CAMPUS

CULTURE

COMMUNITY

CURRICULUM

UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND SUSTAINABILITY

METRICS REPORT 2011

UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND OFFICE OF

1

Table of Contents I. Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 2

II. How to Read this Report .................................................................................................... 3

III. Campus Sustainability Metrics Summary ............................................................................. 4

IV. CAMPUS: Sustainable Infrastructure and Operations ............................................................. 6

1. Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions ..................................................................................... 7

2. Electricity Consumption ................................................................................................... 9

3. Steam Consumption .................................................................................................... 10

4. Potable Water Consumption ......................................................................................... 11

5. Non-Potable Water ...................................................................................................... 12

6. Green Cleaning .......................................................................................................... 13

7. Sustainable Food ........................................................................................................ 14

8. Food Waste Composting .............................................................................................. 14

V. CULTURE: Sustainable Behaviors ....................................................................................... 15

9. Recycling ................................................................................................................... 16

10. Non-Hazardous Solid Waste ...................................................................................... 16

11. Hazardous Waste ..................................................................................................... 17

12. Paper ..................................................................................................................... 17

13. Students Living On and Near Campus ......................................................................... 18

14. Faculty/Staff Living Near Campus ............................................................................... 18

15. Commuting Distance ................................................................................................ 19

16. Alternative Transportation ......................................................................................... 19

17. Registered Bikes on Campus ..................................................................................... 20

18. Shuttle-UM Rides ..................................................................................................... 20

VI. CURRICULUM: Sustainability in Education .......................................................................... 21

19. Courses Revised to Include Sustainability .................................................................... 22

20. First Year Sustainability Education .............................................................................. 23

21. Co-Curricular Education ............................................................................................ 23

VII. COMMUNITY: Engaging with People Beyond Campus on Sustainability .................................. 24

22. Community Service Participation ................................................................................ 25

23. Student and Alumni Green Businesses and Non-Profits .................................................. 25

24. Community Education and Outreach Programs ............................................................. 26

VIII. Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................... 27

2

I. Introduction The University of Maryland (UMD) has established a goal to be “widely recognized as a national model for a Green University.” This report presents a diverse and practical set of twenty-four performance metrics that, together, give an indication of UMD’s progress toward this ambitious goal. Metrics in the curriculum and community categories are currently limited due to a lack of easily measurable data. The metrics are updated annually with current data and provide evidence about the process of transforming UMD to a model for sustainability in higher education. The metrics provide feedback to the people who carry this transformational process. The report aims to spark enhancement of the important sustainability work that all Terps are doing.

True sustainability encompasses environmental performance, social equity, and economic strength. In order to support UMD’s transformation, the Office of Sustainability (the Office) has developed a comprehensive strategy with four directional areas, similar to the four points of a compass:

Campus – Developing a carbon-neutral and resource-efficient infrastructure Culture – Fostering an environment where students, faculty, staff and visitors are empowered to practice sustainability through everyday behaviors and interactions Curriculum – Integrating sustainability across disciplines and addressing sustainability challenges through research Community – Engaging people in the surrounding region and the world in

sustainability through outreach and service, training and alumni connections

In a sense, this report is representative of a sustainability compass because it reflects UMD’s path in each of these four directions, all of which are essential parts of the journey to becoming a green university. Like navigation for any journey, the metrics are a work in progress. By keeping abreast of the evolving needs and programs of campus constituents, and following developments in the field of sustainability metrics and assessment, the Office and University Sustainability Council ensure that the campus tracks appropriate metrics and that decision makers have the necessary information to steer the institution on its course to becoming a national model for a green university.

The University of Maryland will be widely recognized as a national model for a Green University. In ten years time the University will have made substantial progress towards addressing energy issues. It will have slashed energy use, expanded green spaces, dramatically reduced its carbon footprint, and built and retrofitted buildings to strict environmental standards. The University will complement these concrete actions with its teaching, research, and development efforts in energy science and policy, smart growth, environmental mapping, sustainable agriculture, and other fields. As the third largest “city” in the State, the University will have a significant impact as a leader and showcase for environmental sustainability.

Excerpt from Transforming Maryland: Higher Expectations – The Strategic Plan for the University of Maryland (2008).

3

II. How to Read this Report The Office of Sustainability measures and reports on twenty-four performance metrics. The report is designed so that readers can focus on individual metrics, or all of the metrics as a whole. A summary table and graphic of all the metrics is presented on pages 4 and 5. As explained in the introduction, the metrics are organized into four categories which constitute report sections: Campus, Culture, Curriculum, and Community. At the start of each section, there is an introductory explanation of the section’s overall focus and its’ connections to existing campus plans, policies and priorities. The report includes the following, segmented information for each metric:

Metric: This segment describes the metric itself, including the units used for measurement, the time period for which the metric is reported, and what portion of campus activity is included.

Purpose: This segment summarizes the rationale for including the metric in the annual Sustainability Metrics Report. In addition to the specific purpose of each metric, there is also an overall goal of recognizing progress, celebrating success, and empowering people to identify weaknesses and improve performance.

Recent Trends: This segment points out changes in performance over time, and, to the extent possible, provides some explanation for these changes. Analysis of performance from year to year is emphasized, and analysis of patterns over multiple years is also included where appropriate.

Related Metrics: Secondary metrics that are related to one of the twenty-four performance metrics are included for some metrics. These are identified by letters appended to the corresponding metric’s number (ie. for metric #4, related metrics would be labeled as 4A. and 4B. etc.). In the sections about related metrics, the data is presented in a different or more refined way. In some cases, total amounts of resource usage or pollution is normalized to account for campus growth. Adding buildings or additional students, faculty and staff to the campus is likely to result in increased resource use and pollution. For example, normalized greenhouse gas data provides a lens for examining the carbon intensity of UMD’s buildings, the carbon footprint per person, and for making less clouded comparisons between different years. In other cases, additional data with a direct relationship to the overarching metric is presented.

Figures: Figures are used to represent the performance data are included for almost every metric and every related metric. Where consistent and reliable data has been collected over a number of years, a graph depicting change over time is presented. Where data is representative only of the reporting year, or is relatively incomplete, a table or pie chart is presented.

4

III. Campus Sustainability Metrics Summary The following table lists all metrics that are included in this report, including the most recent data, and—under “Trend”— an assessment of the direction in which performance is moving. With regards to performance trends, improvement is indicated by green, deterioration is indicated by red, and little to no change is indicated by yellow.

