Next Article in Journal
Differences in Anthropogenic Impacts of Typical Mid- to High-Latitude Wetlands in the Heilongjiang Basin
Previous Article in Journal
Testing the Process of Coworker Incivility to Work Withdrawal Behavior: The Moderated Mediation Effects of Employee Resilience in Achieving Organizational Sustainability
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 16
Issue 20
10.3390/su16209014
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Analysis of the Water Indicators in the UI GreenMetric Applied to Environmental Performance in a University in Brazil

by
Janaina Melo Franco Domingos
1,*,
Diego Gouveia Marques
2,
Valquíria Campos
2 and
Marcelo Antunes Nolasco
1
1
School of Arts, Sciences and Humanities, University of São Paulo (USP), São Paulo 03828-000, Brazil
2
Science and Technology Institute of Sorocaba (ICTS), São Paulo State University (UNESP), Sorocaba 18087-180, Brazil
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2024, 16(20), 9014; https://doi.org/10.3390/su16209014
Submission received: 17 July 2024 / Revised: 25 August 2024 / Accepted: 27 September 2024 / Published: 18 October 2024
(This article belongs to the Section Development Goals towards Sustainability)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Universities, as hubs of economic, technological, and social knowledge development, have increasingly adopted metric-based strategies to guide resource management and monitor their growth. The Sustainable University World Ranking, UI GreenMetric, is widely applied for this purpose, measuring performance across six categories aligned with the United Nations Agenda 2030—Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). This study focused on assessing information concerning the water category of this ranking, or the five water management indicators, at the School of Arts, Sciences, and Humanities of the University of São Paulo, to estimate its classification. The methodology involves assessing the current situation of the university in terms of each indicator, and classifying it according to the ranking guidelines. The information obtained is treated as evidence for posterior validation with the ranking. The findings indicate satisfactory performance in the indicators of water 1, 3, and 5. Notably, the implementation of rainwater collection and storage systems has been successful, alongside maintaining potable water parameters for consumption within the campus, as well as the use of efficient water-saving devices. Indicators 2 and 4, related to effluent treatment and water reuse, are expected to achieve higher classifications with the reactivation of the wastewater treatment system’s operation. Over the period from May 2023 to June 2024, the average daily water consumption was measured at 52.89 ± 25.23 m3 day−1, with a per capita consumption rate of 10.28 L consumer agent−1 day−1. An anticipated 20% reduction in water consumption is expected upon the incorporation of water reuse initiatives. The use of the UI GreenMetric framework has been found strategic and useful as a diagnostic tool, facilitating the identification of areas requiring improvement and guiding efforts toward enhancing the sustainability of the institution.

1. Introduction

The environment has been widely altered, due to the occurrence of problems caused by development, population growth needs, and climate change and its consequent risks to societies [1]. Concern about this issue has thus become a central point of public opinion and scientific knowledge [2,3], reinforcing the need for critical and reflective thinking about environmental directions within academic research [4], and highlighting the importance of disseminating information about environmental impacts and diagnostics, as well as existing incentive policies for the population aiming to engage in environmentally conscious actions [5,6].
In light of this scenario, universities, considered pillars of knowledge and cradles of agents of transformation, in addition to playing a significant role in environmental public policies [7], must assume a leadership role in promoting sustainable development initiatives for socio-environmental challenges [8,9,10,11]. Lukman et al. [12], for example, make an analogy for a sustainable university with sustainable development, where the main goal is the intersection of key themes: resources, emissions, waste, education, and research.
In the context of higher educational institutions (HEIs) and their relation to environmentally friendly practices, a local approach would be the interaction of the academic community through internal projects focused on topics of environmental sustainability applied by institutions that mark points of commitment to the cause [13]. A more general international practice is the signature of Declarations on Sustainability in Higher Education (SHE), considered a concrete document in the interactive process between university leaders, university institutions, and governmental/inter-governmental institutions [14]. On the other hand, an even broader approach is the application of global academic rankings that provide information about the current state of engagement of specific HEIs through a sequence of procedures that quantify, using a tool or index, the diagnostic of best practices [15], facilitating comparison with other institutions that applied the same methodology, and including the environmental sustainability aspect. Using a hierarchically positioned classification, these rankings associate good practices with the institution’s name, enhance public and private funding, and incentivize a competitive environment [16].
Various tools are employed in quantifying sustainability-related activities in higher education institutions, with variations in typology, number of indicators, and methodology. One of the most commonly known is the GreenMetric—UI’s GreenMetric World University Ranking (UI GreenMetric), which encompasses different environmental dimensions, including energy, water, waste, and transportation, for example, and aims to provide a tool that supports HEIs to implement measurements, monitoring and evaluating the environmental sustainability of the institutions and their strategic plan. It also covers research, project indicators, funds reserved for environmental and sustainable research, and the number of papers published. Topics such as water, waste, energy, and climate are also among the main research domains of sustainability science, evidencing the coherence between the research topics, and the areas evaluated by the tools [17,18,19,20].
This UI GreenMetric ranking was developed in 2010 by the University of Indonesia as an online “green” ranking for world universities. This tool is described as the first attempt to make a global ranking for sustainable behavior. It focuses on environmental indicators, instead of research and educational ones, and its design is described to function in both developed and developing countries. As an online, open-access system, and free-of-charge registration ranking, the participation of various universities has been observed in the past years [21]. The ranking began in 2010 with the participation of 95 universities from 35 countries, increasing by 140% until 2023, with the number of participating countries reaching 84 and involving 1183 universities [22]. The methodology for implementing the UI GreenMetric was based on the analysis of concepts and models such as the Green Building Council Indonesia (GBCI) Sustainability Rating System (GREENSHIP), Sustainability Tracking, the Assessment and Rating System (STARS), and the Assessment Instrument for Sustainability in Higher Education (AISHE), considering the tools of the analysis and the objectives. This approach is essential to ensure the relevance of the university environment classification in both developed and developing countries [21,22,23,24].
The ranking methodology consists of five categories, each subdivided into indicators. The sum of the indicator scores forms the category score, and the sum of the category scores constitutes the total score that determines the classification of the HEI. Information reflecting the current state of an item is submitted, verified, and approved by the ranking, based on the evidence provided [22]. The existing categories are as follows: infrastructure (SI), energy and climate change (CE), solid waste (WS), water (WR), transportation (TR), and education and research (ED). Each category has a specific weight, totaling 100% [22]. The UI GreenMetric-WR is responsible for 10% of the ranking score, and its method comprises five indicators, based on integrated approaches to four SDGs. The integrated objectives refer to SDG 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation), SDG 14 (Life Below Water), SDG 15 (Life on Land), and SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals) [25].
The WR category of the ranking assesses the policies to decrease groundwater usage, increase water conservation programs, and protect habitats. The process of participating in the ranking consists of the submission of a report and the evidence of each dataset provided. For the WR part of the ranking, each subitem is divided into five conditions, ranging from (1) to (5), starting from the lowest point of subitem satisfaction to the highest. These divisions can be quantitative, in terms of % of accomplishment, or qualitative, describing, for example, an early stage of design or construction, in opposition to policies and programs fully implemented and monitored [22].
The verification of water use by HEIs from various parts of the world is observed through case studies involving the UI GreenMetric, with institutions ranging from lower-ranked positions to those near the top, and even aspiring HEIs aiming to enter the ranking, employing various policies and approaches to manage water resources conscientiously. All the positions cited in the sequence refer to the 2023 UI GreenMetric ranking. The National Institute of Science and Technology (ISTN) in Jakarta, Indonesia, is an aspiring HEI aiming to join the ranking and has developed a master plan to transform its campus into a “green campus”, where water management is an essential component of this plan, with initiatives such as installing a wastewater treatment unit, infiltration wells to store rainwater, and handwashing and sanitation facilities in various campus buildings [26]. The University of Navarra (UNAV), located in Pamplona, Spain, ranked 440th, adopted a life-cycle assessment tool for its extensive campus, including operational water use, which covers everything from water consumption in heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems, to the needs of irrigation and maintenance of green areas [27]. The National Pingtung University of Science and Technology (NPUST) in Taiwan, ranked 28th, applies practices related to conscious water resource management, such as installing rainwater recovery systems for collection and reuse, wastewater treatment and reuse, and implementing permeable pavement that facilitates water infiltration into the soil, contributing to groundwater recharge [28]. The RUDN University, Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia, ranked 26th, has implemented various initiatives aimed at conserving water resources on its campus, including water recycling programs, the installation of efficient devices that save water and minimize waste, and the use of treated water that undergoes purification processes to reduce its environmental impact [29]. The University of Bologna, ranked 12th, observing a 5% increase in spending on this resource in 2023, sought to mitigate these challenges by adopting technologies such as georeferencing supply points and frequent readings at points with higher risk of loss [30,31]. Finally, the University of California, Davis (UC Davis), ranked 5th, has been a leader in implementing permeable pavements as an alternative to conventional asphalt, a technology that allows better water infiltration into the soil, reducing runoff and promoting aquifer recharge, improving water sustainability on campus, but also contributing to flood mitigation and the preservation of local water resources [32]. Common policies are observed, such as the reuse of rainwater and treated wastewater, and more innovative proposals like the use of permeable asphalt and software to monitor the water life cycle.
The University of São Paulo (USP) is one of the most prestigious higher education institutions in South America. It operates across eight campuses and has a total enrollment of approximately 90,000 students, 12,000 administrative and support staff, and 5300 professors [33]. It is also part of the UI GreenMetric, ranked in the 8th position in the 2023 pool, competing for the top positions mainly with institutions from Europe and North America. However, the WR category is yet to be fully scored, with an actual score of 950 out of 1000 points possible, showing room for improvement. The achievement of the full score of the category may help the HEI to seek higher positions in the global ranking scale, which would represent an important mark in terms of environmental compromise for the institution, reinforcing its influence as a reference in Latin America.
The main objective of this study is to apply the UI GreenMetric-WR tool to assess sustainable practices related to water at the School of Arts, Sciences, and Humanities campus of the USP, also known as the USP Eastern campus, as a means of validating the HEI’s initiatives, policies, and sustainable practices. For this purpose, each subitem of the WR category was assessed and classified, following the ranking criteria. This classification provides an accurate diagnosis of the campus’s current situation, highlights sustainable practices related to water management, and presents potential improvement scenarios. The subsequent sections of this manuscript are structured to describe each indicator, its classifications, and the related measurements; the simulated classification of the HEI in each indicator; the evidence gathered and additional information for broader understanding; interpretation of the limitations and significance of the ranking; and an overall discussion of USP Eastern campus’s current situation within the ranking category. In other words, the university will turn the knowledge produced by the university into practice, reaching several goals of the UN-SDG. In the next sections, we will provide an account of how it was performed, the main results achieved, and the conclusions.

2. Methodology

This study was conducted at the USP Eastern campus and focuses on the UI GreenMetric-WR classification, conducting a diagnosis of the institution’s current status, through a combination of internal and external document verification, onsite visits, interviews with the infrastructure technical support department, and data collection through hydraulic device measurements. After being classified, scenarios were proposed for improving environmental sustainability concerning the HEI situation.
For this study, UI GreenMetric-WR indicators were used, consisting of five classification criteria, to encourage universities towards water conservation (WR1), promoting the use or implementation of rainwater harvesting, lakes, wells, and groundwater recharge; water recycling programs (WR2), which means the reuse of water for toilet flushing, car washing, plant irrigation, etc.; water efficiency (WR3), including the use of water-saving devices (i.e., using sensor/automatic handwashing faucets, highly efficient toilet flushes, etc.); potable water consumption (WR4), the percentage of potable water consumed from the water treatment system compared to all water sources (i.e., rainwater tank source, groundwater, surface water, etc.); and water pollution control (WR5), mechanisms to regularly verify water quality (physical, chemical, and biological parameters) [25].
The focus of each indicator in the ranking guideline [25] is described in the following sequence:
  • WR 1—Water conservation program and implementations: “Please select a condition describing your current stage in a program that is systematic and formalized, and supports water conservation (i.e., for lakes and lake management systems, rain harvesting systems, water tanks, bio pore, recharge well, etc.) in your university”.
  • WR 2—Water recycling program implementation: “Please select a condition that reflects the current condition of your university in establishing formal policies for water recycling programs (i.e., the use of recycled water for toilet flushing, car washing, watering plants, etc.)”.
  • WR 3—Water efficient appliance usage: “Water-efficient appliance usage is replacing conventional appliances. This also includes the use of water-efficient appliances (i.e., using sensor/automated handwashing taps, highly efficient toilet flush, etc.)”.
  • WR 4—Consumption of treated water: “Please indicate the percentage of treated water consumed from the water treatment system compared to all water sources (i.e., rainwater tank source, groundwater, surface water, etc.) in your university. The water source can be from the treated water installation inside and/or outside your university”.
  • WR 5—Water pollution control in the campus area: “Please indicate the stage of your campus water pollution control to prevent polluted water from entering the water system. Polluted water on campus could include stormwater runoff contaminated with litter and chemicals, wastewater from laboratories containing hazardous substances, and drainage systems clogged with pollutants like oil and grease from parking lots. Please indicate, for example, the mechanism to regularly check water quality (physical, chemical, and biological parameters) on your campus, and programs to overcome water pollution”.
The options of classification for each indicator described in the UI GreenMetric-WR are detailed in Table 1.
The pieces of evidence required to classify the indicators of the HEI, as proposed in Table 1, were then gathered by several measurements. The activities carried out are described in Table 2.
As additional information, for calculation purposes, an inventory of the campus users (students, staff, visitors, and so on), built area, descriptive memorial, underground water network plans, and annual reports was conducted. The data were collected over 13 months from May 2023 to June 2024. The interpretation of potable water consumption results was carried out using descriptive statistics, associating atypical events with outliers, with the assistance of the open-source software R version 4.2.0.

3. Results

University campuses host large numbers of people in their daily routines, including faculty, students, administrative staff, suppliers, and visitors, as well as various internal processes such as classes, laboratory use, and events. Consequently, numerous activities impact the environment and, therefore, mitigation initiatives are required to promote environmental sustainability.
According to the 2022 annual report, the USP Eastern campus has a built area of 50,406.34 m2, with an academic community of about 6524 people, including 4692 undergraduate students, 1405 graduate students, 250 faculty members, and 177 technical-administrative staff members. In addition to the academic structure of classrooms, laboratories, auditoriums, and the administrative sector, the campus also offers a restaurant that accommodates approximately 2000 people, a health clinic, and sports courts, although there are no pools or fountains. The campus features a series of laboratory buildings designed to meet the needs of teaching, research, and extension, supporting programs such as Biotechnology, Natural Sciences, Physical Education and Health, Gerontology, Environmental Management, Public Policy Management, Leisure and Tourism, Marketing, Obstetrics, Information Systems, and Textile and Fashion [37].

3.1. Indicator WR 1—Water Conservation Program and Implementations

In the first indicator (WR 1), existing water conservation programs on the campus were evaluated, including rainwater harvesting and potable water storage. According to Thomaz [38], the implementation of rainwater harvesting systems is beneficial for areas of collection exceeding 250 m2, which aligns with the reality of the USP Eastern campus, where there is an area of 12.328,25 m2 for this purpose, far exceeding the recommended one. There is a reservoir available for rainwater collection and storage with a capacity of 674 m3, intended for non-potable uses such as floor washing.
Regarding potable water, the reservoirs include both reinforced concrete structures and polyethylene water tanks, totaling 20 units, with a combined capacity of 1208 m3, as indicated in Table 3. The largest portion of this capacity is allocated to eight reservoirs, with a total volume of 1078 m3, intended for buildings that accommodate didactic activities. Additionally, the research laboratory buildings have three reservoirs, with a total capacity of 90 m3.
The total water storage capacity comprises 1208 m3 of potable water and 674 m3 from the rainwater reservoirs, totaling 1882 m3. The rainwater storage capacity accounts for 35.84% of the total. Thus, regarding the guideline’s classification for the indicator, the institution falls into the upper mid-tier “(4)—water conservation program between-25-and-50%” stage for the indicator.
A third-party company carries out regular inspection, cleaning, and disinfection of all reservoirs. These activities are performed twice a year, following the legislation requirement, issued by the São Paulo State Health Surveillance [39]. As an additional measure, the valves are closed 15 days in advance to ensure that the reservoirs have the minimum water level required for the procedures.

3.2. Indicator WR 2—Water Recycling Program Implementation

At the present moment, all sewage generated on campus, originating from bathrooms, cafeterias, and other sanitary facilities, is collected and directed to the treatment plants of the Basic Sanitation Company of the State of São Paulo (SABESP), where it undergoes biological and physicochemical processes under environmental regulations. In research laboratories and infirmary procedures, liquid waste that may contain chemical or biological substances is properly labeled, stored in a contaminant-specific deposit, and subsequently collected by a licensed company, to ensure safe environmental management.
In the assessment regarding WR 2, it was found that there is a compact domestic effluent treatment plant on campus, currently non-operational due to revitalization and corrective maintenance. The campus has a Mizumo brand wastewater treatment system (WWTS) with a treatment capacity of 100 m3 per day [40].
The effluent treatment system includes a lifting station featuring a well with submersible pumps for pumping domestic effluent from the campus network to the WWTS. Treatment occurs through the transport of effluent to the equalization tank, followed by treatment through an Upflow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket Reactor (UASB), then a Submerged Aerated Biological Filter (SABF), with subsequent effluent disinfection with chlorine and storage in a reuse water tank.
The Mizumo brand compact wastewater treatment system (Mizumo Tower compact WWTS) can provide treated wastewater at the level to be used as non-potable reuse water for purposes such as floor washing, car washing, toilet flushing, landscape irrigation, and others [40].
Since the project is already being implemented but not yet operational, the classification within the indicator is in the lower mid-tier “(2)—Preparation program”. The project plans to interconnect treated water from domestic effluent with stored and treated rainwater for non-potable use. With the reactivation of the WWTS and the allocation of reused water for non-potable purposes, a 20% reduction in potable water usage is expected, according to project data and the campus Master Plan. Considering the monthly average of around 2031 m3, a 20% saving represents 406 m3 of monthly potable water consumption, which over 12 months would account for supplying 4,872,000 L, equivalent to 9744 residential 500-L water storage tanks, located in the eastern zone of São Paulo.

3.3. Indicator WR 3—Water-Efficient Appliance Usage

This indicator was evaluated using a checklist of hydraulic and sanitary devices in partnership with the campus maintenance department. The water supplied and taps have timers, showers in bathrooms have flow reducers, and toilets have smart systems with coupled tanks. These smart devices have been operational since 2005. Table 4 details the number of hydraulic devices present in the institution, while Table 5 shows the theoretical flow rate for each device and the expected reduction in consumption due to their designed efficiency.
While there is no exact information concerning the percentage of expected savings employing an automatic drinking water tap, the supplier ensures its design is focused on minimizing loss during its use. Additionally, the institution has awareness policies regarding the use of water fountains only with bottles, thus avoiding losses resulting from direct water consumption, as well as sanitary risks. Regarding this indicator, since all the devices are classified as water-efficient, as they provide expected water savings, the percentage of achievement is declared as 100%. As a result, the USP Eastern campus’s classification is in the top spot for the indicator “(5)—>80% of water-efficient appliances installed”.
As an improvement made during the research development, a leak-detection system, for visually detected leaks, was implemented in the collective system, facilitating notification, data storage, and monitoring of occurrences. Additionally, there are specific policy campaigns concerning water conservation implemented regularly, to engage the academic community.
The practice of frequently evaluating viable options that can lead to greater water savings, especially in scenarios of structural maintenance, can be an improvement to be adopted.

3.4. Indicator WR 4—Consumption of Treated Water

At the time of writing, most of the water used on campus is supplied by the municipality’s water utility company, except for floor washing using the rainwater collected. However, a 20% savings is projected with the implementation of reused water from treated wastewater and harvested rainwater, with the application of the treated effluent also in the flushing water. In this scenario, the institution falls into the lower mid-tier spot “(2)—1–25% of treated water consumed” when considering sources such as rainwater, surface water, and groundwater.

3.4.1. Daily Consumption of Potable Water

The daily consumption of potable water was measured from May 2023 to June 2024. The histogram shown in Figure 1 indicates a noticeably higher frequency of values between 25 and 100 m3, with few points above this range.
The average measured consumption of potable water was 52.89 ± 25.23 m3 per day, and the existence of outlier points observed in Figure 1, with consumption above 150 m3 per day, influences the calculation of the measure of dispersion. In terms of outliers, the collected data were examined, and Figure 2 was prepared, which shows the dispersion of daily consumption values, with the outliers indicated in red.
Indeed, the presence of outliers was observed in August 2023 and March 2024. Upon investigation, it was found that these outliers coincided with historical maintenance records, particularly during reservoir cleaning events. The periods of low consumption corresponded to the closure of the macro-meter register for slow emptying of the reservoirs until the scheduled cleaning day, while the peaks during measurement days indicated the opening of the macro-meter register for refilling the elevated reservoirs, a procedure that occurs every six months at the institution.
According to Drahein et al. [44], universities must explore alternative water-loss control systems with relatively low investments. They present two studies: one in Mexico by Velazquez et al. [45], which involved daily monitoring of hydraulic devices for leak detection, and another in Brazil by Marinho et al. [34], which implemented water rationing and daily measurements, resulting in a 6.4% resource saving in 2011.
As an improvement, after examining water consumption management, the installation of a water meter in each building with higher foot traffic was proposed, allowing for quicker and more accurate leak identification. Additionally, a verification call system was developed in collaboration with the university’s information technology department, providing shared access with maintenance for prompt action in cases of outlier values.

3.4.2. Per Capita Potable Water Consumption

In terms of interpreting per capita potable water consumption in institutions, Marinho et al. [34] and Silva Junior et al. [35] employed a methodology that calculates daily water consumption in educational institutions based on the volume of potable water divided by the Equivalent Population (EP). This variable applies different weights to various groups within an educational institution, such as faculty, staff, and students, based on factors that significantly influence consumption. On the other hand, Medeiros et al. [36] used a methodology that calculates a Water Consumption Indicator (CI) based on the volume of water consumed over a specific period divided by the number of consumer agents and working days during that period. When applied to the data from the USP Eastern campus, the methodologies cited resulted in an average daily water consumption in educational institutions of 17.22 L person−1 day−1 for the period from July 2023 to April 2024, while the average CI value for the same period is 10.28 L consumer agent−1 day−1.
Figure 3, in turn, shows the monthly variation in average daily consumption for both methodologies.
It is possible to observe that the values obtained from both methodologies follow a similar pattern, except for the steep declines from August to September 2023, and March to April 2024, observed in the CI. These months correspond to the periods of reservoir cleaning. Therefore, it is estimated that the CI exhibits more sensitivity to periods of instability, such as when the reservoirs are taken out of service for cleaning. Monitoring both indices simultaneously can be beneficial in identifying atypical behaviors based on the divergence between them.
Other institutions that used the same methods for consumption calculation were surveyed, and the results for the methodologies applied by Silva Junior et al. [35] and Medeiros et al. [36] are presented in Table 6 and Table 7, respectively.
To calculate the Consumption Index (CI) of Medeiros et al. [36], the monthly consumption of potable water, in m3, is divided by the number of operating days and the total number of consumers (Table 7).
In the results in Table 6, it is observed that the consumption at the USP Eastern campus was 48.04% lower than that observed at Campus A. C. Simões of the Federal University of Alagoas, by Silva Junior et al. [35]; meanwhile, the consumption at this work campus ranged from 4.4% to 83.2% higher than for the three campuses of the Federal University of Bahia, observed by Cazaes et al. [46].
In terms of CI, the value at the USP Eastern campus was 68% lower than the average at the Federal University of Campina Grande observed by Gomes and Batista [47]; on the other hand, the value at the Federal Institute of Education and Technology observed by Vasconcelos et al. [48] was 21.9% lower than that of the USP Eastern campus. However, as a 20% reduction in water consumption is expected with the operation of the WWTS and the use of reclaimed water as an alternative source for non-potable purposes, the CI at the HEI of this work would approach this lower consumption value obtained by Vasconcelos et al. [48].

