final report bottled water group -...
TRANSCRIPT
Final Report
Options for Reducing Bottled Water Use in the Michigan Union and on Campus
John Cunningham, Cory Honeyman, Alicia Prygoski, Alyse Opatowski, and Yishi Wang
ENVIRON 391 ! Sustainability & the Campus ! University of Michigan ! Fall 2010
Options for Reducing Bottled Water Use in the Michigan Union and on Campus
!!
"!
Table of Contents !!"#$%&'()$!*&++,-.! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!/!
!
01'-23&%'(21! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!4!
5$'6232728.!
! 9,'$-!:,;'$!:$;'! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!<!
! =2&-'6!=722-!>1(21!*&-)$.;! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!?!
@$%2++$13,'(21;!
! A2''7$3!9,'$-!A,1!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!B!
@$%2++$13,'(21;!*C$%(D(%,77.!D2-!'6$!5(%6(8,1!>1(21!
! E6,18$!'6$!9,'$-!:$+C$-,'&-$!2D!! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!FG!A2''7$3!9,'$-!H-23&%';!,13!@$D(77!*','(21!
! E21'(1&$!'6$!H&1%6!E,-3!,13!*(81,8$!H-28-,+! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!FI!
@$'-2D('!'6$!J-(1K(18!=2&1',(1!!21!'6$!=2&-'6!=722-!2D!'6$!>1(21!! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!F/!
E,+C&;LM(3$!@$%2++$13,'(21;!
! >1(D2-+!A-,13(18! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!F<!
! E21'(1&,'(21!2D!A2''7$3!9,'$-!:$,+! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!F?!
! *&-)$.!@$C$'('(21!(1!N'6$-!>L5!A&(73(18;!'2!!O,&8$!J$+,13!D2-!9,'$-!=2&1',(1!@$'-2D(''(18! ! ! ! !!!!!!!FP!
E21%7&;(21! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!IF!
"1312'$;! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!II!
!QCC$13(%$;!QR!AR!E!S!J! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!I4
!!
!!
#!
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
0(%1(2,3!43(53!6$%5++$37,'(538/!• 9'!'1$!)$375-:!4;25<8:!8$==!>5''=$7!?,'$-!@-57&%'8!-55+!,'!'$+@$-,'&-$!5-!(3%-$,8$!
'1$!'$+@$-,'&-$!5A!'1$!-$A-(2$-,'$7!8'5-,2$!&3('8!(A!>$)$-,2$!7(8'-(>&'5-<8!%53'-,%'8!>,-!'1$!A5-+$-/!:$+C$-,'&-$!2D!'6$!-$D(77!;','(21!;$-)$;!,;!,!7$,3(18!D,%'2-!(1!C-$D$-$1%$!D2-!U2''7$3!M,'$-V!"('6$-!(1'$-)$1'(21!M2&73!6$7C!$T&,7([$!'6$!,CC$,7!2D!'6$!D(7'$-$3!-$D(77!;','(21!M('6!'6,'!2D!U2''7$3!M,'$-V!
• 9'!4;25<8:!%53'(3&$!'1$!(3%$3'()$;>,8$7!@&3%1!%,-7!@-52-,+!,37!$7&%,'(53,=!8(23,2$/!:6$;$!;'-,'$8($;!D2;'$-!;'-218!M,'$-!%21;$-),'(21!),7&$;!,13!(1;'('&'$!,!-$M,-3!;.;'$+!(1!2-3$-!'2!(1%-$,;$!'6$!,CC$,7!2D!'6$!)$132-\;!D-$$!D(7'$-$3!M,'$-V!
• 6$'-5A('!'1$!?,'$-!A5&3',(3!53!'1$!A5&-'1!A=55-:!?1$-$!+,3.!8'&7$3'!5-2,3(B,'(538!15=7!'1$(-!5AA(%$8Z!>;,8$!2D!'6$!-$D(77!;','(21!M2&73!(1%-$,;$!3-,+,'(%,77.!(D!-$12),'(21;!'22K!C7,%$R!M('6!2)$-!BG]!M(77(18!'2!&;$!'6$!-$D(77!;','(21!,'!7$,;'!21%$!C$-!M$$K!,13!1$,-7.!,!'6(-3!M(77(18!'2!32!;2!$)$-.!3,.V!!
!43()$-8('.!5A!0(%1(2,3!C,+@&8!D(7$!6$%5++$37,'(538!
• 43(A5-+!>-,37(32!%,+@,(23!A5-!',@!?,'$-!8','(538!,37!-$&8,>=$!>5''=$8Z!:6$!(+C7$+$1','(21!2D!,!&1(D2-+!U-,13(18!;%6$+$!D2-!,77!',C!M,'$-!D,%(7('($;!,13!-$&;,U7$!U2''7$;!3(;'-(U&'$3!2-!;273!21!%,+C&;!M2&73!7(1K!,77!',C!M,'$-!;&CC7.!2C'(21;!,13!-$)$,7!'6$!6(86!7$)$7!2D!%21)$1($1%$!'2!,%%$;;(18!',C!M,'$-V!
• C537&%'!8&-)$.8!(3!1(21;'-,AA(%!4!5A!0!>&(=7(328!'5!2,&2$!7$+,37!A5-!?,'$-!A5&3',(3!-$'-5A(''(32Z!:6$;$!;&-)$.;!M2&73!C-2)(3$!U&(73(18!,3+(1(;'-,'2-;!M('6!',18(U7$!$)(3$1%$!2D!;'&3$1'!3$+,13!D2-!-$'-2D(''$3!M,'$-!D2&1',(1;!,13!(1'$8-,'$!;'&3$1'!2C(1(21!(1'2!,3+(1(;'-,'2-;\!%2;'LU$1$D('!,1,7.;$;!2D!D&13(18!;&%6!-$12),'(21;V!
• C53'(3&,'(53!5A!,!E5''=$7!D,'$-!F$,+!(3!3$#'!8$+$8'$-<8!"3)(-53+$3'!GHI!%5&-8$Z!Q!A2''7$3!9,'$-!:$,+!%2&73!%21'(1&$!-,(;(18!,M,-$1$;;!2D!'6$!$1)(-21+$1',7!(;;&$;!;&--2&13(18!U2''7$3!M,'$-!,13!7$,3!'6$!(+C7$+$1','(21!2D!'6$!,D2-$+$1'(21$3!;'-,'$8($;V!
