| 
  • If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.

  • Finally, you can manage your Google Docs, uploads, and email attachments (plus Dropbox and Slack files) in one convenient place. Claim a free account, and in less than 2 minutes, Dokkio (from the makers of PBworks) can automatically organize your content for you.

View
 

green evaluation edits

Page history last edited by Erik Kaptanowsky 6 years ago

This is a strong option due to the desire of 60% of students surveyed who are willing to contribute to the sustainability of Wayne State. Between all three alternatives, this requires the least amount of effort to maintain it in regards to time and management. This is the case because the committee would not have to track what's going on each year. At minimum, the project plan must include ending expenses with the original documents at the end. Money generated will be greater than Alternative 2 but less than Alternative 3. The enrollment in each semester drives what is being brought to the WSU Green Grant.

 

With the support provided by the students in the survey for the desire of school sustainability, this possible implementation is viable. There is a strong need for Wayne State to be more environmentally sustainable and energy efficient, therefore Wayne State needs to make necessary improvements. Because Wayne State has been gridlocked due to little funding it receives, some changes to their funding procedures needs to be changed. Students want Wayne State to be responsible in their sustainability, while preferring to not have to pay extra. A problem with this alternative in accordance to time and management is that it would require more effort than Alternative 1, but less effort than Alternative 3. The committee will need to monitor annual savings it receives through projects to determine when they will reach the 120% limit.  Because money is brought in through long-term savings, the amount the revolving fund will receive incrementally small.  That is it will receive very little per year for each project till it reaches that 120%.  This is slower than Alternative 1 and Alternative 3.

 

Students are willing to contribute to a set amount (Figure 1) and believe that the college campus is responsible to maintain a sustainable environment (Figure 3). Due to these responses, this hybrid model is also a viable alternative. Time and management is the worst for this idea compared to all three alternatives. Implementing a grant and fund systems will require checks on both balance accounts with the additional check on what is being brought in annually in savings in projects. There will be too many documentations and may require a very large committee to spread the work, or two separate committees evaluating both systems separately. However, this alternative will have the greatest influx of money generated out of the three alternatives. Money is being brought in through two separate systems (the student fees and the 120% of the initial project cost).

 

Comments (0)

You don't have permission to comment on this page.