Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The Campus Demotechnic Index: a comparison of technological energy consumption at US colleges and universities

  • Published:
Environment, Development and Sustainability Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The Campus Demotechnic Index (CDI) was modified from the Demotechnic Index (D-Index) to serve as an index of energy use for US colleges and universities. CDI values were calculated by assessing the total campus energy used for the built and mobile environments against energy required to meet the basal metabolic demand of the total campus population. Like the D-Index, the CDI measured the scalar quantity of energy used relative to the quantity of energy required for simple survival on a per capita basis, thus providing a rational metric for comparison among institutions. For the interval 2000–2005, CDI was calculated for 64 US higher education institutions and compared using maximum, minimum, mean and median CDI values, total gigajoules used, campus population, and consumption-adjusted population. Wilcoxon signed rank test results compared pair-by-pair differences of ranked CDI values from 2000 to 2005 to determine whether CDI values were significantly increasing or decreasing over time. In general, CDI values increased over time, but increases over the 6-year interval were only significantly higher in 8 of 30 two-year comparisons; in 2005, CDI values ranged from 1.1 to 56.3 (mean = 11.9, median = 8.2, n = 64), whereas in 2000, CDI values ranged from 2.0 to 53.0 (mean = 12.6, median = 9.1, n = 22). Results suggest that the CDI may serve as a useful metric for tracking campus energy efficiency over time as well as a means of comparison of energy use among institutions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Elkington, J. (1998). Cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st century business. Stony Cree, CT: New Society Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hillman, T., & Ramaswami, A. (2010). Greenhouse gas emission footprints and energy use benchmarks for eight US cities. Environmental Science and Technology, 44, 1902–1910.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Institute of Education Sciences National Center for Education Statistics. (2009). http://www.nces.ed.gov/. Accessed May 2011.

  • Kenny, T., & Gray, N. F. (2009). A preliminary survey of household and personal carbon dioxide emissions in Ireland. Environment International, 35, 259–272.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Mata, F. J., Onisto, L. J., & Vallentyne, J. R. (1994). Consumption: The other side of population for development. Paper presented at international conference on population and development.

  • Muradov, N. Z., & Veziroglu, T. N. (2008). “Green” path from fossil-based to hydrogen economy: An overview of carbon-neutral technologies. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 33(2008), 6804–6839.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Patzek, T. (2004). Thermodynamics of the corn-ethanol biofuel cycle. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences, 23(6), 519–567.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Patzek, T., & Pimental, D. (2005). Thermodynamics of energy production from biomass. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences, 24(5–6), 327–364.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pehnt, M. (2005). Dynamic life cycle assessment (LCA) of renewable energy technologies. Renewable Energy, 31(1), 55–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Périssé, J. (1981). Energy and protein requirements: Past work and future prospects at the international level. Joint FAO/WHO/UNU expert consultation on energy and protein requirements, ESN: FAO/WHO/UNU EPR/81/INF.1, Rome. http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/MEETING/004/M2995E/M2995E00.HTM. Accessed May 2011.

  • Pimentel, D., Marklein, A., Toth, M., Karpoff, M., Paul, G., McCormack, R., et al. (2008). Biofuel impacts on world food supply: Use of fossil fuel, land and water resources. Energies, 1, 41–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sikdar, S. (2003). Sustainable development and sustainability metrics. AICHE Journal, 49, 1928–1932.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • SNAP Survey Software. (2005). http://www.snapsurveys.com/us/. Accessed 10 December 2009.

  • The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. (2006). http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/. Accessed May 2011.

  • United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2007). EPA power profiler. http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-and-you/how-clean.html. Accessed May 2011.

  • US Energy Information Administration. (2010). International energy annual 2006. http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/iea/Notes%20for%20Table%20E_1.html. Accessed May 2011.

  • Varun, R. P., & Bhat, I. K. (2009). Energy, economics and environmental impacts of renewable energy systems. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 13(9), 2716–2721.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • World Energy Council. (2004). Comparison of energy systems using life cycle assessment. A special report of the World Energy Council, Washington DC. http://www.worldenergy.org/documents/lca2.pdf. Accessed May 2011.

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the Facilities Management department of the University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, for financial assistance and resources supporting this research. In addition, the authors are indebted to two anonymous reviewers for their critical insights and constructive comments that greatly improved the quality of this manuscript.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Leisha Vance

    Present address: US EPA, ORD-NRMRL-STD-SEB, 26 West Martin Luther King Drive (MS 419), Cincinnati, OH, 45268, USA

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Environmental Dynamics, 113 Ozark Hall, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, 72701, USA

    Leisha Vance

  2. Environmental Dynamics Program, Department of Geosciences, OZAR 113, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, 72701, USA

    Stephen K. Boss

Authors
  1. Leisha Vance
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Stephen K. Boss
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Leisha Vance.

Additional information

Readers should send their comments on this paper to BhaskarNath@aol.com within 3 months of publication of this issue.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Vance, L., Boss, S.K. The Campus Demotechnic Index: a comparison of technological energy consumption at US colleges and universities. Environ Dev Sustain 14, 111–134 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-011-9311-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-011-9311-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation