Sustainability Action Plan and Branding Campaign for Colorado State University
Department of Horticulture and Landscape Architecture
Almy .com Richard Ellis / Alamy Stock Photo
Consulting Capstone Project, Summer 2019
Submitted to: Mr. William O’Brien and Dr. Jessica Davis Submitted by: Jodi Smith August 2019
2
Table of Contents
OVERVIEW................................................................................................................................................................... 3 Client Requirements ............................................................................................................................................... 3 Opportunity and Risks ............................................................................................................................................ 4
Background ................................................................................................................................................................. 4
Recommendations .................................................................................................................................................... 6
Solar Driven Desalination for the Horticulture farm ................................................................. 6
Install solar driven automated watering station at the Heritage Gardens .................... 11
Replace florescent bulbs with LED bulbs in department shops ........................................ 13
Staff and facility departmental transportation challenge ..................................................... 16 Branding Campaign .............................................................................................................................................. 21
Why is branding important? ............................................................................................................. 21
Key stake holder and sustainable behaviors .............................................................................. 23
Branding opportunities and initiatives......................................................................................... 24
Sustainability Capital Reserve .......................................................................................................................... 31
Performance Metrics & Reporting .................................................................................................................. 31
Recommendations: Future initiatives ........................................................................................................... 36
Roadmap ................................................................................................................................................................... 37
APPENDIX A ............................................................................................................................................................. 38 APPENDIX B ............................................................................................................................................................. 39 APPENDIX C ............................................................................................................................................................. 42 APPENDIX D ............................................................................................................................................................. 43 References ................................................................................................................................................................ 44
3
Overview
This capstone project attempts to create a Sustainability Action Plan (SAP) for the Colorado
State University (CSU) Department of Horticulture and Landscape Architecture located in
Ft. Collins, Colorado. A branding campaign has also been outlined within the SAP. This
report refers to the CSU department of Horticulture and Landscape Architecture as the
client and Jodi Smith, a graduate student at Harvard University Extension School, as the
consultant. This report was created by Smith to fulfill the degree requirements of her
Master of Arts degree in Sustainability.
This process was initiated with the client’s approval of a statement of work, which was also
approved by the consultant’s project advisor, Mr. William O’Brien. A site visit was
undertaken by the consultant in order to observe and learn about the everyday operation of
the CSU Department of Horticulture and Landscape Architecture facilities and programs.
While visiting the site a project vision was developed collaboratively. The vision for both the
sustainable campaign and SAP was defined as follows: to be committed to a sustainable
future and improving the well-being of our department, university, and community through
creativity, learning, community outreach and sustainable practices. The project process also
included on site staff interviews and exploring their Ft. Collins campus and facilities.
Client Requirements
After collaborative discussions of various project possibilities with Smith, Dr. Jessica Davis,
Professor and Department Head of the USC Horticulture and Landscape Architecture
Department, proposed this project. While this client is committed to sustainable practices,
4
and in many instances the University has set the gold standard for sustainable innovation,
the Department decided to request an outside evaluation of their departmental facilities
focusing on energy and water in the hopes to improve sustainable practices and decrease
their footprint. It was additionally requested that ways to incorporate branding and staff
involvement in Sustainability be addressed.
Opportunities and Risks
By performing this evaluation and looking at branding and strategies, the client has the
opportunity to improve their already recognized efforts in sustainability. Improvements
could be opportunities to cut costs, lessen the department’s environmental footprint,
and/or provide outreach to the community in concurrence with the University objectives in
instruction, research and public service. By not moving forward, opportunities for
recognition with the community on sustainable measures that have already been
implemented as well as those measures recommended through this process would be lost
as well as any savings or knowledge to be shared by the results.
Background
Colorado State University is a public research university located in Fort Collins, Colorado.
The University is a state land grant university focusing on research, teaching and service
boasting a 2,300-acre campus. The campus has LEEDS Platinum rating and is committed to
sustainability and ethical stewardship.
The Horticulture and Landscape Design Department consists of office buildings, an
experimental greenhouse complex, arboretum, horticulture center with student gardens,
65-acre horticulture farm, and Heritage Gardens which are a public display of the plants
5
that will grow in the climatically different sections of Colorado. The Arboretum has a large
collection of woody plants representing over 1.100 different taxa with new plants
continuously being added. Both the Arboretum and Heritage Gardens, which abut each
other, contain pathways and sitting areas attracting both students and community
members. A single equipment shop is located at both the Arboretum and the horticulture
farm. The Heritage farm includes 12 acres used for growing organic crops and
approximately 52 acres used for experimental growing studies, an office building, and a
shop.
On March 1-4th the University of Colorado Fort Collins Horticulture and Landscape Design
Department facilities was toured and interviews were conducted with leads, facility
managers, and the department head. Energy sources, water use, design, appliances, waste
management practices, recycling, material use, equipment use, transportation and energy
use were observed and documented. This site visit resulted in the consultant producing
multiple sustainable recommendations that the University could take into consideration.
These recommendations were made to improve the Department’s overall environmental
footprint, in some instances increase their handprint, and encourage public awareness of
sustainable practices.
As part of the data gathering, interviews were conducted with numerous staff and faculty
including: Department Head, Dr. Jessica G. Davis, Ph.D.; Dr. Steven E. Neuman , Ph.D., A.A.F.,
Greenhouse Extension Specialist and Professor of Floriculture, Horticulture and Landscape
Architecture; Natalie Yoder, Research Associate in charge of specialty crops and the farm;
Mr. William Folsom, Horticulture Farm Manager; and Mr. David Staats, Researcher. Jennifer
Bornhoft, Operations Manager & Fiscal Officer, Agricultural Research, Development and
6
Education Center (ARDEC), provided additional data and further information was taken
from the CSU website.
Recommendations
Recommendations made were based on knowledge gained through a site visit, research
conducted through literature reviews, the consultant’s work history, and input from
Harvard Extension School faculty and graduate student cohort. Beyond the branding
campaign, four sustainable recommendations were made that could reduce the client’s
overall environment footprint, increase the facilities handprint, and encourage public
awareness of sustainability practices. Additionally, a cost benefit analysis in the form of
payback time as well as the savings to the environment has been calculated on
recommendations where feasible. Recommendations include installing solar driven
Membrane Capacitive Deionization (mCDI) technology on two of the brackish shallow water
wells located on the experimental horticulture farm to address the issue of fewer crop
choices due to the water salinity. This would also act as an experimental display for both the
community and statewide for larger farmers who often deal with similar problems when
watering their crops. Additional recommendations include replacing florescent lights with
LED lights in two of the department shops, a departmental green travel challenge, as well
constructing a small solar display used to run automated sprinklers in the heritage gardens
where watering is not automated.