3.5. Indicator WR 5—Water Pollution Control in the Campus Area

After inspection, cleaning, and disinfection of the reservoirs, the third-party company is responsible for collecting potable water and for evaluating the organoleptic, physical, chemical, and microbiological parameters of the water, according to national regulations [49], which addresses procedures for control and surveillance of the quality of water for human consumption.
The results of the physical-chemical and microbiological analyses were obtained from the campus municipality for quality comparison and rational use on campus, and their results for six measurement points are presented in Table 8.
From the results shown in Table 8, it is evident that the water available at the campus complies 100% with the potability ordinance currently in force in Brazil. This ensures that the potable water supplied by the supplier has not undergone any contamination or parameter alteration that would compromise its potability status and, consequently, the condition for safe consumption by the educational community.
Sampling occurs periodically, immediately after the cleaning and disinfection of the potable water reservoirs, making it a semi-annual assessment. The results are made available on the campus’s digital platform. These pieces of information provide data to the entire university community about the quality of potable water consumed daily.
On campus, in addition to the semi-annual monitoring of drinking water quality, there is a policy for the storage and disposal of chemical effluents generated in research laboratories, which are collected by a third-party company. Additionally, all rainwater is directed to an external gallery connected to the municipal urban drainage network. This indicator is classified in the top tier spot: “(5) Policy and programs for water pollution control are fully implemented and monitored regularly”.
The overall expected result for the category, based on the gathered evidence, is WR1—4; WR2—2; WR3—5; WR4—2; and WR5—5. While high scores are observed in indicators WR1, WR3, and WR5, indicators WR2 and WR4 fall into the mid-lower range. The anticipated operation of the WWTS soon is expected to enhance the WR2 indicator for higher classifications regarding reuse water, while simultaneously increasing the percentage of treated water use in the WR4 indicator.
As stated above, USP is already ranked in the eighth position in the ranking of 2023. The improvement in the indicators results, obtained in the diagnostic of the USP Eastern campus, would increase the score in the WR category, helping the HEI to aim for higher positions. The universities that had better scores in the ranking are all from Europe and North America [51], indicating the recurrent predominance of developed countries in the highest spots of the UI GreenMetric [52].
The search for environmentally friendly practices is said to be more challenging in countries like Brazil. Falcone [53], for example, cites limitations in developing countries, such as infrastructure and political aspects, which often make it difficult to seek environmentally sustainable development. The political aspects are related to priorities concerning environmental preoccupations, like the need to increase economic growth, the reduction of poverty, and the improvement in quality of life [54]. The achievement of such prominent positions by an institution from Latin America primarily engages its academic community with an appreciation of the importance of environmental sustainability measures. Its leading position can serve as a significant influence, encouraging changes in higher education institutions across the continent and paving the way for broader societal transformations.

4. Discussion

This study aimed, through a diagnosis guided by the UI GreenMetric ranking criteria, to assess the current situation of the USP Eastern campus and identify key areas for improvement. Similarly, Assunção and Araujo [55] state that the diagnosis conducted through internal audits allows for the identification of various issues, such as insufficient awareness campaigns on water wastage, weaknesses in internal controls regarding the preventive maintenance of devices, issues with plumbing, high water consumption equipment, lack of utilization of underground aquifers, and the possibility of including clauses in contracts with third-party companies requiring the use of rainwater and preventive maintenance, emphasizing the importance of a standardized and comprehensive diagnosis.
Regarding the results obtained, it is observed that the WR1 indicator satisfies the range of 25% to 50% water conservation, in the upper mid-tier position, with 35.84% of rainwater storage. To reach the upper range of the indicator, it would be necessary to increase storage capacity by 532.24 m3, which corresponds to 78.91% of the current value, increasing CAPEX. With this increase, the total capacity would be 2414.54 m3, with 1207.27 m3 allocated to rainwater. Shiguang and Ziqing [56] argue that the cost-benefit ratio is limited, and oversized tanks significantly reduce this ratio. Additionally, the limitations of operations for using rainwater include the energy consumption for pumping, the replacement of filter materials, and the cost of disinfectants, factors that should be considered in the feasibility modeling of its application, with an increase in OPEX. Regular monitoring for the cleaning and disinfection of reservoirs is relevant for this indicator, as well as for the WR5 indicator, which deals with potable water quality and constant monitoring.
Non-potable uses of reused water are estimated to reach approximately 20% of total potable water consumption on the campus, around 406 m3 per month, with applications in toilet flushing and floor washing, even though the capacity of the WWTS far exceeds this demand, with a projected flow-rate capacity of 100 m3 day−1. The projected flow is based on the average water consumption, as verified in Figure 1, with 94% of the daily consumption measured below 100 m3 day−1.
Exploring new forms of reuse application can allow the institution to quickly reach the upper mid-tier, with over 25% of water reused. The ranking suggests, as noted in the description of the indicator, the potential for use in car washing and landscape irrigation, indicating the possibility of combining economic activities with environmentally smart application devices. Irrigation with reclaimed water is allowed by Brazilian legislation in non-food crops and green areas such as gardens, football fields, and landscaping [57]. The Brazilian legislation also enables the use of reused water in boilers, refrigeration, machinery and equipment washing, and concrete mixing [58,59]. These potential future demands, which would increase the reused water demand and, consequently, the percentage of its use, can be achieved through campus development, with the construction of new laboratories and expansion of activities, or through partnerships with local industries. Considering that the campus is located in a highly industrialized region, synergy with local industries could increase the achievement of the ranking’s environmental demands and enhance local productive activities. Additionally, the reuse of greywater (kitchen, laundry, and hand-basin and shower water) for toilet flushing, with simple treatment technologies such as constructed wetlands, biofilters, and so on, is also possible [60,61,62], and the acceptance of this kind of reuse is higher among users than that of black water (toilet discharge and, in some cases, dishwasher water) [63,64].
In terms of direct reuse without treatment, Hoffmann et al. [65] mapped equipment in a chemical engineering laboratory where the water to be discarded was not contaminated, such as distillers, ice machines, and dehumidifiers, and initiated a project for use in nearby bathrooms, with an estimated saving of 124 m3 of water per month. The verification of additional reuse, beyond the water treated by the WWTS, can contribute to the total reuse percentage aimed for ranking improvements. According to Shiguang and Ziqing [56], it is estimated in the literature that between 50% and 80% of water used in a university is, in general, for non-potable purposes.
The use of efficient water consumption devices is already at the highest point of the indicator, with over 80% of devices with water-saving features implemented. The search, in this case, would be for new technologies that guarantee greater savings, considering their feasibility. Sectoral monitoring, along with policies for dissemination and sharing of information regarding leaks, can ensure greater agility in leak containment and minimize their impact. An action carried out by the Federal University of Santa Catarina (UFSC), for example, aimed at greater sectoral identification of leaks, involved the validation of network layouts through the registration of maneuvers at network bifurcations, increasing the sectorization and contribution of consumption in each water distribution branch [66], and their actions resulted in a 20% reduction in water consumption in the annual measurement. The transparency of information with the academic community allowed for awareness of, and subsequent concern with, conservation.
The WR4 indicator is directly linked to WR2, which will benefit from treatment at the WWTS for reclaimed water. The daily consumption stands out; it is lower than in other comparable institutions, as observed in Table 4 and Table 5, and monitored by macro-meters, which indicate out-of-norm points and possible leaks. The indicator could also be better classified with the prospect of new uses for reclaimed water within and surrounding the university.
WR5 already meets the indicator’s requirements, with implemented programs and regular monitoring, and is at the highest point, with constant measuring of water quality and ensuring the parameters of potable water provided by the institution. The control of hazardous waste from laboratories and campus infirmaries is rigorous, with proper disposal outside the university through specialized third-party companies. As a university with environmental courses, monitoring emerging pollutants that are outside the national potable water regulations could be an improvement, adding additional data and contributing to discussions on law updates or increased regulatory rigor. Salehi et al. [67] cite that monitoring during stagnation periods, such as holidays, long weekends, or extended breaks, can alter water quality. As an example, in an extreme lockdown scenario due to the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), approximately 70% of water samples in academic buildings on the University of Tennessee campus, USA, contained no residual chlorine.
The UI GreenMetric is the most widely adopted system for ranking university sustainability worldwide, and its success is undeniable. However, some authors argue that it has limitations. Boiocchi et al. [68], for example, point out that certain aspects of the ranking, such as the chosen sewage disposal method, the percentage of the university budget allocated to sustainability efforts, and the ratio of sustainability research funding to total research funding, must be interpreted in the context of various factors, including availability, climate, location, and cultural habits. Kayyali [69], in a broader critique, challenges rankings and indicators in terms of regional context, and also highlights issues such as the complexities of institutional performance, the potential for manipulation, lack of transparency, and the narrow focus of some indicators. While these limitations should be acknowledged and considered, they do not diminish the importance of the efforts made by institutions to be part of such rankings, which include 40 HEIs in Brazil [70], with the USP being the highest-ranked so far. The ongoing improvements proposed by the ranking, combined with widespread adoption, address and resonate with a broad audience, concerning environmentally friendly practices, thus fulfilling the primary premise of the commitment of HEIs to understand, measure, monitor, and evaluate their sustainability practices in strategic Master Plan. All these practices align with the goals of the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), supporting the needs of organizations and societies in transitioning to climate adaptation and addressing climate change [71].

