2005 to 2008‐2009 the per campus community member footprint has decrease. However, it is important to note that information included in the two footprint calculators is not identical. The 2008‐2009 calculator is more comprehensive. Table 1 shows the per capita footprint breakdown for 2004‐2005 and 2008‐2009.
Table 1: UTM’s global hectares per capita footprint for 2004‐2005 and 2008‐2009
Categories 2004‐2005 (gha/capita)
2008‐2009 (gha/capita)
Built‐up land 0.013 0.005
Water 0.002 0.002
Transportation 0.195 0.259
Materials & waste 0.027 0.025
Energy 0.747 0.586
Food 0.058 0.034
IX. 8 X.
The following section presents the results of this summer’s research and a comparative analysis and recommendations for each category.
UTM POPULATION:
In the 2004‐2005 academic year, the total population of UTM was 7509 people; including 6940 students and 569 staff and faculty members. The number of students living in residence was 1023. In the 2008‐2009 academic year, the total population of UTM increased to 11622 people, including 10924 students and 698 staff and faculty members, with 1452 students living in residence. Therefore, from 2004‐2005 to 2008‐2009 the total population of UTM increased by 55%, from which the number of students increased by 58% and the number of staff and faculty members increased by 23%. The number of students living in residence has increased 42%. The growing population of UTM contributed to the overall expansion of campus, with additional buildings and increased overall consumption.
MATERIAL AND WASTE:
Paper:
In the 2004‐2005 academic year, the UTM campus used 12,879 reams of paper with 0% from recycled paper. In the 2008‐2009 academic year, the campus used 16,473 reams of paper of which 464 reams had 100% recycled content, 419 reams had 30% recycled content, and 703 reams had 10% recycled content. In total, 1586 reams had some kind of recycled content, which is nearly 10% of the campus’ total paper use in 2008‐2009. Thus, from 2004‐2005 to 2008‐2009 the campus’ paper use increased by 28%, however the use of recycled paper has increased as well.
In summary, in 2004‐2005 the per capita paper use was 1.7 reams, which has declined in 2008‐2009 to 1.4 reams per person, thus, paper use became more efficient. Implementing electronic quizzes and exams for smaller classes would be a good idea to further reduce paper use. In addition, since most students print their assignments on campus, electronic submission of assignments would reduce the amount of paper that is used for printing. Based on information from the Office of the Registrar, printing of Academic Calendars requires 2000 reams of paper per year. Eliminating printed versions and only using electronic versions of the Calendar would significantly reduce paper use. It should also be requested that academic departments switch to paper with recycled content, which has a smaller footprint impact.
Waste and recyclables:
There were four categories of items considered when assessing waste and recyclables: paper, glass, aluminum and plastic. The 2008‐2009 waste extrapolations assume that that a
IX. 9 X.
55% increase in the population is associated with an increase in waste production of 55%. In the recyclables stream, there has been a 75% increase in both paper and glass contents. Furthermore, plastic content increased by 38% and aluminum content decreased by 56% from 2004‐2005. The recyclables results suggest a larger portional waste may be being recycle, raising some questions about the validity of the waste extrapolation.
Since 2004‐2005, many changes have occurred that have contributed towards the increase of waste production on‐campus. These reasons include the significant increase in the UTM population and construction of three new buildings: Hazel McCallion Academic Learning Centre (HMALC), Recreational and Wellness Centre (RAWC), Oscar Peterson Hall. The Oscar Peterson Hall provides an additional food venue, Colman Commons Dining Hall, and other food venues on‐campus have also expanded their provisions. It is indicated by the data that paper and glass products are a major contributor towards the production of waste and recyclable materials.
The university provides an elaborate system to dispose of waste and recyclables. Each main eating area, computer lab and major meeting place has a number of garbage stations with bins for different types of recyclables. Since paper is one of the items that is wasted and recycled the most, more steps should be taken to re‐use it. The library has implemented a default double‐sided printing policy for its computers. Other labs on campus plus offices and even photocopiers should be governed by this policy.
