Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36910689›Full record

ArticleSustainability and climate change2023

Footprints in Action: How UVA Is Managing Its Sustainability Stewardship.

Elizabeth Dukes, Selina Cheng, Samuel Mogen, James Galloway, Allison Leach, Andrea Ruedy Trimble, Andrew Pettit, Jana Compton, Michael Pennino

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Sustainability and climate change, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Elizabeth DukesDepartment of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia, USA.
Selina ChengDepartment of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia, USA.
Samuel MogenDepartment of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia, USA.
James GallowayDepartment of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia, USA.
Allison LeachSustainability Institute, University of New Hampshire, Durham, New Hampshire, USA.
Andrea Ruedy TrimbleOffice for Sustainability, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia, USA.
Andrew PettitOffice for Sustainability, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia, USA.
Jana ComptonEnvironmental Protection Agencies, Office of Research and Development, Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment Division, Corvallis, Oregon, USA.
Michael PenninoEnvironmental Protection Agencies Office of Research and Development, Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment Division, Washington, DC, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Evaluating sustainability stewardship at higher educational institutions is essential to working towards improving our environment. Many institutions have used environmental footprint indicators as a way to evaluate, track, and improve their impact on the environment. In this article, we present the web-based Integrated Environmental Footprint Tool (IEFT), which allows users to test how changes in certain activities impact nitrogen (N), greenhouse gases (GHG), phosphorus (P), and water (W) footprints for a university campus. This study uses the University of Virginia (UVA) as a model to show the impacts of their existing sustainability plans on multiple footprint indicators. Strategies from the University of Virginia's (UVA) two exisiting action plans, the GHG Action Plan and the N Action Plan, are evaluated to determine their impact on each of the footprints (GHG, N, P, and W). Based on the 2025 goal year, the strategies in these action plans are estimated to reduce the GHG, N, P, and W footprints by -38%, 32%, 25%, and 2.7% respectively. The damage costs associated with GHG and N footprints are assessed and reveal a 38 percent reduction in damage costs for GHG and a 42 percent reduction in costs for N. Using the IEFT to evaluate the impact of these action plan strategies, UVA optimized environmental outcomes. The model shown here can be used at other institutions to evaluate the environmental impact of planned changes to an institutions' operations.

Indexed as

damage costsfootprintsgreenhouse gashigher educationnitrogen

Identifiers

PMID36910689
PMCPMC9994435

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.