5. Conclusions

The campus meets indicators WR 1, 3, and 5, related to potable water storage reservoirs and rainwater collection, representing 33% of the total water storage capacity. It is also noted that there are already structures in place for the use of rainwater in non-potable areas, and their operation will contribute to water reuse.
Indicator WR 2, which is related to the WWTS, is still under maintenance, and the water reuse indicator should be fulfilled soon. For WR 4, a 20% reduction in potable water should be achieved from the total water supplied. Regarding consumption, it is observed that the campus already has lower per capita water consumption than several other educational institutions in the country, even without yet considering the expected decrease in the near future with the use of alternative sources of reclaimed water.
As for improvements, management strategies stand out, with the development of systems for data insertion, sharing, and visualization, collectively with the institution’s maintenance, favoring quick action in case of leaks. Additionally, the suggestion of installing water meters in each high-flow building structure is another measure for accuracy and speed of action in the case of leaks. Awareness and educational policies for consumption reduction can have a significant impact on the average consumption of an educational institution and are proposals to be discussed and verified for applicability in the unit.
The UI GreenMetric helps to direct efforts and attention to areas that may be overlooked in non-targeted assessments. Through its participation, USP encourages the engagement of students and professionals across various campuses, allowing them to engage with sustainable water use practices and conservancy, disseminate awareness-conscious practices, and establish a culture of environmental sustainability. The ranking covers the main topics in this field, and while assessing information, additional data are also obtained, such as the per capita water storage capacity, which is not directly linked to the ranking topics but contributes to the overall understanding of water balance in the HEI. However, the metrics do not include considerations of flood water management, or drought management, so engagement, planning, and implementation should not be limited to the ranking.
By diagnosing and monitoring the components related to the water balance of the USP Eastern campus, through participation and application of the UI GreenMetric-WR precepts, as well as the constant application of improvements, the USP Eastern campus consolidates itself as an institution committed to social and environmental responsibility, highlighting water management. The institution is also implementing water management improvements, including installing meters and strategies for quick action in the case of new leaks. It is known that what is not measured is impossible to improve. Usually, public institutions do not care about the amount of water consumption and monthly water bills. However, the study showed how important it is in terms of economy and sustainability for the institution.
To conclude, in the future, other aspects will become part of this study, such as greenhouse gas emissions, sustainable solid waste management, energy consumption, and greener technologies. Considering that the USP currently has one of the highest university reputations in Latin America, other educational institutions will have the chance to follow the environmental sustainability principles and practices adopted by USP as a great example to be followed. Not least important to mention is the fact that the hundreds of undergraduate and graduate students from USP in environmental sciences, environmental management, and sustainability courses and programs can have now the chance to become involved in the activities that they learn in classes and their research projects, all of them aligned with the United Nations SDG.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.M.F.D. and D.G.M.; methodology, J.M.F.D. and D.G.M.; statistical analysis, D.G.M.; resources, M.A.N.; data curation, J.M.F.D. and M.A.N.; writing—original draft preparation, J.M.F.D. and V.C.; writing—review and editing, M.A.N. and V.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the USPSusten Program of the SGA (Supplementary Call DOE 07/13/2022). The APC was funded by USPSusten.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author due to restrictions related to unpublished information from the university.

Acknowledgments

This research was funded by the USP Sustainability Program (USPSusten) of the Environmental Management Superintendence at the University of São Paulo (USP), through a postdoctoral fellowship at the campus School of Arts, Sciences and Humanities of the University of Sao Paulo. We would like to thank the Infrastructure Technical Support and Maintenance Departments of USP for the assistance provided.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
ABNT NBRBrazilian Association of Technical Standards
AISHEAssessment Instrument for Sustainability in Higher Education
CEEnergy and Climate Change
CIWater Consumption Indicator
CONAMANational Council for the Environment
COVID-19Coronavirus Disease 2019
EDEducation and Research
EPEquivalent Consuming Population
GREENSHIPSustainability Rating System
GBCIGreen Building Council Indonesia
HEIHigher Education Institutions
ISTNNational Institute of Science and Technology
NPUSTNational Pingtung University of Science and Technology
RUDNPeoples’ Friendship University of Russia
SABESPBasic Sanitation Company of the State Of São Paulo
SABFSubmerged Aerated Biological Filter
SDGSustainable Development Goals
SDG 6Clean Water and Sanitation
SDG 14Life Below Water
SDG 15Life on Land
SDG 17Partnerships for the Goals
SHEDeclarations on Sustainability in Higher Education
SIInfrastructure
STARS Sustainability Tracking, Assessment and Rating System
TRTransportation
UASBUpflow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket Reactor
UC Davis University of California, Davis
UI GreenMetricGreenMetric World University Ranking
UFSCFederal University of Santa Catarina
UNAVUniversity of Navarra
USPUniversity of São Paulo
USP Eastern campusUniversity of São Paulo located at Eastern Area of Sao Paulo City
WRUI GreenMetric-Water indicators
WR 1Water conservation program and implementation
WR 2Water recycling program implementation
WR 3Water-efficient-appliance usage
WR 4Consumption of treated water
WR 5Water pollution control in the campus area
WSSolid Waste
WWTSWastewater Treatment System