The food providers on campus should be encouraged to offer ‘eat here’ policy so that food can be provided in reusable containers that can be washed. Consequently, that will increase the amount of resources needed for cleaning and maintaining these utensils. Further, more policies should be implemented to compensate people who bring their own re‐usable containers and utensils. Food providers should also allow the buyers to choose between the options of bagging their food or carrying food without any bags, extra napkins or plastic utensils.
According to the 2008‐2009 data, UTM produced approximately 43,000 kilograms of waste and 19,000 kilograms of recyclables. Even though there is a strong infrastructure in place for people to dispose off recyclables, more items could be recycled. People may be unaware of where to put certain products and whether or not certain items are recyclable. The North Carolina State University has developed a comprehensive educational program to inform the university‘s population on specifics of recycling and how to reduce their waste. The website answers many specific questions such as ‘Can I recycle yogurt containers?’ and helps people understand the importance of recycling and where different types of items end up (NCSU 2007). The UTM population can benefit from a similar information where their frequent questions about recycling can be answered and recycling efficiency could be further improved in the long‐run.
IX. 10 X.
BUILT‐UP LAND:
In 2004‐2005, the land area used for building was 51026 m2, for roads it was 61707 m2 and for parking lots it was 78112 m2. In 2008‐2009, the land area used for buildings had increased by 3%, roads increased by 9% and parking lots decreased by 5%. The 2008‐2009 increased areas for buildings and roads is associated with 3 new buildings: Recreational and Wellness Centre, Hazel McCallion Academic Learning Centre and the Oscar Peterson Hall. The decrease in parking lots area is due to the removal of a section of parking lot 4 for the creation of the new Storm Water Management Pond.
FOOD:
After energy use and transportation, food consumption is identified as the 3rd largest contributor to UTM’s Ecological Footprint. The amount of food consumed has gone up enormously since 2004‐2005. The large difference between the two academic years’ food consumption is displayed in Table 2, where the food consumption is broken down into different categories.
Table 2: Summary of the University of Toronto Mississauga Food Consumption and Ecological Footprint of Food for the 2004‐2005 and the 2008‐2009 academic years.
Food Categories 2004‐2005 Consumption
(kg)
2004‐2005 Ecological Footprint (global ha)
2008‐2009 Consumption
(kg)
2008‐2009 Ecological Footprint (global ha)
Fish 324 1.46 2,760 12.42
Meat 1,290 8.90 17,782 122.70
Vegetables 5,442 2.18 58,277 23.31
Bread & Grains 3,534 6.01 24,200 41.14
Milk & Dairy 1,575 1.73 102,770 113.05
Fruits n/a n/a 5,187 2.59
Fruit Juice n/a n/a 43,713 48.08
Soft Drinks n/a n/a 33,254 6.65
Water n/a n/a 53,641 5.36
Coffee n/a n/a 696 3.13
Tea n/a n/a 57 0.20
This drastic increase in food supply is disproportionate with the 55% increase of the population of UTM. The consumption of fish has increased 8.5 times, meat consumption has gone up 13.8 times, vegetable consumption has increased 10.7 times, bread and grain consumption has increased 6.8 times, and milk and dairy increased by 65.3 times. It can be seen
IX. 11 X.
from Table 1 that in 2004‐2005, the University’s food footprint was dominated by meat and bread & grain products. In comparison, the food footprint in 2008‐2009 was dominated by meat and milk & dairy items.
The consumption of juice, soft drinks, water, coffee, and tea were not included in the footprint in 2004‐2005, however, they were accounted for in 2008‐2009. It was determined that most of these items yield small footprints and do not increase the university’s overall footprint impact significantly. However, it’s worth noting that the footprint of fruit juices is high, with a much larger impact than any other beverages provided on campus. Fruit juice consumption is identified as the third largest food footprint on campus.
