Elizabeth A. Castner

An Integrated Tool for Calculating and Reducing Institution Carbon and Nitrogen Footprints

Abstract The development of nitrogen footprint tools has allowed a range of entities to calculate and reduce their contribution to nitrogen pollution, but these tools represent just one aspect of environmental pollution. For example, institutions have been calculating their carbon footprints to track and manage their greenhouse gas emissions for over a decade. This article introduces an integrated tool that institutions can use to calculate, track, and manage their nitrogen and carbon footprints together. It presents the methodology for the combined tool, describes several metrics for comparing institution nitrogen and carbon footprint results, and discusses management strategies that reduce both the nitrogen and carbon footprints. The data requirements for the two tools overlap substantially, although integrating the two tools does necessitate the calculation of the carbon footprint of food. Comparison results for five institutions suggest that the institution nitrogen and carbon footprints correlate strongly, especially in the utilities and food sectors. Scenario analyses indicate benefits to both footprints from a range of utilities and food footprint reduction strategies. Integrating these two footprints into a single tool will account for a broader range of environmental impacts, reduce data entry and analysis, and promote integrated management of institutional sustainability.

The Nitrogen Footprint Tool Network: A Multi-Institution Program To Reduce Nitrogen Pollution

Abstract Anthropogenic sources of reactive nitrogen have local and global impacts on air and water quality and detrimental effects on human and ecosystem health. This article uses the Nitrogen Footprint Tool (NFT) to determine the amount of nitrogen (N) released as a result of institutional consumption. The sectors accounted for include food (consumption and upstream production), energy, transportation, fertilizer, research animals, and agricultural research. The NFT is then used for scenario analysis to manage and track reductions, which are driven by the consumption behaviors of both the institution itself and its constituent individuals. In this article, the first seven completed institution nitrogen footprint results are presented. The Nitrogen Footprint Tool Network aims to develop footprints for many institutions to encourage widespread upper-level management strategies that will create significant reductions in reactive nitrogen released to the environment. Energy use and food purchases are the two largest sectors contributing to institution nitrogen footprints. Ongoing efforts by institutions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions also help to reduce the nitrogen footprint, but the impact of food production on nitrogen pollution has not been directly addressed by the higher education sustainability community. The Nitrogen Footprint Tool Network found that institutions could reduce their nitrogen footprints by optimizing food purchasing to reduce consumption of animal products and minimize food waste, as well as by reducing dependence on fossil fuels for energy.

Assessing the Social and Environmental Costs of Institution Nitrogen Footprints

Abstract This article estimates the damage costs associated with the institutional nitrogen (N) footprint and explores how this information could be used to create more sustainable institutions. Potential damages associated with the release of nitrogen oxides (NOx), ammonia (NH3), and nitrous oxide (N2O) to air and release of nitrogen to water were estimated using existing values and a cost per unit of nitrogen approach. These damage cost values were then applied to two universities. Annual potential damage costs to human health, agriculture, and natural ecosystems associated with the N footprint of institutions were

Ancient water supports today's energy needs

11.0 million (2014) at the University of Virginia (UVA) and

Comparing Institution Nitrogen Footprints: Metrics for Assessing and Tracking Environmental Impact

3.04 million at the University of New Hampshire (UNH). Costs associated with the release of nitrogen oxides to human health, in particular the use of coal-derived energy, were the largest component of damage at UVA. At UNH the energy N footprint is much lower because of a landfill cogeneration source, and thus the majority of damages were associated with food production. Annual damages associated with release of nitrogen from food production were very similar at the two universities (

Defining System Boundaries of an Institution Nitrogen Footprint

1.80 million vs.

Environmental impact food labels combining carbon, nitrogen, and water footprints

1.66 million at UVA and UNH, respectively). These damages also have implications for the extent and scale at which the damages are felt. For example, impacts to human health from energy and transportation are generally larger near the power plants and roads, while impacts from food production can be distant from the campus. Making this information available to institutions and communities can improve their understanding of the damages associated with the different nitrogen forms and sources, and inform decisions about nitrogen reduction strategies.

