The Imprint Footprint Team
University of Waterloo
Department of Environment and Resource Studies
We are: Quenby Barris, Grant Carioni, Paul Gill, Lisa Kerry, Allison Young
 

Abstract

The Imprint Footprint project was designed as a part of the “Greening the Campus” course offered in the Environment and Resource Studies Department at the University of Waterloo.  The course is intended to create initiatives that work towards the sustainability of the campus.  Our project was established as one of these initiatives, specifically dealing with the University of Waterloo ’s Imprint newspaper.

This study is important because it is working towards the campus as a sustainable society.  A sustainable society is one that manages its economy and population size without doing irreparable environmental harm (Miller, 1998). Our project is intended to be a first step towards achieving this goal.  The ecological footprint model helps us to understand this concept.  This model incorporates the requirements for a sustainable campus by directing our actions towards sustainable living.  Therefore, the smaller the footprint is, the more sustainable it is.

By investigating the newspaper’s impact on the campus’ social, economic, and biophysical environments, we hoped to identify areas that needed improvement.  In particular, we focussed on the excess paper the Imprint newspaper consumes.  By reducing this waste the Imprint can benefit economically.

We had four main objectives that helped us examine the Imprint system.  The first objective was to determine if a reduction in the number of Imprints is needed.  The second objective was to learn how students dispose of the paper.  The third objective was to establish whether current distribution patterns are efficient.  Finally, we wanted to determine if the Internet is a viable alternative to paper.

We discovered that there could be many improvements made.  From our study we found that there was a significant number of people that returned their papers to the pile.  This suggests that the papers are being re-read and therefore circulation numbers could be reduced.  Ideally, the Imprint Internet site should replace the paper, however, we found that this is not possible.  We found that a large number of students were not aware of the Imprint Internet site.  We feel that the site should be better advertised so students are informed of their options.

This project could be useful for future reference because there are many aspects that are projects in themselves.  For example, the distribution patterns could be thoroughly examined, the readership of the Imprint papers could be studied, and the Internet’s viability could be researched.

 
 
  TABLE OF CONTENTS
 
1.0 Introduction
    1.1 Course Introduction
     1.2 Why is the Assessment of the Imprint Important to Sustainability?
    1.3 Imprint Audit Background
    1.4 Project Focus
    1.5 Our Objectives
2.0 The Imprint System
     2.1 Introduction to the Imprint System
    2.2 An Analysis of the System
    2.3 The Imprint System Diagram
3.0 Methodology
     3.1 Question Flow Analysis
    3.2 Methodology
4.0 Student Survey
    4.1 Survey Rational
    4.2 Survey Questions Rational
    4.3 Survey Logistics
    4.4 Results for the Survey
    4.5 Survey Limitations 
    4.6 Survey Conclusions
5.0 Distribution Numbers
    5.1 Field Study Observation
    5.2 Distribution Conclusions
6.0 Personal Interviews
7.0 Financial Statements
    7.1 Printing Costs
   7.2 Recycling Costs
8.0 Overall Conclusions & Recommendations
        8.1 Overall Conclusions
        8.2 Recommendations
9.0 Final Thoughts
10.0 References
 

1.0 Introduction 

1.1 Course Introduction 

This project is part of the ERS 285 course, Greening the Campus, at the University of Waterloo.  The course is designed to allow many small student projects to be undertaken as actions towards making Waterloo a sustainable campus.  The project encompasses the idea that the University of Waterloo functions much like a small society, and hence should be a sustainable society.  A sustainable society is one that manages its economy and population size without doing irreparable environmental harm (Miller, 1998).  Our project, although small is a crucial step towards the overall goal of turning the University of Waterloo into the sustainable society, we envision.
                                                                                                                Table of Contents

1.2 Why is the Assessment of the Imprint Important to Sustainability?

The assessment of the Imprint is important to sustainability at the University of Waterloo because it enables the campus to function like a sustainable society.  A sustainable society satisfies the needs of its people without degrading or depleting the environment and thereby jeopardizing the prospects of current and future generations by managing its economy and population size over a specified period of time (Miller, 1998). Every small part that helps to increase sustainability on campus helps to ensure that the campus becomes an efficient sustainable society.  By trying to make the Imprint sustainable we can contribue to larger societal changes.

The sustainability of the Imprint is also important because reducing waste can be good for increasing the Imprint's profits (Miller, 1998).  By reducing the number of excess papers that are produced we would be reducing the Imprint’s waste.  This benefit can be seen as another reason why the Imprint should be sustainable. While working towards a sustainable society, it is important to remember that “earth care is self-care, and we can change our ways” (Miller, 1998).
                                                                                                                     Table of Contents

1.3 Imprint Audit Background

The first known audit of the Imprint was completed in 1995, entitled "Where does the Imprint go?" This group had four main objectives including: identifying the life cycle of the Imprint, determining quantities of papers printed, determining the disposal methods used and recommending sustainable alternatives. Their audit results provided insight into the production and consumption of the paper and revealed that the Imprint printed 12,000 papers per week, but they only distributed 8,200. This left an excess of 3,200 papers to be recycled each week. The group also performed a small audit on four buildings on campus to determine if there was a distribution problem since they saw many unread newspapers left on the racks at the end of each week.

A second audit was performed in 1997 called "Mission Imprintable" which did a follow up on the previous audit performed in 1995. The main goals of this project were to reduce the number of Imprints left unread and to determine what elements, if any, needed to be changed or revised to improve the system. They too uncovered interesting results. The group found that out of the 141.5 bundles of papers delivered on campus each week, only seven bundles were left unread. They also discovered that over the course of the study, 11 sites ran out of Imprints on average per week. This lead to their recommendation to take the unread bundles of papers from one location and distribute them to the higher demand sites, which tended to run short of papers. Efforts to acquire information about the Imprints circulation numbers failed because they could not be disclosed for unknown reasons. Therefore, the group could not compare the 1997 figures to those in 1995 as they had intended too.
                                                                                                             Table of Contents

1.4 Project Focus

The goal of our project was to examine the Ecological Footprint of the Imprint newspaper.  The Ecological Footprint model helps us to understand the ecological requirements for a sustainable society and directs our actions towards sustainable living (Wackernagel & Rees, 1996).  The smaller a Footprint becomes the more sustainable it is.  Due to the time restraints of this class we decided to examine only a small part of the Imprint’s Footprint.  Due to this we have not used the Ecological Footprint calculations but instead have taken the idea to heart in implementing sustainability on campus. In particular, we examined the excess paper resource the Imprint newspaper consumes.

We examined the Imprint system and by doing so, we discovered ways in which to reduce the paper consumption of the Imprint.  Based on our findings, we made recommendations to help make the Imprint more sustainable.  By applying our recommendations it would be possible to reduce the Ecological Footprint of the Imprint.
                                                                                Table of Contents

1.5 Our Objectives 

We had five main objectives to determine what aspects of the Imprint’s
paper consumption we would examine.  These objectives were as follows:
 

                                                                                                              Table of Contents

2.0 The Imprint System

2.1 An Introduction to the Imprint System 

The University of Waterloo student newspaper, The Imprint, is a complex,
multi-faceted system, which consists of biophysical, social, and economic factors. The segment we have chosen to examine consists mainly of social and economic factors.  It is a subsystem of larger systems both on and off the Waterloo campus. 
                                                                                                                      Table of Contents

2.2 An Analysis of the Imprint System 

The throughputs (inputs that flow through the system) of the Imprint can
be analysed to describe the system more completely (Miller, 1998).  The
throughputs are represented by the arrows in the Imprint System Diagram
shown below.

Our Imprint System Diagram fits into a much larger system, however to accomplish our objectives, we kept to the section shown in the diagram.  The larger system includes the exploration of how the Imprint fits into the systems on and off-campus, the production of the papers, the resources used(trees, energy, etc.), the transportation of all the materials throughout the cycle, and much more.  We have chosen the Imprint System Diagram as the boundaries of our study but we are consciously aware of how it fits into the larger systems.

The funding for the Imprint comes from two sources, student fees and
advertising revenues. Student fees contribute one-third of the funds and
advertising revenues provide the remaining two-thirds.  The funding
assists the Imprint staff in paying the publishing and printing costs,
and in obtaining new equipment for their office. (Tigert-Dumas, 1998)

The process of paper distribution for the Fall and Winter terms is outlined below.  In the Spring term the Imprint goes through a similar process although, it is published every other week instead of every week (Tigert-Duams, 1998).  Each week, on Thursday afternoon, once the paper design is finished the publisher, Canweb in Grimbsy, picks up the paper to print it.  Every Friday morning the papers are brought to the University of Waterloo by a Canweb delivery truck and deposited in front of the Physical Activities Complex.  The Imprint’s distribution staff then, in a truck they rent each week, pick up the papers in bundles of 50 and distribute them to the 73 specified locations.  The distribution staff currently consists of Brian Benson and Mark Watters.  They first drop the Imprint paper off at the 40 on-campus locations then at the 33 off-campus locations.  As they drop off all of the new Imprint papers they pick up the old papers that remain from the previous week.  Once all the new papers are distributed they take the old ones to the Erb Street recycling plant because the Imprint staff is responsible for their own
recycling costs (Tigert-Dumas, 1998).  As well, on Friday mornings a copy of the Imprint is posted on the Internet at their site http://imprint.uwaterloo.ca.