The increase in food consumption at UTM is assumed to be the outcome of the overall change in North‐American food consumption habits over the past 5 years. Students like the convenience of not having to go grocery shopping, cooking, packing lunches and cleaning up after each meal. Fresh, warm, inexpensive meals are available at the university cafeterias, where the University provides much more food in 2008‐2009 to accommodate the increasing demand for convenient meals. This could be the possible explanation of the significantly higher food footprint in 2008‐2009. Another explanation of the food footprint increase could be due to the better offerings on campus. Campus food providers attempt to improve the meal choice availability to students. They are trying to accommodate the versatile eating habits of students and staff by offering a variety of ethnic, fair trade, organic and healthy food choices.
Higher food consumption on campus yields many benefits. It allows for close monitoring of students’ food consumption habits and it provides an opportunity to control and improve diets of a large student population from year to year. Such improvements could include more organic and/or locally produced food options. Locally grown foods are not only fresher and contain more nutrients, but also help to reduce overall carbon footprints by reducing transportation distance and energy.
Note, that the food data presented in this report does not represent the exact food footprint of the university. For more accurate analysis, additional surveys are needed to measure the proportion of who people pack their own lunch. Moreover, the food consumption of residence students is not included in the food footprint due to a lack of data.
IX. 12 X.
ENERGY AND WATER:
There are three major types of resources used for energy related purposes on‐campus: natural gas, propane and solar. In 2004‐2005, the amount of natural gas used was 3,706,437m3. In 2008‐2009, the amount of natural gas increased by 11% to 4,162,313 m3. There were no contributions made by wind, fuel cells or the micro turbines during both time periods. Even though 3 new buildings have been constructed since 2004‐2005, the natural gas usage has only gone up 11%. This may be due to the energy efficient design of the new buildings, appliances and utilities. For example, the Hazel McCallion Academic Learning Centre has been awarded the silver LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification. Other buildings should be retrofitted towards achieving a LEED standard or certification. The Canada Green Building Council (CaGBC), responsible for providing LEED certification, also provides solutions for existing building to achieve energy and water efficiency. More information can be found at http://www.cagbc.org/index.htm. Information of propane and solar power could not be obtained for 2008‐2009.
A long‐term goal for UTM could be to develop building specific energy plans. The Facilities, Planning and Management department of Iowa State University has developed energy plans for each building on campus, including specific areas within each building. There are different temperature settings for different locations to provide the most energy efficient environment. The plan also includes turning off appliances and equipment when not in use and making the utilities system more efficient. The department’s website also provides a list of annual costs associated with leaving typical office appliances on and turning them off. For example, a photocopier that is always on will cost $400 dollars to operate per year versus $145 per year if it’s turned off on nights and weekends. Furthermore, tips of energy saving as well as cost and energy output related to energy are also list provided to the public (Iowa State University 2009). UTM can certainly benefit from such educational information because it will garner more appreciation for energy production and help raise awareness about energy efficiency. Not only will people become energy conscious at work and school, they will make better choice at home as well.
In 2004‐2005, UTM used 207490 m3 of water and in 2008‐2009, the water use was 234190 m3. This 11% increase in water usage can be accredited to the development of new buildings and the increase in the UTM population. The new buildings are equipped with motion‐detecting and timed water fountains, washroom sinks and toilets. In order to conserve water, older buildings should be retrofitted with motion‐detecting and timed units (fountains, sinks, toilets) so that water would only be used when needed. On the other hand, the increase water use via water fountains may indicate that more people are using reusable water bottles, re‐filling water filter containers and/or drinking from the fountains instead of using single‐use water bottles.
IX. 13 X.
Therefore, water fountains should be promoted and bottled water free zones should be created on campus. This will also reduce water bottle waste produced on campus. Some of universities who have created bottled water free zones on‐campus include University of Ottawa, Queen’s University, Waterloo University and University of Guelph (Inside the Bottle 2008)
TRANSPORTATION:
Shuttle Bus:
The number of shuttle bus trips made to and from St.George campus in 2008‐2009 increased by 33% since 2004‐2005. The number of one‐way shuttle bus trips to Sheridan College has also increased by 6%, from 2004‐2005. The increase in the number of trips is due to increased demand by the growing UTM population. Also, students and staff who cannot afford parking passes and need to commute within the Greater Toronto Area may prefer using the Shuttle bus.
