Mission Statement for Sustainability in On-Campus Housing Spring 2005

1.	Students should have living environments that motivate them to learn about and practice sustainability, a living-learning environment. 
2.	Motivated student should have a living environment that concentrates and increases their impact, increasing and facilitating their ability to succeed in their activism.
3.	This environment should be viable; satisfactorily meeting the needs of groups in the system (such as students, housing, and college administration) by being financially stable, ecologically sound, and increasing student quality of life. 

There are many possible solutions that meet our stated goals. They range from very viable, meeting the needs of the people in the system, to very effective, in creating motivating structures for students to learn about and practice sustainability.

Below are a few examples of solutions with an explanation of their viability/efficacy.

Alternative Living Structures: Cooperative Housing Structures, Berkley 
Students live together in a commune-like structure, with shared food bought in bulk and shared household responsibilities and budgets. This is not part of the college housing, so while this solution would be very effective in motivating students, the viability may be an issue at Evergreen. (1)

Entrance Survey for matriculating students, UW
Housing at Evergreen is losing money because dorm residents are leaving mid quarter because of personality conflicts with roommates. Half-full dorms are not energy efficient or healthy for dorm community cohesion. By implementing better entrance surveys, housing would retain more students, and students may be grouped by interest, concentrating subcultures such as sustainability activism and making these subgroups more vibrant. (2)

Increasing funding for student and housing originated projects, DUKE University
$50,000 available for student projects, approval by administration needed. This would demonstrate clear institutional commitment to sustainability, much needed at Evergreen. Projects would have to follow strict, clear guidelines of appropriate use of  funds, which would meet either (1) or (2). This solution would intrinsically meet (2), and may, at student’s discretion meet (1) and/or further increase (2).

Technological Efficiency (New LEED buildings, solar panels, water heaters, thermostats)
This solution does not meet our goals. While it may increase energy efficiency, it does not provide an adequate learning and practicing opportunity for students. Some technologies may be more visible to students, such as solar panels, which may provide opportunity to knowledge-based learning, but not active learning such as we are seeking to promote. Other technologies, such as efficient water heaters provide students with more energy efficiency, but does not motivate them to learn about or practice sustainability (1), and does not facilitate motivated students increase their impact (2).