1. Install a solar driven small-scale desalination plant at the horticulture farm to
address brackish water wells used for irrigation.
The water at the horticulture farm comes from two sources, domestic and well water. The
well water is used to irrigate all of the farm’s 64 acres minus the 12-acre organic farm,
7
which is dependent on domestic water. These wells contain elevated levels of sodium as
well as other minerals such as calcium, magnesium, and chloride according to the CUS
Cooperative Extension Crop Series publication Irrigation Water Quality Criteria (1999,
2014). Colorado water quality varies but is generally limited by the hazards associated with
higher levels of salinity and sodium. Too much salt will increase the osmotic pressure of the
soil and prevent the plants from absorbing water, causing them to wilt. Too much sodium
may cause the physical structure of the soil to break down making it hard and compact after
drying periods not allowing the water to fully penetrate. Overall higher concentrations of
saline water can cause yield loss, crop damage, and hamper water and fertilizer reuse. Soil
concentrations of soluble salt rise as the water in the soil is removed through evaporation
and transpiration.
Installing a small-scale membrane captive deionization (mCDI) system that is solar powered
would control the total dissolved solids and sodium levels without removing all minerals.
This system has low energy consumption of less than 1kWh/m3 for salinities of less than
3,500 ppm, no required chemicals except for once a year cleaning, minimal maintenance, as
well as overall reduced water and fertilizer consumption (NRCS USDA, 2009). Additionally,
installing a system at the Horticulture farm could act as a possible model for farmers in the
state who also have brackish water irrigation wells coinciding with CSU’s land grant mission
of public service, teaching and research.
Analytical results (Appendix A) show that CSU’s Horticulture Farm well water is considered
to have a high to moderate salinity hazard with the electrical conductivity (EC) of the well
water registering at 1.7 dS/m falling into the moderate to high rang for salinity hazard. The
Sodium Absorption Ratio (SAR) shows a ratio of 1.2. The SAR is a proportion of the NA+ to
8
CA++ and the Mg++ in the water and used to predict the potential for water filtration
problems as well as access the sodium hazard. The SAR combined with EC readings in this
well indicate that it is unlikely there will be a water filtration problem. The Sodium level
(Na) of 77.0 mg/L indicates that certain crops would be susceptible to foliar injury from
irrigation water (Follett, 1999; Bauder, 2104).
The mCDI systems basically remove salt by absorbing the sodium ions onto an electrode
surface. There is no membrane used as in other systems. Ions are removed by applying
voltage to two carbon porous electrodes attracting oppositely charged ions. Regeneration
of the electrode is accomplished by reversing the current or turning the system off. Water is
produced during regeneration that is concentrated with salt. Regeneration for this system
would be infrequent, estimated to be only once a year. Wastewater may be able to be
reused for road or surface brining to remove ice and snow or as a salt/ mineral substitute
for university cattle (Delano, 2018; Burge, 1987). For moderate salinity brackish water
sources, mCDI technologies are a good choice. They have inexpensive components relative
to other systems and low energy requirements (<0.5 kWh/m3 for <2 g/L) making mCDI
systems optimal for desalination of brackish water (Boden, 2018).
9
Picture taken form Volta CapDi systems technical specifications
The supplier, Voltea, located in the Netherlands and in Texas, was contacted to provide
estimated costs and specifications for purchasing a mCDI system to be installed at the
Horticulture Farm (Appendix B). This system’s estimated electrical use would be 55 kWh a
week based on flows and watering needs. The electricity needed to run this system is so
small that it can easily be run off the solar panels presently on site and which the University
is in the process of hooking up for their ARDWC South project. Once it is up and running,
this system will produce approximately 17,999 kWh/year. If the mCDI system is installed
and run off of the already existing solar array, it would use about 16% of what it already
produces or 2800 kWh/year, thus negating energy costs. This number was provided by
Sandbox Solar Energy Integration Engineers who are installing the 11kW of solar for the
ARDEC project located at the Horticulture Farm. The system needs to be kept at an ambient
temperature. It would therefore have to be housed in the warehouse, small shed located
next to the high tunnels, or have its own housing constructed. See Appendix D for list of
companies producing mCDI systems.
10
mCDI Installation
The size of the system was based on a 350 gpm-flow rate, which is approximately half the
flow needed for watering the 55 acres at the Horticulture Farm on a scheduled day. Crops
are irrigated two times a week for a period of 24 hours and once per week for a period of 12
hours. Because of the amount of water needed for irrigation in a single day, a tank would
have to be used along with the mCDI system. The removal rate of minerals in the feed water,
which is based on the untreated waters conductivity, will require 50% removal resulting in
a pure water conductivity of 859-uS/cm sodium, well below what is needed for good crop
growth. Water recovery would be approximately 78 percent. With the projected 50 percent
removal of minerals in the feed water, the waste stream will have a conductivity of ~ 5,231
uS/cm or 3,347ppm. The cost of the system would range between $205,000 USD and
396,000 USD, which reflects the cost difference between one and three systems and
includes onsite installation direction. Water storage tanks can cut the costs down by 50
11
percent. These systems would need to be protected from the weather and have a footprint
of approximately 3.1 x 1.0 x 2.3m per system. See Specifications in Appendix 1.
Table 1. Estimated emissions saved from using solar to power the equipment.
Estimated annual
electricity used if not
hooked up to solar in kWh
Pounds of carbon
annually
Pounds of SO2
annually
Pounds of NOX
annually
Number of seedlings grown for 10 years to offset the CO2
2,796 3,986 2 3 47 Emission rates include a 4.23% line loss. Calculated on the EPA Power profiler web page (2018).
2. Set up solar powered automatic sprinkler system for the Heritage Garden’s 6
raised beds.
The Heritage Gardens are used as a plant selector program that helps promote plants that
are new or underused. These are displayed in 6 raised beds that represent different
geographic growing areas of Colorado. The Heritage Gardens are located close to the road
and used to educate not only students but also community farmers. Presently the gardens
have sprinkler heads that are in place but turned on and off by hand 3 times per week.
Installing a small scale solar automated watering system here would be a good teaching tool
and provide knowledge sharing to the local community. Using solar even on this smaller
scale will cut down on greenhouse gases produced and have a long-term cost saving. This
system could be used for watering local community gardens and allow people to address
sustainability in their own homes. These systems are easy to install and maintain.
Additionally, teaming up and advertising the Department’s Heritage Gardens and solar
watering system with an agency such as Denver Urban Gardens (that promote and are a
resource for establishing community gardens throughout Colorado) could increase the
handprint of the University should the system be adopted in these settings. A public
12
educational sign erected here, explaining the system, cost savings and environmental
benefits, would also be recommended. This would also impact the University’s sustainable
branding.
A local contractor, Colby’s Custom Creations LLC, that is located in Ft. Collins was contacted
and after inspecting the site, submitted an estimate for parts and installation for this project
(See Appendix A). I would also recommend that the University request that the selected
contractor used to install this system, if not done in-house, be required to track and report
back to the University the number of community members requesting a similar installation,
after seeing the University’s display. This influence would increase the University’s
handprint and can be included in their sustainability report. The request for feedback to the
University could also be added to the informational board displayed at this site so that
community members choosing to install a similar project can contact the University
directly.
This simple system consists of an irrigation 6-station stainless steel timer, solar panel, and
battery, mounting pole and brackets as well as a solenoid. The solenoid is hooked up to the
existing watering system and allows the original sprinklers to continue to be used. This
system would work well in cold weather but needs to be either insulated or turned off in the
winter months when temperatures are freezing. In Fort Collins, this should coincide with
periods when gardens are fallow and will not need watering. The table below shows the
relative inexpensive cost of installing these systems as well as the acreage needed and
payback time. The cost is relatively inexpensive and therefore feasible for home watering
systems. Sharing this with the community at the Heritage Gardens has the potential to
increase the Department’s handprint as well as foster community relations and sustainable
13
practices. Taking this project to the local community gardens, as sustainable ambassadors
for the Department, would also lend itself to this.
Table 2. Solar watering system installation
Purchase and installation price in US
Dollars
1799.36
Acreage needed 5.7 xE-04 (5x5 feet)
Payback period 9.8 months
Payback was calculated based on Indeed.com’s listing of USC maintenance technician
average hourly wage of 15.16/HR. The garden watering system is turned on and off by
hand 3X per week with an estimated .5 hours per event or 1 hour three times per week.
$15.16 x 3Hrs/ week. = $45.48/ week originally spent on operating the system. ($1799.36/
$45.85/ week) /4 weeks/month = 9.8 months
3. Replace florescent lights used in the Arboretum and Horticulture Farm equipment
shops with LED lights.
The Horticulture Farm warehouse and the Arboretum warehouse both have florescent
overhead lights that could be replaced with LED lights. Florescent lights are gas discharging
light tubes that produce light by applying electricity to mercury gas in the tube, which
energizes the gas and activates the florescent coating of the tube producing photons of light.
These lights contain mercury, which is toxic and can accumulate in landfills and be released
into the air. Florescent lights do not last long and when turned on and off and they are
omnidirectional producing light 360 degrees which can be inefficient as at least 50 percent
14
of the light needs to be reflected back to the area being lighted. Florescent lights
additionally need a ballast to operate. Light Emitting Diodes (LED) have two electrodes that
electricity flows through and produces light. The diodes are usually made of selenium or
silicon. LED lights are energy efficient needing less electricity for the same amount of light
emitted. They can last up to 50,000 to 100,000 hours. Comparable florescent lights last
between 10,000 and 20,000 hours. LED lights also require fewer accessory lamp parts.
(Stouchlighting, 2000).
According to the US EPA Carbon Footprint Fact Sheet, electricity generation produces
greenhouse gases and other pollutants that are harmful to human health and the
environment (2107). In the US, for each kilowatt-hour produced, the power plant releases
an average of 0.954 pounds of CO2. Power plants that burn fossil fuels can release even
higher amounts of CO2. Coal releases 2.2 pounds /kilowatt-hour pounds compared to 2.0
pounds released from petroleum; and 0.9 pounds are released by natural gas. Reducing the
amount of electricity used will cut down on greenhouse gases emitted, natural resources
depleted, and annual costs.
Table 3 shows the energy saved and cost of replacing the florescent bulbs with the LED
bulbs; not including labor since the university maintenance department would do these in-
house. It is assumed that both the bulbs and light fixtures would be replaced rather than be
retrofitted. The purchase price was taken from a local Home Depot store inventory with a
contractor’s discount of 10%. The existing bulbs to be replaced are Phillips 40 watt 48 inch
and 8 ft. bulbs. The 8 ft. bulbs could be replaced with 4 ft. bulbs in tandem. All the bulbs
could then be replaced with a comparable Phillips 48-inch 17-watt LED T8 tube. New
fixtures would incorporate 48-inch bulbs, only doubling them where 8 ft. bulbs had
15
previously been located. When both shops are combined, a total of 212 new bulbs and 31
fixtures will need to be replaced.
Electricity is generated at the Platt River Power Authority and purchased through the Fort
Collins Utility with an average energy rate of 4.75cents/ kWhr. Rates were retrieved from
the Fort Collins Utility website and include large commercial E300 series rates excluding
any coincidental peak change demands or other special services rates. Summer and non-
summer rates were averaged. It was additionally assumed that the facilities were used 12
hours a day 7 days a week.
Table 3. Energy and cost savings realized by switching from florescent to lights to LED
Rates were retrieved form https://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/manage-your-account/rates/electric/e300 and includes large commercial E300 series rates excluding any coincidental peak change demands or other special services rates. Summer and non-summer rates were averaged.
Table 4. Payback in USD assuming no loan was required. Payback time It would take 2.5 years to get back what you invested
($ 2400/$957.1)
Cost of fixtures and bulbs
Energy used annually kW/Yr
Energy cost annually $
Annual energy saved kW/Yr
Annual costs savings / year in USD
Purchase price of fixtures and bulbs
$2400.0
Florescent bulb
34,191.0 1607.0
LED bulb 13,676.0 650.0 20,515.0 957.1
16
Using the EPA Power Profiler and energy mix for the University’s area code, the following
impacts from using florescent lights in the two shops can be compared monthly to the
energy profile of changing them out with LED lights below in Table 5.
Table 5. Environmental Effects of using florescent bulbs in the departmental warehouses versus replacing them with LED bulbs.
Annual use kWh
Pounds of C02 released/ yr
Pounds of SO2/yr
Pounds of NOx/yr.
Seedlings grown for 10 years to offset CO2 emissions
Florescent bulbs used in warehouses for 1 year
34,188 48,740 21 36 573
LED bulbs used in the Warehouses for one year
13,680 19,503 9 14 229
Savings 20,508 29,237 12 22 344
*Estimated 4.23% line loss **Data taken form EPA Energy Profiler for University Zip code (2018). ***Platte River Power Authority electrical mix was retrieved from (Generation – Platte Rover Power Authority, 2019)
4. Engaging staff in sustainability by issuing a travel challenge that could be issued to
other departments and eventually be taken up University wide; thus, fostering good
habits, individual awareness and participation.
Challenge Department staff and faculty to commit to finding green methods of travel when
coming to work for at least three days a week, lasting 270-days or a single academic year.
Green travel is defined as a kind of transportation that reduces negative impacts on the
environment. This could be carpooling, riding their bike, using a hybrid car, using biofuel in
17
their vehicle, electric bike or scooter, etc. See Diagram 1. for the amount of greenhouse
gasses saved.
This challenge is a great way to lay the foundation for a sustainable culture and allow staff
to claim individual as well as team successes. Once the Department has successfully carried
out the challenge they could issue it to another department until it has been taken up
University wide. Challenging your staff is a way to change behavior and increase awareness.
Making this challenge and providing a feedback loop for the staff on how their success
benefited the environment via a chart or recognition is a great way to lay the foundation for
a sustainable culture. Forming a green team and allowing it to spearhead the challenge as
well as receive accolades for performance would be one way to increase awareness,
motivate participants and keep sustainable endeavors going through the year. Below is an
example of a challenge poster that could be used to advertise your campaign.
Figure 1. Green Transportation Challenge Poster.
Bike
Walk
Car Pool
Bus
Fall Departmental Challenge
Way to GO!
18
Transportation systems contribute to global warming through emissions of greenhouse
gases and cause a range of health problems (physical, emotional, mental, spiritual). Burning
of fossil fuels through transportation accounts for 14 % of greenhouse gas emissions
globally and is the largest source of carbon emissions in the US. Road transportation makes
up 78 % of the total. Because most cars and trucks rely on petroleum, burning one gallon of
gasoline creates about 20 pounds of the greenhouse gas CO2. This equates to the average
vehicle producing between 6 and 9 tons of CO2 every year (EPA, 2104). Climate change
caused by greenhouse gases trapping heat in the atmosphere as well as serious health
effects have been recognized when petroleum is used in combustion. Internal combustion
engines produce particulates (fine PM 2.5 and course PM10), Sulphur Dioxide (S02),
Nitrogen Oxide (N02), Ozone, Carbon Monoxide (Co), and Lead. Indirect effects of
greenhouse gases cause both primary and secondary health impacts. Primary impacts
include increased injury and death through extreme heat and the increase in frequency of
weather events. Secondary effects include respiratory and cardiac illnesses, vector borne
diseases, and contamination of drinking water. Small particles can be inhaled and interact
with the lining of our lungs causing inflammation and increased risk of cardiovascular
disease. In the Harvard six cities study (Dockerty, 1993) a yearly increase of 10ug/m3
(PM2.5) increased cardiovascular mortality by 9%. Additionally, the NOx combined with
Volatile Organic Compounds produces Ozone when exposed to the sun. This reduces lung
function through the erosion of the epithelial layer of the inner lungs.
According to two studies from the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions (C2ES), reducing
vehicle trips benefits universities in several ways, improving the quality of life with fewer
cars on campus making the campus cleaner and quitter. Reducing the number of cars
driving to the University can be a bonus to surrounding neighborhoods by reducing the
19
influx of traffic as well as boosting your sustainable credentials and reducing the need for
parking facilities or valuable real-estate. Carpooling can save money, time, and contribute to
your handprint.
Though it estimated (through interviews) that approximately one half of the 50 staff and
faculty employed by the CSU Horticulture and Landscape Design Department presently use
green transportation when coming to work (5 to 10 miles on average), having the other 25
members commit for three months would impact the amount of greenhouse gases produced
and fuel used. Additionally, the individuals that already use green travel could be
challenged to up their game in some way. Perhaps commit one member of their household
or a neighbor to the challenge. A small incentive could be issued in exchange for completing
the challenge in order to encourage participation. For example, provide staff with vouchers
to the local bike shop or toward green public transportation, or make a donation to the local
food bank in the Department’s name, etc.
Figure 2. Greenhouse gas emissions from transportation
Data used to produce this chart was taken from the Pacific Western Transport Sustainability page Fact Sheet.
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Bike or Walking
Fuel Efficient Car, 4 People
Large 4WD, 4 People
Average Car, Driver Only
Kilograms of Greenhouse gas produced per person per mile
Greenhouse Gas emissions from Different Forms of Transportation
20
Table 6. Potential greenhouse gas emissions reduced by CSU Departmental challenge.
Transportation Kilogram of greenhouse gas per Mile
Kg saved compared to
driving an average car r/t to work
(5 to 10 miles)/day.
Kg of greenhouse gas saved by 25
people compared to driving an average car R/T to work (5 to 10 miles)/day.
Kg of greenhouse gas saved by 25
people compared to driving an average
car R/T to work 270 days (Challenge
time) Bike /Walking 0.0 2.75 – 5.15 68.75 – 128.75 17,752.5 - 34762.5 Public Transportation per s Per Person
0.005 2.5 - 5.1 62.5 – 127.5 18675 -34425
Fuel Efficient car, 4 People
0.068 2.41 – 4.47 60.25 – 111.75 16267.5 -30172.5
Average Car, 4 People
0.129 2.11 – 3.86 52.75 – 96.5 14242.5 - 26055
Large 4WD, 4 People
0.177 2.17 – 3.98 54.25 – 99.5 14647.5 - 26865
Fuel Efficient, Car Driver Only
0.274 1.38 – 2.41 34.5 – 60.25 9315 – 16267.5
Average Car, Driver Only
0.515 0 0 0
Large 4WD, Driver only
0.709 (-32.7) –(65.75)
(-817.5) – (-1693.75) (-220725) – (457312.5)
Table 7. Fuel use reduced by Department challenge.
Miles per Gallons gasoline-gasoline equivalent.
Passenger miles per gallon
Gallons of gasoline used/10-20 miles
Gallons of gasoline used by 25 people R/T to work 270 days (Challenge time)
Bike /Walking 0 0 0 0 *Public Transportation per Person
3 125 0.08 - 0.16 2.0 - 4.0
Average Car, 4 People (gasoline)
28 112 0.1 - 0.2 2.5 - 5.0
Large 4WD, 4 People (gasoline)
17 68 0.2 - 0.3 5.0 - 7.5
Average Car, Driver Only 28 28 0.5 - 0.7 12.5 – 17.5 Large 4WD, Driver only 17 17 0.6 - 1.2 15 - 30
*Fuel efficiencies taken form Average Fuel economy of major vehicle categories (2018). Retrieved from: https://afdc.energy.gov/data/10310. Estimated by Villavicencio & Sanchez, 2017 using
21
information from Lelieveld et al. (2015) and fuel consumption information form the Energy Information Administration (EIA) **10 to 20-gallons of gasoline used in column #2 was the total estimated round trip miles traveled each day by facility and staff between home and work. ***Assume average 41-people/ bus
The above tables show that implementing this challenge and walking, biking, or taking
public transportation could save up to 15 to 30-gallons of fuel and 34762.5 kg of
greenhouse gas being produced. If this challenge were then extended to other departments
this relatively small number, would increase exponentially. Additionally, those biking and
walking would be aligned with CSU’s health and fitness goal to promote employee health
and fitness. On another level this activity would foster individual awareness of the
consequences of our own personal activities and how we can affect our environment
and solve critical problems.