2009 2010 Trend CAMPUS: Sustainable Infrastructure and Operations Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions (MT-CO2e) 283,480 251,956 GHG Emissions per Capita (MT-CO2e/person) 6.8 6.0 GHG Emissions per Square Foot of Building Space (kg-CO2e/sq. ft.) 14.9 11.7 Electricity Consumption (MWh) 252,536 259,092 Electricity Consumption per Community Member (MWh/person) 6.04 6.15 Electricity Consumption per Building Space (kWh/sq. ft.) 19.24 19.24 Steam Consumption 695,231 681,480 Steam Consumption per Community Member (MLbs/person) 16.63 16.18 Steam Consumption per Building Space (Thousands Lbs/sq. ft.) 52.98 50.62 Potable Water Consumption (kgal) 470,752 511,635 Potable Water Consumption per Capita (kgal/person) 11.26 12.15 Potable Water Consumption per Building Space (kgal/sq. ft.) 35.87 38.00 Non-Potable Water Use (gallons) 25,000 36,000 Green Cleaning (percent) see report see report Sustainable Food (percent) 11 11 Composted Food Waste (tons) 145 138 CULTURE: Sustainable Behaviors Recycling Rate (percent) 57.4 62.8 Non-Hazardous Solid Waste Generated (tons) 12,950 14,229 Hazardous Waste Generated (pounds) 51,173 85,218 Copy Paper Use (reams) 148,349 127,361 Students Living On and Near Campus (percent) N/A 73 N/A Faculty/Staff Living Near Campus (percent) N/A N/A N/A Commuting Distance of Faculty, Staff, and Students (miles) 15, 16.3, 16.1 13.2, 15, 17.3 Alternative Transportation (percent) 47.9 57.6 Registered Bikes On Campus (count) 910 1630 Shuttle-UM Rides (million rides) 2.60 2.70 CURRICULUM: Sustainability Education (and Research) Courses Revised to Include Sustainability (cumulative count) 34 57 Faculty Participants in the Chesapeake Project (cumulative count) 26 50 First Year Sustainability Education (percent) 17 22 Co-Curricular Education (count) 8 7 COMMUNITY: Engaging the Greater Community in Sustainability Student Community Service Participation (percent) N/A 58.9 N/A Student and Alumni Green Businesses and Non-Profits (count) N/A 8 N/A Community Education and Outreach Programs (count) 57 58

5

Metrics Summary: Sustainability Performance Compass

The graphical “compass” below represents our overall performance on the sustainability metrics in this report (large circle in center), and our performance on metrics in each of the four categories (small circles on periphery). In the circles of this figure, metrics that have progressed in a positive direction since 2009 are represented by green segments, those that have moved in a negative direction since 2009 are represented by red segments, and those that have seen little change are represented by yellow segments. In the circles below, each of the large segments represents one of the twenty-four performance metrics that make up this report; each of the small segments represents a secondary, related metric such as electricity consumption per capita, electricity consumption per area, etc.

6

IV. CAMPUS: Sustainable Infrastructure and Operations

The Campus section of this report focuses on UMD’s infrastructure and operations. Progress in this area is predominantly determined by institutional policies and procedures, as well as by the design and condition of buildings, irrigation systems, and energy systems. The individual actions of students, faculty, and staff also have significant impacts on campus performance, but these impacts are limited by the existing design of physical infrastructure and existing ways of doing business on campus.

In its journey to creating a sustainable campus, UMD strives to reduce the environmental footprint of its operations, minimize costs, and lead by example in the State and nation. By greening its operations, the campus aims to be a place of learning where students see manifestations of sustainability in the tangible environment that surrounds them. The University of Maryland Climate Action Plan (2009, Climate Action Plan) includes strategies and targets that focus on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, improving energy efficiency and conserving resources on campus. Although targets for water consumption have not been set on an institution-wide basis, the Division of Student Affairs Sustainability Plan (2009, SA Plan) and the Climate Action Plan emphasize reduced water use as part and parcel with energy conservation and specify installation of water conserving fixtures as a key step in implementation. The SA Plan also includes goals to reduce water use for irrigation, collect food waste for composting, and increase annual purchases of organic and local foods. Both the university-wide Policies and Procedures for Environmentally Preferable Procurement (2009) and the SA Plan set goals to purchase third-party certified green cleaning products where available and feasible. The metrics in this section of the report provide indications of progress in the areas of carbon footprint reduction, energy conservation, water conservation, green cleaning, and dining operations.

Above: Aerial view of Washington Quad on South Campus. This is the site of a large, underground rainwater collection cistern that stores non-potable water to be used for irrigating plants in the campus landscape. Photograph is copyright of John Consoli.

7

1. Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions Metric: UMD’s carbon footprint measured in metric tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents (MT-CO2e). This metric is from the annual UMD Greenhouse Gas Inventory report (UMD GHG Inventory).1

Purpose: To measure progress toward GHG emission reduction goals set by UMD’s Climate Action Plan, which ultimately targets carbon neutrality by 2050.

Recent Trends: In CY 2010, UMD’s measured GHG emissions were 251,956 MT-CO2e, which is a reduction of 31,524 MT-CO2e or 11.1 percent compared to UMD’s 2009 carbon footprint and 21.5 percent compared to UMD’s 2005 carbon footprint (the baseline measurement for the Climate Action Plan). Thinking about emissions in terms of passenger cars, homes, and landfills helps to bring more tangibility to the abstract concept of metric tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent. In CY 2010 UMD’s GHG emissions total was equivalent to estimated emissions from 49,403 passenger vehicles for one year, electricity use of 31,416 typical U.S. homes for one year, and 87,790 tons of solid waste sent to landfills.2 In order of the size of contribution, major sources of emissions were fuels burned to generate energy for buildings on campus; air travel for business, athletics and Study Abroad; daily commuting by students, faculty and staff; and purchased electricity from the regional power grid.

Emissions decreased approximately 11 percent between 2009 and 2010. The net reduction was the result of a large purchase of Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) that allowed for over 60% of UMD’s purchased electricity to be counted as carbon neutral3. Without the REC purchase, GHG emissions would have increased by 3.2 percent between 2009 and 2010. Increases were observed in purchased electricity, air travel, fuel use for stationary sources other than the Combined Heat and

1 For more detail on emissions sources included in UMD’s carbon footprint, refer to Carbon Footprint of the University of Maryland— Greenhouse Gas Inventory 2010 available online at www.sustainability.umd.edu/documents/reports/2010_UM_GHGinventory_final.pdf 2 The United States EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator was used to estimate passenger cars, electricity use from homes, and landfilled solid waste equivalents for UMD’s carbon footprint. The calculator assumes 5.1 MT-CO2e per vehicle per year, 8.02 MT-CO2e per home per year, and 2.87 MT-CO2e per ton of solid waste (www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-resources/calculator.html). 3 Most of the REC purchase was made from the University Sustainability Fund which is funded by an undergraduate student fee.

