You are here:
Comparing Institution Nitrogen Footprints: Metrics for Assessing and Tracking Environmental Impact
Citation:
Castner, E., A. Leach, J. Compton, J. Galloway, AND J. Andrews. Comparing Institution Nitrogen Footprints: Metrics for Assessing and Tracking Environmental Impact. Sustainability: The Journal of Record. Mary Ann Liebert, Inc., New Rochelle, NY, 10(2):105-113, (2017).
Impact/Purpose:
This paper is being submitted to Sustainability: The Journal of Record as part of a special issue on institution nitrogen footprints. The paper, written by Elizabeth A. Castner, Allison M. Leach, Jana E. Compton, James N. Galloway, and Jennifer Andrews presents an analysis of seven institution nitrogen footprint results (Marine Biological Laboratory, Eastern Mennonite University, Dickinson College, Brown University, University of New Hampshire, Colorado State University, and the University of Virginia) using comparison metrics for institution size, population, and food purchasing. By examining the major activities that contribute to institution nitrogen footprints, the authors demonstrate the importance of two major sectors: food and energy. Common drivers of institution nitrogen footprints are revealed to be institution physical size and population. Campus use and system bounds are also important in determining an institution’s overall impact. The paper uses comparisons to reveal common trends and drivers, and suggests methods for improved calculation and comparison standards. This work is supported by a cooperative agreement with EPA to the Univ. of Virginia, with funding from EPA's SHC and SSWR research programs. This paper contributes to SHC 4.61.
Description:
When multiple institutions with strong sustainability initiatives use a new environmental impact assessment tool, there is an impulse to compare. The first seven institutions to calculate their nitrogen footprints using the nitrogen footprint tool have worked collaboratively to improve calculation methods, share resources, and suggest methods for reducing their footprints. This paper compares the results of those seven results to reveal the common and unique drivers of institution nitrogen footprints. The footprints were compared by scope and sector, and the results were normalized by multiple factors (e.g., population, number of meals served). The comparisons found many consistencies across the footprints, including the large contribution of food. The comparisons identified metrics that could be used to track progress, such as an overall indicator for the nitrogen sustainability of food purchases. The results also found differences in system bounds of the calculations, which are important to standardize when comparing across institutions. The footprints were influenced by factors that are both within and outside of the institutions’ ability to control, such as size, location, population, and campus use. However, these comparisons also point to a pathway forward for standardizing nitrogen footprint tool calculations, identifying metrics that can be used to track progress, and determining a sustainable institution nitrogen footprint.
