In 1994, the Princeton Environmental Reform Committee (PERC) was created, inspired by the Campus Earth Summit held at Yale that same year. PERC was composed of students, faculty, and staff working to together to develop and improve cam-pus ecology. Their stated mission was to institutionalize environmental improvements at Princeton that would remain effective for many years to come. Because the coalition was a joint venture between students and administration, the hope was that changes promulgated by the coalition would be long lasting and effective, unlike strictly student-initiated changes.

In order to focus its efforts on the areas most in need of improvement and of greatest impact, PERC conducted an objective environmental audit of the campus that began in the spring of 1994 and continued into the summer. The audit was sponsored by the Facilities Department, which hired two PERC members to work on it full time during the summer. The audit was completed in the spring of 1995. Over the year during which the audit was conducted, thirty members of PERC evaluated campus practices and decision making, reviewed regulatory policies, interviewed University officials, and researched other universities’ policies. Though not a comprehensive audit, it was designed to serve as a paradigm for future audits.

The audit highlighted areas in which easily implemented changes would result in significant improvements throughout the University, such as reducing its environmental impact, promoting administrative efficiency, and returning an economic benefit. Detailed recommendations for implementing changes were made whenever the potential for improvement was clear. Members of PERC hoped that the University would take action on the recommendations so that it could lead by example in moving our society toward an environmentally sustainable future.

In Fall 1999, momentum to update the PERC audit was provided when Professor Michael Celia assigned his students in the Environmental Studies core course, ENV 201, research projects that would update many of the chapters from the PERC audit. Students investigated the policy and practice changes that have occurred since 1995 and interviewed University officials to determine the causes of any developments. These reports served as the foundation for this update of the audit (see the list of student participants under “References” at the end of each chapter).

The Princeton Environmental Institute (PEI) decided to sponsor a complete update of the 1995 PERC Environmental Audit and impetus for this effort was provided in part by the New Jersey Higher Education Partnership for Sustainability (NJHEPS). Founded in 1999, NJHEPS is a coalition of New Jersey colleges and universities striving to promote environmental sustainability, made possible by a grant from the Geraldine R. Dodge Foundation. The primary goals of the coalition are to promote environmental sustainability by fostering cooperation between universities and colleges and linking them to a broader network of environmental sustainability advocates. The regular completion of environmental audits is a tool of the coalition in measuring the success of environmental impact reductions. This audit was funded by a grant from the NJHEPS to PEI, as well as PEI funding.

The main objectives of this audit were twofold: to investigate changes in University policy and their environmental impact, and to determine the most likely causes of these changes. We evaluated the status of the major recommendations that were made in the PERC audit, attempting to determine if any of them had been addressed. Whenever possible, we compared data from the time of the PERC audit and from the current academic year and note the differences. We conducted interviews and meetings with University officials throughout the spring 2000 semester to gather information and data about these changes.

Whenever the recommendations made in the original PERC audit were not addressed, we evaluated the current situation to determine where these recommendations might still be useful. In other in-stances, we have also made recommendations to address issues that were not raised in the audit. Finally, in the many cases where recommendations from the PERC audit were addressed, we identified areas that were still in need of further improvement. The format of the PERC audit was restructured slightly, and we added a new section on Groundskeeping.

We hope that the University will use the documentation and our evaluation of progress over the past five years when planning its approach to improving its environmental sustainability. Continuing to make changes and initiating additional ones will require a strong commitment from students, faculty, and staff. By taking the actions recommended in this audit, the University will achieve a significant reduction in its environmental impact. Though these reductions may not have a huge impact on the larger society, Princeton will, through its own example, establish itself as an environmentally progressive educational institution and demonstrate the commitment needed from all of society in order to move toward global environmental sustainability.

Liz Bernier and Kelsey Jack