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

MT-

CO2e

Fiscal Year (2002-2008) and Calendar Year (2009-2010)

Total GHG Emissions

2012: 273,312 MT-CO2e 2015: 241,158 MT-CO2e

2020: 160,772 MT-CO2e

2050: Net-Zero

2010 GHG emissions without the REC purchase

8

Power plant (CHP), and fuel use for Shuttle-UM. Reductions were observed in estimated emissions from the CHP; commuting; cars, trucks, landscaping equipment used for UMD business and operations; agriculture; refrigerant releases; and solid waste disposal.

1A. GHG Emissions per Capita: This metric is measured in MT-CO2e per Full-time Equivalent person (FTE), including students, faculty and staff. The total carbon footprint from all measured sources is divided by FTEs. Between 2005 and 2010, per capita GHG emissions decreased by 27.9 percent while the size of the campus population increased by 8.6 percent. Without the REC purchase in 2010, the decrease in per capita GHG emissions would be reduced to 15.1 percent, and a slight increase would have been seen between 2009 and 2010— from 6.78 MT-CO2e per person to 6.94 MT-CO2e per person. This upward tick is explained by the addition of buildings to campus in 2010, increasing air travel and greater demand for summer air conditioning.

1B. GHG Emissions per Square Foot of Building Space: This metric is measured in Kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalents (kg-CO2e) per square foot of total building space. GHG emissions from power and operations—the CHP, other stationary sources, purchased electricity, refrigerant releases, and agriculture and landscaping—is divided by total square footage (including conditioned and unconditioned space). Between 2009 and 2010, per area GHG emissions decreased by 28.3 percent, while total square footage increased by 12.0 percent. Without the REC purchase, the decrease in per area GHG emissions would be reduced to 10.6 percent, and a decrease of 1.9 percent would have been observed between 2009 and 2010. These findings indicate efforts to reduce the carbon impact of campus buildings having positive results.

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

MT-

CO2e

Fiscal Year (2002-2008) and Calendar Year (2009-2010)

GHG Emissions per Capita

02468

101214161820

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

kg-C

O2e

Fiscal Year (2002-2008) and Calendar Year (2009-2010)

GHG Emissions per Sq. Ft.

In both of the charts above, the dotted line represents how the metric would look without the 2010 REC purchase.

9

2. Electricity Consumption Metric: Megawatt hours (MWh) of electricity used by UMD-operated facilities. This metric includes electricity delivered to campus facilities by the Combined Heat and Power (CHP) plant and by the regional electric grid from off-site suppliers4.

Purpose: To assess trends and identify changes in the demand for electricity on the College Park campus andalso to assess the success of energy conservation efforts. Electric power from the CHP is generated by combustion of natural gas, and purchased electric power is generated from a mix of fuels, including coal, nuclear, natural gas, hydro and other fuel sources including renewables used by regional power plants.

Recent Trends: Total electricity consumed by campus facilities increased from 252,536 MWh in 2009 to 259,092 MWh in 2010, a 2.6 percent rise over the last year. Approximately two-thirds of the increased demand was due to the addition of the Severn building in College Park, and the Institute for Bioscience and Biotechnology Research (IBBR) in Rockville, MD. Campus electricity use has decreased by 2.8 percent since 2007.

2A. Electricity Consumption per Capita is measured in MWh per Full-time Equivalent person (FTE), including students, faculty and staff. Between 2009 and 2010, electricity consumption per capita increased by 1.8 percent. This rise is explained by the addition of new space to campus, and higher demand for air conditioning due to an extremely warm summer.

2B. Electricity Consumption per Area is measured in kWh per square foot of total building space. Since 2007 electricity consumption per area has decreased by 6.6 percent. Between 2009 and 2010, electricity consumption per area remained constant despite the addition of 341,093 square feet. These trends indicate that campus energy conservation efforts are effective.

4 Unlike purchased electricity estimates in the UMD GHG Inventory, the purchased electricity metric does not include electricity that is lost from power lines during transmission and distribution.

200,000210,000220,000230,000240,000250,000260,000270,000280,000290,000300,000

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

MW

h

Calendar Year

Total Electricity Consumption

4

6

8

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

kWh

Calendar Year

Electricity Consumption per Capita

12

17

22

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

KWh

Calendar Year

Electricity Consumption per Sq. Ft.

10

3. Steam Consumption Metric: Million Pounds (MLbs) of steam used by facilities on the College Park campus. This metric includes all steam delivered to campus facilities through the steam distribution system.

Purpose: To assess trends and identify changes in demand for steam on the College Park campus and, also to assess effectiveness of energy conservation measures. Demand for winter steam use translates to an increase in demand for natural gas for the Combined Heat and Power CHP) plant.

Recent Trends: The total amount of steam delivered to campus facilities decreased by 2.0 percent between 2009 and 2010. The reduction is due in part to a slightly milder winter with 129 fewer Heating Degree Days (HDD) in 2010 than in 2009. Since 2007 a reduction of 5.2 percent has been observed in total steam consumption. This reduction demonstrates that the campus is becoming more energy-efficient.

3A. Steam Consumption per Capita is measured in MLbs of steam consumed per Full-time Equivalent person (FTE), including students, faculty and staff. Between 2009 and 2010, steam consumption per capita decreased by 4.5 percent. Since 2007, steam consumption per capita has decreased by 8.9 percent.

3B. Steam Consumption per Area is measured in thousand pounds (kLbs) of steam consumed per square foot of total building space. Between 2009 and 2010, Steam consumption per area decreased by 6.0 percent. Since 2007, steam consumption per area has decreased by 10.4 percent.

Reductions in per capita use of steam and per area use of steam have outpaced reductions in overall steam consumption which indicates that energy efficiency of campus buildings and/or energy conservation behavior of campus community members is improving each year.

400,000

450,000

500,000

550,000

600,000

650,000

700,000

750,000

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

MLb

s

Calendar Year

Total Steam Consumption

5

15

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

MLb

s

Calendar Year

Steam Consumption per Capita

20

30

40

50

60

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

kLbs

Calendar Year

Steam Consumption per Square Foot

11

4. Potable Water Consumption Metric: Thousand gallons (kgal) of treated water consumed by UMD-operated facilities. Potable means that this water is safe to drink. This metric includes all metered potable water that was delivered to the College Park campus and satellite locations. This metric does not include bottled water.

