How Green is My House? Co-operative vs. traditional housing at Smith College

The Smith housing system — small houses with students from all class years — is one of the school's greatest assets and sources of pride. But from the point of view of sustainability, it’s inefficient. In this study, I examined the two types of housing available at Smith — co-operative and traditional — to determine which is potentially more sustainable, or “greener.” In the co-ops, students are responsible for cooking; in the traditional houses, students participate in the college meal plan. I hypothesized that the co-ops would be more sustainable than the traditional houses on the bases of water and electricity usage and of recycling output. I was able to use data from daily water and electrical meters installed in seven houses: two co-ops: Hopkins and Tenney; and five traditional houses: Park House, Park Annex, Chapin, Lawrence, and Morris. For the recycling data, I compared the results of the 2010 Recycling Olympics, The results of this study showed that although the co-ops are more sustainable when it comes to water usage and recycling, they consume more electricity per capita than the five traditional houses. The size of the house and the kitchen appliances in the co-ops are, however, mitigating factors that may account for these findings. I recommend that Smith convert some of the medium-sized houses that already have kitchens into co-ops and perhaps opening up co-op memberships to students who live in other houses as board-only members. Maggie McCaffrey EVS 300: Capstone Seminar Final Project 05/07/10 How Green is My House? Co-operative vs. traditional housing at Smith College Introduction The housing system at Smith College is integral to what makes the school unique. Smith’s small intimate houses afford students close-knit communities and special relationships with fellow Smithies of all years. Unfortunately, though, a system of many small houses is inefficient and wasteful in many of the ways considered important for environmental sustainability. Because the “small house” system is, as of now, unchangeable, it is important for the school to look for ways to improve efficiency as much as possible. With these constraints in mind, I became interested in the comparison between co-op living and traditional housing at Smith. There are only two co-ops at Smith: Tenney and Hopkins. What makes these houses special is that the student residents do not participate in the college meal plan but are instead responsible for meal planning, some household chores, and purchasing for the house. In a study done by Wasylishyn & Johnson (1998) cites co-operative housing as “an environment with the potential to reduce... women's sense of isolation.” This potential is of particular importance at Smith because it is an all-women's college where some students can feel isolated by the pressure of the school, whether social or academic. Noting the importance of co-ops on a social and psychological level, I think it's as important to evaluate them on an environmental level. In contrast to the two co-ops, there are 35 traditional houses at Smith for traditional-aged students and most students participate in the meal plan. In addition, each traditional house has a housekeeping and kitchen staff who are responsible for all the cleaning and for the cooking in houses with functioning kitchens. Given the difference in operations, I thought that there would be some difference in energy and water usage and in waste production. In my investigation I used recycling as a proxy for waste; because of the way waste is accounted for at Smith, it was difficult to find data for the specific houses. To contextualize the information I am going to present I would like to share some general campus-wide numbers. According to the Sustainability and Climate Action Management Plan put forward by the Office of Environmental Sustainability (2010), the residential and dining halls use about 37 gallons of water per student per day. In 2008, the entire campus used about 32 kWh of electricity per student per day, and in 2009, Smith, as a whole, recycled a total of about 196 lbs per student. My intent was to compare the two modes of housing on the bases of electricity and water use and of recycling output. I hypothesized that the two types of houses would be different, with the co-ops being “greener.” With the information I collected I wanted to make suggestions to the college about ways to improve the system, either by adding more co-ops — as they are in high demand— or by removing them completely. Although Smith has only these two, rather rigid, housing options, other schools (such as Oberlin College) have more varied options for residential students that I will be using as a guide to make recommendations to Smith about how to change their “small house” system so that it will benefit both students and the environment. I was able to access daily electricity and water usage data from meters in seven houses: the two co-ops— Hopkins and Tenney; and the five traditional houses— Park House, Park Annex, Chapin, Lawrence, and Morris. In addition to the meter data, I compared the performance of the seven houses in the 2010 Recycling Olympics, an annual two-week recycling contest. Method Electricity and Water As stated above, the data used for this project were provided by electricity and water meters installed in Hopkins and Tenney, the two co-ops, with a capacity of 14 and 18 residents, respectively; Park House, with a capacity of 66; Park Annex, with a capacity of 13; Chapin House, with a capacity of 70 as well as a high-volume dining hall; and Lawrence and Morris, each with capacity of 68. These data were recorded from December 1, 2009 until April 12, 2010. I was able to adjust it on a per student per day basis. I then took the overall averages and standard deviations. For both the water and electricity data, 1-way ANOVA tests were done, in addition to TukeyKramer HSD multiple comparison tests. Recycling To compare the recycling habits, I was given access to the results of the 2010 Recycling Olympics. This contest pushes the residential students to recycle in order to win prizes for their houses. I used these data because it was the only information accessible to me that conveyed the way in which waste is treated on a per house basis. Most other trash or recycling data was in the form of campuswide statistics. The results of this contest were recorded as total pounds per week for each house in the categories of bottles and cans and paper. I converted these results into overall total pounds per student for each house. Because of the way the data were received it was not possible to run statistical analyses.