References

  1. Liu, J.-X. The Influence of Narrative Transportation on University Students’ Environmental Intentions: A Serial Mediation of Empathy with Nature and Environmental Attitudes. J. Clean. Prod. 2023, 431, 139763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Caragliu, A.; Graziano, M. The Spatial Dimension of Energy Transition Policies, Practices and Technologies. Energy Policy 2022, 168, 113154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Chiquetto, J.B.; Nolasco, M.A. New insights on climate change and adaptation research in Brazil: A bibliometric and bibliographic review. Discov. Environ. 2024, 2, 36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Sovacool, B.K.; Hess, D.J.; Cantoni, R. Energy Transitions from the Cradle to the Grave: A Meta-Theoretical Framework Integrating Responsible Innovation, Social Practices, and Energy Justice. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2021, 75, 102027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Kurokawa, H.; Igei, K.; Kitsuki, A.; Kurita, K.; Managi, S.; Nakamuro, M.; Sakano, A. Improvement Impact of Nudges Incorporated in Environmental Education on Students’ Environmental Knowledge, Attitudes, and Behaviors. J. Environ. Manag. 2023, 325, 116612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Moody-Marshall, R. An Investigation of Environmental Awareness and Practice among a Sample of Undergraduate Students in Belize. Environ. Educ. Res. 2023, 29, 911–928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Tukker, A.; Emmert, S.; Charter, M.; Vezzoli, C.; Sto, E.; Munch Andersen, M.; Geerken, T.; Tischner, U.; Lahlou, S. Fostering Change to Sustainable Consumption and Production: An Evidence-Based View. J. Clean. Prod. 2008, 16, 1218–1225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Amaral, L.P.; Martins, N.; Gouveia, J.B. Quest for a Sustainable University: A Review. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2015, 16, 155–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Pereira Ribeiro, J.M.; Hoeckesfeld, L.; Dal Magro, C.B.; Favretto, J.; Barichello, R.; Lenzi, F.C.; Secchi, L.; Montenegro de Lima, C.R.; Salgueirinho Osório de Andrade Guerra, J.B. Green Campus Initiatives as Sustainable Development Dissemination at Higher Education Institutions: Students’ Perceptions. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 312, 127671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Rausch, T.M.; Kopplin, C.S. Bridge the Gap: Consumers’ Purchase Intention and Behavior Regarding Sustainable Clothing. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 278, 123882. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Wang, H.; Mangmeechai, A. Understanding the Gap between Environmental Intention and Pro-Environmental Behavior towards The Waste Sorting and Management Policy of China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Lukman, R.; Krajnc, D.; Glavič, P. University Ranking Using Research, Educational and Environmental Indicators. J. Clean. Prod. 2010, 18, 619–628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Jerneck, A.; Olsson, L.; Ness, B.; Anderberg, S.; Baier, M.; Clark, E.; Hickler, T.; Hornborg, A.; Kronsell, A.; Lövbrand, E.; et al. Structuring Sustainability Science. Sustain. Sci. 2011, 6, 69–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Grindsted, T.; Holm, T. Thematic Development of Declarations on Sustainability in Higher Education. Environ. Econ. 2012, 3, 32–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. O’Connell, C. Research Discourses Surrounding Global University Rankings: Exploring the Relationship with Policy and Practice Recommendations. High. Educ. 2013, 65, 709–723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Leal, F.G.; Stallivieri, L.; Moraes, M.C.B. Indicadores de Internacionalização: O Que Os Rankings Acadêmicos Medem? Rev. Int. Educ. Super. 2018, 4, 52–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Kajikawa, Y.; Ohno, J.; Takeda, Y.; Matsushima, K.; Komiyama, H. Creating an Academic Landscape of Sustainability Science: An Analysis of the Citation Network. Sustain. Sci. 2007, 2, 221–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Buter, R.K.; Van Raan, A.F.J. Identification and Analysis of the Highly Cited Knowledge Base of Sustainability Science. Sustain. Sci. 2013, 8, 253–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Kajikawa, Y.; Tacoa, F.; Yamaguchi, K. Sustainability Science: The Changing Landscape of Sustainability Research. Sustain. Sci. 2014, 9, 431–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. De Filippo, D.; Sandoval-Hamón, L.A.; Casani, F.; Sanz-Casado, E. Spanish Universities’ Sustainability Performance and Sustainability-Related R & D+I. Sustainability 2019, 11, 5570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Suwartha, N.; Sari, R.F. Evaluating UI GreenMetric as a Tool to Support Green Universities Development: Assessment of the Year 2011 Ranking. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 61, 46–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. UI GreenMetric World University Rankings. Available online: https://greenmetric.ui.ac.id/ (accessed on 4 December 2023).
  23. Lauder, A.; Sari, R.F.; Suwartha, N.; Tjahjono, G. Critical Review of a Global Campus Sustainability Ranking: GreenMetric. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 108, 852–863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Gupta, A.; Kumar, A. Two-Step Daily Reservoir Inflow Prediction Using ARIMA-Machine Learning and Ensemble Models. J. Hydro-Environ. Res. 2022, 45, 39–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. UI GreenMetric Guideline-2024-1. Available online: https://greenmetric.ui.ac.id/publications/guidelines/2024/english (accessed on 20 January 2024).
  26. Fatriansyah, J.F.; Abdillah, F.A.; Alfarizi, F.R. National Institute of Science and Technology Green Campus Master Plan Design To Make Environmental Friendly and Sustainable Campus with UI Greenmetric. Int. J. Technol. 2021, 12, 956–964. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Arias, A.; Leon, I.; Oregi, X.; Marieta, C. Environmental Assessment of University Campuses: The Case of the University of Navarra in Pamplona (Spain). Sustainability 2021, 13, 8588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Chang, C.-L.; Shih, V.R.-C.; Tsai, M.-H. Water Resources Management in Practices at National Pingtung University of Science and Technology Campus. J. Sustain. Perspect. 2023, 3, 185–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Ali, E.B.; Anufriev, V.P. Towards Environmental Sustainability in Russia: Evidence from Green Universities. Heliyon 2020, 6, e04719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Alma Mater Studiorum University of Bologna. Sustainability Report. APPC—Planning and Communication Division—University Planning and Data Analysis Unit. 2024. Available online: https://www.unibo.it/en/university/who-we-are/sustainabilityreport (accessed on 23 August 2024).
  31. Boeri, A.; Turillazzi, B.; Sabatini, F.; Sassenou, L.-N.; Manella, G. The Threefold Role of the University in Fostering the Energy Transition: The Case of Bologna and Its Cesena Campus. Energies 2024, 17, 3751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Dawodu, A.; Dai, H.; Zou, T.; Zhou, H.; Lian, W.; Oladejo, J.; Osebor, F. Campus Sustainability Research: Indicators and Dimensions to Consider for the Design and Assessment of a Sustainable Campus. Heliyon 2022, 8, e11864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. University of São Paulo. The University of São Paulo (USP). Available online: https://internationaloffice.usp.br/en/index.php/the-university-of-sao-paulo-usp/ (accessed on 14 August 2024).
  34. Marinho, M.; Gonçaves, M.S.; Kiperstok, A. Water conservation as a tool to support sustainable practices in a Brazilian public university. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 62, 98–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Silva Junior, J.C.; Ferreira, I.V.L.; Barboza, M.G. Per capita water consumption in Higher Education Institutions: Case study. In Proceedings of the Scientific Technical Congress of Engineering and Agronomy, Maceió, Brazil, 21 August 2018; Available online: https://www.confea.org.br/sites/default/files/antigos/contecc2018/civil/88_cpcdáeides.pdf (accessed on 11 December 2023).
