UC: a Case Study
In class we have talked/are talking about the
three general types of environmental policy instruments: market-based,
government standards and regulations and legal bans/restrictions. Remember the practical difference between the
three: market-based policies do not impose restrictions on “bad behavior,” as
much as provide incentives for “good behavior,” or correct market failure to
enable “the market” to regulate behavior, government imposed standards limit
behavior, as in air quality standards, but do not necessarily prohibit it, and
legal restrictions prohibit unwanted behavior, as was the case for use of DDT
and lead in gasoline.
For this week’s journal
post, describe one UC environmental program that uses government regulation as
its primary instrument, one that uses market-based approaches, and one that
uses law as its primary instrument. In this writeup, “government” regulation
can encompass policy made by the university. Similarly, university policy can
be considered “law.” Also feel free to choose policy measures pursued by
Cincinnati’s city government or your home town or county.
Environmental policy nowadays is generally shaped in one of three ways. Rules and requirements can be written and formed from either a market-based, government-based, or legally based perspective. Each of these three policy methods have different pro's and con's, and there are different reasons and situations that distinctly favor one over the other. Ultimately, good policies come together as a mixture of all three aforementioned focuses, and the policies at the University of Cincinnati reflect this. From a higher view, the many different policies at UC come together to help mesh together as best as possible to create a dynamic and healthy environmental focus - even if we can find serious flaws in individual programs.
Lets take a closer look at some of UC's programs and dive into them - beginning with government-based programs. The best example of any that comes to mind is by far UC's recycling initiatives. According to UC's webpages, "Since 2000, the University of Cincinnati has decreased the amount of its waste sent to landfills by 63%". This is quite impressive due to the thousands of tons of waste that UC disposes of every year. Truly, if one is looking for a successful case of how environmental policies can be when mandated by a governing body (in this case being UC's board of trustees), seeing the success of the recycling program should create no contenders.
Now there are other government-inspired programs to consider, such as UC's fossil fuel reduction campaign, which is actually born out of a student body grassroots movement - which is actually born from a much larger regional movement by certain corporations, but I won't get into that here. Why pick this example over the other? While discussing fossil fuel reduction might be a more attractive topic, the matter at hand is simply shown that improving recycling not only saves UC money, but firmly and clearly helps the environment!
Moving onto a second program at UC's, I would like to examine market based policies. Market based policies are similar to government policies in a way, but are driven by economic principles. There are dozens of environmental programs at UC that are adopted from a financial point of view, in fact, one can argue that nearly all of UC's programs are based in some financial realm. However one that sticks out to me as the most interesting are UC's water conservation efforts. UC has implemented an entire department within Facilities Management dedicated to innovating better water conservation methods. These range from improving bathroom efficiency to reducing water waste in campus green maintenance.
It's due to the fact that saving water at a large scale institution like UC adds up quickly, in a similar manner as the recycling program. It's economically viable and smart to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to fund a department and budget dedicated to reducing water waste, than to simply ignore the problem and treat it as a cost of business. A perfect example that demonstrates this effectiveness is take straight from UC's website. "A dripping faucet can waste over 600 gallons per year; a running toilet more than 131,000 gallons". In TUC alone there are 14 toilets and 14 sinks in public restrooms for students on both the 300 and 400 levels. Ensuring that water is well maintained on campus in just this one building, saves thousands of dollars a year and allows budgets to be redirected towards improvement programs, as opposed to maintenance programs.
Lastly, there are law-based policies and programs at UC. Law based programs are policies that are mandated, they are standards that must be minimally met. Within the law, some programs require that regulations must be followed no matter what, such as having appropriately spaced hallways in classroom buildings and maximum occupancy signs in place. Failure to meet these standards result in punishments and/or fines. There are other standards too that are regulated by laws, but do not carry penalties for not following. Rather, they carry benefits for reaching. The federal LEED program is one such example of the latter. LEED stands for Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design and is a federally supported program ran by the US Green Building Association. LEED seeks to push the bar on what the minimum laws require, and benefit those who seek to strengthen environmental standards when the benefits might not present themselves otherwise.
Since 2009, UC has made great efforts to incorporate LEED practices in its building renovations and future works projects. DAAP professors are LEED certified, and two of the larger buildings on Medical campus (CARE and Crawley) are both LEED recognized. The latest dormitory renovation, Morgans Hall, is also LEED certified. The benefits that comes from LEED certification manifest in federal grants, accreditation, and national recognition. Not to mention the fact that UC's campus is now more green and more efficient than it was before - and more beautiful for it! Morgan's transperant design was incorporated because of LEED architecture. It is more cost effective and difficult to go the extra mile to reach LEED status, but it is clearly a policy and program worth aiming for by the University.
works cited:
http://healthnews.uc.edu/news/?/9635/
http://www.uc.edu/af/utilities.html
http://www.uc.edu/af/pdc/sustainability/campus_initiatives/landscape.html
http://www.usgbc.org/leed
No comments:
Post a Comment