Branding
According to CSU BRAND webpage, their brand is “the stories, experiences, and attributes
that define the Colorado State University.” CSU’s brand is what they do; it is the experience
that students, faculty, staff, and the community have when they choose to invest in the
University and its community. Sharing experiences, values and purpose as well as listing
achievements, influence the brand. The Horticulture and Landscape Design Department,
being one of many departments, divisions and colleges that share in the reputation of
excellence that comes from being part of the Colorado State University Brand have the
opportunity to strengthen this brand through a variety of actions discussed below.
Who Are The Key Stakeholders For Sustainable Programs 1. Students - Engaged in the effort and educated in terms of sustainability opportunities.
22
2. Community – Who feel that the University is a key part of their environment and cares
about them as neighbors.
3. Faculty - Pride in their University and a source of future ideas and project leads.
Why Is Branding Important? Branding is a way to make the concept of education more tangible while setting
expectations for the quality of the experience. Though universities are businesses and
students pay money in exchange for their education, universities differ from businesses in
that they are more experiential in nature. Ultimately a university’s brand is what is
promised to the students, employees and community to convince them that their
investment of money, time, and support is of valuable and worth it. University Branding
encourages those under its influence to make an emotional connection with the school even
if the outcome is expensive. This is so especially if it delivers experiences that the students,
faculty and community are looking for; such as community involvement and commitment to
sustainability. It can allow the school to be competitive and set apart from other
universities, develop locality and support after graduation, and enhance credibility by
helping to develop an excellent reputation. Below are some key factors that were
considered when developing the branding recommendations.
1. Stakeholder engagement has been shown to be a key factor in the success of sustainable
activities. The stakeholders in this context would be the CSU Horticulture and Landscape
Design Department Head, faculty, and staff as well as potential others with the idea of
bringing in other university lead participants as the success of the activities are recognized
or need funding or approval from outside of the Department. As a stakeholder your
engagement in the process of implementing sustainability through incorporating
sustainable branding strategies and awareness is the key to success. Taking a leadership
23
role by engaging employees, students, and the community, inspiring participants and
building valuable relationships will go far in achieving your goals of sustainable branding
and ultimately the sustainable culture of the department and university.
2. It is important to position the benefits of the sustainability initiatives to students,
community and faculty. When universities show their students that they do matter, it
can make all the difference. Potential students want to know that they are in good
hands with the promise of receiving a beneficial and valuable education from a
knowledgeable and positive staff. The Department Head and leads and can achieve
this through involving and knowing the concerns of the staff, incorporating staff
ideas and offering support. This will improve the overall quality of life, and the staff
will appreciate it. A chain reaction can be initiated by taking into account those
working with the students. Additionally, student and community involvement will
ensure creative involvement in the triple bottom line of commitment and focus on
environmental and social issues as well as profit.
3. The University should take credit and be recognized for its role. Some of the branding
concepts discussed below showcase sustainable initiatives already established by CSU,
which could benefit from being highlighted and brought into the forefront. You want your
brand to be consistent and easy to recognize so that people feel more at ease making
financial and emotional commitments to your university and departmental programs.
4. Branding enables everyone to feel they are part of the efforts and it also allows the
programs to be sustainable long term. Sustainability can be implemented in many ways;
using the brand to highlight achievements and encourage involvement in sustainable
24
practices at all levels can have long term positive results. By involving employees, engaging
the students and interacting with the community, sustainability can become the new
cultural norm.
The Opportunities and Recommended Branding Initiatives
The branding initiatives discussed below would contribute to CSU’s brand and be
implemented by the Department of Horticulture and Landscape Architecture by carrying
out a vision of “Beautifying our Campus and Community Responsively”. The vision
statement -
“We are committed to a sustainable future and improving the well being of our students,
faculty, University, and community through creativity, learning, community outreach and
sustainable practices.” - would reflect these efforts. A suggested tag line would be, “Greener
Future through Sustainable Growth.” The tag line should be used in marketing and
publishing materials and acts as a phrase that will reinforce the recognition and memory of
a brand. The initiatives would be based on three areas of opportunity these being: What can
CSU offer around sustainable growing and landscape beautification; How can CSU extend
services to the community; and What can be done on campus so that students, staff and
parents can be involved in and amplify their engagement in sustainability. Whenever
possible Touch Point Branding can be employed. This kind of branding attempts to clearly
differentiate yourself at the point your target (students, community) will be most impacted.
For example, at the Heritage Gardens where exhibits to the community are located or the
pot sale where there is wide public visibility.
1. Branding Opportunities and Initiatives
Sustainable recommendations
25
The four sustainable recommendations outlined above have great potential as brand
initiatives when combined with community advertisement and outreach. The
desalination plant as well as automated solar sprinkler system can be displayed and
copied by your community. The green travel challenge as well as changing out light
bulbs from florescent to LED reflects CSU’s commitment to being good neighbors as well
as to the environment and physical health of its staff. Making sure to take credit for
these will lets the community and University know that these endeavors are part of the
Departments commitment to the environment and community increasing the value of
its sustainable brand.
Heritage Gardens
Make use of the Heritage Gardens since this area is open to the public and houses
agricultural crop displays in raised beds for interested growers to see. It is also located
conveniently across from new housing so it will also have good student visibility.
• In the Heritage Gardens the split rail fence and benches are made of wood and some
of them need replacing. Replace with recycled sustainable material and designate
the wall a place where graffiti depicting sustainable themes can be decorated by
students. Chalk paint could be used on a portion of the wall so art can be ever
changing. A chalk bucket could be staged near the fence or placed somewhere so
that students can check it out. (This would also cut down on graffiti such as that
seen on a lamppost in the area.)
• Check into having recycled material from campus made into benches (e.g., water
bottles recycled into extruded plastic). The CSU could additionally donate the
26
benches to and partner with local elementary schools in order to teach
sustainability and recycling. The benches should be placarded giving CSU or the
Horticulture and Landscape Design Department recognition. Alumni or others could
also bid on the benches so that memorial placards could be added to it. Proceeds
could go to a green revolving reserve fund, local food bank, or community garden as
part of beautifying the community.
• The existing stage located in the Heritage Gardens could be used for sustainable
displays and activities. These could include a monthly exhibit of repurposed junk
into art or repurposed junk into creative planters to go with the branding vision.
Students or performers could use the stage for monthly green poetry readings.
Arboretum
• Placards could be placed on the walking trail to showcase global warming
mitigation facts on trees (e.g., amount of carbon removed from atmosphere by a
single tree, by the arboretum as a whole, how many trees disappear daily, etc.)
• Have a seedling distribution event once a year taking cuttings from arboretum
trees rooted in the greenhouse distributed to the community. Perhaps hold a
University Arbor Day with a cutting distribution, music on the Heritage Park stage,
and farm to fork food wagons.
Flower Trials
The area where the flower trials are conducted consist of raised beds and multiple
use plastic flowerpots. This area is used to test viability of plants for this specific
area. Community members and agricultural businesses send plants to the
27
University for the trial with a fee charged for the service. Because this area is highly
visible and often visited by the public it is an ideal location to focus on touch point
branding by:
• Positioning informational pamphlets in stands or erecting additional
permanent signs stating what the Department does for sustainability in
addition to the growing area.
• Place a placard depicting how using recycled plastic pots until end of life
saves resources and prevents greenhouse gases from being released into the
atmosphere. Compare what was saved to what would be emitted if
purchasing single use, disposable pots yearly. Calculate the tons of carbon
and other pollutants saved from being placed into the atmosphere. Or
conduct a lifecycle assessment on a single pot and display it here.
• Two departmental gasoline driven trucks and gasoline golf carts are used to
chauffeur flowers and equipment ½ mile between gardens and storage/
green houses. Look at replacing these with more sustainable equipment
such as diesel, bio diesel, and electric. The University has already
established HDS electric charging stations at Laurel Village and purchased
one Global Electric Mobile car to be used by housing and dining services.
Placard the use of these and the savings to the environment. This initiative
will also align with the Universities goal of establishing 100% renewable
electricity by 2030.
28
• The plant debris accumulated from this program is composted in the
University wide composting program. This could be showcased here as one
of the sustainable endeavors in which the Department participates. Perhaps
during the weeks that flowers are displayed and at their peak, a short
composting demonstration could be conducted focusing on home
composting for community members.
Green Houses
Efforts already undertaken to make the Department’s 6 greenhouses more
energy efficient and sustainable could be highlighted showing energy cost
savings of the new greenhouses compared to the older greenhouses that did
not have the benefit of newer sustainable technologies when constructed.
This could be accomplished by a series of placards positioned at the dining
halls along wait lines where lettuce grown in the green houses is distributed.
These savings and the success of incorporating energy saving, sustainable
greenhouse features such as the ventilation corridor, retractable heat
curtains, and double poly roof, should be included and celebrated in the
university’s sustainability report and webpage.
General
• The Department could partner with the University’s already established
Green Warrior Campaign, which brings public attention to the sustainable
choices the students are making and hold a “Greening Campus Day” where
students and staff would be encouraged to volunteer to beautify and green
the campus. Planting greenery and flowers in designated areas, as well as
29
putting in pavers around trees and helping with grounds maintenance in the
Arboretum could accomplish this. Scheduling this during the campus Earth
Week celebrations could lend more recognition to the project. This should
be aimed at both physical as well as emotional engagement.
• Contribute to community outreach through donating seedlings or seeds that
have been grown in the campus greenhouses to local shelters and
community gardens. Department faculty could be pared with student
volunteers to help with the community garden design as well, maximizing
space and good growing conditions. The sustainable designs used could be
captured on a placard and placed at the gardens as well as giving the
Department recognition for the efforts. This initiative could also include the
CSU student food gardens being implemented there as well.
• Add projects designed around community sustainable playground and
landscape design and greening to the curriculum. Attempt to involve student
outreach organizations, community activists, and planning commission
members when implementing these activities. A green team would be ideal
to help with the implementation. Teaming up with the Universities already
established Eco Leaders Education Program and working with students on
the above project’s as one of their independent project credits under the GES
380 Sustainability in Practice course would be one way of incorporating
greening and landscape design in these community projects and curriculum.
This would also coincide with the Students Sustainability Center Mission “to
30
empower students to advance sustainability principles and practices at CSU
and beyond”.
• Place small, quiet, electric composter ($500.00) in the Department office
coffee rooms. Soil from the composted coffee grounds can be donated the to
local elementary schools or homeless shelters to be used as soil for plants to
green and beautify the spaces or be used as a medium in plant growing
school projects and eventual sales (e.g., Mothers Day). This would allow all
of your staff to be hands on and participate. Due to the minimal price for the
composters, this may encourage them to purchase these at home increasing
your handprint. The Department could receive recognition when these are
sold through having volunteers on site to help with the sale, provide
information on composting and the University’s composting program.
• A committee could be formed to work with the local planning commission to
see what projects the Department could participate in that might benefit the
community. Staff as well as faculty and students should be involved in an
attempt to encourage individual participation and enhance the sustainable
change culture of Department. As with any green team or committee a
feedback loop and positive reinforcement should be incorporated into the
initiative.
• Designate, name, and celebrate "GREEN SPOTS" on campus. These would be
areas with benches, flowers and plants with the campaign name and tag line
on the benches.
31
Sustainability Capital Reserve
Though the university has a sustainable Energy Reserve Fund that contributes to campus
sustainable projects, the Horticulture and Landscape Architecture Department may want to
consider working with the University to capture the cost savings realized by implemented
initiatives. These monies could then be placed in the Universities Sustainable Energy
Reserve Fund where the Department of Agriculture and Landscape Architecture can
leverage contributions for future projects.
Performance Metrics & Reporting
Four recommendations and numerous branding strategies have been suggested and
discussed. All of these, if adopted, could be included in a departmental Sustainability Report
or included in the University wide Sustainability Strategic Plan and CSUs’ Sustainability
home page. The initiatives themselves could be highlighted and hand printing resulting
from additional implementation of the strategies at home by the community or students
captured and reported. Not all of the initiatives mentioned have calculable results or can be
quantified.
32
Table 8. Metrics summary.
Installing a solar driven desalination system: The recommendation to use solar driven
desalination for lowering salinity of water being applied to crops is an evolving technology
and is not replacing one already in existence at the Horticulture Farm so no cost benefit
analyses could be performed. However, using this system as a teaching technology for state
agricultural farmers could result in a measured handprint if it was to replace the more
expensive water and electrical consumptive desalination systems already in use. The
amount of energy saved if operating this system with solar cells versus local electricity
could be calculated for the handprint as shown in Table 1 above, as could water
consumption based on the needed flow and crop tolerances.