The newspapers distributed to the 73 locations are either read once, re-read multiple times or not read at all.  The papers that are read or re-read are either recycled, thrown in the garbage, or are used in other ways.  As stated earlier, the papers the Imprint picks up that remain at the distribution sites are recycled.

The core actors involved in the system are those who are continuously and intensively involved throughout the system (ERS 100, 1996).  These actors include the students, the Imprint staff, the advertisers, and the publishing company.  The students provide funding ($4.10 per semester per student) to the paper, and provide the majority of its audience. The Imprint staff responsibilities include the contents and production of the newspaper, and selling advertising space.  The advertisers
provide funds for the paper by buying ad space in the paper.  The publisher prints the paper and ships it back to the University.

The next group concerned with the process is the group of supporting actors.  These are the distributors who are less involved but can exert a significant effect on the outcome (ERS 100 Course Notes, 1996).  The distributors drop off all the papers at the 73 specified locations.

The purpose of the Imprint is to deliver news and information to the UW ommunity through the newspapers it prints each week.  As well the Imprint provides experience to aspiring writers.  The inputs include the materials needed to produce the paper, (which have been determined by the 1995 Imprint audit as sustainable), the monetary costs, the information contained in the paper, and the time it takes to
produce the paper from beginning to end.  The outputs include the newspapers printed and the number read from the Internet locations.

The vulnerabilities the Imprint faces include a lack of funds to produce the paper and a lack of readers to warrant publishing the paper.  As well, the Imprint needs to be concerned about harmful environmental effects, such as the degradation of land due to the excess use of paper resources.

                                                                                                                     Table of Contents

2.3 The Imprint System Diagram


                                                                                                        Table of Contents
3.0 Methodology

3.1 Question Flow Analysis
 
After examining the Imprint system we designed  question flow diagrams that allowed us to develop and concentrate on the important issues concerning our study.  They were an essential tool to help organize our thoughts, questions and ideas.  The diagrams outline, in a strategic manner, the questions which were asked and where the answers could be obtained.

The set up of the question flow diagram is as follows: the main question or goal is mentioned on the left-hand side of the diagrams.  The arrow to the center points to the questions that we asked to obtain the necessary data and information.  Finally, the arrows from the questions point to the person, place or documents which were the source of information, therefore allowing our group to answer the questions.

In order to carry out our project, our group focused on several questions that were important to the study.  The main question was “What is the Footprint of the Imprint system?”  To answer this broad question, we developed sub-questions under four categorical headings.  These headings include, production and distribution, disposal, finances and money, and alternatives.  All of these sub-questions were answered by using several sources of information such as field observation, surveys, interviews and financial documents.  Each of these sources provided us with valuable information, which aided us in the data collection process.

                                                                                                   Table of Contents

3.2 Methodology

Throughout our data collection process we used several methods to examine the footprint of the Imprint.  We wanted to ensure that we had all of the possible information available in order to make accurate recommendations.  The four methods we used were:

These methods are outlined in the following sections along with the results and conclusions we obtained from the information.

                                                                                                               Table of Contents

4.0 Student Survey

4.1 Survey  Rational

A student survey was required for our project in order to attain information about the sustainability of the Imprint.  It gave insight into the disposal habits, attitudes and knowledge of the student population.  To develop the survey, our group focused on questions that would provide the necessary information to achieve our goal.  Before the survey could be administered, the Department of Human Research approved the survey questions.