! !! :6$;$!;(#!-$%2++$13,'(21;!C-2)(3$!,1!$DD$%'()$!;.;'$+!'2!+$,;&-$!;'&3$1'!3$+,13!D2-!(+C-2)$3!,%%$;;!'2!',C!M,'$-R!'-,1;D2-+!;'&3$1'!U$6,)(2-R!,13!(1%-$,;$!',C!M,'$-\;!+,-K$',U(7('.!'6-2&86!U-,13(18!,13!,M,-$1$;;!%,+C,(81;V!A.!(+C7$+$1'(18!'6$;$!-$%2++$13,'(21;R!M$!,-$!%21D(3$1'!'6,'!5(%6(8,1!M(77!',K$!(+C2-',1'!D(-;'!;'$C;!'2!U$%2+$!,!7$,3$-!(1!,33-$;;(18!'6(;!;&;',(1,U(7('.!%6,77$18$V!
!!
$!
Introduction
Within a global context, the rise of the bottled water trade reflects a wasteful and inefficient system of consumption. Currently, one out of eight people lack access to an improved drinking water source and 40% of the world’s population lacks access to improved sanitation facilities1. Meanwhile, affluent nations consume an annual volume of 89 billion liters of bottled water valued at $22 billion2. As wealthier nations waste usable tap water resources, impoverished nations lacking supply and transportation infrastructure struggle to meet their water and sanitation needs.
The need to curtail and eventually eliminate bottled water from our stores, homes, workplaces, and schools is overwhelming and cannot be ignored. The Earth Policy Institute discloses that worldwide 2.7 million tons of plastic are used annually in the production of single-use water bottles. Of these plastics, the most widely used is polyethylene terepthalate (PET), which is synthesized from crude oil3. According to a report by Food & Water Watch, the production of plastic water bottles purchased in the US requires the equivalent of approximately 17.6 million barrels of oil annually, not including the oil required to transport the bottles to consumers, and generates 6.4 million metric tons of greenhouse gases. The total oil used in barrels is equivalent to the amount needed to fuel more than one million vehicles in America each year3. After all the water in these bottles is consumed, about 86% of the empty containers are sent to landfills instead of being recycled. And even then, recycling is not the solution; while it would help reduce waste, recycling only makes a small dent in the total energy used to produce water bottles4.
Furthermore, even though many Americans cite health and safety concerns as one of the primary reasons for choosing bottled water over the tap, studies show that these worries may be a misconception. In a four-year research study of the bottled water industry, the NRDC concluded that there are major gaps in the regulation of bottled water. The Food and Drug Administration completely exempts about 70% of the bottled waters sold in the US from its bottled water standards, and even when they are covered, the rules are much weaker than those that govern city tap water. For example, municipal tap water must be free from E. coli or fecal bacteria contamination, but FDA bottled water rules include no such interdiction. Bottled water is also tested much less frequently than city tap water – bottled water plants must inspect for fecal bacteria just once a week, while big-city tap water is assessed one hundred or more times a month. These tap water test results must also be reported to state and federal officials, but there is no mandatory reporting for water bottles3.
The sustainability director at American University, Christopher O’Brien, sums up the illogicality of purchasing bottled water by explaining, “We have been working for 10,000 years in human civilization to create great, safe drinking water for the public, and we have succeeded, and now we are throwing it out”4. Overall, the growing trend in bottled water usage fails to make rational economic sense and
!!
%!
underscores a stark disparity between the quality of livelihoods in developed and developing nations.
Methodology
Water Taste Test In order to gauge people’s preference for bottled versus tap water, our team administered a water taste test from November 10-12, 2010 in the basement of the Michigan Union. It was set up in front of U-go’s from 11AM-2PM each day. We asked participants to try two identical-looking samples of water, one tap and one bottled, unbeknownst to them which sample was which option, A or B. Incentives were offered (locally-made granola on Wednesday and Thursday, Snickers bars on Friday) to promote participation. Participants filled out a six-question survey that asked about their water consumption habits (Appendix A). We then informed them of which one they chose and discussed the impacts of bottled water. There was a range in the number of participants each day:
Wednesday: 44 Thursday: 89 Friday: 75 Total participants: 208
Our main goals were to gather data for taste preferences and attitudes towards bottled water and create education and awareness about the environmental impacts of bottled water. Data for taste preference: One of our goals was to determine if Union visitors had a taste preference for bottled water or tap water. A strong taste preference either way would help us in furthering our plans after the taste test. A confounding variable in our taste test was water temperature. Although we tried to use bottled and tap water at the same temperature, it was difficult to maintain an equal level of coldness throughout the taste test, and we never actually measured the temperature of either the bottled or the tap water. When talking with participants, we learned that on Wednesday and Thursday, the bottled water was slightly colder. Most participants indicated that they preferred their water colder rather than warmer (Figure A.2):
!!
&!
• No preference: 57% said they preferred the colder choice • Bottled water preference: 14% said they chose this option because the
water was colder • Tap water preference: 21% said they chose this option because the water
was colder
It is possible that this confounding variable could have swayed our results either way, but our team benefited from this confounding variable in an unforeseen manner as well. Since people seemed to prefer colder water, our group realized that we might be able to reduce bottled water consumption if it were left outside the refrigerator (this is explained in detail in a following recommendation).
An overwhelming majority of participants in the water taste test survey was incorrect in guessing the correct identities of the samples. When talking with the participants, many stated that they could not differentiate between the two choices of water (other than temperature), which suggested that there was little gustatory difference between the two types. 21% had no preference between bottled and tap water while 43% preferred tap over bottled water (Figure A.1). Both of these results support our following recommendations. 9% of survey respondents chose bottled water for its taste (Figure A.4). These results indicate that perceived expectations of bottled water’s superior taste are not reflective of the majority opinion surveyed. Data and analysis regarding attitudes toward bottled water: Our water taste test survey allowed us to better understand the attitudes of Michigan Union patrons regarding bottled water and tap water. Results showed that the primary reason people use bottled water is convenience (Figure A.4). This helped us in implementing strategies and formulating recommendations that would make access to tap water and usage of reusable bottles more convenient than purchasing bottled water products. Education and awareness: Through conversation, we were able to inform the participants in our taste test about the environmental impacts of bottled water. Only a few stated that they would continue drinking bottled water, while the rest were encouraged by our information and stated that they would start turning to tap water and reusable bottles. In addition, we were able to raise awareness of the refill station in U-go’s. Before our taste test, 87% of taste test participants reported never having tried the refill station (Figure A.3). After taking our taste test survey, 68% reported willingness to try the refill station in the future. 32% indicated that they would not try the refill station in the future (Figure A.4), which is a significant amount. All of this 32%, however, comes from our first two days when the refill station originally cost $0.15 to fill a water bottle. For the third day of the taste test, the U-go’s staff eliminated the $0.15 cost, making the water free. Since we had no participants on the third day
!!