Universities, Sustainability, and Nitrogen Pollution

The water footprint for fossil fuels typically accounts for water utilized in mining and fuel processing, whereas the water footprint of biofuels assesses the agricultural water used by crops through their lifetime. Fossil fuels have an additional water footprint that is not easily accounted for: ancient water that was used by plants millions of years ago, before they were transformed into fossil fuel. How much water is mankind using from the past to sustain current energy needs? We evaluate the link between ancient water virtually embodied in fossil fuels to current global energy demands by determining the water demand required to replace fossil fuels with biomass produced with water from the present. Using equal energy units of wood, bioethanol, and biodiesel to replace coal, natural gas, and crude oil, respectively, the resulting water demand is 7.39 × 1013 m3y−1, approximately the same as the total annual evaporation from all land masses and transpiration from all terrestrial vegetation. Thus, there are strong hydrologic constraints to a reliance on biofuel energy produced with water from the present because the conversion from fossil fuels to biofuels would have a disproportionate and unsustainable impact on the modern water. By using fossil fuels to meet todays energy needs, we are virtually using water from a geological past. The water cycle is insufficient to sustain the production of the fuel presently consumed by human societies. Thus, non-fuel based renewable energy sources are needed to decrease mankinds reliance on fossil fuel energy without placing an overwhelming pressure on global freshwater resources.

Ancient water supports today's energy needs: Ancient water embodied in today's energy

Abstract When multiple institutions with strong sustainability initiatives use a new environmental impact assessment tool, there is an impulse to compare. The first seven institutions to calculate nitrogen footprints using the Nitrogen Footprint Tool have worked collaboratively to improve calculation methods, share resources, and suggest methods for reducing their footprints. This article compares those seven institutions’ results to reveal the common and unique drivers of institution nitrogen footprints. The footprints were compared by scope and sector, and the results were normalized by multiple factors (e.g., population, amount of food served). The comparisons found many consistencies across the footprints, including the large contribution of food. The comparisons identified metrics that could be used to track progress, such as an overall indicator for the nitrogen sustainability of food purchases. The comparisons also pointed to differences in system bounds of the calculations, which are important to standardize when comparing across institutions. The footprints were influenced by factors both within and outside of the institutions’ ability to control, such as size, location, population, and campus use. However, these comparisons also point to a pathway forward for standardizing nitrogen footprint tool calculations, identifying metrics that can be used to track progress, and determining a sustainable institution nitrogen footprint.

The Nitrogen Footprint Tool for Institutions: Comparing Results for a Diverse Group of Institutions

Abstract A nitrogen (N) footprint quantifies the amount of reactive nitrogen released to the environment and can be measured at different scales. The N footprint of a university includes activities and consumption within its geographic boundaries as well as activities that support the institution. Determining system bounds of an N footprint depends on the institutions mission and provides a common baseline for comparison. A comparison of three scopes of the N footprint, which describe how emissions are directly related to an institutions activities, was conducted for seven institutions. Scopes follow the established definition for the carbon footprint. In this article, the authors propose a new system bounds definition (core campus versus adjunct). Two case studies were explored: how the N footprint of Dickinson College changed with air travel, and how the N footprint of the Marine Biological Laboratory changed with scientific research. Of the three scopes, scope 3 was consistently the largest proportion of the N footprint for all seven institutions. The core campus activities of Dickinson College made up 99 percent of its N footprint, with air travel making up the remaining 1 percent. The Marine Biological Laboratorys core campus activities made up 51 percent of its N footprint and the scientific research made up the remaining 49 percent. Institutions should define system bounds based on their mission and stay consistent with their boundaries following the baseline year. The core campus footprint could be used to compare institution footprints using consistent system bounds. How institutions define their boundaries will impact the recorded amount of nitrogen as well as how the institution will set reduction strategies.