Commuting ‐ Single‐occupant car, monthly, residence and carpooling permits:
The number of car permits bought during 2008‐2009 decreased by 29% from 2004‐2005. This is because there are fewer parking spaces available due to the new Storm Water Management Pond. Further, high permit prices, and introduction of the new Universal Bus Pass for full‐time Undergraduate students has also likely decreased permit purchases. There was no official program in place in 2004‐2005 to offer carpooling permits but in 2008‐2009, the Parking Office sold 202 carpooling permits. There may be many unofficial carpoolers on campus but they have not been accounted for as carpoolers because they purchase regular permits and share the cost. Further, many UTM students/staff park their cars at malls and places that are located in a close proximity to the campus and then take the bus to campus. The carpooling program on campus should be promoted since many students are unaware of the program and/or the procedures. A system should be developed to account for people carpooling under the single occupant permit for a greater understanding of the amount of students commuting to and from campus via cars.
There was a 29% decrease in the number of residence permits sold during 2008‐2009 compared to 2004‐2005. Further efforts should be made to promote biking and transit usage to residence students by emphasizing the proximity of the campus to many important venues. There is no accounting for the number of monthly permits sold during 2004‐2005 in the calculator. In 2008‐2009, approximately 115 monthly permits were sold each month. However, all the monthly passes were bought by staff doing seasonal work on campus such as construction workers and contractors.
IX. 14 X.
Mississauga Transit:
Since 2004‐2005, there has been a 63% increase in Mississauga Transit ridership. This includes people arriving at and departing from UTM. This is a significant increase and is likely due to the new Universal Bus pass (U‐Pass) and growth in the UTM population. Other factors that may have increased ridership are high parking permit costs, availability of more bus trips, and more bus routes and stops with increased connectivity to locations in Mississauga.
Grounds Vehicles:
The Grounds department of UTM uses unleaded gasoline and diesel to power its on‐campus vehicles. In 2008‐2009, the Grounds department used 36% less unleaded gasoline and 15% less diesel to fuel their vehicle compared to 2004‐2005. Perhaps, there are fewer vehicles being used and less trips being made.
D. Conclusion
For the 2008‐2009 data collection, methods from 2005 ecological footprint manual were followed except for some minor changes. The largest changes involved adding more entries and contacting different people from previous research. We found that from 2004‐2005 to 2008‐2009 the population of UTM has increased by 55%. However, the paper consumption has decreased from 1.7 reams per person to 1.4.
The lack of accurate waste production data resulted in extrapolation of 2004‐2005 results using the current population. As a result, waste production has increased by 55%. The data for recyclables produced in 2008‐2009 allows for a more accurate assessment. Paper and glass were identified as the most commonly recycled items, followed by plastic. However, there was a significant decrease in recycled aluminum content. Given the growth of the population and construction of new buildings, built‐up land for buildings and roads increased by 3‐9%. However, built‐up land used for parking lots decreased by 5% due to the construction of the new storm water management pond.
There has been a significant increase in the food footprint; Meat and Dairy products were identified as the most commonly consumed items. However, there was a large increase in the consumption of all food items provided by Chartwells.
The major contributor to energy production on‐campus is natural gas. There has been an 11% increase in natural gas use. The water use on‐campus increased by 11%. Under the public transit category, St. George two‐way shuttle bus use increase 33%, Sheridan one‐way shuttle bus use increased 6%, and Mississauga Transit use increased 63%. There has been a 29% decrease in car permit purchases for both single‐occupant and residence users. Finally, the
IX. 15 X.
vehicles used by the Grounds department consumed 36% less unleaded gasoline and 15% less diesel since 2004‐2005.
Based on the above results, we feel the most important changes that should be made are:
• Retrofit older buildings with energy efficient appliances and utilities, as well as water‐saving utilities
• Turn‐off unused appliances at nights and weekends
• Promote the UTM carpooling program extensively
• Create a UTM web page with information on proper recycling guidelines
• Establish bottled water free zones on campus
• Provide locally grown and organic food products on campus
IX. 16 X.
Bibliography
Chambers, N., Simmons, C., Wackernagel, M. 2000. Sharing Nature’s Interest: Ecological Footprints as an Indicator of Sustainability. London: Earthscan. p. 67‐69.
