Detroit Zoo and Crain's Detroit Business

What started as a "bottom line" conversation ended up as a Quadruple Bottom Line conversation thanks to the open mind and interest of a sharp journalist - Sherri Welch. She was writing an article on The Detroit Zoological Society's green changes for Crain's Detroit Business, and was willing to spend a lot of time, and to listen to unexpected answers...particularly that it's not always about money... not what a business reporter's expects.

Sustainability choices are complex - having a 125 acres, 210 employees, 3300 animals and over a million visitors makes them even more complex.  Explaining these choices can be really simple - "it saves xxx$"- and really complex - "we're exploring a variety of alternative energy approaches by considering highest use, return on investment, partnership options, and opportunities to move the field forward..." Looking for obvious and easy answers - low-hanging fruit as they say - is only the first step. Others are much harder; it takes strong leaders, positive followers, individual doers, many supporters, and thoughtful reporters to make up a community of people prepared to make good progress along the green path.

Happy Earth Day, Detroit Zoo, and to all the other zoos, museums, gardens, aquariums and historic sites and parks celebrating today and every day.
 

PILOT Fees and Museums continued...

image: katerawlings.com

You've heard me write three on the value of sustainability practices in defending against PILOT fees (payment in lieu of taxes) threatened by municipalities.  Here is some great writing by Dan Yaeger of NEMA - the New England Museum Association.

His piece adds much-needed balance to my green-only comments. Dan's bigger-picture comment on sustainability can help balance your private and public discussions about PILOT fees and your institution's response. He writes that "If we construe the relationship between museums and their communities as merely a dollars and cents proposition, we are all impoverished."

It has made me think that my argument of calculating a monetary value of sustainability practices is narrow-minded. My thought was that by putting a costs-saved price on your reduced demands on your municipality by documenting reductions in waste removal, water consumption and municipal power, you can demonstrate a value, a credit, against the PILOTs. But reading Dan's piece I realize that I've just being drawn into their single-bottom-line approach.

Sustainability is about the Quadruple Bottom Line. If museums could just get a bit better at describing - in words, pictures and numbers, their value to People, Planet, and Profit through their Programs for our cities, then we won't have to worry so much about dreaded PILOTs. At least sustainability approaches can contribute to all four of those bottom lines.

Quadruple Bottom Line Review

My Quadruple Bottom Line post has the highest traffic of any of my posts. Maybe it's worth revisiting. Except for a period where a comma is due, the post stands solidly after two years, but it could use a bit of dressing up...a few more examples, perhaps. 

The QBL approach is a riff on the standard Triple Bottom Line approach (People, Planet and Profit) which leaves out an organization's mission when making sustainability decisions - the fourth 'P' or Program.

QBL makes sure the the 'what' you do helps you make good green choices. When it comes down to choosing a one HVAC system over another, you wouldn't ignore the objects end of the decision, would you? Well, collections care is your Program. A QBL approach to choosing an HVAC system is critical.



Image from Brad Pouser

So, here's a simpler example. A museum converts the vacant lot next-door into a pizza garden and an outdoor teaching space. It could have been a parking lot. It could have been a tent venue. It could have been ignored. A QBL approach to choosing how to treat that space requires this type of thinking:

People: will users be safe, will neighbors be happy, will staff be able to support it?

Planet: what are the ecosystem services we can recreate, how can we limit impact or, better yet, be regenerative?

Profit: how can this be affordable and possibly an income source? Paving it or building a stormwater management solution for a parking lot is expensive; clearing, mulching and creating raised beds and a trellis is less expensive.  So is forgoing parking fees and party revenue.

Program: does a parking lot, a tent venue or a education space support our mission best? Can we program and rent the space to boost income while engaging more people at the museum?
QBL is not difficult. It is simply a valuable, but overlooked, way to approach a problem with all the values out front.

I'm interested in hearing about other examples of QBL thinking? Please share them here or at the  Green Museums Wiki. The more ideas we share, the more we have to call upon when we must make our own decisions.

Quadruple Bottom Line: People, Planet, Profit AND Program

Believe it or not, the world is beginning to get used to a Triple Bottom Line, not just the usual single one of cold hard cash.

The Triple Bottom Line is the 'valuation' of the good an activity does for three important criteria: the people (staff, customers, community, the world). the planet (from the immediate surroundings, to your bio region, to the world), and for profits.

Well now it's time for a Quadruple Bottom Line - add a fourth "P" - Program.

For museums this is critical. We always consider our mission - our program - in decision-making. Well when you're considering a green practice, it matters how green affects, supports, or interferes with programming. So add it to your equation as you try to balance it all.

Here's an example: Someone has suggested that when you replace the roof membrane on your building, that you consider a green roof. After you get through sorting out whether or not your structure is appropriate for a green roof, consider the good it does for each of the four "Ps".

People: With a sturdy fence around it, and the right construction, the green roof can be good for People because it provides a green outdoor space far more pleasant than a classroom, more flexible than an exhibit, and way more relaxing than a picnic table by the loading dock.

Planet: It's good for the Planet insofar as it reduces energy use: by reducing heat-island effects it reduces the cooling needs inside your building and in the area around your building, and it provides more insulation in winter. It also creates a teeny bit of natural habitat, and helps manage stormwater runoff by slowing down the runoff and cleaning it up. If you capture and reuse the runoff you help the Planet even more.

Profit: Up front the green roof may not help profit, but if you have to replace parts of the roof anyway, the first-costs are well under control; and since a green roof by nature protects the membrane from sun degradation, you'll get a longer life out of your entire roof. So by saving energy, reducing water use, making the roof last longer, and timing the build with a necessary renovation, it's sounding like a great investment.

Program: And if you can use this space for educational programs like growing a Victory Garden or teaching about bugs and butterflies; or you can use it for financial sustainability: to compliment your cafe (like the one at the MCA Denver in the photo) or to host fundraising events, or as a setting for yoga for mom's while kids play, you're on the plus side again.

So, when you make that next decision about a green practice or project, consider the whole bottom line, QBL, so your choice makes sense for the whole museum, not just one quarter of it.