The perceivable non-calculable benefits of this system are being able to design growing
33
experiments with a wider range of plants that are not salt tolerant, as well as being able to
adjust the mineral content of the water allowing for both a broader and more precise range
of parameters with which to conduct growing trials and research. Additionally, providing
this technology to farmer’s state-wide, falls under one of CSU’s mission statements being a
land grant University dedicated to “Working with local communities around the world to
provide training and knowledge needed to responsibly use and protect resources”
(Colorado State University, 2019).
Installing an automated solar powered sprinkler system: The recommendation to install an
automated solar powered sprinkler system at the Heritage Gardens, which would replace
the non-automated electrically driven system being used, has small calculable gains when it
comes to operating costs and energy saved. However, it has great potential for gains as a
calculable handprint in the local community and state wide if adopted. At CSU cost savings
could be calculated based on automating the system versus turning the system on and off by
hand. It was determined that $ 45.16 a week was spent operating this system which would
equate to a cost savings of $2167.68 annually. There was no energy cost savings associated
with this system since the system in use was hand driven and not automated. If
implementing this system at home where it replaces and already established automated
sprinkler system, electrical costs could be determined by looking at the difference in the
meter readings or calculated from the solar cell specifications. Additionally, data show that
water can be conserved when automated systems are installed and operated properly,
especially those with rain sensors that can turn sprinklers off during periods of heavy rain
and then reactivate. The non-calculable benefits of installing this system would be that it
lends itself to the University’s and Department’s branding. Recognition for this system
installed in an area of high visibility along with proper placarding, helps cement CSU’s
34
association with a sustainable image and commitment.
Replacing florescent lights with LED lights in two warehouses: The benefits of replacing the
florescent light bulbs with the LED bulbs in the Horticulture Farm and Arboretum shops can
be measured based on the estimated kWh use of the bulbs and the local electrical mix using
the EPA energy profiler as is depicted in Table 5, titled Environmental effects of using
florescent bulbs in the department warehouses versus replacing them with LED bulbs. The
calculations show that 29,237 pounds of C02, 12 pounds of SO2, and 22 pounds of NOX
would be prevented from being released yearly by making the change. The annual energy
saved as well as the annual costs savings was calculated to be 20,515.0 kW/yr translating
into 957.1 USD cost savings per year based on the cost of the fixtures and bulbs, their
associated energy use, and energy cost taken from the Fort Collins Government Utilities
web page for E300 (large commercial) series rates. See table 3. Energy and Cost savings
realized by switching from Florescent to lights to LED. Payback was calculated to take 2.5
years.
Green Travel Challenge: Engaging staff in sustainability by issuing a travel challenge that
could be issued to other departments and eventually be taken up University wide has an
outcome that is difficult to measure though can be done. It was estimated that the
Horticulture and Landscape Architecture Department have approximately 50 staff and
faculty members who commute to work and back an average of 5 to 10 miles each way.
Additionally, it is estimated that half of these commute to work in a sustainable manner
while the other half do not. The challenge is for a period of 3 months or one semester. Based
on the above assumptions, fuel efficiency data for major vehicle categories taken from the
US Department of Energy Average Fuel Economy of major Vehicles webpage as well as
estimates by Villavicencio and Sanchez (2017), showed that implementing this challenge
35
and walking, biking, or taking public transportation versus using an average gasoline driven
car could save up to 15 to 30-gallons of fuel and 34762.5 kg of greenhouse gas being
produced. These results are shown in Tables 6 and 7 above. Another metric of this
challenge’s success or failure would be to track those individuals that continued to travel to
work using green transportation over the entire year making this a part of their culture.
This could be accomplished through a survey or self reporting. Additionally, it was
suggested that this challenge be extended to other departments after the initial challenge
was completed. The amount of greenhouse gases and fuel used in these challenges could
additionally be recorded and captured with successes lending to the Department’s
handprint as well as diminishing the University’s overall footprint. The non-calculable
benefits of this challenge are: involving staff and faculty at all levels in a sustainable activity,
increasing awareness, and laying the foundation for discussion, awareness and cultural
shifts in the area of sustainability. This activity can also build teamwork, increase
Departmental communication, and lend itself to CSU’s healthcare’s mission of promoting
success through care of body and mind as well as upholding one of the University’s
Principles of Community, which emphasizes promoting well being through service of time
talent and resources.
Branding initiatives: The branding the branding initiatives suggested are varied and its
successes would be difficult to tabulate. However one way to capture their success would be
to offer new students an electronic questionnaire with questions focused on ascertaining
how they perceived the Horticulture and Landscape Architecture Department and
University sustainable standing as well as correlate its importance regarding why they
chose to attend CSU and the classes offered by the Department of Horticulture and
Agricultural Design specifically. The questionnaire could be offered to existing students
focusing on their involvement in the offered sustainable activities and level of satisfaction.
36
Additionally, the community facilities that benefited from the branding activities such as
school and city playgrounds and community gardens, could additionally receive
questionnaires providing feedback on their perception and the effectiveness of the
initiatives once they were completed. The one branding initiative recommended that lends
itself to calculable performance metrics is replacing Departmental gasoline powered
vehicles with electric powered vehicles. The cost of the amount of fuel saved versus
electrical energy used could be calculated and compared, as well as the greenhouse gases
emissions saved.
Recommendations: Future initiatives
Because of CSU’s fervent commitment to sustainability and its many implemented programs
and activities, future suggested initiatives for the Department of Horticulture and
Landscaped Architecture would be centered on larger capital projects not yet initiated. One
of these would be to perform a Departmental energy survey determining the amount of
electricity used by the department yearly then set aside part of the Horticulture Farm or
other university properties as well as purchasing property that is to be used to plant trees
to offset a known percent of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide produced by the
Department’s energy budget. Adding to this could be small sale plankton air scrubbers
situated through out the satellite campuses located in Denver where air pollution is ranked
12th worst in the country. Plankton scrubbers are being used in Mexico City and successfully
calling attention to sustainability and the problem of air pollution from the burning of fossil
fuels (Algae Industrial magazine 2018). The amount of greenhouse gas produced by the
Departments electrical use and the number of trees needed to be planted, can be calculated
using EPA’s Energy Profiler. This would lend itself to the University’s goal of being carbon
neutral by 2050. Additionally, existing arboretum could be included in the carbon gains.
37
Roadmap
In order to accomplish any of the recommendations resulting from this assessment a
foundation must be laid by involving staff and faculty. One of the best ways to accomplish
this is through the formation of Departmental green teams. By involving the Department
staff and faculty they will come up with fun and creative ways to carry out these initiatives
adding their own twist or improving on them. Once staff is involved, have invested of
themselves, and are able to see the results of their efforts, sustainably begins to be part of
the departmental culture and hopefully self-sustaining! Of course, Department Leads
involvement and enthusiasm are critical to the teams’ success. Additional inputs such as
timely snapshots of successes, recognition, and being able to determine and focus on what is
important to the staff and faculty will reinforce these cultural shifts.