  36. Medeiros, A.S.; Brietzig, F.R.; Coletti, P.S.; Negri, R. Analysis of the Average Per Capita Water Consumption in Municipal Schools in Joinville/SC: A Qualitative-Quantitative Investigation. In Proceedings of the 3rd National Symposium on Building Systems; ANTAC: Porto Alegre, Brazil, 2023; pp. 99–109. Available online: https://eventos.antac.org.br/index.php/sispred/article/view/2977 (accessed on 11 December 2023).
  37. University of São Paulo (USP). USP Statistical Yearbook. Available online: https://uspdigital.usp.br/anuario/AnuarioControle (accessed on 25 February 2024).
  38. Tomaz, P. Use of Rainwater for Urban Areas and Non-Potable Purposes, 4th ed.; Browse Publisher: São Paulo, Brazil, 2011; 208p, ISBN 85-87678-23-X. [Google Scholar]
  39. São Paulo City Hall. Building Reservoir Cleaning and Disinfection Service; State Communication CVS No. 6/2011. Available online: https://www.prefeitura.sp.gov.br/cidade/secretarias/upload/Anexo%20I%20-%20Especifica%C3%A7%C3%B5es%20t%C3%A9cnicas.pdf (accessed on 25 February 2024).
  40. Mizumo, T. Maintenance and Operation. 2015. Available online: https://www.iffarroupilha.edu.br/component/k2/attachments/download/1496/2ed398617fd9618f03116c7d5375ef0e/ (accessed on 1 October 2023).
  41. Ministry of the Environment. Secretariat for Institutional Articulation and Environmental Citizenship. Practical Manual for the Use and Conservation of Water in Public Buildings. Available online: https://arquivos.trf5.jus.br/TRF5/TRF_Sustentavel/2022/05/23/20220523_40E04C_MANUAL_PRATICO_PARA_USO_E_CONSERVACAO_DA_AGUA_EM_PREDIOS_PUBLICOS.PDF (accessed on 25 February 2024).
  42. NBR 5626; Cold Water Installation in Buildings. Brazilian Association of Technical Standards (ABNT): Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 2020.
  43. NBR 8160; Sanitary Sewage Systems: Design and Installation. Brazilian Association of Technical Standards (ABNT): Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 1999.
  44. Drahein, A.D.; De Lima, E.P.; Da Costa, S.E.G. Sustainability Assessment of the Service Operations at Seven Higher Education Institutions in Brazil. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 212, 527–536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Velazquez, L.; Munguia, N.; Ojeda, M. Optimizing Water Use in the University of Sonora, Mexico. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 46, 83–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Cazaes, T.R.S.; Cruz, R.G.; First, A.K.; Gonçalves, M.S. Water Conservation in University Buildings: Factors Influencing Consumption and Criteria for Its Evaluation—Comparison of Three Units of UFBA. Electron. J. Environ. Manag. Technol. 2019, 7, 75–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Gomes, V.L.; Batista, V.M. Efficient Use of Water on a University Campus: The Case of the Federal University of Campina Grande. In Proceedings of the XX Brazilian Symposium on Water Resources, Bento Gonçalves, Brazil, 17–22 November 2013; Available online: https://files.abrhidro.org.br/Eventos/Trabalhos/66/SBRH2013__PAP013135.pdf (accessed on 1 October 2023).
  48. De Vasconcelos, A.H.A.; Cruz, T.L.; Santana, A.C.; de Carvalho, V.S.; Barbosa, I.M.B.R. Evaluation of Water Use at IFPE through Diagnosis of Plumbing Installations and Consumption Habits. Rev. Cientec 2015, 7, 56–64. Available online: https://www.revistascientec.com.br/Revistas/Vol7N1/Artigo7.pdf (accessed on 1 October 2023).
  49. Ministry of Health Ordinance MS No. 888 (2021). Available online: https://www.gov.br/saude/pt-br/assuntos/legislacao/portarias/2021/portaria-no-888-de-2021 (accessed on 1 October 2023).
  50. School of Arts, Sciences and Humanities (Escola de Artes, Ciências e Humanidades—(USP Eastern campus)). Analysis of Drinking Water. Certificates of Water Tank Cleaning and EACH Analysis Reports 2023. Available online: http://www5.each.usp.br/agua/ (accessed on 1 October 2023).
  51. GreenMetric. Overall Rankings 2023. Available online: https://greenmetric.ui.ac.id/rankings/overall-rankings-2023 (accessed on 14 August 2024).
  52. Perchinunno, P.; Cazzolle, M. A clustering approach for classifying universities in a world sustainability ranking. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2020, 85, 106471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Falcone, P.M. Sustainable energy policies in developing countries: A review of challenges and opportunities. Energies 2023, 16, 6682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Utomo, B.; Riatmaja, D.S.; Aninam, J.; Wahyudi, F.S. Environmental sustainability and economic growth: Policy implications for developing countries. Nomico J. 2024, 1, 87–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Assunção, A.R.B.; Araujo, P.B.S. Audit and Sustainability: Evaluation of Water Resources Management at UFMS. VI National Workshop on UI GreenMetric for Universities in Brazil. 2023. Available online: https://repositorio.ufms.br/handle/123456789/8826 (accessed on 24 August 2024).
  56. Shinguang, C.; Ziqing, L. Rainwater harvesting in University Buildings: Potable Water Savings Potential and Investment Feasibility Analysis. Res. Sq. 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Chrispim, M.C.; Tarpeh, W.A.; Salinas, D.T.P.; Nolasco, M.A. The sanitation and urban agriculture nexus: Urine collection and application as fertilizer in Sao Paulo, Brazil. J. Water Sanit. Hyg. Dev. 2017, 7, 455–465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. CONAMA. National Council for the Environment. Resolution No. 357, of March 17, 2005. In Establishes the Classification of Water Bodies and Environmental Guidelines for Their Framing, as Well as Conditions and Standards for Effluent Discharge; Official Gazette of the Federal Republic of Brazil: Brasília, Brazil, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  59. NBR 13969; Septic Tanks—Complementary Treatment Units and Final Disposal of Liquid Effluents—Design, Construction, and Operation. ABNT. Brazilian Association of Technical Standards: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 1997.
  60. Oarga-Mulec, A.; Turk, J.; Gerbec, P.; Jenssen, P.D.; Malovrh Rebec, K.; Valant, M. Life Cycle Assessment of Black and Greywater Treatment Solutions for Remote and Sensitive Areas. Sustainability 2023, 15, 3832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Resende, J.D.; Nolasco, M.A.; Pacca, S.A. Life cycle assessment and costing of wastewater treatment systems coupled to constructed wetlands. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2019, 148, 170–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Chrispim, M.C.; Nolasco, M.A. Greywater treatment using a moving bed biofilm reactor at a university campus in Brazil. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 142, 290–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Ren, X.; Zhang, Y.; Chen, H. Graywater treatment technologies and reuse of reclaimed water for toilet flushing. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2020, 27, 34653–34663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Abdalla, H.; Rahmat-Ullah, Z.; Abdallah, M.; Alsmadi, S.; Elashwah, N. Eco-efficiency analysis of integrated grey and black water management systems. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2021, 172, 105681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Hoffmann, B.S. The Recovery of Water from Teaching and Research Laboratories at the School of Chemistry/UFRJ—A Technical and Economic Feasibility Study. In Proceedings of the VI National Workshop on UI GreenMetric for Universities in Brazil, Campo Grande, Brazil, 14–15 September 2023; Available online: https://repositorio.ufms.br/handle/123456789/8826 (accessed on 24 August 2024).
  66. Zechner, D.S.; Castro, A.J.G.; Petrassi, A.C.M.A.; Romeu, B.; Vieira, B.; Ferreira, C.; Zampieri, G.; Souza, L.C.R.; Meireles, S.; Raulino, V.G.L.; et al. Strategies for Water Supply Management on University Campuses. In Proceedings of the VI National Workshop on UI GreenMetric for Universities in Brazil, Campo Grande, Brazil, 14–15 September 2023; Available online: https://repositorio.ufms.br/handle/123456789/8826 (accessed on 24 August 2024).
  67. Salehi, M.; DeSimone, D.; Aghilinasrollahabadi, K.; Ahamed, T. A Case Study on Tap Water Quality in Large Buildings Recommissioned After Extended Closure Due to the COVID-19 Pandemic. Environ. Sci. Water Res. Technol. 2021, 7, 1996–2009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Boiocchi, R.; Ragazzi, M.; Torretta, V.; Rada, E.C. Critical Analysis of the GreenMetric World University Ranking System: The Issue of Comparability. Sustainability 2023, 15, 1343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Kayyali, M. Critiques and Limitations of University Rankings. Int. J. Gov. High. Educ. 2023, 2, 1–25, Published by Lighthouse Books. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Mustafa-Kayyali/publication/373923751_Critiques_and_Limitations_of_University_Rankings/links/6503619e9fdf0c69dfc8d91d/Critiques-and-Limitations-of-University-Rankings.pdf (accessed on 24 August 2024).
