Grantee Research Project Results
Final Report: Growing Alternative Sustainable Buildings: Bio-composite Products from Natural Fiber, Biodegradable and Recyclable Polymer Materials for Load-bearing Construction Components
EPA Grant Number: SU832512Title: Growing Alternative Sustainable Buildings: Bio-composite Products from Natural Fiber, Biodegradable and Recyclable Polymer Materials for Load-bearing Construction Components
Investigators: Norton, Richard K. , Brix, Andrew , Davidian, Eli , Levine, Jonathan , Dinse, Keely , Vidyarthi, Sanjeev , Brydon, Trevor
Institution: University of Michigan
EPA Project Officer: Page, Angela
Phase: I
Project Period: September 30, 2005 through May 30, 2006
Project Amount: $10,000
RFA: P3 Awards: A National Student Design Competition for Sustainability Focusing on People, Prosperity and the Planet (2005) RFA Text | Recipients Lists
Research Category: P3 Challenge Area - Sustainable and Healthy Communities , Pollution Prevention/Sustainable Development , P3 Awards , Sustainable and Healthy Communities
Objective:
This study identifies and attempts to address three common shortcomings of today’s campus sustainability initiatives: difficulties in measuring social and economic factors; a lack of consideration for integrative issues such as land use; and a generally reactive structure. To engage these concerns, we develop a model for predicting the relative sustainability of three different campus land use configurations. The model uses computer-based mapping software (a geographic information system or GIS) to measure a set of six sustainability indicators for each land use scenario. The indicators chosen represent a comprehensive package for the study area and address all three competing interests of sustainable development: economic prosperity (one indicator), social equity (two indicators), and environmental integrity (four indicators).
We applied the model to the University of Michigan’s North Campus as a case study to test its effectiveness—and also to test the claims of sustainability made by smart growth advocates. The North Campus land was purchased in the early 1950s and has yet to reach build-out. We designed three scenarios for how the North Campus might be built out. The first scenario is based on existing campus development practice at the University of Michigan, under which the University develops housing and commercial facilities only when such facilities are not adequately supplied by market forces in the surrounding Ann Arbor area. This scenario maximizes the space on North Campus for the development of academic and research facilities while preserving the woodland belt that surrounds the present academic core. We derived the second scenario from principles of smart growth, creating an outcome that was more complex and urban in character, mixing in housing and commercial facilities with expanded academic and research facilities. For the third scenario, we conducted surveys to characterize the preferences of current North Campus students and employees and then used the results to revise the smart growth scenario to include those preferences.
Summary/Accomplishments (Outputs/Outcomes):
The results from the case study show that the two smart growth scenarios are more sustainable than the existing trends scenario. Between the two smart growth scenarios, the scenario that included public preferences produced slightly more sustainable results than the original smart growth scenario.
Looking more closely at the individual indicators, all three scenarios score similarly on the environmental indicators in absolute terms (e.g. area of impervious surface), but when measured in per capita terms (e.g. square feet of impervious surface per campus user) the two smart growth scenarios use campus facilities more efficiently compared to the existing trends scenario.
For the economic indicator, all three scenarios resulted in a similar amount of expanded academic research space on North Campus, suggesting that the ability for the university to attract research dollars from North Campus programs is roughly equivalent. The two smart growth scenarios also included a large expansion of commercial and residential development, which could prove attractive to potential university employees, expand the tax base for the City of Ann Arbor, and create the year -round residential and commercial densities to justify the construction of a high-quality transit line between North and Central Campus in Ann Arbor.
The equity indicator results show that, on average, the staff employees of North Campus live further away from campus and earn less than the faculty employees of North Campus. For every minute the average faculty member commutes to work, the average staff employee travels 1.7 minutes to work. This constitutes a substantial transportation cost burden placed on staff employees when compared to the transportation cost burden borne by faculty. Assuming that proximity to work is one of the primary influences of the residential location decisions for North Campus employees, the commute time disparity reflects a lack of affordable housing options in the area surrounding North Campus. The existing trends scenario assumes that the University of Michigan continues to rely exclusively on the private housing market to attract and supply housing for its employees and so the commute time disparity would, at best, remain stable at its current ratio. The results showed that the development of affordable employee housing on North Campus, present in both of the smart growth scenarios, can dramatically reduce the disproportionate commuting burden placed on lower-wage employees.
Conclusions:
As applied to the University of Michigan’s North Campus, this model gives valuable insight into the relative sustainability resulting from hypothetical future campus development scenarios. This model can be translated to other university campuses by adjusting the indicator package to fit the climate and regional setting of the campus.
For the case study of North Campus, the model showed that no zero sum economic trade off is required between the development of academic facilities and other types of development, such as commercial and residential. With a more urban development pattern, the University can build an equivalent amount academic floor space as current development practices while greatly expanding the residential and commercial facilities in the study area.
Contrary to prevalent notions that North Campus possesses large natural areas that merit preservation, the environmental indicators suggest that the portion of North Campus within the study area is already a highly developed and environmentally impacted area. In terms of sustainability, it is less relevant to consider the preservation of the undeveloped areas on North Campus itself and instead concentrate on using its land and infrastructure resources more efficiently to reduce the need for the expansion of academic, commercial and residential facilities farther away from Ann Arbor’s urban core.
Supplemental Keywords:
College, University, Campus, Land Use, Scenarios, Sustainability Indicators, Planning, Commute Time, Scientific Discipline, INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION, Sustainable Industry/Business, POLLUTION PREVENTION, cleaner production/pollution prevention, Energy, Chemistry and Materials Science, Environmental Engineering, environmentally preferable products, cleaner production, green design, sustainable development, natural pozzolans, clean technology, alternative materials, green home building, energy efficiency, pollution prevention design, construction material, product life cycle, hydraulic cement, bio-composite products, clean manufacturing designs, environmentally conscious design, modular panelized construction systemP3 Phase II:
Growing Alternative Sustainable Buildings: Biocomposite Products from Natural Fiber, Biodegradable and Recyclable Polymer Materials for Load-bearing Construction Components | Final ReportThe perspectives, information and conclusions conveyed in research project abstracts, progress reports, final reports, journal abstracts and journal publications convey the viewpoints of the principal investigator and may not represent the views and policies of ORD and EPA. Conclusions drawn by the principal investigators have not been reviewed by the Agency.