The objectives of our survey questions are listed below:

                                                                                                                 Table of Contents
4.2  Survey Questions Rational

Before conducting the survey, there was a great deal of time allocated to developing the appropriate question scheme.  The simple layout, design and content were key elements to the success of  the survey because it was made to be anonymous, unbiased and effortless to complete. The survey questions were intended to initiate responses by the student so that our group could later make recommendations to the Imprint staff.  Behind every question, there was a justifiable reason for asking it.  The reasons for asking the questions are as follows:
 

                                                                                                                   Table of Contents

 4.3 Survey Logistics

We chose a 95% confidence level for our survey with a 5% margin of error.  We chose this level because we wanted our sample to be as close as possible to  representating the population.  Our population of all part-time and full-time undergraduates for the 1997/1998 school year was 19,868 students (Office of the Registrar, 1998).  From the Sample Size chart in the book Enjoying Research? by Abbey-Livingston & Abbey (1982), we chose a 90/10 population strata.  We chose this stratum because we felt around 90% of our sample would have positive behaviours towards the environment.  So with the 90/10 strata we determined that our sample size should be 200 students.

The surveys were conducted on March 18th and 19th at the Student Life Center and the Davis Center in each time slot listed below.  We chose to do the survey on Wednesday and Thursday at 10:30AM, 12:30PM, and 3:30PM each day.  At each time slot, the person administering the survey rendered 17 surveys.  We chose these dates and times because we felt this would give us the most diverse sample of students out of our overall population.  Through casual observation, we noticed that a portion of the student population is absent from campus on Mondays and Fridays, but most tended to be present throughout the middle of the week.  Again by observation, the times were chosen because these two buildings tended to be the busiest at these specific times. The Student Life Center and Davis Center were chosen as the buildings because they are both busy and have no faculty identity. 

                                                                                                                 Table of Contents

4.4 Results for the Survey

In order to properly evaluate the data, we examined each question carefully.  We also looked for connections between questions that might be able to provide us with useful data.  Results of the survey's raw data are highlighted below.

Responses from the following questions: What is your gender?; What faculty are you in?; and What year are you in?, displayed that our sample had representatives from each category.  We separated each faculty group to see if the students from different faculties acted similarly or not.  We found that the students from each faculty did act similarly so we were able to group the data.  We did not distinguish between male and female because we felt this had no effect on our results. It would be impossible to target recommendations at just males or females on-campus.

From the grouped data we found that 88% of the people surveyed read the Imprint a few times a month or more. As illustrated in Graph 1 below, the most common way for the students to dispose of the paper was to return it to a pile (52%) and the second most common behaviour was to recycle it (35%).  The question "Why do you dispose of the Imprint in this way" provided insight into the attitudes behind disposal methods.  41% of students chose to dispose of the paper in the easiest way. However, 28% of students dispose of the paper in these ways because of concern for the environment.  Graph 2 shows why people return their papers to the pile.  48% of students return the Imprint to the pile out of ease.  25% don't think about how they are disposingof the paper.  19% return to the pile out of concern for the environment.  8% find that returning to the pile saves themselves time.  Regarding the question 'Do you read an Imprint someone else has read?' 60% answered 'occasionally' and 35% answered 'usually' (as shown below in Graph 3). Of the people that read an Imprint 49% 'occasionally' give the paper to someone else to read. However, 31% never give their paper to someone else to read. 69% of our sample did not know that the Imprint was on the Internet.  Of those who did not know that the Imprint is on the Internet, 59% will consider visiting the web site now. Of those who did know the Imprint was on the Internet, 42% never visit the web site. 81% of the students that do not visit the site prefer the actual paper over reading the Imprint on a computer screen.

Graph 1: Most Common Way to Dispose of the Imprint 

   Graph 2: Reason for Returning the Imprint to a pile          
 
 

Graph 3:  People Who Have Read Someone Else's Imprint
 
 

                                                                                                                 Table of Contents

4.5 Survey Limitations

There were several limitations that our group faced with regards to developing, administering and analyzing the survey.  These included the limited time frame, assessing invalid surveys and the time of year.

With deadlines to keep, and the quick nature of the course, we found it difficult to create a survey in such a short time period.  This short period restricted the survey's quality in that the most appropriate questions were not as well thought out as they could have been.  However, the surveys were completed within this period despite the rush.  If we were given more time to complete our research, we would have been able to further our study by way of another survey.

After all the surveys were completed, we began analyzing the data. When the analysis was complete, we found that eight surveys were invalid because a few graduate students filled them out.  We could not include graduate students because they were not part of our intended population (they do not pay the Imprint student fee).  This decreased our sample size from 200 people to 192.  Fortunately, the surveys still represented our population because we had anticipated such circumstances and, surveyed more people than necessary.

The last limitation we encountered with the survey, was the time of year in which it was conducted.  We administered the survey in March, which happens to be the winter term for all the students who attend university.  If, for example, we conducted the survey in the summer term in July, the results might have been different from those we obtained.  To do a proper survey, we should have probably accounted for variability within the different terms, but since there were strict limitations on time, it was impossible to include all terms.