Purpose: To assess trends in demand for potable water on the College Park campus and to assess the effectiveness of water conservation measures.

Recent Trends: The campus uses approximately a half billion gallons of water annually. Water consumption increased by 8.7 percent between 2009 and 2010. The increase was influenced by several factors including less spring and summer rainfall resulting in more water demand for irrigation, and the addition of new buildings to campus.

4A. Potable Water Consumption per Capita is measured in kgal of treated water consumed per Full-time Equivalent person (FTE), including students, faculty and staff. Between 2009 and 2010, potable water consumption per capita increased by 7.9 percent. Since 2007, a net reduction of 12.7 percent has been achieved.

4B. Potable Water Consumption per Area is measured in kgal of treated water consumed per square foot of total building space. Between 2009 and 2010, potable water consumption per area increased by 5.9 percent. Since 2007, a net reduction of 10.7 percent has been achieved.

The Office of Sustainability plans to collect information about water-use efficiency and conservation efforts across campus. Dining Services, the Office of Residential Life, Campus Recreation Services, the Center for Young Children and other departments have been working to install water-efficient fixtures for several years but there is currently no centralized source of data about these efforts. There are also a number of initiatives to reduce bottled water use on campus (with potable tap water as the recommended alternative to bottled drinking water). As water-bottle filling stations are installed in more locations, potable water use is likely to increase.

300,000

350,000

400,000

450,000

500,000

550,000

600,000

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

kgal

Calendar Year

Total Potable Water Consumption

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

kgal

Calendar Year

Potable Water per Capita

30.00

35.00

40.00

45.00

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

kgal

Calendar Year

Potable Water per Square Foot

12

5. Non-Potable Water Metric: Thousands of gallons (gal.) of non-potable water collected and reused from underground rainwater cisterns on the College Park campus. This metric includes all water drawn from the Washington Quad underground rainwater cistern. Unfortunately, it does not include an accurate measure of water drawn from the Knight Hall underground rainwater cistern because of metering limitations.

Purpose: To assess trends in rainwater capture and reuse to give an indirect picture of the campus’ progress in reducing demand for potable water used for landscaping and irrigation.

Recent Trends: Rainwater harvesting—the collection and storage of rainwater for reuse—reduces stormwater runoff and conserves potable water. To date, there are two rainwater-harvesting systems on campus, both of which collect rainwater from roofs for reuse in irrigating the planted landscape: one at Washington Quad and one at Knight Hall. In CY 2010, approximately 36,000 gallons of captured rainwater was pumped from the 10,000 gallon cistern buried under Washington Quad cistern to irrigate plantings. This represents a 44 percent increase in rainwater reuse over CY 2009. The design estimates for the Washington Quad cistern show a range of use from 36,000-56,000 gallons depending on factors such as temperature, rain fall, humidity, and soil moisture. Heavy spring and summer rains in 2009 minimized the need for additional irrigation. Also in CY 2010, the 10,000 gallon cistern beneath Knight Hall became operational and began storing rainwater harvested through gutters on the east side of Knight Hall. The landscape around the Knight Hall cistern was designed to require approximately 7,660 gallons of irrigation water each month, including non-potable water from the cistern and potable water from utility lines. During the 2010 irrigation season (April-September), water from the cistern was used for four of the six months. Due to a problem with the pump, the Knight Hall system had to be drained and repaired during June and July.

05,000

10,00015,00020,00025,00030,00035,00040,00045,00050,000

2009 2010

Gal

lons

Calendar Year

Non-Potable Water Used on Washington Quad

13

6. Green Cleaning Metric: Percentage of the cleaning chemical budget spent on cleaning products certified as “green” or “sustainable” by a credible third-party organization. There are four units on campus responsible for cleaning: Residential Facilities, Facilities Management (FM), Dining Services, and Stamp Student Union. Each unit has their own cleaning chemical budget.

Purpose: To assess usage of green cleaning products across campus. Green cleaning products are typically made of biodegradable chemicals so they benefit people and the environment by reducing exposure to toxins. UMD’s Environmentally Preferable Procurement policy calls for departments to promote the procurement and use of green cleaning products when possible.

Recent Trends: Many of the green cleaning products used on campus have earned Green Seal Certification and plans are progressing to incorporate some products that have earned Design for the Environment (DfE) Certification. The Building Services unit of Residential Facilities was the first university cleaning program to achieve CIMS-GB (Cleaning Industry Management Standard- Green Building) Certification with Honors from The Worldwide Cleaning Industry Association (ISSA). This certification indicates that Residential Facilities aligns its cleaning practices with what is needed to secure points under the U.S. Green Building Council’s LEED for Existing Buildings: Operations and Maintenance standards. From FY 2009 to FY 2010, spending on green supplies increased from 87 percent to 88 percent because of a switch from conventional trashcan liners to a less energy and resource-intensive option. FM’s Housekeeping Services unit continues to explore and test new green cleaning products. Spending on green supplies is likely to remain constant at 85 percent because limited use of sanitizers, disinfectants, and virucides is required, and these types of products by nature cannot be certified as “green”. In 2010, FM installed new Green Seal Certified tissue and towel dispensers that minimize packaging, waste and opportunities for cross-contamination. The dispensers hold Green Seal certified paper made from 100 percent recycled fiber. Dining Services is working with a new cleaning product supplier to incorporate use of more certified green cleaning products in their facilities. A change in cleaning supply contractor during the year prevented Dining Services from tracking the percent of their cleaning chemical budget that was spent on certified green products. The 10 percent reported here was approximated by pro-rating the percentage spent in 2009 by the number of months that the previous supplier was retained by Dining Services. The Adele H. Stamp Student Union continues to spend approximately 73 percent of their chemical and equipment budget on Green Seal Certified products.

* Percentages in this figure represent a portion of each unit’s budget for cleaning products.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Student Union ResidentialFacilities

FacilitiesManagement

Dining Services

Percentage of Budget* Spent on Green Certified Products

2008

2009

2010

14

7. Sustainable Food Metric: Percentage of total food budget that goes toward purchases of food that meets at least one of the following criteria: 1) grown and processed within 250 miles of campus, and 2) third-party certified (USDA Certified Organic, Marine Stewardship Council Blue Ecolabel, Food Alliance, Fair Trade, Certified Humane Raised and Handled). This metric includes food and beverage purchases for all on-campus dining halls and eateries operated by UMD’s Dining Services. It does not include the Maryland Food Co-op, on-site franchises, convenience stores, or vending machines.

