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: Richard.bastar@voltea.com voltea.com

AquaSphere Based in India. Sells mCDI unit that is fully automated and remotely managed.

Email: info@aquasphere.co.in Phone: +91 80 26535333

Idropan Dell’ Orto (Italy) Based in Italy but supplies the US

Email: m.servida@idropan.it www.idropan.com/en

InnoDI Water Technologies Pvt. Ltd.

Joint venture between Idropan, AquaSphere, and IIT Madras. Services globally

Email: vijay@innodi.in 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