'!
indicate that they would not try the refill station, people may have been hesitant to use it because of the initial cost.
After our taste test and after the refill station became free to use, there was an increase in the number of people who used the refill station (Figure A.5). The weeks before are the controls, and then slowly the numbers increased during and mostly after our taste test, which helped foster campus awareness of the refill station in U-go’s.
Fourth Floor Union Surveys
After meeting with Dave Kautz, the Building and Facilities Manager of the Union, we learned that a lack of funding serves as the leading factor that has delayed the retrofitting of water fountains. We also learned that the next potential target for retrofitting is the water fountain on the fourth floor of the Union. Retrofitting this water fountain would be the least costly as the infrastructure is already in place to easily attach a water spigot to the existing water fountain.
The fourth floor is a key location and high traffic area of the Union because many student organizations have offices on this floor. According to Dave Kautz, the installation of two spigots in the basement of the union stemmed from student demand based on comment cards6. Therefore, we surveyed 75 student organizations in order to gauge demand for a retrofit and provide additional support for expediting the process of installing faucets for reusable bottles because we were informed that money could be allocated to this if there was enough of a demand. We distributed surveys in person and online. Data for fourth floor Union survey: Results from our fourth floor Union survey indicate a high demand from student groups for a retrofit of the water fountain. Currently, 46% of students do not use the water fountain at all (Figure B.5). When asked if their use would increase if the water fountain were retrofitted, however, 36% of students said they would use it every day, while the amount of students who still would not increase use dropped to 19% (Figure B.6). Another factor that plays into the demand for a retrofit is that 60% of those surveyed strongly agree that reducing their bottled water consumption is important (Figure B.7). This indicates that there is a high degree of water literacy among these students, and also they believe that they would benefit from a water refill station that is convenient for refilling reusable water bottles.
!!
(!
Recommendations
Bottled Water Ban The first option that the team considered was a university-wide ban on bottled
water sales. This would mean that no bottled water would be sold by the University or any of its on-campus retailers. Complete bans have been implemented successfully on a few campuses already, including the University of Washington in St. Louis and University of Portland. Although other universities have managed to implement this change, the bottled water team has determined that this is not a viable option currently at the University of Michigan.
Our team met with members of the Food Team from the Integrated Assessment (IA), a group that had recommended eliminating bottle water from the University as one of its top priorities. While the report had initially discussed a ban on campus, the representatives said they were now instead recommending a 10-year reduction plan. Part of the reason the Integrated Assessment changed their recommendation was because of the decentralization of the key players needed to comply with the elimination program. Specifically, the Food Team found it too difficult to convince all departments at the University to comply with and implement the ban. As a result of this change in recommendations, a campus wide ban is less likely to be implemented by the University. Moreover, loss of revenue for on campus food vendors serves an additional challenge to implementing a ban on selling bottled water. In 2010, 599,406 plastic water bottles were delivered to the University of Michigan campus. U-go’s in the Michigan Union—a typical on campus food vendor—earned $16,041 in revenue from the sales of disposable plastic water bottles during the 2010 fiscal year, which comprised 4.2% of total revenue made from sales of all bottled beverages5. Additionally, the elimination of bottled water would require the University to pay upfront costs in order to improve the current water distribution infrastructure. The University would have to renovate outdated existing water refill stations and install more throughout the campus. The price to retrofit and replace a new water station on this campus varies from $700-20006. The University of Ottawa, a campus of similar size, spent more than $100,000 to improve the tap water infrastructure when it eliminated bottled water on its campus7. The University of Massachusetts spent $240,000 on 6,000 filtered water refill stations ($4,000 each) for its campus8. Not only would the University lose money from bottled water sales, but it would also have to invest in numerous infrastructure upgrades. Another major obstacle to immediately banning bottled water sales is the possibility of consumers turning to unhealthy bottled alternatives for water such as soda. Part of the appeal of bottled water is that it is the healthier choice. However, by banning bottled water, it is possible that consumers would shift to less healthy options because they would be more convenient than using a reusable bottle and seeking out
!!
)!
water fountains or spigots. Although there is currently insufficient research and evidence to conclude that this change would take place, this is certainly a logical concern shared by institutions such as the University of Portland. We also considered special situations that mandate bottled water be readily available. Tap water is inaccessible during power outages. In case of an emergency, availability of bottled water to supply a large population would be essential. Another situation we considered was the challenges confronting visitors on campus, such as during orientations for incoming students. These guests would want bottled water as many would not bring their own reusable bottles and might instead turn to other bottled beverage alternatives. While the elimination of bottled water on the University of Michigan campus would benefit the environment, the lack of centralization among staff and faculty departments, loss of revenue, consumer demand shift, and certain emergency scenarios highlight the impracticality of implementing an immediate ban.
!!
*+!
Recommendations Specifically for the Michigan
Union Change the Water Temperature of Bottled Water Products and Refill Station Relevant Data Collection/Research By analyzing the taste test survey results, we learned that temperature had a noticeable effect on people’s water preference. Figure A.5 is a breakdown of temperature preference from the water taste test. Of the people who had no preference between bottled and tap water, 57% said that colder water would make a difference in their decision. Of the people who expressed a preference, 14% of people who chose bottled water and 21% of people who chose tap said they selected that option because it was colder. Moreover, Figure A.3 reveals that only 13% people had tried the refill station prior to the taste test survey. Meanwhile, Figure A.4 results indicate that 68% would try now try the water refill station. Among the remaining 32% who remained unwilling to try the refill station water, the reason for much of the continued resistance stemmed from the refill station costing $0.15 per use two out of the three days. Plan of Action Given the aforementioned results from our water taste test survey, the Bottled Water Team recommends that U-Go’s in the Union adopt the following strategy by the University of Colorado in order to improve the marketability of the refill station. Specifically, Colorado plans to remove their bottled water from refrigerators and sell these products at room temperature as well as add ice machines to offer an option for students to further cool water offered by on campus vendor’s refill stations9. Similar to the tactics of Colorado’s on-campus vendors, U-Go’s should begin selling all of its bottled water at room temperature. If contracts with beverage companies require that bottled water remain refrigerated, then instead, we recommend raising the temperature of the units storing bottled water to the same level as the filtered water refill station. Logistics and Cost/Benefit Analysis
Contracted bottled beverage distributors would most likely disapprove of selling bottled water at room temperature because such a strategy would ultimately reduce the amount of water purchased at U-go’s and yield lower revenue from bottled water products. For the 2010 fiscal year, bottled water sales at U-go’s totaled $16,041 and accounted for 4.2% of total beverage revenues at U-go’s. Therefore, in order to implement this tactic, Mr. Soster would first need to communicate with beverage distributors about their expectations regarding how the bottled water products must
!!