                                                                                                        Table of Contents

4.6 Survey Conclusions

After interpreting all the survey data we determined the following conclusions:

1. Since over 53% of our sample return the paper to the pile it suggests circulation
    can be reduced because the majority of papers can be re-read.
2. Because so many students return the papers to a pile we feel that the distribution
    spots are in generally good locations.
3. The fact that people are returning to the pile largely out of ease also suggests that
    the distribution points are good locations.
4. Students prefer to recycle the paper or return it to the pile instead of throwing it
    in the garbage, which suggests that they have concern for the environment.
    By having this concern recycling and returning the paper to a pile has been made
    easy.
5. From question 6 and 7, it is suggested that most students usually re-read an
    Imprint.
6. 69% of students are unaware that the Imprint is on the Internet. Of
    those students, 59% said they would consider reading it on the Internet now.
    This makes the Internet a practical alternative because it could result in a
    decrease of paper.
7. Because 69% of the students did not know the Imprint is on the Internet,
    more effective advertising could be done to inform students of the web site.
8. Although the Internet is a viable alternative some people still enjoy an actual
    newspaper and hence the paper copies should not be completely omitted.

                                                                                                                    Table of Contents

5.0 Distribution Numbers

5.1 Field Study Observation

We did a field study observation to determine if all Imprints were being distributed to their correct locations. To accomplish this, we observed how many Imprints were leftover at the end of one week at each location.  The rationale behind this was to determine distribution patterns and the number of Imprint papers left to be recycled each week. In order to conduct this field study, two of our group members followed the distribution staff to each drop off location. The two accompanied the Imprint distribution staff while they collected and distributed the newspapers on March 13th.  This was done only one week because we obtained distribution figures from Laurie Tigert-Dumas for the period of September 1997 until March 1998.  Our field observations were only to confirm that all of the papers were being distributed properly.

                                                                                                                     Table of Contents

5.2 Distribution Conclusions

After thoroughly examining the distribution charts, we determined that there are a few areas that generate more excess papers then others.  Some of the on-campus problem areas are at the Imprint office, the Student Life Center, the Davis Center and South Campus Hall.  Generally, the off-campus locations do not receive over 2 bundles so they do not produce as much waste. A reduction in the number of papers produced would eliminate excess (un-read) papers.  This would allow for a more sustainable paper, and hence, reduce the Ecological Footprint of the Imprint.

Due to the fact that so many people return their Imprint to a pile, we could not generate an exact number by which to reduce production.  However, through observation we know not all of the papers are read.  A study of read versus un-read papers would determine an actual figure of what reduction is needed.

                                                                                                                   Table of Contents

6.0 Personal Interviews

6.1 Personal Interviews

In order to gather information that pertained to the Imprint system we talked to several members of the Imprint staff.  We conducted two formal interviews with the Imprint staff and we also had a few informal discussions with some of the staff members.

Our first interview with an Imprint staff member was on January 30th.  The interview was with Peter Lenardon, Editor-in-Chief.  From this interview we learned that 12,000 newspapers are printed each week and that the previous weeks papers are collected when the new ones are distributed.  As well, we learned that the papers are printed at Canweb in Grimsby.  Peter then suggested we talk to Laurie Tigert-Dumas for more information.

The interview with Laurie Tigert-Dumas, Advertising & Production Manager, was held on February 5.  Laurie gave us some useful information during the interview.  Some of the more important things she alerted us to were that the Imprint does their own recycling, they have a student Board of Directors that oversees the finances for the Imprint, and that distribution locations and numbers can vary week to week.  She also informed us that since the Imprint Audit in 1995 was completed, new people are working for the Imprint and the problem they were having then with all of the papers not being distributed has been corrected.

When we met the distribution staff we talked to them about the process they follow while distributing the newspapers.  They informed us that they approximate the number of papers left over each week as they collect them to recycle.  They also mentioned that some distribution areas and numbers could be changed and that more communication between them and the rest of the Imprint staff would be useful.
 
During an informal meeting with Laurie she informed us of how the production and recycling costs are determined.  This information has been outlined in the following sections: 7.2 Printing costs and 7.3 Recycling Costs.
                                                                                                                  Table of Contents

7.0 Financial Statements

 7.1 Financial Statements

We examined the Imprint's financial statements to provide insight into the economic flows throughout the system. Our group contacted the Imprint’s Board of Directors and the Advertising and Production Manager, Laurie Tigert-Dumas in order to obtain necessary financial documents. The board and Laurie provided us with their budget, recycling costs, and printing costs for specific time periods.  This information provided us with a better understanding of the financial flows throughout the Imprint's system.  Also, the statements may outline any existing problems the Imprint has in its expenditures such as, production and distribution costs.
 