Purpose: To assess UMD’s commitment to purchasing local, organic, Fair Trade, and sustainability harvested food and beverage items. Investment in sustainable food systems helps foster food awareness, robust local economies, healthier soils and streams, and secure livelihoods for farmers.

Recent Trends: In FY 2009 and FY 2010, Dining Services spent 11 percent of their total food budget on purchases of sustainable food. This includes items source from within a 250 mile radius of campus and Fair Trade Coffee purchases. Aside from Fair Trade Coffee, Dining Services does not purchase third-party certified items at this time. Local purchases primarily include bread and baked goods, beef, dairy products, and chicken.

8. Food Waste Composting Metric: Tons of food waste composted. This metric includes pre- and post-consumer food waste collected in residential dining halls, pre-consumer food waste from food service operations in the Stamp Student Union, and post-consumer food waste from New Student Orientation and other special events.

Purpose: To assess UMD’s commitment to recycling organic waste from dining and food service operations. Composting food waste contributes to local maintenance of healthy soils, reduction of local pollution from use of chemical fertilizers, and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and other pollutants from landfills.

Recent Trends: Between 2009 and 2010, total composted food waste decreased by 4.8 percent. The slight decrease resulted from problems with the company that was contracted to haul the compostable material that was collected through dining services to a composting facility. The contractor had equipment limitations and other issues that prevented collection and hauling of some of the compostable material that was produced. Dining Services ultimately decided to address these issues by purchasing three on-campus compost compactors and securing a commitment from Facilities Management to haul compostable material to an offsite commercial composting facility.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2009 2010

Fiscal Year

Spending on Sustainable Food

0

50

100

150

200

250

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Tons

Fiscal Year

Total Composted Food Waste

15

V. CULTURE: Sustainable Behaviors

The Culture section of this report focuses on the collective impact of individuals’ actions to help reduce the environmental footprint of the campus. Progress in this area is predominantly determined by how students, faculty and staff choose to commute, consume, and collect and reduce waste.

In order to achieve its goal of becoming a national model or a green university, UMD is reliant on its staff, faculty, and students to engage in the process and take ownership of the goal. It is the shared passion for the environment that initially elevated UMD to its emergence as a leader in campus sustainability. The University of Maryland Climate Action Plan (2009, Climate Action Plan) and the Division of Student Affairs Sustainability Plan (2009, SA Plan) emphasize participation as essential strategies for achieving sustainability goals and targets.

Above: Students spread the word about sustainable consumption choices on the Main Quad during an Earth Day celebration in 2011. Photograph is copyright of the Office of Sustainablity..

16

9. Recycling Metric: Percentage of waste stream diverted from landfills. This metric includes all non-hazardous solid waste generated on the College Park campus.

Purpose: To assess participation in campus-wide recycling over time and measure progress toward waste diversion targets which were set in the 2009 Climate Action Plan: 60% by 2010, and 75% by 2012.

Recent Trends: In 2010, the campus achieved a 62.8 percent recycling rate and thus surpassed its 2010 target to divert 60 percent of the waste stream from landfills. Since 2003, participation in recycling has increased markedly. During the 2011 national RecycleMania tournament, UMD placed first in the ACC Grand Championship category. Progress on this metric has been facilitated by several waste minimization programs from Facilities Management including Can the Can and single-stream recycling.

10. Non-Hazardous Solid Waste Metric: Tons of non-hazardous solid waste landfilled and recycled. This metric includes all non-hazardous solid waste generated on the College Park campus.

Purpose: To assess changes in total amount of trash generated by the campus community.

Recent Trends: The total amount of solid waste generated increased by 9.9 percent between 2009 and 2010, and by 38.1 percent since 2004. Participation in recycling has improved markedly and as a result the amount of solid waste sent to landfills has decreased by 34.1 percent.

0%20%40%60%80%

100%

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010Calendar Year

Campus Recycling Rate

- 3,000 6,000 9,000

12,000 15,000

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Tons

Calendar Year

Non-Hazardous Solid Waste

Recycled Waste Landfilled Waste

17

11. Hazardous Waste Metric: Pounds of hazardous waste disposed per 1,000 Net Assignable Square Feet (NASF). This metric includes the solid and liquid hazardous waste that is collected each year by the Department of Environmental Safety and controls for the impact of campus growth on hazardous waste generation.

Purpose: To assess trends in generation of hazardous waste from laboratories and other sources.

Recent Trends: Overall, the amount of hazardous waste that the campus generates has been trending downwards since 2004. This decreasing trend is due largely to the proactive work of the Environmental Affairs unit with researcher and campus departments to reduce waste and an increased recognition of the importance of sustainability by researchers and departments. Nonetheless, a sharp increase was seen between 2009 and 2010 when hazardous waste disposed per 1,000 NASF increased by 59.3 percent. Several factors contributed to the decrease in hazardous waste between 2008 and 2009, including the effects of the 2008 economic recession. Improving economic factors in 2010 may have supported an increase in waste-producing activities, including building renovations, research activities and reducing chemical inventories.

12. Paper Metric: Reams of virgin and recycled-content paper purchased. A ream is 500 sheets. This metric includes paper purchased through Department of Procurement & Supply, but not through the Department of Business Services.

Purpose: To assess changes in the total amount and types of paper used by the campus community.

Recent Trends: Between 2009 and 2010, paper use on campus decreased overall by 14.1 percent while the proportion of post-consumer content (PCC) paper increased from 32.4 percent of all paper used to 34.8 percent of all paper used. Since 2007, total paper use has dropped by 50 percent and procurement of 100 percent PCC recycled paper has jumped by 400 percent. This progress was facilitated in part by UMD’s Policies and Procedures for Environmentally Preferable Procurement, which were approved by the President in November 2009, and the Division of Student Affairs Sustainability Plan, which was adopted in September 2009.

0.002.004.006.008.00

10.0012.0014.0016.0018.0020.00

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Poun

ds/1

,000

NAS

F

Fiscal Year

Total Hazardous Waste Disposal

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

2007 2008 2009 2010

Ream

s of

pap

er

Fiscal Year

Copy Paper Consumption

100% PCC 50% PCC 30% PCC Virgin

18

13. Students Living On and Near Campus Metric: Percentage of students living on campus and within ten miles of campus. This metric is calculated based on FTE students. It includes data about resident students from the Office of Institutional Research, Assessment and Planning, along with data about commuter students that was extrapolated from the results of Department of Transportation Services’ spring 2010 Commuter Survey.

Purpose: To assess what percentage of the student population is choosing to live where they work and study.

Recent Trends: This is the first year for which there is complete data available for this metric. Based on survey results, approximately 40 percent of students choose to live off-campus but within a ten mile radius. Combined with hard data about residential students, this figure implies that approximately 73 percent of the student population lives ten miles or less from the College Park campus. Of degree-seeking undergraduates, 44 percent lived in college-owned, -operated, or -affiliated housing in 2010, up from 41 percent in 2009.

14. Faculty/Staff Living Near Campus Metric: Percentage of faculty and staff living within a specific radius of campus (TBD)

Purpose: To assess what percentage of the faculty and staff population is choosing to live where they work.

Recent Trends: There is no new data available for this metric. A 2005 GIS study conducted by Facilities Management showed that 3,155 faculty and staff (22.6 percent) lived within a 5 mile radius of campus and that 5,418 (38.7 percent) lived within a 10 mile radius.

FTE Students living in campus

owned, operated or

affiliated housing

FTE Students living 10 miles

or less from campus

FTE Students living more

than 10 miles from campus

Student Residence Locations, CY 2010

33% 27%

40%

19

15. Commuting Distance Metric: Average one-way commuting distance (miles) of faculty, staff, and students. This metric is based on the home zip codes of faculty, staff and students who purchase fall commuter parking permits from the Department of Transportation Services (DOTS). The average commuting distance is calculated as a weighted average of the distances that correspond with the shortest driving time between the center of each home zip code and the Stamp Student Union.

Purpose: To assess changes in each commuter population’s home proximity to campus.

Recent Trends: In academic year 2010-11, there were slight changes in the average distance travelled by each of the three commuter populations: students, faculty and staff. The average commuting distance for students increased 1.2 miles. More students who live close to campus are choosing to rely on alternative modes of transportation, which results in a smaller total number of commuter parking permit sales to students and a higher average commuting distance for the smaller population that still purchases commuter permits. In fall 2010, only 10,090 students held commuter parking permits, compared to 11,265 in 2009, and 12,333 in 2008. The average commuting distance for university employees decreased, by 1.7 miles for faculty and by 1.3 miles for staff. These changes resulted in part from greater numbers of faculty and staff who live close to campus choosing to purchase commuter parking permits. Nonetheless, it appears that more faculty and staff have chosen to live closer to campus in 2010 than in 2008. In fall 2010, a total of 7,816 faculty and staff members held commuter parking permits, compared to 7,138 in 2009, and 7,811 in 2008.

16. Alternative Transportation Metric: Percentage of students, faculty, and staff that did not purchase a full time parking permit for a vehicle or motorcycle from the Department of Transportation Services (DOTS) in FY 2010. Complicating factors such as lost/stolen, cancelled, and reissued permits are not taken into consideration for this calculation.

Purpose: To assess what percentage of the population is choosing to forgo traditional commuting in private vehicles and to assess the effectiveness of alternative transportation campaigns and incentive programs.

Recent Trends: In FY 2010, 58 percent of full-time equivalent (FTE) students, faculty and staff did not obtain commuter parking permits from DOTS. The total number of FTEs that did not obtain permits increased by 25 percent between FY 2009 and FY 2010. This trend indicates an increasing reliance on alternative transportation, especially by students.

10

12

14

16

18

Students Faculty Staff

Mile

s

Average Commuting Distance

2008

2009

2010 0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010Fiscal Year

Percentage of Faculty, Staff, and Students without Parking Permits

20

17. Registered Bikes on Campus Metric: Numbers of bikes registered with the Department of Transportation Services (DOTS). Bike registration is not required and this metric does not include bikes on campus that have not been registered with DOTS.

Purpose: To gauge interest and participation in biking as an alternative form of transportation and to assess impact of DOTS bicyclist-oriented outreach and incentive programs.

Recent Trends: Bike registration increased by 79 percent between 2009 and 2010. DOTS implemented several measures in 2010 to increase biking on campus through its bikeUMD program. The program expanded as DOTS expanded outreach to develop relationships with State and local bicycle advocacy groups. DOTS continues to offer incentives for registering bikes and plans to make bike registration mandatory beginning in Fall 2011.

18. Shuttle-UM Rides Metric: Millions of rides on Shuttle-UM fiscal year. This metric, tracked by the Department of Transportation Services (DOTS), includes the total number or rides taken by people on Shuttle-UM in a given fiscal year. Note that it is not a representation of the number of riders, but rather the number of rides taken (each trip a particular rider takes on Shuttle-UM is counted as an additional ride in this metric).

Purpose: To assess utilization of Shuttle-UM as a non-survey based indicator of commuter behavior.

Recent Trends: Shuttle-UM rides increased by 93.5 percent from FY 2004 to FY 2010. Between FY 2009 and FY 2010, DOTS observed a 3.6 percent increase in number of rides taken, compared to an 11.1 percent increase between FY 2008 and FY 2009. In recent years, DOTS has increased the number of evening routes for students in the College Park area. From FY 2009 to FY 2010 rides on evening routes grew by nearly 19 percent. In FY 2010, DOTS eliminated two shuttle routes (the Silver Evening Service Route, and Route 1 Corridor Commuter Service Route) and added two new shuttle routes (the Green Evening Service Route, and Universities at Shady Grove Commuter Service Route). DOTS continues to operate frequent shuttle service to local student apartment complexes, Metro and train stations, and commercial locations to encourage commuter students to ride the bus instead of driving to campus.

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2008 2009 2010

Num

ber o

f Bik

es

Fiscal Year

Registered Bikes on Campus

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Mill

ions

of R

ides

Fiscal Year

Shuttle-UM Rides

21

VI. CURRICULUM: Sustainability in Education

The Curriculum section of this report focuses on some of the ways that sustainability concepts are infused into curricular and co-curricular programs to enhance student learning. Progress in this area is primarily determined by faculty engagement with academic enhancement programs offered by the Office of Sustainability and by faculty decisions to incorporate sustainability into living-learning programs at UMD. The Office of Sustainability hopes to find a way to collaborate with academic departments to improve and expand measurement and support of curricular sustainability integration. In the future, this section may also be expanded to include performance metrics for incorporating sustainability into UMD’s research agenda.

As stated in the Strategic Plan, UMD strives to be “a University that seeks solutions to the world’s most challenging and vexing problems.” UMD is a signatory to the American College and University Presidents Climate Commitment (ACUPCC), which means that the President has formally committed the University to incorporating sustainability into the education of every UMD student, along with eliminating the campus’ carbon footprint. Thus, the University of Maryland Climate Action Plan (2009, Climate Action Plan) includes strategies for education and research. The organizers of the ACUPCC stress that a central reason for the commitment is that higher education has the power to lead society in addressing climate change by driving thought and serving as a model of what is possible. By educating the next generation of citizens and societal leaders, UMD is poised to have a much greater impact on global climate change than it can have by simply reaching its own goal of carbon neutrality. The metrics in this section give a limited indication of progress in ensuring that every UMD graduate is literate in the basic concepts of sustainability.

Above: A student member of the 2011 Solar Decathlon Team explains ecological aspects of Watershed’s (the building) design. Photograph is copyright of the Office of Sustainability.

22

19. Courses Revised to Include Sustainability Metric: Count of courses revised to include sustainability as part of the curriculum. This metric includes all courses that have been revised through the Chesapeake Project, an annual two-day workshop designed to help University of Maryland faculty from across the disciplines integrate sustainability into their existing courses.

Purpose: To measure the impact of the Chesapeake Project on sustainability integration in UMD’s academics.

Recent Trends: Since the Chesapeake Project began in May 2009, 81 courses have been revised to include discussions, readings, assignments, and/or projects that link sustainability to disciplinary content. On average, 27 courses are revised each year. These revised courses cover a diversity of disciplines including Art History, Business, Engineering, Family Science, History, Information Management, Journalism, Philosophy and others.

19A. Faculty Member Participants in the Chesapeake Project: During the first three years of the Chesapeake Project, 71 faculty members have participated in the two-day training. Some of these faculty members, along with a group of their students, shared their experiences of integrating sustainability into the curriculum with a diverse audience from colleges and universities all over North America through a plenary panel session at the 2011 Smart & Sustainable Campuses Conference.

0

20

40

60

80

100

FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011

Number of Courses Revised to Include Sustainability

Courses Revised in Previous Years New Courses

01020304050607080

FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011

Number of Faculty Participants in Sustainability Workshop

Faculty Trained in Previous Years Faculty Trained in Year Shown

23

20. First Year Sustainability Education Metric: Percentage of first year students who receive a peer-educator sustainability lesson. This metric is based on the number of first year seminar classes (including UNIV 100, Honors 100 and others) in which a 60minute introductory sustainability presentation is given by a trained Student Sustainability Advisor or an Office of Sustainability staff person.

Purpose: To track progress in engaging incoming students in thinking about sustainability concepts.

Recent Trends: The Office of Sustainability worked with a group of junior and seniors to develop a sustainability presentation that would engage first year students in conversation about sustainability and encourage them to get involved in finding solutions. Each year the Office of Sustainability trains a group of upperclassmen, Student Sustainability Advisors, to deliver the presentation to first year students. The presentation was given to 19 first year seminar classes in the 2008-09 academic year, 32 first year seminar classes in the 2009-10 academic year, and 40 first year seminar classes in the 2010-11 academic year. As the number of courses reached increased each year, the number of students who hear the lesson also increases. The lesson reached approximately 380 students or 10 percent of new first-time freshman students the first year, 640 students or 17 percent the second year, and 800 students or 22 percent the third year.

21. Co-Curricular Education Metric: Count of living-learning programs with integration of environmental sustainability topics and issues. This metric includes all specialized residential programs initiated by and having direct connections with faculty and specific academic units.

Purpose: To recognize living-learning programs have a stated commitment to encourage students to think about environmental sustainability and participate in developing solutions.

Recent Trends: In many of UMD’s 25 living-learning programs, students explore topics of sustainability. The seven listed below have either a stated mission or a strong demonstrated commitment to teaching about environmental problems and solutions. One program that existed in 2009 was lost (EcoHouse).

• College Park Scholars: o Environment, Technology &

Economy o Global Public Health o Science and Global Change o Science, Technology & Society

• Beyond the Classroom • CIVICUS • Gemstone

0%20%40%60%80%

100%

2008 2009 2010Academic Year

Percentage of First Year Students Who Receive a Peer-Educator Sustainability Lesson

24

VII. COMMUNITY: Engaging with People Beyond Campus on Sustainability

The Community section of this report focuses on services that UMD provides directly and indirectly to provide avenues for people beyond campus to access, learn about, and practice sustainable lifestyles. Progress in this area is difficult to measure quantitatively. The metrics in this section begin to give an indication of the breadth of ways that UMD can impact the world beyond its campus. Numerous campus publications already chronicle many of the stories of UMD’s service programs, alumni impacts, and other community connections with a richness and depth that is often lost in attempts to quantify their impacts. This section is included in this report in order to give UMD’s performance in the wider community the same equal weight and recognition that is given to the other three directional areas that the report covers: campus, culture and curriculum.

The Strategic Plan emphasizes effective community engagement as part of UMD’S mission:

Above: A student volunteer demonstrates a worm composting bin to visitors in the Office of Sustainability’s tent on Maryland Day. Photograph is copyright of the Office of Sustainability.

As a major asset to the State of Maryland, the University’s mission is to foster the education, critical thinking, and intellectual growth of its students, the creation and application of new knowledge, the economic development of the State, and the effective engagement of its students, faculty, and staff with the surrounding World. (Transforming Maryland: Higher Expectations—the Strategic Plan for the University of Maryland, 2008, p. 4).

25

22. Community Service Participation Metric: Percentage of full-time students who participate in community service. This metric is taken from the Public Engagement category of the Sustainability Tracking, Assessment, and Rating System (STARS) developed by the Association of the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education (AASHE).

Purpose: To assess student engagement in community service programs that provide volunteer support for local non-profits, local events and community organizations.

Recent Trends: This metric was added in 2011 and we only have one year of data thus far. In the 2010-11 academic year, 18,800 students participated in UMD-sponsored community service programs. These students comprise 58.9 percent of all full-time students at the University.

22A. Community Service Hours is measured as the average number of service hours that a full-time student contributed to community service programs. In the 2010-11 academic year students contributed 122,330 community service hours which averages to 3.8 hours per full-time student.

23. Student and Alumni Green Businesses and Non-Profits Metric: Count of established student and alumni-created businesses and non-profit organizations that provide environmental services and solutions for environmental sustainability challenges. This list is incomplete because it only includes organizations of which the Office of Sustainability was aware when this report was published.

Purpose: To encourage and celebrate innovative solutions to environmental challenges.

Recent Trends: This list is a recent addition to the Sustainability Metrics Report and to the UMD Sustainability website. It has been included here in order to encourage faculty, staff, students and alumni to share stories of innovative sustainability-focused organizations with the UMD community. Information about additional businesses and non-profits should be emailed to sustainability@umd.edu.

Green Businesses that were started by UMD Students and/or Alumni

• Clean City, LLC (www.cleancityllc.com) • FlexEl, LLC (www.flexelinc.com) • Inkup (www.letsinkup.com) • GreenNEWit (www.greenewit.com) • weBike (webikedoyou.com) • Zymetis (www.zymetis.com), which was

recently acquired by AE Biofuels Inc.

Green Non-Profits that were started by UMD Students and/or Alumni

• Oro Verde (www.greengold-oroverde.org) • Maryland Food Collective

Participating Students

Percent of Full-time Students who Participated in Community Service during the 2010 Academic Year

mailto:sustainability@umd.eduhttp://www.zymetis.com/http://www.greengold-oroverde.org/

26

24. Community Education and Outreach Programs Metric: Count of programs whose mission, outreach, or operations serve to enhance sustainability locally, in the State, and around the world. This metric is based on information in online program descriptions and is not meant to be an exhaustive list.

Purpose: To provide an indication of extension and outreach programs that serve and educate people in the surrounding community, the State, and communities around the nation and globe.

Recent Trends: As the State of Maryland’s land-grant institution, UMD has a responsibility to educate people in the surrounding community and State through cooperative extension and other programs. UMD has also set a goal to prepare its students to be “global citizens,” and there are many programs that connect the campus to communities around the nation and the globe. In 2010, there were at least 58 UMD sustainability-related programs that focus on community education and outreach.

Community Education and Outreach Programs • America Reads * America Counts

• Center for Social Value Creation

• Dingman Center for

Entrepreneurship

• Engineers Without Borders • National Center for Smart

Growth Research & Education

• University of Maryland Extension (47 programs counted): o 4-H / Youth Development o Agricultural Nutrient Management Program o Annie’s Project – education for farm women o Bay-Wise o Building Strong Communities in Maryland o Center for Agro Security and Emergency

Management o Center for Healthy Families o Child Care and After School Programs o Commercial Horticulture o Cropping Systems Research & Extension o Environmental Horticulture o Expanded Food & Nutrition Education o Delmarva Gardens o Food Safety programs o Food Supplement Nutrition Education o Forages Program o Forest Stewardship Education o Grain Marketing o Grow It, Eat It! Program o Healthy Homes o Home and Garden Information Center o Integrated Pest Management Programs o Joint Institute for Food Safety and Applied

Nutrition o LEAD Maryland Foundation, Inc.

o Maryland's Poultry o MarylandAgriculture.info o Master Gardeners o Mid-Atlantic Nutrition Conference o NurseryWeb o Nutrient Resources Network o Obesity: A Public Health Issue o Personal Finance o Riparian Buffer Systems o Maryland Rural Enterprise Dev.

Center o SheepGoatMarketing.info o Sea Grant Extension Programs o Small Farm Institute o Small Flock Growers o Small Ruminant Page o Sustainable Agriculture Research &

Education Program o Pesticide Education and Assessment o Vegetable Disease Forecasting o Viticulture & Fruit o Walk Across Maryland o Water Quality & Environment o Weed Science o Wood’s Aquaculture Facility

• Environmental Finance Center: o Maryland Agricultural Exchange (and

Delaware Agricultural Exchange) o Maryland Online Farmer’s Market (and

Delaware Online Farmer’s Market) o Stormwater Financing and Outreach Unit o Watershed Assistance Collaborative o Maryland Clean Car Clinic Program o Clean Diesel Program

27

VIII. Acknowledgements The Office of Sustainability would like to thank the following people for contributing information for this report: Scott Ankrom, Irrigation Specialist, Building & Landscape Services Terry Brenner, Assistant Director, Facilities Planning We Lin Chang, Project Manager Capital Projects Kevin Curtis, Environment, Health, & Safety Specialist, Department of Environmental Safety Beulah Daniel, Assistant Director of IT, Department of Transportation Services Sandra Dykes, Assistant Director of Administrative Services, Building & Landscape Services John Follum, Environmental Compliance Manager, Department of Environmental Safety Steve Gnadt, Associate Director, Stamp Student Union Valerie Goubeau, Administrative Assistant, Department of Transportation Services Bill Guididas, Recycling Coordinator, Building & Landscape Services Erika Heilig, Coordinator, Financial Services Joan Kowal, Energy Manager, Financial Services Beverly Malone, Assistant Director, Department of Transportation Services Jeff McGee, Assistant Director of Building Services, Residential Facilities Mike Passarella-George, Assistant Director, Institutional Research, Planning & Assessment Pamela Phillips, Associate Director, Institutional Research, Planning & Assessment David Raymond, Procurement Manager, Dining Services Tim Robinson, IT Coordinator, Department of Transportation Services Jim Stirling, Director, Procurement & Supply Greg Thompson, Assistant Director of Maintenance, Dining Services Andrew Van Der Stuyf, Assistant Director of Project Management, Residential Facilities Dave Wallace, IT Programmer, Department of Transportation Services Sean Williamson, Faculty Research Assistant, Center for Integrative Environmental Research Colleen Wright-Riva, Director, Dining Services Special thanks to Office of Sustainability interns, Sarah Ashmun, Shane Connolly, Sarah Katz-Hyman and Shannon Kindred, who helped with various aspects of preparing data for this report. Report Author: Sally DeLeon Cover Design: Frances Avendano and Sarah Ashmun For more information about sustainability at the University of Maryland, visit www.sustainability.umd.edu

Office of Sustainability Department of Environmental Safety 3115 Chesapeake Building University of Maryland, College Park, MD, 20742

http://www.sustainability.umd.edu/

final-metrics_gr_cover-low2011 Metrics Report_finalI. IntroductionII. How to Read this ReportIII. Campus Sustainability Metrics SummaryIV. CAMPUS: Sustainable Infrastructure and Operations1. Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions2. Electricity Consumption3. Steam Consumption4. Potable Water Consumption5. Non-Potable Water6. Green Cleaning7. Sustainable Food8. Food Waste Composting

V. CULTURE: Sustainable Behaviors9. Recycling10. Non-Hazardous Solid Waste11. Hazardous Waste12. Paper13. Students Living On and Near Campus14. Faculty/Staff Living Near Campus15. Commuting Distance16. Alternative Transportation17. Registered Bikes on Campus18. Shuttle-UM Rides

VI. CURRICULUM: Sustainability in Education19. Courses Revised to Include Sustainability20. First Year Sustainability Education21. Co-Curricular Education

VII. COMMUNITY: Engaging with People Beyond Campus on Sustainability22. Community Service Participation23. Student and Alumni Green Businesses and Non-Profits24. Community Education and Outreach Programs

VIII. Acknowledgements