**!
be sold. According to the current and relatively ambiguous language of the contracts, all bottled beverage products must be “refrigerated.” However, the specific temperature and length of time that products must remain refrigerated is open to interpretation10. In fact, given such generalized contract stipulations, U-go’s already sells a minimal portion of its bottled water products at room temperature because some students have expressed an interest in buying the product to store at home.
If the contracts ultimately bar U-go’s from immediately selling the bottled water at room temperature, we recommend that Keith employ two alternative strategies. In the short term, we recommend that U-go’s change the temperature settings for the store’s bottled beverage products. Currently, the refill station’s cold water—a hot option also exists for those who use the station for warm beverages—is set at 40° F. Meanwhile, the refrigerated storage unit is set between 32° F and 35° F depending on the day. Despite the confusion in the contract regarding whether or not U-go’s must refrigerate its bottled water, in the meantime Keith does have authority to determine the exact temperature levels of the stored bottled beverages as long as it remains refrigerated. By raising the refrigerator’s temperature to 40° F, U-go’s immediately strengthens the marketability of tap water from the refill station. Specifically, such a strategy would make the refill station an equally cold option for obtaining water and thereby address the concerns of those who prefer bottled water because of its colder temperature. Moreover, such a strategy would reduce the appeal of all bottled beverages and encourage customers who were considering any of these products to opt for the colder alternative of the refill station. In the long term, we recommend that Keith employ his purchasing power as a leverage point to revise future contracts with bottled beverage distributors. Although bottled water plays an important role in generating revenue for contracted beverage companies, Keith is able to request that bottled water be sold at room temperature because he purchases a significant total of approximately 198,000 bottled beverages for U-go’s in the Union, along with additional bottled products for the League and Pierpont Commons5. While beverage distributors would not prefer such a coercive tactic, the implementation of such a strategy would more effectively address the role of temperature influencing customers’ preference between bottled and tap water since bottled water would be significantly warmer. Admittedly, there is a possible unintended consequence of U-go’s customers simply electing to buy another type of bottled beverage that is refrigerated. Nevertheless, most customers who are specifically seeking water as a choice of beverage would ultimately seek out the most appealing option, which would become tap water from the refill station due to this temperature intervention. Among other more aggressive strategies available, U-go’s could also begin selling “enhanced water products,” such as Vitamin Water and Gatorade, at room temperature in order deter customers from simply switching to these options instead of the refill station. Once again, Keith would have to rely on his purchasing power in order to persuade bottled beverage distributors to comply with
!!
*"!
such a mandate that would interfere with enhanced water sales. Whether U-go’s increased the temperature settings of the refrigerated beverage units storing bottled water products or sold bottled water products at room temperature, these two strategies both have the capacity to significantly reduce bottled water purchases at U-go’s.
Continue the Punch Card and Signage Program Relevant Data Collection/Research On Wednesday, November 10, 2010, U-go’s began distributing 1000 punch cards. The punch cards guarantee a free ! pound of granola after using the free refill station ten times. Approximately three weeks later on December 2, 2010, 700 of these punch cards had been distributed and are in use by Michigan students, faculty, and staff on campus. According to Lisa Barlett from the Union’s marketing department, the 1000 punch cards cost $ 99.99 to produce and there were no charges for design labor. An image of the front and back of the punch card can be seen in Appendix D 2.A and 2.B.
That same Wednesday, U-go’s put an informational sign about the environmental consequences of bottled water and the ecological benefits of using the refill station. This information was replicated from the Mason Hall water station compiled by Planet Blue. We felt that they provided accurate and comprehensive information about the benefits to tap water. The poster is placed next to the refill station the majority of each week, but for at least one day a week is placed in the front window of U-go’s. The sign itself cost $44.99 to produce and there were no charges for design labor11. An image of the sign in located in Appendix D.1.
Plan of Action The Bottled Water Team recommends that U-Go’s permanently offer the punch cards to customers and continue the current schedule of alternating the location of the information sign. Logistics and Cost/Benefit Analysis A punch card reward system and information sign encouraging the consumption of tap water would serve as two cost-effective strategies to encourage increased tap water usage among U-go’s customers. First, the “pilot punch card program” has offered a reward system for sustained usage of the refill station. While receiving a free bag of granola or candy would most likely not serve as complete justification for customers to use the refill station, it does provide an additional incentive to complement the aforementioned water temperature strategy. As discussed earlier in this report, “positive motivational techniques” such as this one can play a key role in encouraging a conservation behavior change12. Moreover, the sign has the capacity to foster stronger environmental values. Such an “information technique” would help people understand “why and how to change their behavior” from bottled
!!
*#!
to tap water consumption12. Specifically, it clearly presents to U-go’s customers the ecological benefits of switching to tap water and thereby provides an added ethical justification to make this behavior change. The relevant data indicating growth rates in refill station usage after the implementation of the punch card and signage program week by week can be seen in Appendix A.5. These data tables reveal two correlations. First, use of the refill station increased by approximately 124% in only the first three weeks of implementing the punch card and signage program. Second, use of the refill station in the third week of the program was 118% higher than in the randomly selected sample week in September. On one hand, the results are limited because we could not account for a significant number of weeks in order to determine if the relationship between time and refill station usage would continue in an increasing trend. Nevertheless, the growth does demonstrate that these tactics have a strong correlation and warrant continued implementation in order to assess the actual value of these interventions.
Retrofit the drinking fountain on the 4th floor of the Union Plan of action Our team recommends retrofitting the current water fountain on the fourth floor of the Union. This would encompass determining the type of retrofit to fit the allocated budget and installation. Relevant Data Collection/Research
We have based this recommendation primarily on results from our fourth floor Union Survey, and input from Dave Kautz. Currently, there is a traditional and outdated water fountain on the fourth floor of the Union. We surveyed 75 student groups that frequent the fourth floor in order to gauge student demand to change this water fountain into a tap water refill station. Results from our survey indicated that there was significant student demand for taking this action. Presently, 46% of those surveyed do not use the existing water fountain at all while only 7% used the water fountain every day (Figure B.5). These results show that there is little desire from students to utilize the water fountain on the fourth floor. When asked if use would increase if retrofitting occurred, 32% of students indicated that they would use the water refill station every day, and only 19% said their use would not increase tap water usage (Figure B.6).
Logistics and Cost-Benefit Analysis
The results from our survey show that there is student demand for a tap water refill station on the fourth floor of the Union. While we are aware that student demand drives changes, retrofitting this water fountain could prove to be slightly more of a challenge than our other recommendations. We recommended retrofitting the water fountain in the Union, and then waiting to see its success rate before retrofitting more across campus. As mentioned in the previous recommendations, the
!!
*$!
cost to retrofit one water fountain can range from $700-2000 for installation and materials6. Funds could be allocated from capital funding, or from a possible grant that we are going to apply for from the Student Sustainability Initiative.
One benefit of retrofitting this specific water fountain is that no plumbing will need to be replaced or altered in anyway. If desired, this water fountain may be retrofitted by simply adding a spigot that accommodates a reusable water bottle. For these reasons, we suggest starting the retrofit process out slow (initially the fourth floor Union) and gradually increasing the number of water fountains as funding allows.
!!
*%!
Campus-Wide Recommendations Uniform Branding Plan of action:
We recommend that U-go’s and other Michigan sponsored vendors, the dining halls, and all organizations offer the same branded version of reusable bottles. In particular, we suggest that all bottles sold or distributed have our tag line, “G2O BLUE” printed on them and the Planet Blue logo as well. We expect the Planet Blue logo to be a beneficial component since students have already learned to associate Planet Blue with effective sustainability initiatives. Meanwhile, it is equally important that all tap water facilities, refill stations and regular water fountains alike, have a printed logo adjacent to them with the same format as the reusable water bottles. As a result, a system of interconnectedness would develop, linking the numerous tap water and reusable options that already exist and in turn raise awareness for these alternatives to bottled water.
Relevant data collection/research:
Results from the water taste test survey helped reveal individual motivations for consuming bottled water. When participants were asked their primary motivation for purchasing bottled water, 45% of 208 people chose “convenience” as their reason. However, the extent to which bottled water is more of a convenient choice over tap water stems from a blend of both perceived and actual factors. In order to mitigate misconceptions about the higher level of convenience of bottled water, it is important to address individuals’ “perceived ease or difficulty” of accessing tap water13. No coordinated system is in place to link both the diverse array of tap water supply options, such as U-go’s refill station and the retrofitted water fountains in Mason Hall, with the numerous organizations distributing or selling reusable bottles. Moreover, the bottled water industry possesses a stranglehold over consumers’ preferences. Well-funded public relations campaigns have fueled the sensationalized perception that bottled water is “pure and pristine, and thus a healthier choice than tap water14. At sociological level, bottled water advertising campaigns engage in fear mongering forms of marketing that manipulate contrasting cultural meanings of water in the Western world. On one hand, the manufacturing process of bottling taps into the “utopian possibility of technology” to purify water in unsafe nature, while such marketing also employs environmental images in order to maintain a connection to “romanticized” notions of nature’s purity 2. Essentially, bottled water companies seek to market their product as a higher quality, safer, and healthier version of tap water, which they overtly demonstrate with tag lines such as “Far from pollution. Far from acid rain. Far from industrial waste.” and “Sip smarter. Live Longer”15. Similar to such advertising tactics, by placing “G2O BLUE” on water refill stations and reusable
!!
*&!
bottles, such a strategy taps into the popularity and appeal of the well known “Go Blue” catchphrase with which many Michigan students already identify. An initiative at the University of Pennsylvania (Penn) serves as a prime example of the success that followed improvements to tap water’s marketability. Specifically, Penn substituted bottled water in two of its dining halls with water coolers called “Quench Machines”8. In this situation, not only did the addition of tap water supplies increase usage, but also an effective branding strategy played a key role. At its essence, branding becomes a key asset when brands are “woven into institutions and everyday practices” and “a critical mass of people collectively agree to rely on brands for such public purposes16. In addition, Claire Watson states in Creating Awareness that awareness campaigns can be successful with a number of communication and advertising techniques. One technique is repetition, which has the capacity to ingrain a particular message in an individual’s memory17. Penn dining services created a catchy name for tap water facilities that increased its popularity by linking convenience with tap water. Meanwhile, the “G2O BLUE” branding strategy serves as an effective approach to increase the marketability of tap water by helping students and faculty view all of the decentralized tap water options as one collective alternative to bottled water. This branding additionally creates repetition and is more likely to stick in people’s minds, further encouraging people to drink “G2O BLUE” tap water instead of bottled water. Logistics and Cost/Benefit Analysis: Of course, there are several costs and challenges to initiating a systemic transformation of tap water and reusable bottle supplies. First, there might be resistance from organizations that would like to continue selling or distributing reusable bottles with their logo on it instead of a “G2O BLUE” insignia. In order to ensure that groups maintain credit for distributing reusable bottles, organizations would be allowed to put their own logos on the bottles as well. In addition, slips of paper with each organization’s respective logo and information could be inserted into each bottle so that each group further maintains recognition for distributing bottles. Our group has already been successful in initiating this uniform branding. Funding opportunities from the LSA Water Theme Semester have been explored, and they have agreed to use the tagline on their reusable bottles and are considering our idea of applying the insignia onto tap water refill stations as well. By collaborating with the Water Theme Semester co-chair, Professor Manja Holland, we helped representatives from the Water Theme Semester incorporate the “G2O BLUE” tagline onto their reusable bottles to be distributed during the Winter 2011 semester. Moreover, next semester’s proposed bottled water team could work with representatives to survey the general student population about the number of students who own this particular bottle, how often they use it, and their opinion about the “G2O BLUE” tag-line. They could then compare the Water Semester’s reusable bottle initiative to the quantity sold or distributed by U-Go’s and student organizations. We
!!
*'!
expect such surveying to evaluate the tagline’s capacity to improve the legitimacy of reusable bottle distribution initiatives and increase the number of bottles distributed.
Ultimately, a blended branding campaign that incorporates both Planet Blue’s insignia as well as the “G2O BLUE” tag line could raise the level of “perceived” convenience to the “actual” convenience level of tap water on campus. Once students and faculty have a uniform branding campaign that could be associated with the numerous tap water facilities and reusable bottle options, the role of convenience would favor tap water more so than bottled water. The first step towards initiating this process is creating a platform for communication between the wide range of actors involved in this branding initiative. Specifically, a mass meeting inviting relevant faculty and student groups would serve as an effective method to engage relevant student organizations and building officials in order to create a bottom-up action plan to achieve this branding initiative.
Continuation of Bottled Water Team Plan of action
Our team recommends that a team in next semester’s Environment 391 class continues with the goal of eliminating bottled water from campus. While we were able to analyze data and prepare a menu of options, one semester was not a long enough time frame to actually implement some of our recommendations and expand our initiatives beyond the Michigan Union. A future bottled water team could use our menu of options as a starting point to determine which options are feasible and which would be most successful in an actual implementation. We suggest that this group focuses on creating campus-wide awareness of the negative environmental impacts of bottled water and works to promote the consumption of Ann Arbor tap water. An Environment 391 group would be able to assess the best ways to raise awareness about bottled water, and implement tactics accordingly. While there are many components to elimination of bottled water, our group found that creating awareness was an essential starting point.
We also recommend that this group continue a series of water taste tests similar to the one described in our Methodology section. While our taste test was initially performed to acquire data about water drinking habits, we found that many people were more interested in what we had to say than just taking our survey. We were able to communicate the negative environmental impacts of bottled water through images, video, and factual data. By setting up our water taste test, we simultaneously gauged awareness, while raising it as well. If these tests were replicated on a regular basis in different buildings, they would contribute to the bigger goal of eliminating bottled water from campus. These tests could also be performed in high traffic areas, such as the Diag or lobby of the Undergraduate Library in order to attract the highest amount of people. While recognizing that a future 391 team would not be the sole factor to
!!
*(!
reduce bottled water on campus, our team sees this option as an essential piece of the bigger goal.
Relevant Data Collection/Research From conducting our tap water taste test, we learned that current awareness about issues surrounding bottled water and tap water is at a low level. Results from our taste test survey indicate that 87% of people using the Union are unaware that there is a tap water refill station in U-go’s (Figure A.3). Furthermore, our results showed that 68% of people were willing to try the refill station after they learned it was there (Figure A.4). These two pieces of data indicate that once people gained awareness that a convenient source of tap water was available, they were willing to change their behavior and give it a try. This result from our water taste test illustrates a key point that we commonly found in our research—awareness is a powerful motivator in changing behavior16. Our taste test also may have helped to erase the myth that bottled water tastes better than tap water. Figure A.1 shows that 21% of people expressed that they had no preference between the two water choices. By conversing with these people and explaining the negative environmental effects of bottled water, we found that many people decided that tap water was a more environmentally conscious alternative. Data from our water taste test supports the idea that awareness about an issue can contribute to a change in opinion of that issue, and eventual behavior change. This taste test was crucial to our understanding of water awareness on campus. Through research, we have found that replication of these taste tests can increase the breadth of awareness by reaching a greater amount of people. Washington University in St. Louis used repeated water taste tests in its highly successful “Tap It” campaign to eliminating bottled water and promote tap water on their campus. The tests performed at Washington University displayed similar results to ours, that people were interested in learning about the harmful environmental effects of bottled water18. Logistics and Cost-Benefit Analysis
It is essential to form a group focusing on awareness about bottled water for next semester because it is the LSA Water Theme Semester. Since many students are aware of the theme semester, an Environment 391 group could work with its representatives to create a campaign to educate students about bottled water. Our group worked specifically in the Michigan Union, but we found that the decentralization of campus made it difficult to expand our efforts to a campus-wide approach. Working on this goal during the LSA Theme Semester would allow an opportunity to centralize awareness efforts to be publicized on a wider scale than if a 391 group was to work alone.
Creating a future bottled water team that continues with water taste tests is imperative to the goal of reduction of bottled water from campus. This is because it is a relatively low-cost alternative to other sustainability initiatives. The creation of a
!!
*)!
future bottled water team would take the time and effort of a dedicated team and sponsor, but in monetary terms, would be free of cost. A continuation of water taste tests would have a low cost: price of bottled water ($1.50 per bottle), sample cups ($ 2.45 per sleeve of 200 cups), paper for surveys ($.06 per page) and incentives ($.50-1.00 per incentive). Depending on the allotted budget, informational signage could also be printed to further awareness goals ($44.99 per sign). A positive aspect of these water taste tests is that they can be modified entirely to fit a specific budget. A larger budget would allow for more taste tests to be performed, but since each individual taste test has a low cost, performing these would fit a smaller budget too.
With the water taste tests comes the issue of time. While a future bottled water team could devote a significant portion of time to performing taste tests, it does not seem possible (based on the preparation and implementation of ours) that a single five person group could perform more than three in one semester. If the group were to decide to perform these on a larger scale, they could invest the help of student volunteers from the Water Theme Semester or the Student Sustainability Initiative.
Survey Repetition in other U-M Buildings to Gauge Demand for Water Fountain Retrofitting Plan of Action Based on the positive response we received from the students on the fourth floor of the Union, we recommend extending this survey to other high-traffic university buildings, such as the Chemistry Building and Shapiro Undergraduate Library.
Relevant Data Collection/Research
To avoid redundancy, we have omitted this section. Please refer to the “Data for fourth floor Union Survey” on page 4 and “Relevant Data Collection/Research” section of the “Retrofit the drinking fountain on the 4th floor of the Union” recommendation on page 13 for this information.
Logistics and Costs/Benefit Analysis
As mentioned previously, the majority of students we surveyed on the fourth floor of the Union would use the water fountain more frequently if it were retrofitted. Moreover, the Mason Hall water retrofits which have already been installed “have received positive feedback from many users” and “more people use these now that WBFS [water bottle filling stations] have been installed”19. Since this survey effectively gauged student demand for retrofits and Mason Hall demonstrated that retrofitting refill stations in largely populated student buildings could yield increased tap water consumption, we recommend blending both this data collection process and type of building to initiate the first retrofits. Specifically, buildings with a high volume of
!!
"+!
student traffic, such as the Chemistry Building and Shapiro Undergraduate Library, serve as ideal locations to initiate retrofits because they have a consistently high volume of student traffic, which allows for significant usage among the high populations of students who express a strong demand for the retrofits.
During our meeting with Dave Kautz, we learned that there are currently many financial and structural challenges to retrofitting water fountains in the Union. Lack of funding is preventing more of the Union’s water fountains from being retrofitted. Specifically, Mr. Kautz explained that some tap water facilities are unable to be retrofitted without significant redesigning in order to comply with federal regulations controlling handicap accessibility6. Ultimately, the funding of improvements to the water supply infrastructure is the key barrier to retrofitting the refill stations in the Union. Nevertheless, the problem for the Union—like many other large buildings with constant budgetary needs—lies less in availability of funds but rather how financial capital is used.
Therefore, we recommend extending the fourth floor survey to other buildings in order to gauge student demand and influence each building’s respective facility manager to support improvements to their tap water supply systems. For example, student demand was one of the deciding factors for the retrofitting and installation of water fountains with goose-neck spigots in the Tap and Mug Rooms of the Michigan Union6. Relying on the Buildings Team in Phase I of the Integrated Assessment, we recommend that the structure of the survey emulate “integrated design” strategies that focus on fostering ongoing communication within the building design team and allow for active, consistent, organized collaboration among all players, including the users of the buildings. While the fourth floor survey would ultimately serve as a baseline model to formulate appropriate questions, each building’s survey should target the particular students, faculty, and university employees located in each building as the vested stakeholders, as was done in the creation of the fourth floor Union survey.
Regarding financials, the cost of administering the surveys to other U-M buildings would be limited to the printing costs of the surveys (about 6 cents a page); it would also involve the planning, labor, and time of surveying by the future bottled water team that distributed the questionnaires.
Even though administering the surveys in other campus buildings would not directly overcome this cost barrier, showing a strong student demand in these other buildings could persuade building managers to use some of their current budget, a portion of which is set aside for these types of projects such as capital funds in the Unions, to renovate the water fountains. Through these surveys, student voices could become a salient and leading factor in this decision making process. Furthermore, since the monetary costs of surveying would be relatively low, surveying other campus buildings to gauge student demand for retrofitted water fountains would serve as both a feasible and cost effective way to demonstrate to building managers and organizations, such as Planet Blue, that students want and would use retrofitted stations as an environmentally-conscious alternative to bottled water.
!!
"*!
Conclusion Overall, the aforementioned list of recommendations serves as an effective and comprehensive series of actions to reduce bottled water purchasing, while simultaneously improving the convenience and marketability of tap water fountains and reusable bottles. With the creation of a new bottled water team next semester, we are confident that the implementation of our recommendations would lay the framework for transitioning individual efforts to reduce bottled water into more effective and collective initiatives. From uniform branding of reusable bottles to selling bottled water at room temperature in U-go’s, our proposed small scale and systemic reforms have the capacity to transform the University of Michigan into a sustainability leader among colleges with regards to bottled water reduction.
!!
""!
Endnotes
1. United States. US Department of State. Senator Paul Simon Water for the Poor Act report to Congress. [Washington, DC]: Bureau of Oceans, Environment, and Science, U.S. Dept. of State, 2010.
2. Wilk, Richard. "Bottled Water: The Pure Commodity in the Age of Branding."
Journal of Consumer Culture 6.3 (2006): 303-25. Sage Publications. Web. 3 Oct. 2010.
3. Owen, James. "Bottled Water Isn't Healthier than Tap, Report Reveals." National
Geographic News. National Geographic, 24 Feb. 2006. Web. 17 Oct. 2010. <http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/pf/16306346.html>.
4. Carlson, Scott. "Thinking Outside the Bottle." The Chronicle of Higher Education. 26
Sept. 2010. Web. 17 Oct. 2010. <http://chronicle.com/article/Thinking-Outside-the-Bottle/124601>.
5. Soster, Keith. "Bottled Water Sales9-09 to 9-10." Message to the author. 10 Dec.
2010. E-mail.
6. Kautz, Dave. "Meeting about Water Fountain Retrofits." Personal interview. 21 Oct. 2010.
7. Chung, Emily. "Bottled Water Sales Banned at Ottawa Campus." CBC.ca. 21 Apr.
2010. Web. 03 Oct. 2010. <http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/story/2010/04/21/university-of-ottawa-bottled-water-ban.html>.
8. Schwartz, William. "UMass Installs 60 Water Refill Machines On Campus - Tap It
Talk." Home-Tap It Water. 1 Oct. 2010. Web. 17 Oct. 2010.<http://www.tapitwater.com/blog/2010/10 /umass-installs-60-water-refill-machines-on-campus.html>.
9. Franklin, Karmen L., and Mikaela J. Madalinski. Reducing Bottled Water Use in
Dining Services at the University of Colorado at Boulder. University of Colorado - ENVS 3001: Sustainable Solutions Consulting, 2009. Web. 3 Oct. 2010.
10. Soster, Keith. "Weekly Meeting." Personal interview. 02 Dec. 2010.
!!
"#!
11. Barlett, Lisa. "Copies of Signs and Punch Cards." Message to the author. 17 Nov.
2010. E-mail. 12. De Young, Raymond. "Changing Behavior and Making It Stick: The
Conceptualization and Management of Conservation Behavior." Environment and Behavior 25 (1993): 485-505. Sage Publications. Web. 1 Oct. 2010.
13. Ajzen, Icek. "The Theory of Planned Behavior." Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes 50 (1991): 179-211. Web.
15. Gleick, Peter H. Bottled and Sold: The Story Behind Our Obsession with Bottled Water. Washington, DC: Island, 2010. Print.
16. Holt, Douglas B. "Toward a Sociology of Branding." Journal of Consumer Culture 6.3 (2006): 299-302. Sage Publications. Web. 1 Oct. 2010.
17. Watson, Claire. "Creating Awareness." Communication World 20.3 (2003):
18. Communication & Mass Media Complete. EBSCO. Web. 2 Oct. 2010. 18. Daues, Jessica. "Washington University in St. Louis Ends Sales of Bottled Water |
Newsroom | Washington University in St. Louis." Washington University in St. Louis. 20 Feb. 2009. Web. <http://news.wustl.edu/news/Pages/13554.aspx>.
19. Morgan, Kevin. "Mason Hall Water Refill Station Question." Message to the
author. 13 Dec. 2010. E-mail.
!
!
!
!
!
!!
"$!
Appendix A!: Water Taste Test Survey
!
!"#$%&'()''*+&%,--'.&/$-0/'1%23'04&'5,0&%'6,/0&'6&/0'7$%+&8!
!
!"#$%&'9)''64&'&11&:0'21';,0&%'0&3<&%,0$%&'2='<%&1&%&=:&!
!!
"%!
!
!"#$%&'>)''64&'<&%:&=0,#&'21'<&2<-&';42'4,+&'0%"&?'04&'%&1"--'/0,0"2='"='@A#2B/'C&12%&'04&'0,/0&'0&/0'
'
!
!"#$%&'D)''E&%:&=0,#&'21'<&2<-&';42';2$-?'0%8'04&'%&1"--'/0,0"2=',#,"=',10&%'0%8"=#'"0'"='04&';,0&%'0,/0&'0&/0'
!!
"&!
!
!"#$%&'F)''E%"3,%8'.&,/2=/'12%'$/"=#'C200-&?';,0&%'
'
'
!"#$%&'G)'H$3C&%'21'%&1"--/'"='@AI2B/'C&12%&',=?',10&%'2$%';,0&%'0,/0&'0&/0'
!
!
!
!!
"'!
"##$!%!
&'()! *+,-).!/0!1)02334!,-./01/2!*! $!,-./01/2!"! &!,-./01/2!#! **!,-./01/2!$! &!,-./01/2!%! *+!"))564!7/('3! 89!
34-526/7!8/129!46-1/:;!<9=9>/2!-?!@AB-CD!E.F9!/09F:!,-./01/2!#+;!"+*+G!
"##$!:!
&'()! *+,-).!/0!1)02334!,-./01/2!(! '!,-./01/2!)! &!,-./01/2!*+! %!,-./01/2!**! **!,-./01/2!*"! *"!"))564!7/('3! ;%!
34-526/7!8/129!46-1/:;!<9=9>/2!-?!@AB-CD!E.F9!/09F:!,-./01/2!#+;!"+*+G!
"##$!8!
&'()! *+,-).!/0!1)02334!,-./01/2!*%! "*!,-./01/2!*&! *'!,-./01/2!*'! *'!,-./01/2!*(! *'!,-./01/2!*)! "*!"))564!7/('3! <8!
34-526/7!8/129!46-1/:;!<9=9>/2!-?!@AB-CD!E.F9!/09F:!,-./01/2!#+;!"+*+G
!
!
!
!!
"(!
HI/!0/33/=2>?!@'('!('-3)!24!'!.'>@/,3A!4)3)B()@!=))5!2>!C)D(),-).;!JIF6I!2/K2/D/=LD!9!LMKF69:!90-5=L!-?!L9K!J9L/2!6-=D50KLF-=!?2-0!LI/!2/?F::!DL9LF-=!K2F-2!L-!LI/D/!1/I9.F-2!6I9=>/!F=L/2./=LF-=D7!
89L/ ,501/2!-?!N/?F::D
O6L-1/2!$ $
O6L-1/2!% &
O6L-1/2!& **
O6L-1/2!' *$
O6L-1/2!( #
"))564!7/('3 8E
34-526/7!8/129!46-1/:;!<9=9>/2!-?!@AB-CD!E.F9!/09F:!,-./01/2!#+;!"+*+G
'
!!
")!
Appendix B!: Fourth Floor Union Survey!
!
!"#$%&'()'E%"3,%8'/2$%:&'21';,0&%':2=/$3<0"2='
!!
#+!
'
!"#$%&'9)'E%"3,%8'%&,/2='12%'?%"=J"=#'C200-&?';,0&%'
'
!"#$%&'>)'E&%:&=0,#&'21'<&2<-&';42'J=&;',C2$0'04&'1"-0&%&?';,0&%'/0,0"2=/'"='@AI2B/!
!!
#*!
'
!"#$%&'D)'K,8/'<&%';&&J'21'%&$/,C-&';,0&%'C200-&'$/&'
'
!"#$%&'F)'K,8/'<&%';&&J'21';,0&%'12$=0,"='$/&'2='04&'12$%04'1-22%'
!!
#"!
'
!"#$%&'G)'L1'04&';,0&%'12$=0,"=/';&%&'%&<-,:&?'=$3C&%'21'?,8'<&%';&&J'21';,0&%'12$=0,"='$/,#&'
'
'
!"#$%&'M)'E&%:&=0,#&'21'<&%:&"+&?'"3<2%0,=:&'21'%&?$:"=#'C200-&?';,0&%'
!!
##!
Appendix C!: Surveys'
FA@.'(2/>!7'4()!7)4(*
H92>/L7!P5DL-0/2D!9L!@A>-CD!9=Q!65DL-0/2D!-?!@=F-=!2/DL9529=L!./=Q-2D!!
*R!SIF6I!J9L/2!Q-!M-5!K2/?/2T!!
UR U!VR V!PR ,-!W2/?/2/=6/!
!
"R!W:/9D/!/XK:9F=!M-52!K2/?/2/=6/!EF?!M-5!I9Q!-=/G!1M!6-0K:/LF=>!LI/!?-::-JF=>!D/=L/=6/7!!
YHI/!J9L/2!Z!K2/?/22/Q!J9D![[[[[[[[LI9=!LI/!-LI/2!E6F26:/!9::!LI9L!9KK:MGR\!!
9G V/LL/2!H9DLF=>! ! !1G <-2/!N/?2/DIF=>! !6G P-:Q/2! ! !QG S920/2!!/G OLI/2![[[[!
!
#R!Z?!M-5!F=QF69L/Q!=-!K2/?/2/=6/;!J-5:Q!9!QF??/2/=6/!F=!LI/!?-::-JF=>!9??/6L!M-52!6I-F6/T!!
9G ]:9.-2!!1G P-=L9F=/2!!6G H/0K/29L52/7!P-:Q/2!!QG H/0K/29L52/7!S920/2!!/G OLI/2
!!
#$!
EZ?!=-G;!JIM!=-LT!
SIM!-2!JIM!=-LT
!!
#%!
1G *A"!Q9MD!6G #A$!Q9MD!QG %A&!Q9MD!/G b./2M!Q9M!
!
%G!^-J!09=M!Q9MD!K/2!J//`!Q-!M-5!5D/!LI/!J9L/2!?-5=L9F=!-=!M-52!?:--2T!
9G +!Q9MD!1G *A"!Q9MD!6G #A$!Q9MD!QG %A&!Q9MD!/G b./2M!Q9M!
!
&G!Z?!LI/!J9L/2!?-5=L9F=!J/2/!2/K:96/Q!JFLI!9=!F0K2-./Q!J9L/2!2/?F::!DL9LF-=;!I-J!09=M!Q9MD!K/2!J//`!J-5:Q!M-5!
2/K:96/!M-52!1-LL:/Q!J9L/2!6-=D50KLF-=!JFLI!J9L/2!?2-0!LI/!=/J!2/?F::!DL9LF-=T!
9G +!Q9MD!1G *A"!Q9MD!6G #A$!Q9MD!QG %A&!Q9MD!/G b./2M!Q9M!
!
'G!H-!JI9L!/XL/=L!Q-!M-5!9>2//!JFLI!LI/!?-::-JF=>!DL9L/0/=L7!YZ!1/:F/./!FLCD!F0K-2L9=L!L-!2/Q56/!0M!1-LL:/Q!J9L/2!
6-=D50KLF-=R\!
9G 4L2-=>:M!9>2//!1G U>2//!6G ,/5L29:!QG 8FD9>2//!/G 4L2-=>:M!8FD9>2//!
!
!!
#&!
Appendix D: Sign and Punch Cards!!
I2?+.)!%J!C2?>!/+(42@)!GK?/64!
! !
!!
#'!
!
!
I2?+.)!:J!L+>BM!N'.@4!!
!
UR!E?2-=LG!
!
VR!E196`G!
!