38
Appendix A
Analytical Result of well water testing at the Horticulture Farm.
39
Appendix B Voltea System Specification sheets
WWW.VOLTEA.COM
CapDI SYSTEMS TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS
©
40
41
42
Appendix C
Heritage solar watering system estimate
43
Appendix D
Companies Providing cMDI Systems
Voltea Based in USA has projects around the world
Email: [email protected] voltea.com
AquaSphere Based in India. Sells mCDI unit that is fully automated and remotely managed.
Email: [email protected] Phone: +91 80 26535333
Idropan Dell’ Orto (Italy) Based in Italy but supplies the US
Email: [email protected] www.idropan.com/en
InnoDI Water Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Joint venture between Idropan, AquaSphere, and IIT Madras. Services globally
Email: [email protected] www.inodi.in
44
References
Algae Industrial Magazine (2018). BiomiTech algae air purifier wins innovation award.
Retrieved from: http://www.algaeindustrymagazine.com/biomitech-algae-air-purifier-
wins-innovation-award/
Barta, R., Broner, I., Schneekloth, J., and Waskom, R. (2004). Colorado high planes irrigation
practice guide http://www.cwi.colostate.edu/media/publications/sr/14.pdf
Bauder, T. A., Waskom, R. M., Sutherland, P. L., and Davis, J. G. (2104). Irrigation Water
Quality Criteria . Fact Sheet No. 0.506 Crop Series/Irrigation. Retrieved from:
http://extension.colostate.edu/docs/pubs/crops/00513.pdf
Boden, S. K., Subban, V. C. (2018). OXFSM Research report. A road map for small scale
desalination Retrieved from:
https://oxfamilibrary.openrepository.com/bitstream/handle/10546/620448/rr-roadmap-
desalination-southeast-asia-070518-
en.pdf;jsessionid=B98183DDCE19DB3E78B93E9B905E5FC4?sequence=5
Burger, L.L. (1987). Salt and trace minerals of livestock poultry and other animals.
Retrieved from:
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.467.8193&rep=rep1&type=pdf
City of Fort Collins.(2019), Utilities, Large Commercial E300+ Series.
https://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/manage-your-account/rates/electric/e300
45
Conserve Energy Future. What is green Transportation? Retrieved from:
https://www.conserve-energy-future.com/modes-and-benefits-of-green-
transportation.php
Cotruvo, J. (2018). Technologies for brine concentrate management and recovery
Retrieved from: https://www.watertechonline.com/brine-concentrate-management-and-
recovery/
Delano, D. (2018). The benefits of using salt brine to deice our property. Retrieved from:
https://www.levelgreenlandscaping.com/blog/the-benefits-of-using-salt-brine-to-deice-
your-property
Douglas, W., Dockery, C., Pope, A., Xu, X., Spengler, J. D., Ware, J. H., Fay, M. E., Ferris, B. G.,
and Speizer, F. E. (1993). An association between air pollution and mortality in 6 cities.
Retrieved from: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199312093292401
Fuel Economy Guide (2019). Retrieved from:
https://fueleconomy.gov/feg/pdfs/guides/FEG2015.pdf
Irrigation Guide (2009). Retrieved from:
https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs144p2_062492.pdf
Lightbulb wholesaler. Retrieved from: https://www.lightbulbwholesaler.com/t-
energy_savings_calculator.aspx
46
Metrosphere. (2014). LED vs Fluorescent tubes – comparison in energy consumption,
lighting performance & efficiency. Retrieved from:https://metrospherelight.com/blog/led-
vs-fluorescent-tubes-comparison-in-energy-consumption-lighting-performance-efficiency/
Oliveria, P., Sullivan, A., Sustainability and its impact on brand value. Retrieved from:
https://www.interbrand.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/3.-Sustainabilityand-its-
impact-in-BV.pdf
Pacific Western Transport. (2018). Sustainability fact sheet. Retrieved from:
http://www.pwt.ca/about-pwt/sustainability/
Schneekloth, J., Andales, A. (2017). Seasonal water needs and opportunities for limited
irrigation for Colorado crops. Retrieved from: https://extension.colostate.edu/topic-
areas/agriculture/seasonal-water-needs-and-opportunities-for-limited-irrigation-for-
colorado-crops-4-718/
Self, J. F. (2013). Domestic water quality Criteria. Colorado State University Extension. Fact
Sheet number0.513. Crop Series/ Irrigation. Retrieved from:
https://extension.colostate.edu/docs/pubs/crops/00513.pdf
Shaheen, S. S., Lipman, T. E. (2007). Reducing greenhouse gas emissions and fuel
consumption: sustainable approaches for surface transportation. Retrieved from:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0386111214601795
Stouchlighting. (2019). Lighting comparison LED vs florescent vs CFL. Retrieved from:
https://www.stouchlighting.com/blog/fluorescent-vs-led-vs-cfl
47
Taeyoung, K., Christopher, A. G., and Bruce, E. L. (2017). Low energy desalination using
battery electrode deionization. Retrieved from:
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/acs.estlett.7b00392
The Arboretum. Colorado State University College of Agricultural Sciences, Landscape
Plants. Retrieved from: https://landscapeplants.agsci.colostate.edu/arboretum/
U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). (2018). Electric power monthly with data
from February 2018. Retrieved from: https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/
Lelieveld J., Evans J.S., Fnais M., Giannadaki d., and Pozzer A. (2015) The contribution of
outdoor air pollution sources to premature mortality on a global scale Retrieved from:
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature15371
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2017). Carbon footprint fact sheet. Retrieved from:
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks
U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) (2018) Electric power ,onthly with data
from February 2018. Retrieved from: https://www.eia.gov/electricity/
US Environmental Protection Agency (2019). Power profiler. Retrieved from:
https://www.epa.gov/energy/power-profiler#/RMPA
United States Environmental protection Agency. (2014).Global greenhouse gas emission
data. (2014). Retrieved from: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-
emissions-data
48
U.S. Environmental protection Agency. (2018).Greenhouse gas equivalencies calculator.
Retrieved from: https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gases-equivalencies-calculator-
calculations-and-references
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2018). Inventory of U.S. greenhouse gas
emissions and sinks: 1990 - 2016. Retrieved from:
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks
Weinstein, L., and Dash, R. (2013). Capacitive deionization: challenges and opportunities.
Retrieved from: https://www.fujifilmmembranes.com/images/DWR_article_1213.pdf
49