  70. Silva Junior, R.C.V.S.; Bilotta, P.; Miranda, M.G.; Janissek, P.R. Data Analysis of the UI GreenMetric Platform from the Perspective of Municipal Socioeconomic Indices. Front. J. Soc. Technol. Environ. Sci. 2023, 12, 165–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Chiquetto, J.B.; Nolasco, M.A. Climate adaptation in Brazil: Advancements and challenges. Environ. Sci. Policy 2024, 161, 103888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 16 09014 g001
Figure 1. Histogram of daily consumption of potable water.
Figure 1. Histogram of daily consumption of potable water.
Sustainability 16 09014 g001
Sustainability 16 09014 g002
Figure 2. Daily consumption of potable water with the indication of outliers.
Figure 2. Daily consumption of potable water with the indication of outliers.
Sustainability 16 09014 g002
Sustainability 16 09014 g003
Figure 3. Per capita consumption for the USP Eastern campus adapting methodologies applied by (A) Silva Junior et al. [35] and (B) Medeiros et al. [36].
Figure 3. Per capita consumption for the USP Eastern campus adapting methodologies applied by (A) Silva Junior et al. [35] and (B) Medeiros et al. [36].
Sustainability 16 09014 g003
Table 1. Topics for each indicator in the UI GreenMetric-WR.
Table 1. Topics for each indicator in the UI GreenMetric-WR.
IndicatorWR1WR2WR3WR4WR5
Option
1NoneNone<20% of water-efficient appliances installedNonePolicy and programs for water pollution control are in the design stage.
2Program in preparationProgram in preparation20–40% of water-efficient appliances installed1–25% of treated water consumedPolicy and programs for water pollution control are in the construction stage.
31–25% water conserved1–25% water recycled>40–60% of water-efficient appliances installed>25–50% treated water consumedPolicy and programs for water pollution control are in the early implementation stage.
4>25–50% water conserved>25–50% water recycled>60–80% of water-efficient appliances installed>50–75% of treated water consumedPolicy and programs for water pollution control are fully implemented and monitored occasionally.
5>50% water conserved>50% water recycled>80% of water-efficient appliances installed>75% of treated water consumedPolicy and programs for water pollution control are fully implemented and monitored regularly.
Source: UI GreenMetric guideline 2024 [25].
Table 2. Measurements related to each WR.
Table 2. Measurements related to each WR.
IndicatorWR1WR2WR3WR4WR5
MeasurementQualitative and quantitative surveys of the reservoirs, on-site visits to reinforced-concrete reservoirs, visual inspection of preservation conditions, verification of documents regarding cleaning and maintenance frequency, and storage capacity.Verification of the availability of sewage treatment plants and current destination of domestic effluent; detailed description of the sewage treatment plant in terms of processes and diagnosis of conditions based on on-site visits.Verification of hydraulic devices in terms of quantity and operability in building units, and checking for the presence of smart systems, sensors, actuators, and flow reducers.Survey of potable water consumption through daily readings of macro meters and interpretation of per capita consumption results, based on potable water consumption models in educational institutions, based on methodology applied by Marinho et al., Silva Junior et al. [34,35] and Medeiros et al. [36].Survey of potable water quality conducted by a third-party company.
Table 3. Potable water reservoirs on USP Eastern campus and their storage capacities.
Table 3. Potable water reservoirs on USP Eastern campus and their storage capacities.
ReservoirStorage Capacity (m3)
Classrooms buildings/Auditoriums/Student Restaurant1078
Research laboratory90
Sports gymnasium34
Entrance/Infirmary/Cafeteria6
Total (m3)1208
Table 4. The number of hydraulic and sanitary devices.
Table 4. The number of hydraulic and sanitary devices.
Building ComplexFaucetToiletUrinalDrinking Water TapShower
Classroom/Auditorium/Restaurant39211440218
Pedagogical and research laboratory183462160
Sports gymnasium15103518
Entrance/Infirmary/Cafeteria590186503220
Total11803561146446
Table 5. Type of hydraulic and sanitary device and expected savings compared to conventional.
Table 5. Type of hydraulic and sanitary device and expected savings compared to conventional.
DeviceTheoretical Flow (L s−1)Measured Flow (L s−1)Expected Savings (%)
Automatic faucet0.12 to 0.30.04315%
Mixed-water shower0.10 to 0.60 15%
Dual-flush toilet0.96 to 1.7-18%
Individual hydromechanical urinal0.15 to 0.50-15%
Automatic drinking water tap0.10.007-
Source: adapted from Ministry of the Environment [41], NBR 5626 [42], NBR 8160 [43].
Table 6. Per capita consumption in Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) based on Equivalent consuming Population (EP).
Table 6. Per capita consumption in Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) based on Equivalent consuming Population (EP).
HEIConsumption
(L.habitant−1.day−1)		LocationReferences
USP Eastern campus17.22São Paulo, SP, BrazilThis work
Campus A. C. Simões of the Federal University of Alagoas33.14Maceió, Alagoas, BrazilSilva Junior et al. [35]
Federal University of Bahia School of Administration9.4Salvador, BA, BrazilCazaes et al. [46]
Federal University of Bahia Polytechnic School9.9Salvador, BA, BrazilCazaes et al. [46]
Federal University of Bahia School of Architecture16.5Salvador, BA, B BrazilCazaes et al. [46]
Source: adapted from Cazaes et al. [46].
Table 7. Per capita consumption in Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) based on the Consumption Index (CI).
Table 7. Per capita consumption in Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) based on the Consumption Index (CI).
HEIConsumption
(L.consumer agent−1.day−1)		LocationReferences
USP Eastern campus10.28São Paulo, SP, BrazilThis work
Federal University of Campina Grande 32.51Campina Grande, PB, BrazilGomes and Batista [47]
Federal Institute of Education, Science and Technology 8.025Recife, PE, BrazilVasconcelos et al. [48]
Table 8. Analysis of potable water quality at USP Eastern campus.
Table 8. Analysis of potable water quality at USP Eastern campus.
ParametersAnalysisPoint 1Point 2Point 3Point 4Point 5Point 6Standard
Organoleptic CharacterAppearanceClearClearClearClearClearClearClear
ColorColorlessColorlessColorlessColorlessColorlessColorlessColorless
OdorOdorlessOdorlessOdorlessOdorlessOdorlessOdorlessOdorless
MicrobiologicalTotal ColiformsAbsentAbsentAbsentAbsentAbsentAbsentAbsent, MPN/100 mL
Fecal Coliforms (E. coli)AbsentAbsentAbsentAbsentAbsentAbsentAbsent, MPN/100 mL
Physico-chemicalTurbidity1.61.81.61.41.21.3Maximum 5.0 µT
pH7.27.57.47.27.07.26.0 to 9.0
Free Residual Chlorine0.40.30.30.40.50.60.2 to 5.0
Source: adapted from USP [50].
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Domingos, J.M.F.; Marques, D.G.; Campos, V.; Nolasco, M.A. Analysis of the Water Indicators in the UI GreenMetric Applied to Environmental Performance in a University in Brazil. Sustainability 2024, 16, 9014. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16209014

AMA Style

Domingos JMF, Marques DG, Campos V, Nolasco MA. Analysis of the Water Indicators in the UI GreenMetric Applied to Environmental Performance in a University in Brazil. Sustainability. 2024; 16(20):9014. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16209014

Chicago/Turabian Style

Domingos, Janaina Melo Franco, Diego Gouveia Marques, Valquíria Campos, and Marcelo Antunes Nolasco. 2024. "Analysis of the Water Indicators in the UI GreenMetric Applied to Environmental Performance in a University in Brazil" Sustainability 16, no. 20: 9014. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16209014

APA Style

Domingos, J. M. F., Marques, D. G., Campos, V., & Nolasco, M. A. (2024). Analysis of the Water Indicators in the UI GreenMetric Applied to Environmental Performance in a University in Brazil. Sustainability, 16(20), 9014. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16209014

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop