For my sustainability studio course, a team of three (myself, Kelsey Kamm, and Julieta Collart) set out to use the design process to change the way our campus perceives packaging and how we could make hydration more sustainable. The purpose of the project was to make immediate impact, hydration stations are being scheduled for installation this summer, and long term impact by providing a framework for other school and corporate campuses to follow.

1. making human
HYDRATION
SUSTAINABLEagain.

2. 2 3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
About This Report ..................................................
Introduction ...........................................................
Executive Summary ...............................................
Theory of Change ..................................................
Design Process ......................................................
Research Methods .................................................
Stakeholders..........................................................
Financial Analysis....................................................
Next Steps.............................................................
Team Bio’s ............................................................
..
Appendix................................................................
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A. Theory of Change
Appendix B. Impact Value Chain
Appendix C. Survey I Open ended questions
Appendix E. Survey II Open Ended Quest
Appendix F. Bottle Filling Station Options
Appendix F. Hydration Station Code
Appendix G. Map of schools with H20 bottle ban
about this report
The MBA - Design Strategy program -- Sustainability Studio course
-- at California College of the Arts (CCA), tasks its students with a se-
mester long design challenge: to create a product, space, service,
experience or campaign that will target an ecological issue that can
be measured.
Over the course of the semester our team intended to accomplish
the following for the CCA - SF campus:
• Create a road map for other campuses to reduce single
use plastic water bottles.
• Research and recommend rapid filling bottle stations
• Research how to change behavior around water and make
suggestions for a media campaign to address these issues.
3
4
5
6 - 7
8 - 9
9 - 17
18
19
20 - 21
22 - 23
24
Note this report is intended to be read as a two page spread the content
on the left hand page correlating with the graphics on the right hand page.

3. 4 5
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A cultural change to reduce the use of plastic water bottles is our goal
for the CCA - SF campus. Through stakeholder assessment, one on
one conversation and surveys, we will assess how to best change the
culture at CCA and reduce single use plastic water bottle consump-
tion. We believe that by installing hydration stations and an aggressive
campaign that will make the message clear to both faculty and stu-
dents that single water bottle use should be minimized and encourage
the use of refillable water bottles we will be able to change the culture
at CCA. By changing the culture at CCA we hope to change the larger
culture and inspire other colleges to adopt these practices and create
cells of change
INTRODUCTION
The student body and faculty at CCA - SF amounts to roughly 2,452 peo-
ple. On a monthly basis our school purchases the equivalent of 1,756 six-
teen ounce bottles of water or 21,072 bottles per year. In 2012, the United
States produced 32 million tons of plastic waste, 12.7% of the total munici-
pal solid waste. Of the total plastic waste generated by the U.S, the biggest
culprits are containers and packaging, followed by durable goods and
nondurable goods (such as plates and cups) 1
. ) . For this very reason,
our team has chosen to focus on eliminating one piece of the container and
packing waste stream.
The state of California, based on a 2013 - 2014 report, is recycling at a
rate of 82%. Assuming that CCA recycles at the same rate as the state of
California, we contribute 3,793 bottles to a landfill per year. Although the
vast majority of our waste is recycled, is it really worth it? The amount of
energy it takes to collect, transport, clean, and re-purpose plastic is costly
and unsustainable. The state of California’s CalRecycle program is plan-
ning to make “proportional reductions”, limiting funds given to participating
programs and consumers, beginning in 2017-20182
. . How will this impact
businesses and consumers? A permanent behavior change is needed be-
fore these policies go into effect.
With only two years to go until the 2017-2018 fiscal year, should we wait to
see the response, and then react? Our team argues that we should take
a proactive, preventative approach. We believe that by raising awareness
and incentivizing students, faculty and visitors to hydrate in a more sus-
tainable manner, we may create a ripple effect that can may transcend the
walls of California College of the Arts, San Francisco campus.
To address these issue, our CCA - SF team has chosen to explore ways to
reduce the impact of single-use plastic water bottles on our campus.
1 “Put Down the Plastic - Ghergich & Co.” 2014. 24 Apr. 2015 <http://ghergich.com/info-
graphic-examples/put-down-the-plastic/>
2 “Quarterly Status of the Recycling Fund - CalRecycle.” 2015. 24 Apr. 2015 <http://www.
calrecycle.ca.gov/BevContainer/RecycleFund/2015/JanStatus.pdf>

4. 6 7
THEORY OF CHANGE 1
Theory of Change defines all building blocks required to bring about a
given long-term goal. This set of connected building blocks–interchange-
ably referred to as outcomes, results, accomplishments, or preconditions
is depicted on a map known as a pathway of change/change framework,
which is a graphic representation of the change process.
- Center for Theory of Change
Our goal is to change the way people consume water, starting with the CCA-SF
campus. We want this change process to be efficient, useful, fun, educational, and
collaborative. We would like to integrate different campus departments in this chal-
lenge. For example the fine arts department could paint murals on the walls behind
the filling stations, attracting the attention of students, faculty, and guests to the
stations while also creating an educational and playful environment. The hydration
stations will include a counter alerting users to the number of single-use plastic
bottles that they have kept out of a landfill.
While we envision that we can change people’s behavior by exposing them to in-
formation about single-use plastic bottles and its impact on both human and en-
vironmental health, there out with others. In order for this to be true the following
conditions must be met:
Hydration Stations are easily accessible and reusable water bottles are sold on campus.
A screen will inform users of the number of bottles kept out of landfill.
Students know that their voice has been heard and their input considered in the decision making
process (see appendix i,ii,iii,iv).
Information / Education must be provided in a delightful way.
The school must take a stance and voice their support for the use of refillable water bottles via web-
site, posters and through professor messaging.
Art is integrated at each station to bring attention to their location and to create a fun and playful
environment
* See appendix A and B for more details and graphic representation.
1 “What is Theory of Change? | Theory of Change Community.” 2013. 27 Apr. 2015 <http://www.theo-
ryofchange.org/what-is-theory-of-change/>
FUNDAMENTAL FACTORS FOR BUSINESS SUCCESS
In addition to understanding the conditions that must be met
to see any output from this system, we also need to under-
stand fundamental factors for business success. This in-
cludes thinking through the design of the device and system,
as well as solidifying a way to create and manage a sustain-
able cash flow. The risk to enable mass adoption can be
mitigated by:
Understanding building codes for implementation
Receiving approval from David Meckel, Director of Campus planning
Learning current student habits around hydration in order to provide solutions they will adopt (Appendix C)
Through student surveys and intercepts uncover motivations and reveal potential roadblocks (Appendix D)
Understand best practices around banning single plastic water bottle use and installation of hydration stations.
Making it easy for students to buy a reusable water bottle on campus.
`
MONETIZATION OF SOCIAL VALUE
The hydration stations will provide value to our campus in several ways. First, they will help
students, faculty, and staff save money by providing a free alternative to the single use plastic
water bottles. Second, we believe that by purchasing hydration stations with counters people
will have an increased consciousness around sustainability. The counters will drive and main-
tain campus awareness of the issue, helping to empower our campus by demonstrating how
we are each making a difference when keeping a bottle out of a landfill. There are several
other ways that the hydration stations increase social value, such as:
Improving multiple ecosystems, such as: lakes, streams, and oceans.
Decreasing the number of phthalates that people come into contact with
Improving our ground water by decreasing the amount of carcinogens (phthalates) leaking in
Decreasing the demand for natural resources
Government can reduce oil subsidies,forcing the price of plastics to shoot-up and decentivizing people from using
them.
Campus community bonds grow stronger,resulting in a shared partnership of our campus,our extended commu-
nity and the Earth.

5. 8 9
RESEARCH METHODS
Summary of structure of methodology
We began our journey by first looking at case studies. Once we had
learned some of the obstacles and successes from other campus cam-
paigns we began our own primary research, it included: two surveys,
student intercepts, and water fountain monitoring.
DESIGN PROCESS
Our process began at the end of January 2015, and we reached the “Creation” stage
of the project by May when the semester came to a close. The project will continue
by our team throughout the Summer with Implementation. The Media Campaign will
take place in the Fall of 2015 since a new year is the right time to introduce changes
and welcome new students into a new culture during Orientation.
Secondary Research
Case Studies
Define the problem
Systems Map
Hypothesis
Surveys 1 & 2
Prototyping
Insights
Redefine the problem.
What is needed?
Second survey,
Intercepts,
Monitoring
SROI,
Theory of Change
Project Assessment
Next Steps
Problem
Identification
Ideation
Creation
Next
Steps

6. 10 11
Re-filling a bottle can be
challenging because the bottle
doesn’t fit
Retrofit drinking fountains
with a goose-neck spout
Reusable bottles are expensive Offer coupons for purchasing
discounted or free reusable
water bottles on campus
Students don’t want to drink
unfiltered tap
Install filtered water stations
Contract with Pepsi Unresolved
Sanitation - Users bottles touch-
ing the mouth of the dispenser
Added a cleaning regimen and
better sign-age that explains
how to use the device
Filters generate waste To minimize waste Penn State
had the water at each campus
station tested to determine if it
needed a filter
Campus Awareness. Show films, such as
Tapped, or Flow, for the Love of Water, to raise
campus awareness and generate discussion
Revenue. Generate revenue by providing fla-
vored filtered water.
Student Incentives. Offer coupons or free re-
usable bottles.
Station Roadblocks. The Campus had mul-
tiple roadblocks post installation, including: ,
sign-age, cleaning, and use.
Sanitation. Installation of dispensing nozzle
guards developed by Michigan State to de-
crease the spread of bacteria
Filtration Options. The Green Carbon Filter
(Oasis), The Versafilter (Oasis), and the Elkay
Filter.
WESTERN WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY
In the Spring of 2010 Western Washington University, via a Sustain-
ability Planning Studio course, implemented a “Drink Local” cam-
paign inspired by Take back the Tap. The campaign included raising
campus awareness with the use of films and facilitating audience
discussions.
PENN STATE UNIVERSITY
In 2009, a Penn State student group, 3ECOE, began the water ban
process at their university. Although Penn State did not ban the bottle,
because of contracts that were in place, the campus did install its first
water bottle filling station in 2009. The installation was an experiment,
testing whether or not the unit would be used and if it would be safe.
This first trial was followed by a pilot phase that included the instal-
lation of 17 additional stations. The ultimate goal was to install 36
stations by 2012.
Obstacle Solutions Main Take Aways
CASE STUDIES
There are over 60 campuses within the United States who have implemented a bottle
ban or severely reduced single use plastic water bottle availability. For our project we
focused on five case studies from the following universities: Western Washington Uni-
versity, Seattle University, University of Vermont, Penn State University and UC Santa
Cruz. These universities were chosen based on quantity and quality of documentation
that had been publicly shared.
Map of the schools
in the US who have
implemented single
use water bottle
bans

7. 12 13
Contract with Coca-Cola
offered little opportunity
for sustainable change
10 year contract ended in 2012, at
which time a request for proposals was
released.
Filling reusable bottles is
challenging
Water bottle fillers were installed on 75
of 215 fountains.
Attracting Administration’s
attention
Collecting over 1,200 student signa-
tures supporting the ban
Installation of rapid fill
stations are expensive
Installation of T&S glass fillers
Locating campus foun-
tains
Created an online map based on the
WeTap app created by Pacific Institute
and Water Fountain maps created with
Google Maps at UC Berkeley
Working with students,
staff and faculty
Have all agreements in writing, docu-
ment the entire process in order to pass-
on or share
Student Support. Gathered over 1,200 stu-
dent signatures supporting the campaign
Students Organized. Vermont Student Envi-
ronmental Program is a student run nonprofit
that address environmental issues on campus.
Flyering / events weren’t successful. Peo-
ple either tossed the flier or those attending the
events were already supported the cause.
Taking photos of the campus water fountains
and creating a map for students
Organizing campuses and sharing resources
for all universities in California, at takeback-
thetapuc.org
SEATTLE UNIVERSITY
Seattle University began the process of banning single-use water bot-
tles in 2007 and completed the plan with implementation in the Spring
of 2010. This three-year student led initiative was transferred to a new
set of hands on an annual basis. The campaign involved postering,
educational displays, and the collection of 1,000 signatures in support
of the ban.
UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT
UVM announced on January 31, 2012 that it would become the first
Public University in the country to end the sale of single use plastic
water bottles on campus. The campaign included the signatures of
over 1,200 students and an end to a contract with Coca-Cola.
UC SANTA CRUZ
From January - July 2011 Gabrielle Electra Kirk, a student at the Uni-
versity of Santa Cruz, began a Take Back the Tap campaign on his
campus to end the sale of single-use plastic water bottles and to fight
water privatization. The campaign was a part of his senior thesis proj-
ect. He argues against rapid filling bottle stations and instead sup-
ports the use of traditional water fountains.
Obstacle Solutions Main Take Aways
Contract with Pepsi Agree to sell Aquafina Flavorsplash
Bon Apetit, food service
vendor
Replaced bottled water at catered
events with iced water and copostable
cups
Communication challeng-
es with administration
Finding a faculty/ staff ally to coach the
student group
Tracking progress Faculty support to store documentation
Educational Awareness. Conducting bottled
water versus tap water taste tests
Social Good. Donating revenue from reusable
bottle sales to Engineers Without Borders
Media Attention. Partnering with Corporate
Accountability International that generated a lot
of media attention for the campus campaign.

8. 14 15
PRIMARY RESEARCH
Prototypes
Our team hypothesized that students would stop buying single use plastic water
bottles if they could remember to carry a reusable water bottle. In order to make it
easier we created a series of prototypes that would help students remember to carry
water bottles.
• The first prototype consisted of a water bottle with the students’ ID printed on the
bottle. The bottle then served a double purpose and since our school requires
students to show their ID upon entering they would be more likely to carry the
water bottle. This idea was not well received by the majority of students.
• The second prototype consisted of a collapsible water bottle. Most students pre-
fer metal as the material for their reusable water bottles and we are unable to
design/manufacture or find existing metal collapsible bottles.
Survey I and Intercepts (See Appendix C)
The intended outcome from the first survey was to -- gain insights into student water con-
sumption, the reason for their method of consumption, and whether or not they owned a
reusable water bottle -- The survey also contained sections for open-response, therefore
making the measurement both qualitative and quantitative.
The survey was administered strictly to Design - MBA (DMBA) students; we have direct
access to the DMBA listserv, without the need for administrative approval. In-addition to this
sample we also spent time facilitating randomized intercepts on campus, asking the same
questions from the survey with additional follow-up questions. The student intercepts were
unanimously supportive of reusable bottles and only purchased a single-use bottle if they
forgot their bottle at home that day.
The findings from the first set of surveys and intercepts led us to believe that students would
support a bottle ban on campus since the majority of students deemed single-use bottles
as wasteful, bad for the environment, and that they personally use the school drinking foun-
tains. 90% of the students surveyed owned a reusable water bottle leading us to believe
that students would not want our campus to sell reusable bottles.
Water Fountain Monitoring
Our survey results demonstrated that students have reusable bottles and prefer to drink
from the water fountain over purchasing a bottle of water. When monitoring the school foun-
tains however, we found that 50% of students were not using a reusable bottle. We were
surprised to find that 25% of the students that were using a bottle were simply refilling a #1
PET bottle, this demonstrated that the term reusable needed to be defined. The final 25%
of students used what is deemed reusable (BPA free plastic, glass, or metal).
How do you
hydrate?
Would you be more
likely to use a water
bottle if it were?
Why do you
hydrate
this way?
I buy bottled water 18.2%
I use public water fountains 59.1%
I use tap water from my home 79.5%
I have a water filter at home 40.9%
Other 6.8%
Easy 84.1%
Healthiest option 27.3%
Free 70.5%
Better for the environment 75%
Affordable 20%
Attractive 20%
Easy to carry 100%
Easy to clean60%
Other 0%
{PROTOTYPES
{{{
ID on bottlecolapsable

9. 16 17
Survey II & Intercepts
The intended outcome of the second survey was to determine whether or not students
would support a single-use water bottle ban, whether or not they knew that #1PET plastic
was not meant for reuse, what would encourage them to drink filtered tap water more,
and if they would like our campus to supply students with reusable bottles or sell them to
students.
Again, the survey was administered to strictly DMBA students.
- 81% of students support a bottle ban
- 77% of students would like our campus to install Rapid Bottle FIlling Stations
- of students had no idea that #1 PET plastic bottles are not meant for re-use
- 70% of students would like our campus to supply or sell reusable bottles, with the
majority of students asking for glass or metal.
Based on these results, with the majority of students supporting a bottle ban and request-
ing that our school sell bottles, we will take the next step and contact the Director of Cam-
pus Planning to approve a school-wide survey.
Did you know that
bottles are for 1
use?
Should CCA to sell
re-usable bottles?
What type of mate-
rial do you prefer for
a reusable bottle?
Which would cause
you to use the CCA
fountains more?
Yes 81.3%
No 18.8%
Yes 65.6%
No 34.4%
Yes 83.9%
No 16.1%
Metal 59.4%
Glass 59.4%
BPA-free plastic 37.5%
Other 6.3%
Replace fountains with filling Stations 78.1%
Add additional stations 65.6%
Provide a map for stations 9.4%
Offer compostable disposable cups 0%
Sell reusable bottles 9.4%
Sell “smart tags” 18.8%
Other 9.4%
Support use of single
use water bottle
ban at CCA
No 18.8%
YES 81.3%
Do you have
a reusable
bottle?
93.2%
6.8%

10. 18 19
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
The installation of the rapid filling bottle stations will be implemented over the course of a few
years and will be occur in three phases (see next steps for more details). The cost to purchase
and install a rapid filling bottle station amounts to roughly $1,500 per unit with an intended use
of 50 students per unit per day. The first phase of this process will include 2 retrofit stations.
Number of
Stations
Rapid Filling
Bottle Station
Retrofit-kit
Estimated
use/ week
Savings/ week
@ $2.00/ bottle
Bottles
saved
Water Saved @
3 liters/bottle
Oil saved
@ 5 ounces
/bottle
1 $1,500 200 fills $400 200
bottles
saved
600 liters 1,000
ounces
2 $3,000 400 fills $800 400
bottles
saved
1,200 liters 2,000
ounces
By installing 2 rapid filling bottle stations on the first floor of the CCA campus, students could
expect to save, as an aggregated group:
• $3,2000 months or $38,400 per year.
• Reduce our campus waste by 1600 bottles per month .
• A savings of 1,200 liters or 317 gallons of water per month 1
.
• 2,000 ounces of oil or 15.6 gallons per month
We assume that by installing rapid filling bottle stations on campus that students will choose to
drink water over other beverages such as juice or soda, therefor increasing student health, and
decreasing even more waste.
1 “How Much Water is Used to Make a Bottle of Water ...” 2013. 1 May. 2015 <http://naturalsociety.com/study-ana-
lyzes-wastefulness-bottled-water/>
STAKEHOLDERS
By using the CCA, SF campus as a case study we identified stakehold-
ers by analyzing all parties involved, directly or indirectly, with single use
plastic water bottles. The stakeholders we identified for this
case study are:
Students
Faculty (Campus Planning, Campus Purchasing, Student Af-
fairs)
A2 cafe
Hydration Station manufacturers
Maintenance personnel
We believe it is in the best interest of the school to adopt chang-
es that will ban the use of single use plastic water bottles. By
banning the bottles and installing rapid filling bottle stations,
students, faculty, staff and visitors will save money and contrib-
ute less waste to the environment and decrease our use of fossil
fuels. We have spoken with the Director of Campus planning,
David Meckle, and he is interested in reducing the use of sin-
gle use plastic water bottles on campus. He is willing to install
hydration stations that meet code requirements to incentivize
the use of refillable water bottles. Additionally, we have spoken
with Noki Sakao, Director of Student Affairs, and we are speak-
ing with him regarding ways in which student behavior is best
changed. Availability of hydration stations is key, as well as
messaging that starts to create a culture on campus that is for
the use of refillable water bottles.
We understand that reducing the use of single use plastic
water bottles will have a direct impact on plastic water bottle
manufacturers and plastic water bottle recycling facilities. We
hope this impact will encourage efforts to be geared towards
overall more sustainable practices.
STAFF
Visitors
Studen ts
A2 CAFE
Maintenance personnel
CAMPUS RECYCLING
Hyd ration S tationMANUFACTURER

11. 20 21
NEXT STEPS
During the Summer of 2015 our team will be working with both Noki Seekao
and Noah Bartlett on phase 1 of the implementation process. We will pro-
vide Noah with recommendations of retrofit kits for existing water fountains,
complete hydration stations as well as water bottle only rapid filling stations
that will be installed in the existing building as well as the new school build-
ing that will be built in the near future. For the first phase we see 3 hydra-
tions installed in the San Francisco campus. Please see the map for our
installation recommendations. We are preparing a report for Noki that will
make recommendations for a school wide campaign with specific tactics
that will be implemented as part of orientation for the Fall Semester. The
first tactic will include a free reusable water bottle with the CCA logo for all
new students. Second tactic will be an art installation with monster steps
that will guide all new students to hydration stations with water facts to edu-
cate new students around water issues. During the orientation we propose
show a brief video and have a quick discussion on single-use plastic water
bottles and rapid filling stations. We will contact administration to use water
coolers in administrative areas. This will be the capstone to the first Phase
of our project.
The second phase of the project will begin in the Spring
of 2016 when three rapid filling stations are installed on
campus. We will also invite Take back the Tap to visit CCA.
Entrance

12. 22 23
TEAM BIOS
Kelsey Kamm is a bay area local with a background in international and
domestic non-profit work. She recently led launch marketing for an SF start-
up which repurposes shipping containers into portable living spaces. Aca-
demically speaking she studied International Political Economy & Technical
Design.
www.linkedin.com/in/kpkamm/en
Julieta Collart is from Honduras and lives in Seattle. She enjoys working at
the intersection of business, product and service development, using design
and a human centered approach to guide innovation and the execution of
profitable outcomes.
www.linkedin.com/in/julietacollart/en
Elizabeth Traver Kukka is a bay area local, with eight years of experience
working in education, leadership, and curriculum design and development.
In university she studied environmental science with a focus on the urban
environment and is now mixing her artist knack with sustainability + systems
thinking + design.
https://www.linkedin.com/in/elizabethkukka

13. 24 25
Appendix A. Theory of Change: WHY
NEEDS IF CCA PROVIDES: THEN (short-term) THEN (long-term)
-Safe drinking water
-Affordable or free water
-Convenient hydration
-Filtered water
-Hydration Stations
-High quality reusable water bot-
tles
-Incentives to use a reusable wa-
ter bottle through art integration.
-Maps to make finding hydration
stations easier.
-Information about single use
plastic water bottles.
Business Value
-Hydration stations are an added val-
ue to campus.
-Revenue from sales of reusable wa-
ter bottles.
-Value proposition to potential stu-
dents and faculty + student partici-
pation in on-going mural creation +
recreation.
Social Value
-Students are more hydrated and
perform better in school.
-Students are healthier
-Students save money
-Engaging and interactive hydration
stations increase student + faculty
delight.
-Students appreciate sense of accom-
plishment and opportunity to design
water bottles. It becomes a project in
their portfolio.
-Decrease amount of generated
waste
-Decrease in use of natural resourc-
es.
Stakeholder Benefits
-For hydration station suppliers: rev-
enue from selling and installation of
fountains
-Partnershipwithwaterfountainapp.
technology (maps)
Business Value
-CCA becomes recognized as a
more sustainable campus and
gains recognition for its efforts.
-More eco-friendly and eco-con-
scious students apply to attend CCA
bolstering its culture and respect as
an institution.
-Increased interest to attend CCAby
faculty and students.
-Increase purchasing of other re-
usables such as flatware at A2 or
campus events
-Increased demand for reusable
products may create additional
sources of revenue for CCA.
-CCA campus becomes a case study
for other campuses becoming a
“free marketing” tool.
Social Value
-Cultural change starts to happen
outside of the walls of CCA decreas-
ing use of plastic water bottles and
pollution.
-Students are more mindful about
their consumption habits and may
start to adopt other more sustain-
able changes in their lives.
-CCA partners with sustainable
businessesforallof theirpurchases
Stakeholder Benefits
-For hydration station suppliers:
Additional business opportunities,
such as installation at newly con-
structed facilities.
Appendix B. Impact Value Chain - HOW
Inputs Activities Outputs Outcomes
-Water
-Water Lines
-Hydration Station
-Reusable Bottles
-People
-Maps / App.
Easier to access water CCA waste stream reduced Increased eco-literacy
Media Campaign Installation of stations Use of purchasing power on a regular basis
Distribution or sales of reusable
bottles
Data available from counters Campus culture shift
Art integration Informed consumers Institutional respect
Students save money
Appendix C. Results from Survey I
OPEN-ENDED QUESTIONS
S1Q3
- because I hate petroleum sucking plastic water
bottles
- It’s easy and free
- better for the environment and I always know I’ll
have water if I need it
- Because I don’t want to consume PET
- better for the environment
- I have a glass waterbottle (bkr). it’s dishwasher
safe and it doesn’t degrade
- Cheap (free), always accessible, more sustain-
able environmetally
- Sustainable
- more sustainable
- habit
- Better for my health + the environment
- To reduce plastic waste and not keep buying
water bottles.
- ecofriendly
- better for the environment
- tastes better, more conscious about consump-
tion and amounts
- Same as above: easy, free, good for the earth
- healthier and better for environment
- same reasons as above
- Hate plastic & spending money
- cheaper, more sustainable
- to not waste plastic
- less wasteful
- Because, it can be refilled for free at a water
fountain
- I don’t like using plastic
- CHEAP ECO
- save Co2 emissions
- Cheaper
- so that I’m not always throwing away plastic bot-
tles
- environment, ease, free
- easy, cost-effective, environmental friendly
- nalgene
- Sustainbility reasons
- so i don’t have to buy water everyday, wasteful
and costly
- to avoid buying bottled water
- less expensive, i tend to drink more water when
I always have it with me
- it seems like a waste to have single use con-
tainers
- It produces less waste and is cheaper than con-
stantly buying bottled water. I also like drinking
from my own bottles because its more fun.
- Better for the environment
S1Q5
- I already do, but if I needed more motivation to
use one, I guess if you gave me a free grizzly
bear as a friend, I would never use another plas-
tic bottle again.
- If using a plastic bottle was culturally the norm,
like the feeling you get when you go to the su-
permarket and they ask you if you have a bag
and then you walk out with bags while most peo-
ple walk out with their own bag.
- If I always happen to have it on hand, I would
use it. If it can go in the dishwasher, I will use
it. That way, if I put anything in besides water,
I can clean it easily. If it represents my identity
in some way (i.e. I like that my water bottle has
cool stickers on it that represent things I love). If
there were more water bottle refilling stations. If
it can hold both hot and cold water.
- Easy to carry and attractive were main consider-
ations when I bought my water bottle.
- N/A
- No point of buying bottles.
- I already use one. The thing that I don’t like is to
carry it around all the time. Sometimes it doesn’t
fit in my bag.
- easier to clean
- cheaper, more sustainable
- Packability is the main problem with many re-
usables, often for guys, if you want to bring
water with you, suddenly a backpack or bag is
required, when otherwise you could go out with
only what you have in your pockets.
- I am motivated -
- easy to carry / bring with me in my bag
- the only time i don’t use a reusable bottle is
when im out of town and drinking sparkling wa-
ter, I have a soda stream at home
- I buy bottled water when I am traveling because
I am not sure if the tap water is okay, or will taste
okay. I wish that there were filtered taps EVERY-
WHERE. (Business Idea...) I HATE buying bot-
tled water because it is such an un-eco prac-
tice. But I drink a ton of water and so get stuck.

14. 26 27
Appendix D Survey II OPEN-ENDED QUESTIONS
S2Q1
- I use a reusable water bottle myself and believe in the environmental benefits of using one (among other ben-
efits), but a ban on all single use water bottles seems a little extreme. What about for people who’ve forgotten
their bottles or guests? Unless there’s a good substitute (e.g. compostable disposable cups) that’s available
for these types of situations, I don’t think I’d support a ban.
- Sometimes, I forget to bring a water bottle with me.
- I’m interested to see how it would work out but I don’t think that limiting choices is going to create positive
change.
- Define single use.
- freedom to choose
- im not on campus that much and sometimes i just need a drink of water. can i have a free bottle available to
me even if you gave me one before and i forgot to bring it that day?
Appendix E Hydration Station Options
Hydration Station Options Product Features Cost
Elkay retrofit
EZH20
1. Sanitary, no touch sensor activation with automatic 20 sec-
ond shut-off timer
2. Quick fill rate
3. Green Ticker, counts the quantity of bottles saved from waste
4. 3,000 Gallon Capacity Filtration
$379.00
Filtered EZH2O® Bottle Filling
Station with Single ADA Cooler
1. Sanitary, no touch sensor activation with automatic 20 sec-
ond shut-off timer
2. Quick fill rate
3. Green Ticker, counts the quantity of bottles saved from waste
4. 3,000 Gallon Capacity Filtration $1,568
Filtered EZH2O® Bottle Filling
Station In-Wall
1. Fully recessed in-wall
2. Sanitary, no touch sensor activation with automatic 20 sec-
ond shut-off timer
3. Quick fill rate
4. Green Ticker, counts the quantity of bottles saved from waste
5. 3,000 Gallon Capacity Filtration
$ 2, 560
Glass Filler 1. Easy to retrofit
2. DOES NOT INCLUDE: filtration, Green Ticker, Rapid Fill, sani-
tary no-touch shut-off timer
$130
Appendix F. Hydration Sation Code
Appendix G. Map of schools with H20 bottle
ban