                                                                                                                  Table of Contents

7.2 Printing Costs

Printing costs are determined by several different criteria.  These include number of pages, amount of colour, inserts, and quality of paper. The number of pages is a major determinant of cost for the printing of the Imprint.  The pricing is based on the number of pages that are in each paper.   The most common number of pages per paper are 28, 32 and 36.  The price varies from 152 dollars per 1000 papers for 28 pages, 172 dollars per thousand for 32 pages, and 192 dollars per thousand papers for 36 pages.   These quotes do not include the use of colour.  The most consistent cost is that connected with the quality of paper.  The use of colour adds extra cost to the printing of the paper.  The Imprint was unable to give an estimate of the costs of colouring because the price that is quoted is based on the type and amount of colouring used in each paper.  Inserts are another extra cost that we were unable to attain a price range for because the Imprint has not had an insert for a number of months now.  Quality of paper used can also affect the cost of printing.  The Imprint uses a high quality paper called premium 80 for the cover page.  This is necessary so that the ink will not bleed as easily and the pictures will turn out more clearly.  The cost of this high quality paper is an added 265 dollars.

                                                                                                                         Table of Contents

7.3 Recycling Costs

Recycling costs are based on weight.  The city of Waterloo charges 30 dollars per thousand kilograms of recyclables.   The precise costs for the Imprint were unavailable because all of the office recyclables are put together for disposal.   The average recycling cost was $5.88 from the period of August 29 1997 to March 27 1998.

                                                                                                                   Table of Contents
 
8.0 Overall Conclusions & Recommendations

8.1 Overall Conclusions

We noticed several things when we brought all of our information together.  One of our observations was that the production numbers need to be reduced. If more people were encouraged to return the Imprint to a pile as their disposal method, then further reductions could be made. We also feel that the Imprint Internet site is a good alternative for some people, but it cannot entirely replace the newspaper. If students were more informed of the options available to them, more might chose to follow a more sustainable method. Since the production costs are determined by the number of pages in each paper a reduction in the number printed would decrease printing costs and recycling costs.
 
                                                                                                                   Table of Contents
 
8.2 Recommendations

After carefully investigating all of the information we collected we made recommendations to decrease the Ecological Footprint of the Imprint.  Our recommendations are as follows:

1. Reduce the newspaper production numbers according to readership.
2. Advertise that the Imprint recycles the papers and that returning the paper to a
    pile is an easy and environmentally-friendly thing to do.  This would make it
    easier for more people to re-read papers.
3. Establish better communication between the Imprint staff and its distributors.
4. Advertise that the Imprint is on the Internet in a more effective way. For
    example, bigger advertisements that the Imprint is available on the Internet could
    be used.
5. Create a future project to test the idea that reading the Imprint on the Internet
    uses fewer resources than reading an actual paper copy.
6. A study needs to be completed to determine the number of read versus un-read
    papers left over each week.
                                                                                                           Table of Contents

9.0 Final Thoughts
 

This project was a valuable learning experience.  It provided us with an opportunity to apply research and study skills to a real-life situation.  We hope the Imprint staff will carefully consider our recommendations in order for our campus to move one step closer in achieving sustainability. We hope that our project will benefit future ERS 285 students and anyone interested in sustainability.
 
                                                                                                             Table of Contents

10.0 References

     Patti Cook - Waste Management Co-ordinator (X3245)
     Peter Lenardon - Editor in Chief of the Imprint (888-4048)
     Laurie Tigert-Dumas - Advertising and Production Manager of the Imprint (888-4048)
     Brian Benson & Mark Watters - Distribution Staff at the Imprint (888-4048)
 
Faculty Of Environmental Resource Studies. ERS 100 Couse Notes. University Of Waterloo: Fall 1996.
 
Miller, G. Tyler JR.  Living in The Environment 10th ed. USA: Wadsworth Publishing Co.  1998.

Tigert-Dumas, Laurie. Personal Interview. 5 February 1998.

Wackernagel, Mathis & William E. Rees. Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human Impact on the Earth. Gabriola Island B.C: New Society Publishers, 1996.
                                                                                                                       

  BACK