Collins, A. & Fairchild, R. 2007. Sustainable Food Consumption at a Sub‐national Level: An Ecological Footprint, Nutritional and Economic Analysis. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 9:1,5‐30
Inside the Bottle. 2008. Bottled Water. http://www.insidethebottle.org/successful‐launch‐campus‐bottled‐water‐free‐zones‐campaign. Retrieved on: July 30th 2009.
Iowa State University. 2009. Energy Savings at Iowa State. http://www.fpm.iastate.edu/utilities/energyefficiency/. Retrieved on: July 28th 2009.
NCSU – North Carolina State University. 2007. NC State Recycles: Waste Reduction and Recycling. http://www.ncsu.edu/facilities/recycling/index.php. Retrieved on: July 28th 2009.
Wackernagel, M. & Rees, W. 1996. Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human Impact on the Earth. Gabriola Island, B.C.: New Society Publisher. p.9.
IX. 17 X.
Appendix A – Acknowledgements and Contact Information
The students of this project, Tooba Shakeel and Suzanna Svajda and Professor Tenley Conway would like to acknowledge the valuable contributions of the following people to this project during summer 2009.
UTM ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS OFFICE
Contact Position Email
Aubrey Iwaniw Environmental Project Coordinator aubrey.iwaniw @utoronto.ca
ENERGY and WASTE
Contact Position/Office Email
Chelsea Dalton Environmental/Energy Inventories Coordinator, Facilities, Management and Planning
GIS DATA
Contact Position/Office Email
Andrew Nicholson GIS/Data Librarian, Hazel McCallion Learning Centre
UTM POPULATION
Information Contact Office Position Email
Number of Students (Undergrad & Grad)
Corinne Pask‐Aube
Office of the Dean
Program and Planning Officer
Number of Staff & Faculty
Maureen Shanahan
Human Resource Services
HR Assistant [email protected]
Number of Resident Students
Sara Solis Student Housing & Residence Life
Residence Records and Admissions Assistant
IX. 18 X.
TRANSPORTATION
Contact Position/Office Email
Alina Constantin Parking Office Assistant, UTM Parking Office
Megan Alekson Transportation Assistant, UTM Parking Office
Mirela‐Liana Aparaschivei Mississauga Transit Mirela‐[email protected]
FOOD
Vendor/Provider Contact Position Email
Chartwells Vicky Jeziersky General Manager vicky.jeziersky@compass‐canada.com
The Blind Duck Pub Shane Madhani Pub Manager [email protected]
PAPER Student Services:
Office Contact Position Email
UTM Students’ Union Linda Freener Office Administrator [email protected]
The Medium Ali Kasim Editor [email protected]
CFRE Radio Ashley Warnock Director [email protected]
DnB Media Deep Sihota n/a [email protected]
Academic Departments:
Deparment Contact Position Email
Anthropology, Linguistics, & Philosophy
Robert Eberts Supervisor [email protected]
Biology Jacqueline Deanne
Administrative Assisstant to Chair
Chemical and Physical Sciences
Mylène Vincent Manager [email protected]
Geography and Sociology
Toni‐Luke Gervais
Manager [email protected]
Historical Studies Shabina Moheebulla
Departmental Secretary
Mathematical and Rajni Lala Administrative [email protected]
IX. 19 X.
Computational Sciences
Assistant
CCIT (+Blackwood Gallery)
Jessica Gillies Assistant to the Director
Political Science Norma Dotto Academic Counselor [email protected]
Campus Offices and Services:
Office Contact Position Email
Career Services Angela Sidoriak
Career Services Representative
Health Services Peggy Madill Office Administrator
Recreational, Atheletics and Wellness Centre (RAWC)
Edith Vig Financial Assistant [email protected]
Computer Services Karen Thiffault Coordinator [email protected]
Hazel McCallion Academic Learning Centre
Doug Lu Manager [email protected]
Office of the Registrar Karen Younger Manager [email protected]
IX. 20 X.